Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 13:19:59 GMT
I have not read all the messages on this board. I do not have time. If you legitimately merely asked questions in your lack of belief I am not aware of those messages. So you admit that you lied about me? Will you retract that lie and apologise? I'm betting that you won't.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 7, 2018 22:13:43 GMT
I have not read all the messages on this board. I do not have time. If you legitimately merely asked questions in your lack of belief I am not aware of those messages. So you admit that you lied about me? Will you retract that lie and apologise? I'm betting that you won't. I'll admit that your understanding of the meaning of words, rules of debate, and logic is so tenuous it can be difficult to guess what you're about. How's that? Meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you would show an example of exactly how you "attempted to show that their reasons were not good ones" while lacking a belief since the example I gave is one that I'm certain never occurred on this board before. (It does show how good I am at guessing though.) Or perhaps you have a link. Should there be several different examples? If you have no examples of your own, wouldn't you be the liar here? I would also appreciate you admitting that when I was taught in school who has the burden of proof that it was a good school. For the benefit of any others here, I will note that what has happened most often in these cases is that atheists and theists have disagreed more on the definition of a god than the existence of one. That is something else I said several years ago. Atheists find it easy to assert that a god who gives anyone who asks a million dollars does not exist, but that is not the god any theists (that I know) believe in. They know it's more complicated than that. Do I exaggerate? For clarity I do, but there is the point. The difference is over the definition of a god, not its existence. The "logic" of atheists is more of a failure to gather any meaning. Notice that when confronted with three concepts of a god in the linked article that have been made somewhat immune to such misinterpretation the atheists are silent. I am not your foe, @graham , but I fear that clear thinking and writing are.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 8, 2018 10:37:37 GMT
The existence of three different concepts of a god have been shown in this article. (See the paragraph just before the last one.) Let's see how well you can dispute those. I started to read Arlon's words of wisdom but almost gave up when even the very first paragraph contained a blinding error eg: "Exactly what is meant by "science" has changed over time. It began as the discipline of "natural philosophy" in ancient Greece. That meant things that can be readily observed, cataloged and studied because they occur naturally and dependably as contrasted with things beyond nature that are the subject of far more speculative and abstract philosophy and with less evidence of a material sort. Ancient Rome gave it the term "science" meaning "knowledge" also meaning those things more readily and dependably observed.." Fact: the word 'science' was first used in its regular sense only the last two or three hundred years. After wading through (a lot) of Arlon's opinions thereafter we come the pertinent part, about the (his) definitions of god: It is good that Arlon has the sense and foresight to use the word "might" here, since any thinker of ethics, especially from 'religious activities' would question the notion of its many concepts being 'vague' or 'ill-defined' - the 10 Commandments for instance are, notably not so at all - while the Argument from Nature, referenced here is fraught with difficulties. Such an appeal is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'". It can be a bad argument, because the implicit primary premise "What is natural is good" typically is irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, being often an opinion instead of a fact. This is a peculiar idea of God, allied to a strange example, and Arlon would have found the introduction of such, essentially speaking, deists as Spinoza as an alternative better serving the argument at this point. There, too, have been (rare) cases of people who, after head injuries & etc suddenly acquire linguistic talents. But I am not aware of any brain specialists attributing this to a supernatural entity. In fact something which lacks current explanation does not necessarily mean it is the work of a god, thinking so looks positively medieval. There is also an odd, and forced, distinction being made between the 'supernatural' and the idea of an intelligent designer or ID, discussed by Arlon next. It would be difficult to find any of the devoutly-challenged who do not consider intelligent design the work of the deliberate supernatural. In fact at the Dover trial, the dishonest machinations behind the revision of the Pandas and People school book, where the two terms and concepts were shown to be surreptitiously interchanged according to the need, proved this to the satisfaction of the judge. Unfortunately Arlon is unable to suggest, by way of the "matter of science", any positive proof for the purported existence of this form of god, let alone the clear evidence of what can only be supernatural design. It certainly wasn't forthcoming in convincing fashion from the best witnesses for the ID crowd, such as Behe, a selected expert who might be best placed to discover any clear proof and explain it, at Dover either. Neither, more widely is one able to locate any in respectable scientific, peer-reviewed literature (that is away from fringe websites and the pseudo-science of creationists). But this lack of substantiation is entirely characteristic, the reasons not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 8, 2018 11:21:39 GMT
