|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 10, 2020 11:47:01 GMT
His attempts to sound like a scientist are both particularly trying and pathetic. 'Glutton for punishment' seems to be the phrase that best sums it up when he haunts those threads. There's a lot of that going around. Most of it traceable back to yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Aug 10, 2020 15:29:32 GMT
There's a lot of that going around. Most of it traceable back to yourself. Theology: the only study that requires no facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 10, 2020 16:48:57 GMT
Most of it traceable back to yourself. Theology: the only study that requires no facts. Tell that to Pope Benedict XVI. He has a doctorate in theology. Not just a degree; a DOCTORATE.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 10, 2020 17:00:44 GMT
It's not as amusing as you might think watching retarded public school kids trying to use the internet as an authority on science. You are not seeing the comparison of the child-like faith some people have in religion and the child-like faith you have in science. It's actually stunningly similar and actually more error prone in your case. It worked in elementary school for both sides to merely accept what they imagine is authority without question, having no talent or foundation from which to question authority anyway. It has become increasingly necessary though that both sides get out of that mode and actually develop an understanding of religion and science they should have developed in higher learning. I might currently be in a minority now, but there isn't a sensible majority to join at the moment. Sensible people will just have to join me. Actually, it is; reading your successive screed proves that. Of course, even the most amusing things have the ability to become tiresome after a while. Anyone who accepts the doctrines of sky-fairy religions of whatever stripe is prone from the word go to accept authority without question, Arlon--which just makes it all the more amusing to watch you posit yourself as any sort of independent mind, when that mind is so completely in thrall to sky-fairy notions. But bless your heart. Keep trying, anyway. It is the internet, so if you keep at it long enough, sooner or later you're bound to develop a following. Somewhere in this thread - I think it was TC - talked about the harm done by religion. And the bolded words above, I think, is the biggest harm. I was brainwashed to accept personal testimonials as fact, with no evidence to support them. Some of those people were flat-out lying, some embellishing and one or two was probably hallucinating. I was never encouraged to research the facts of what someone said. If they were "one of us", we followed their authority without question. Problem being, many who posed as genuine Christians were not, and had an agenda - getting me to do something they wanted me to do for them, cloaked in the language of religion. My child-like faith got me used lots of ways, into my adulthood, and it took years to reprogram my brain for healthy skepticism. That is the problem when children aren't taught to think critically, and that encompasses all religions and world views based on faith in a book or an entity that cannot be validated. People now use the buzz word "faith-based". I am fact-based. And the mechanism by which they have been declared fact must be validated with evidence. Anything else is speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2020 19:19:55 GMT
You yourself have used Pew in rare moments of substantiation my friend, lol. And I am only reporting on what so many of the religious say about themselves and what they believe when asked. I realise you think them stupid (as you do anyone who does not agree with you), but there it is anyway. And some of the Bible is to be taken literally, and is taken so by many. Sorry about that. I am going to try to explain the "ad hominem" thing yet another way. Suppose there is a child who is a discipline problem in elementary school. He does not understand the lesson topic and argues with the teacher. He makes rules for the teacher to follow that are not really rules. Obviously the teacher has no choice but to have the child removed from the class until his behavior improves. If he claims that an " ad hominem" is being used against him by the teacher and the teacher needs to provide what the child considers evidence of anything there really isn't anything the teacher can do about that. The child is the problem because he is flawed. I am going to try to explain the "ad hominem" thing yet another way. Suppose there is a child who is a discipline problem in elementary school. He does not understand the lesson topic and argues with the teacher. He makes rules for the teacher to follow that are not really rules. Obviously the teacher has no choice but to have the child removed from the class until his behavior improves. If he claims that an "ad hominem" is being used against him by the teacher and the teacher needs to provide what the child considers evidence of anything there really isn't anything the teacher can do about that. The child is the problem because he is flawed. It can be illogical to claim that other people are also wrong because the child is. It is possible the others do not have all the same beliefs the discipline problem has and arrived at their positions by other means. That would be one time an ad hominem is illogical. It can be inexpedient to pursue "reasoning" which is not theirs. It is logical however to point out to the child that his methods are flawed and that he must be removed from the class. It is also very expedient and just. , as you have been told umpteen times before, means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy where rudeness is not an argument. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person, instead of attacking his or her argument as in when you call anyone who does not agree with you "stupid" or mentally handicapped etc. In the example above, it may be observed that the child is not 'making an argument' and his character criticised in lieu of a response to it; rather it is a matter of classroom discipline flowing from a flawed character just as you say, so it is false comparison. In regards to other people being wrong because the child is, this would imply addressing an argument and not the actions of a flawed character. I notice that here you have moved on from (as you did on a previous occasion) denying the existence of the fallacy at all. But I suppose you had to. QED. Indeed, just as I do, and so one can agree with this; but that does not change the fact that, as mentioned just previously, you have used Pew on a rare occasion when you attempted to substantiate your opinions, and so it is illogical to condemn the same authority out of hand just because they don't suit your view. I hope that helps. The conclusions of the surveys I referenced are clear enough, even if you don't like them.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 10, 2020 19:51:59 GMT
Most of it traceable back to yourself. Theology: the only study that requires no facts. I imagine the late Ronald Reagan was probably one of Arlon's heroes. You remember: he was the guy who (in)famously remarked that 'facts are stupid things'. Allegedly a misquotation of John Adams' 'facts are stubborn things'; something Arlon repeatedly finds out each time he tries to pit his faux facts against real ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 10, 2020 20:01:41 GMT
Actually, it is; reading your successive screed proves that. Of course, even the most amusing things have the ability to become tiresome after a while. Anyone who accepts the doctrines of sky-fairy religions of whatever stripe is prone from the word go to accept authority without question, Arlon--which just makes it all the more amusing to watch you posit yourself as any sort of independent mind, when that mind is so completely in thrall to sky-fairy notions. But bless your heart. Keep trying, anyway. It is the internet, so if you keep at it long enough, sooner or later you're bound to develop a following. Somewhere in this thread - I think it was TC - talked about the harm done by religion. And the bolded words above, I think, is the biggest harm. I was brainwashed to accept personal testimonials as fact, with no evidence to support them. Some of those people were flat-out lying, some embellishing and one or two was probably hallucinating. I was never encouraged to research the facts of what someone said. If they were "one of us", we followed their authority without question. Problem being, many who posed as genuine Christians were not, and had an agenda - getting me to do something they wanted me to do for them, cloaked in the language of religion. My child-like faith got me used lots of ways, into my adulthood, and it took years to reprogram my brain for healthy skepticism. That is the problem when children aren't taught to think critically, and that encompasses all religions and world views based on faith in a book or an entity that cannot be validated. People now use the buzz word "faith-based". I am fact-based. And the mechanism by which they have been declared fact must be validated with evidence. Anything else is speculation. This formula, so simply put and so true, must be the criteria which anyone wishing to examine any and all evidences and phenomena hews; to arrive at logic, truth and factuality through any other means, and most certainly via the means of supernatural agency, is to blur and obfuscate--and it is not surprising that Arlon insists on these other means. Hard fact often will not conform to what he wishes to be 'true', thus making the wearing of spectacles heavily smeared with 'faith-based' vaseline an absolute imperative for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 10, 2020 23:42:06 GMT
I am going to try to explain the "ad hominem" thing yet another way. Suppose there is a child who is a discipline problem in elementary school. He does not understand the lesson topic and argues with the teacher. He makes rules for the teacher to follow that are not really rules. Obviously the teacher has no choice but to have the child removed from the class until his behavior improves. If he claims that an "ad hominem" is being used against him by the teacher and the teacher needs to provide what the child considers evidence of anything there really isn't anything the teacher can do about that. The child is the problem because he is flawed. It can be illogical to claim that other people are also wrong because the child is. It is possible the others do not have all the same beliefs the discipline problem has and arrived at their positions by other means. That would be one time an ad hominem is illogical. It can be inexpedient to pursue "reasoning" which is not theirs. It is logical however to point out to the child that his methods are flawed and that he must be removed from the class. It is also very expedient and just. , as you have been told umpteen times before, means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy where rudeness is not an argument. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person, instead of attacking his or her argument as in when you call anyone who does not agree with you "stupid" or mentally handicapped etc. In the example above, it may be observed that the child is not 'making an argument' and his character criticised in lieu of a response to it; rather it is a matter of classroom discipline flowing from a flawed character just as you say, so it is false comparison. In regards to other people being wrong because the child is, this would imply addressing an argument and not the actions of a flawed character. I notice that here you have moved on from (as you did on a previous occasion) denying the existence of the fallacy at all. But I suppose you had to. QED. Indeed, just as I do, and so one can agree with this; but that does not change the fact that, as mentioned just previously, you have used Pew on a rare occasion when you attempted to substantiate your opinions, and so it is illogical to condemn the same authority out of hand just because they don't suit your view. I hope that helps. The conclusions of the surveys I referenced are clear enough, even if you don't like them. You wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 10, 2020 23:53:44 GMT
It's not as amusing as you might think watching retarded public school kids trying to use the internet as an authority on science. You are not seeing the comparison of the child-like faith some people have in religion and the child-like faith you have in science. It's actually stunningly similar and actually more error prone in your case. It worked in elementary school for both sides to merely accept what they imagine is authority without question, having no talent or foundation from which to question authority anyway. It has become increasingly necessary though that both sides get out of that mode and actually develop an understanding of religion and science they should have developed in higher learning. I might currently be in a minority now, but there isn't a sensible majority to join at the moment. Sensible people will just have to join me. Actually, it is; reading your successive screed proves that. Of course, even the most amusing things have the ability to become tiresome after a while. Anyone who accepts the doctrines of sky-fairy religions of whatever stripe is prone from the word go to accept authority without question, Arlon--which just makes it all the more amusing to watch you posit yourself as any sort of independent mind, when that mind is so completely in thrall to sky-fairy notions. But bless your heart. Keep trying, anyway. It is the internet, so if you keep at it long enough, sooner or later you're bound to develop a following. One thing that obviously escaped your attention is that the "intelligent designer" has not picked and does not pick sides. It does not dictate anything for anyone to follow without question. In fact it prevents people from following authority without question since authority cannot command the intelligent designer to to anything much less endorse them. That is why you don't like it. It interferes with your dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 11, 2020 0:10:36 GMT
There's a lot of that going around. Most of it traceable back to yourself. My 1998 Honda Accord does get around, but not like in its younger days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Aug 11, 2020 0:38:55 GMT
Actually, it is; reading your successive screed proves that. Of course, even the most amusing things have the ability to become tiresome after a while. Anyone who accepts the doctrines of sky-fairy religions of whatever stripe is prone from the word go to accept authority without question, Arlon--which just makes it all the more amusing to watch you posit yourself as any sort of independent mind, when that mind is so completely in thrall to sky-fairy notions. But bless your heart. Keep trying, anyway. It is the internet, so if you keep at it long enough, sooner or later you're bound to develop a following. One thing that obviously escaped your attention is that the "intelligent designer" has not picked and does not pick sides. It does not dictate anything for anyone to follow without question. In fact it prevents people from following authority without question since authority cannot command the intelligent designer to to anything much less endorse them. That is why you don't like it. It interferes with your dictatorship. Will you settle down and quit chasing your tail. What does this even mean: In fact it prevents people from following authority without question since authority cannot command the intelligent designer to to anything much less endorse them.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 11, 2020 4:23:32 GMT
Actually, it is; reading your successive screed proves that. Of course, even the most amusing things have the ability to become tiresome after a while. Anyone who accepts the doctrines of sky-fairy religions of whatever stripe is prone from the word go to accept authority without question, Arlon--which just makes it all the more amusing to watch you posit yourself as any sort of independent mind, when that mind is so completely in thrall to sky-fairy notions. But bless your heart. Keep trying, anyway. It is the internet, so if you keep at it long enough, sooner or later you're bound to develop a following. One thing that obviously escaped your attention is that the "intelligent designer" has not picked and does not pick sides. It does not dictate anything for anyone to follow without question. In fact it prevents people from following authority without question since authority cannot command the intelligent designer to to anything much less endorse them. That is why you don't like it. It interferes with your dictatorship. What is the point of an intelligent designer if it doesn't do stuff, by its own authority, at will? What is the intelligent designer's agenda? Why does the intelligent designer interfere with anything at all, let alone amyshost's alleged dictatorship? WTF is that anyway? If she has one I want one tooooooo!!!!   