That is irrelevant as the "sense" is constantly changing. Romans loved many facets of Greek culture and learned much from Greek tutors. The Romans used Latin words for Greek ideas including the Greek concept of "natural philosophy" (English rendering) or "physical" philosophy (φυσική φιλοσοφία). That word would be "science." The exact meaning of the Ten Commandments can be very clear to people who practice religion and often the subject of intense controversy to people in need of such practice. So I have noticed. I'll keep that in mind should I ever attempt to argue that way. My argument was simply that religion and the central ideas in it can be useful in dealing with abstract and nebulous concepts. If what you mean here is that science can do anything religion can do, and without a god, you missed the whole point of the article. Abound almost wherever you look. No positive proof is waiting for your endorsement. Your acceptance is not required.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 8, 2018 11:46:13 GMT
That is irrelevant as the "sense" is constantly changing. Romans loved many facets of Greek culture and learned much from Greek tutors. The Romans used Latin words for Greek ideas including the Greek concept of "natural philosophy" (English rendering) or "physical" philosophy (φυσική φιλοσοφία). That word would be "science." That word would have been 'science' only once it appeared in the 1800's Arlon, where it superseded the term 'natural philosophy', and helped to separate 'science' from 'philosophy'. The point was that the Romans did not introduce it as you claimed - even if there was an English language to introduce it to! Identifying something as science from a modern standpoint does not change how it was called in the ancient past. Hence, strictly, you were incorrect. But don't take my word for it, as if you would lol I hope that helps. By way of answer it is only necessary to observe that something controversial does not necessarily mean something unclear. No, you did not make the argument could be 'useful', you merely introduced this as one 3 definitions of 'god'. You forget that I had to actually read your article, and wade through, to find this! It may well indeed be 'useful'. But that is not what was discussed by you there. And, by including nature as one of the 'forces required to develop a system of ethics' you indeed imply the Fallacy of Nature - which was my main point. When I ever argue that impossibility, be sure and come back again. I merely reflected the reasonable view that it is unwise to attribute everything currently unknown to the supernatural. For The God of the Gaps argument is another fallacy, is it not? As usual then; and QED.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 8, 2018 20:57:57 GMT
Roman science You are too anglocentric . Of course not. I don't have an internet link for that one. Do you wonder why? Two important and separate things, A) there is no "fallacy of nature" whatever Wikipedia says, and B) I did not argue that anything was "good" or "bad" by reason of its being natural or unnatural (yet). A) I've warned you many times not to try to win arguments by claiming your opponent has committed a fallacy. That is because you usually misapply the terms as you just did. That would be most embarrassing in public. Trying to win by claiming some rule says you must is what bumbling amateurs do. Professionals show step by step how being natural does not ensure "goodness" for example tornadoes. Or by showing there are times when something "unnatural" like a mother killing her own children is obviously not a good thing. So there really is no "rule" that appealing to nature is always right or always wrong. It is your extremely simple mind that wants such rules since you can't win arguments any other way. B) I never suggested that everything in nature is always good or bad. Your feeble mind thought you found a "fallacy" to claim and save you from the effort of really understanding what I did say. Religion is in fact a way of dealing with the good and bad in nature and society, "the rain falls on the just and unjust." Science, as I have shown, is incapable of dealing with these things, so much for your logic. It's a long article so I'll try to put the point in as few words as possible. It makes no difference whatsoever to whom or to what you attribute miraculous events once you admit they happen. The point of Darwinism was not to claim that life was miraculous but scientific, the point was to claim that it was not miraculous. Now that no agency in nature can be found to initiate the process it does appear "miraculous." Do not be confused by that word though, it simply means here "not found in nature." You waste time claiming how "reasonable" you are. Guess why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 23:35:51 GMT
So you admit that you lied about me? Will you retract that lie and apologise? I'm betting that you won't. I'll admit that your understanding of the meaning of words, rules of debate, and logic is so tenuous it can be difficult to guess what you're about. How's that? So, an unrepentant liar. No surprise there.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 1:32:28 GMT
I'll admit that your understanding of the meaning of words, rules of debate, and logic is so tenuous it can be difficult to guess what you're about. How's that? So, an unrepentant liar. No surprise there. I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of how you can "show that their reasons were not good ones" by merely asking questions or otherwise from a "lack" of believe. The example question I wrote does not "show their reasons were not good ones." That question, "Why doesn't god show me this evidence?" is indeed one that can be asked from a lack of belief, but it does nothing to "show their reasons were not good ones." Or haven't you noticed that yet? What does seem is going on here is that you saw a legitimate question asked from a lack of belief and assumed that proves you ever asked one. It doesn't prove that either. I am not unfairly accusing you of never having demonstrated that you can lack belief and challenge others' views if you still haven't given an example of ever doing that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2018 13:29:16 GMT