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 11, 2020 10:35:49 GMT
Actually, it is; reading your successive screed proves that. Of course, even the most amusing things have the ability to become tiresome after a while. Anyone who accepts the doctrines of sky-fairy religions of whatever stripe is prone from the word go to accept authority without question, Arlon--which just makes it all the more amusing to watch you posit yourself as any sort of independent mind, when that mind is so completely in thrall to sky-fairy notions. But bless your heart. Keep trying, anyway. It is the internet, so if you keep at it long enough, sooner or later you're bound to develop a following. One thing that obviously escaped your attention is that the "intelligent designer" has not picked and does not pick sides. It does not dictate anything for anyone to follow without question. In fact it prevents people from following authority without question since authority cannot command the intelligent designer to to anything much less endorse them. That is why you don't like it. It interferes with your dictatorship. Still shadowboxing with your deity, I see... I tried plugging that sentence into the Universal Translator, Arlon. I have to report it merely hiccupped and then blew all its fuses  .
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 11, 2020 10:37:01 GMT
Most of it traceable back to yourself. My 1998 Honda Accord does get around, but not like in its younger days. My word, does your Honda suffer from arteriosclerosis too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 11, 2020 10:45:44 GMT
One thing that obviously escaped your attention is that the "intelligent designer" has not picked and does not pick sides. It does not dictate anything for anyone to follow without question. In fact it prevents people from following authority without question since authority cannot command the intelligent designer to to anything much less endorse them. That is why you don't like it. It interferes with your dictatorship. What is the point of an intelligent designer if it doesn't do stuff, by its own authority, at will? What is the intelligent designer's agenda? Why does the intelligent designer interfere with anything at all, let alone amyshost's alleged dictatorship? WTF is that anyway? If she has one I want one tooooooo!!!! There is no simple or easy way to know what the intelligent designer might do or when. That's the point. It forces people to realize they do not have the final word. The reason Trump republicans have not attempted to acknowledge any intelligent designer is not so much that they agree with you on biology, but that they agree with you on not challenging authority with anything ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 11, 2020 10:48:29 GMT
One thing that obviously escaped your attention is that the "intelligent designer" has not picked and does not pick sides. It does not dictate anything for anyone to follow without question. In fact it prevents people from following authority without question since authority cannot command the intelligent designer to to do anything much less endorse them. That is why you don't like it. It interferes with your dictatorship. Still shadowboxing with your deity, I see... I tried plugging that sentence into the Universal Translator, Arlon. I have to report it merely hiccupped and then blew all its fuses . Better?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 11, 2020 10:51:19 GMT
My 1998 Honda Accord does get around, but not like in its younger days. My word, does your Honda suffer from arteriosclerosis too? I don't go very far in it because there is no telling what might fall off it next. My parts are still securely attached.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 11, 2020 12:36:36 GMT
Still shadowboxing with your deity, I see... I tried plugging that sentence into the Universal Translator, Arlon. I have to report it merely hiccupped and then blew all its fuses . Better? No.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 11, 2020 12:37:43 GMT
My word, does your Honda suffer from arteriosclerosis too? I don't go very far in it because there is no telling what might fall off it next. My parts are still securely attached. Perhaps a leaky carburetor...
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 11, 2020 17:33:12 GMT
One thing that obviously escaped your attention is that the "intelligent designer" has not picked and does not pick sides. It does not dictate anything for anyone to follow without question. In fact it prevents people from following authority without question since authority cannot command the intelligent designer to to anything much less endorse them. That is why you don't like it. It interferes with your dictatorship. What is the point of an intelligent designer if it doesn't do stuff, by its own authority, at will? What is the intelligent designer's agenda? Why does the intelligent designer interfere with anything at all, let alone amyshost's alleged dictatorship? WTF is that anyway? If she has one I want one tooooooo!!!! Goz, I deny that there's any intelligent design in that post of Arlon's  . But the nicest part of believing in sky-fairies is that one can have them do or not do anything at one's own convenience. That, in turn, enables one to construct a sort of dictatorship over logic and reason by subjecting their parameters to whatever loopy boundaries one wants to set for the sky-fairy in question to follow. I hope that made more sense than whatever that was Arlon just posted there, though, to quote Groucho Marx: "Quick, somebody get me a five year old, because I can't make heads or tails out of this." 
|
|
.
. But the nicest part of believing in sky-fairies is that one can have them do or not do anything at one's own convenience. That, in turn, enables one to construct a sort of dictatorship over logic and reason by subjecting their parameters to whatever loopy boundaries one wants to set for the sky-fairy in question to follow. I hope that made more sense than whatever that was Arlon just posted there, though, to quote Groucho Marx: "Quick, somebody get me a five year old, because I can't make heads or tails out of this."