FF: That word would have been 'science' only once it appeared in the 1800's Arlon, where it superseded the term 'natural philosophy', and helped to separate 'science' from 'philosophy'. Arlon: Roman science A fine link about something we, yes, now might indeed call early science. But you are being disingenuous since the point, still, made here is that it is just not the fact, as you claimed that "Ancient Rome gave it [natural philosophy] the term "science". No more so than some alchemists called themselves "chemists". I hope that helps. So there was an English language in Roman times to introduce the word science into? Perhaps because it is blindingly obvious? Not just Wiki, Arlon. Here's the Encylopedia Brittanica: www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy Or instead you can argue with a dictionary and win, which I know you like: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalistic%20fallacy Of course, appealing to authorities reaching opposing views to yours may not mean you are wrong, as I have had cause to note when dealing with other fundamentalists here, just lately; althought it means that you are more unlikely to be right. Arlon: I've warned you many times not to try to win arguments by claiming your opponent has committed a fallacy. [/i][/quote] Yes, I can see it must be repeatedly embarrassing for you. But I will call them just as I see them, thank you anyway. It would be rare to see the naturalistic fallacy used by anyone except bad debaters, or tabloid feature writers. Or a poor man's demagogue online, maybe. Certainly it would not be expected of professionals using logic as part of their work skills. A fallacy by way of proceeding is never really a wise way to proceed in an argument - although it is easy to see, with your record of things, how it is the sort of thing you would say. That an ad hominem is an argument is also a fallacy, Arlon LOL. But you have been told that before. When I suggested this feel free to raise it again. My reference was to your use of it casually, as if it carried any logical weight : "god ... might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics" when the comparison from 'nature' is not logically meaningful enough on which to build, or extract a system of ethics. Such sloppiness distinguished your entire article, imho. As noted above, with every ad hominem instead of argument of yours, I have indeed found one... When I ever claim that science is able to do any such thing, again, feel free to come back to me on this. Well, I am sure the fervent adherents of various religions might have a stern reply to that or, closer to home, the western advocates of ID, who often see creationism, er, intelligent design in a Christian framework. But as I am not of their ilk, I am happy to go along with the idea. As you have been reminded before, Darwinism has nothing to do with considering the beginning of life on earth but only the means of descent thereafter. And I am not even sure why this is relevant to our exchange here, or the definition of god, and so is rather a non-sequitur. Or it could be that nature, just like your favoured deliberate supernatural, hitherto works mysteriously. It rubs both ways, that sort of argument. Hey, I think I know this one! Is it because you never listen to what is most reasonable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 13:42:10 GMT
So, an unrepentant liar. No surprise there. I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of how you can "show that their reasons were not good ones" by merely asking questions or otherwise from a "lack" of believe. And I'm still waiting for you to retract the lie you told about me. Until you do, nothing else you have to say matters because none of it can be trusted since it is coming from an unrepentant liar.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2018 15:22:52 GMT
FF: That word would have been 'science' only once it appeared in the 1800's Arlon, where it superseded the term 'natural philosophy', and helped to separate 'science' from 'philosophy'. Arlon: Roman science A fine link about something we, yes, now might indeed call early science. But you are being disingenuous since the point, still, made here is that it is just not the fact, as you claimed that "Ancient Rome gave it [natural philosophy] the term "science". No more so than some alchemists called themselves "chemists". I hope that helps. So there was an English language in Roman times to introduce the word science into? Perhaps because it is blindingly obvious? Not just Wiki, Arlon. Here's the Encylopedia Brittanica: www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy Or instead you can argue with a dictionary and win, which I know you like: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalistic%20fallacy Of course, my appealing to authorities reaching opposing views to yours may not mean you are wrong, as I have had cause to note when dealing with other fundamentalists here, just lately; althought it means that you are more unlikely to be right. Yes, I can see it must be repeatedly embarrassing for you. But I will still call them just as I see them, thank you anyway. It would be rare to see the naturalistic fallacy used by anyone except bad debaters, or tabloid feature writers. Or a poor man's demagogue online, maybe. Certainly it would not be expected of professionals using logic as part of their work skills. A fallacy by way of proceeding is never really a wise way to proceed in an argument - although it is easy to see, with your record of things, how it is the sort of thing you would say. That an ad hominem is an argument is also a fallacy, Arlon LOL. But you have been told that before. When I suggested this feel free to raise it again. My reference was to your use of it casually, as if it carried any logical weight : "god ... might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics" when the comparison from 'nature' is not logically meaningful enough on which to build, or extract a system of ethics. Such sloppiness distinguished your entire article, imho. As noted above, with every ad hominem instead of argument of yours, I have indeed found one... When I ever claim that science is able to do any such thing, again, feel free to come back to me on this. Well, I am sure the fervent adherents of various religions might have a stern reply to that or, closer to home, the western advocates of ID, who often see creationism, er, intelligent design in a Christian framework. But as I am not of their ilk, I am happy to go along with the idea. As you have been reminded before, Darwinism has nothing to do with considering the beginning of life on earth but only the means of descent thereafter. And I am not even sure why this is relevant to our exchange here, or the definition of god, and so is rather a non-sequitur. Or it could be that nature, just like your favoured deliberate supernatural, hitherto works mysteriously. It rubs both ways, that sort of argument. Hey, I think I know this one! Is it because you never listen to what is most reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 15:37:36 GMT
I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of how you can "show that their reasons were not good ones" by merely asking questions or otherwise from a "lack" of believe. And I'm still waiting for you to retract the lie you told about me. Until you do, nothing else you have to say matters because none of it can be trusted since it is coming from an unrepentant liar. Since I am not aware of having told a lie you'll have to be specific what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 15:58:40 GMT
<nothing a real life person would say> Thank you for making clear what the problem is here. You are a "grunt." That is a disparaging term, I know, I'm sorry. I couldn't believe Sigourney Weaver (as "Ripley") used the term in the movie Aliens. How rude! And against people her life depended on! It means a person who only follows orders because he isn't capable of independent thought or articulate speech. He depends entirely on what he believes is "authority" for all his thoughts and decisions. There are various types of arguments; ad hominem, ad populum, ad potentiam and others that amateurs on the internet call "fallacies." However they are not always fallacies. The ad hominem "fallacy" only occurs when the personal flaws of the speaker cannot indicate flaws in some argument sufficiently distinct from the speaker. The ad populum argument is not a fallacy in elections. There are times when the ad potentiam argument must take control of a situation, however that isn't working for you. You are just a grunt. Grunts accuse their opponents of "fallacies" because it is a simple and seemingly powerful alternative to actually engaging in the argument and building a case. There may indeed be times when arguing that something is not good because it seems unnatural will not be effective in convincing reasonable people of anything. However there can also be times, as with ad hominem, ad populum, ad potentiam and many other types of arguments, that such an argument works very logically. You are obviously not capable of knowing the difference, which is why I recommend you don't ever try.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 16:13:23 GMT
And I'm still waiting for you to retract the lie you told about me. Until you do, nothing else you have to say matters because none of it can be trusted since it is coming from an unrepentant liar. Since I am not aware of having told a lie you'll have to be specific what you mean. No, I don't buy the dumbass act this time. You told a lie about my beliefs. If you choose not to retract it, that's your choice. I can't say I am at all surprised, but I've better things to do with my time than spending it on a liar.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 21:15:24 GMT
Since I am not aware of having told a lie you'll have to be specific what you mean. No, I don't buy the dumbass act this time. You told a lie about my beliefs. If you choose not to retract it, that's your choice. I can't say I am at all surprised, but I've better things to do with my time than spending it on a liar. Since you've forgotten all about it, I'll suppose it doesn't matter very much, does it? It might have had something to do with your absurd claim, now dropped, that you can "show that their reasons were not good ones" from a "lack" of belief. I really would have enjoyed seeing you do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 21:17:35 GMT
No, I don't buy the dumbass act this time. You told a lie about my beliefs. If you choose not to retract it, that's your choice. I can't say I am at all surprised, but I've better things to do with my time than spending it on a liar. Since you've forgotten all about it, I'll suppose it doesn't matter very much, does it? It might have had something to do with your absurd claim, now dropped, that you can "show that their reasons were not good ones" from a "lack" of belief. I really would have enjoyed seeing you do that. Are you still not willing to retract your lie? No? Then you have nothing to say that is of interest, liar.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 21:27:47 GMT
Since you've forgotten all about it, I'll suppose it doesn't matter very much, does it? It might have had something to do with your absurd claim, now dropped, that you can "show that their reasons were not good ones" from a "lack" of belief. I really would have enjoyed seeing you do that. Are you still not willing to retract your lie? No? Then you have nothing to say that is of interest, liar. Your concession is noted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 21:33:05 GMT
Are you still not willing to retract your lie? No? Then you have nothing to say that is of interest, liar. Your concession is noted. Oh look, another lie. What a tremendous surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 21:38:48 GMT
Your concession is noted. Oh look, another lie. What a tremendous surprise. It's not like you're going to employ any truth is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 21:51:53 GMT
Oh look, another lie. What a tremendous surprise. It's not like you're going to employ any truth is it? Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to.
|
|