03 Jun 2008, 4:16 pm
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
And it's a clear fallacy to say that a text can reveal no truths about itself.
Ok, let's see, according to what you said, that also applies to the Qur'an, and other sacred texts from Buddhism, Hinduism, Neopaganism and even Scientology in the very same way, either that or your argument is a fallacy as well.
Of course it applies to all literature! How could / why should I say otherwise?
I see that I misinterpreted you then, which I thought your argument came from your view of the Bible being the truth and saying otherwise making it a "fallacy".
Quote:
Well, the teacher may be competent, but that particular fallacy is not.
Whether I could teach basic logic is neither here nor there,
but I wish people on WP would at least adhere to noncontradiction while in the PPR area.
It would save Alex lots of disk space!
Whether I could teach basic logic is neither here nor there,
but I wish people on WP would at least adhere to noncontradiction while in the PPR area.
It would save Alex lots of disk space!
Now that you mention Alex, I am taking the liberty of using an appeal of authority fallacy, and say that Alex is liberal, the kind of people you seem to label as evil, right?
03 Jun 2008, 4:26 pm
03 Jun 2008, 4:27 pm
03 Jun 2008, 4:29 pm
twoshots wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
I would recommend we universally ignore his posts 
You can join me or not.
You can join me or not.We can always laugh.
Quote:
LOL. The arrogance! Tell me Ragtime, where is your doctorate, since you know so much more than the professor? I rest my case.
Well, he didn't get the point, it is indeed a fallacy to use portions from the Bible, as he does, to make a point in an argument, when the majority here (oponents) don't believe in it as the source of "truth". It is very clear.
I understood the lesson, and the lesson, as it was presented, is absurd, twofold:
1. It assumes debators are logic machines, unable to view anything that is outside their current logic.
2. It therefore negates the concept "to convince".
To convince means to change someone's mind. And that change is usually based on new information having been provided.
By definition, that new information was not part of their logic.
lolwut? No. Actually, I don't give a crap about how people are convinced.
Well, good. Thank you. Now that you've admitted that your teacher's implication
that it's pointless to witness to someone from out of the Bible is wrong,
we can perhaps move on with this thread, having concluded that people
come to faith all the time through what religious texts say.
03 Jun 2008, 4:31 pm
twoshots wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
By definition, that new information was not part of their logic.
This sentence clearly demonstrates: you don't know what "logic" is.
Would you, in practice, divorce logic from reason? I'd hope not!
03 Jun 2008, 4:33 pm
03 Jun 2008, 4:35 pm
03 Jun 2008, 4:40 pm
twoshots wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
z0rp wrote:
I'm doing my best to reserve my place in hell. 
Of course I'm not doing anything 'bad' like murdering people, just general blasphemy and things that don't actually hurt people but are considering sins.
Of course I'm not doing anything 'bad' like murdering people, just general blasphemy and things that don't actually hurt people but are considering sins.
So, you won't blame God if you go to Hell, right? You admit you know why you're going there,
so in admitting that, you've forfeited your right to tell God you didn't know any better when you are judged.
Just making sure you're fully okay with God sending you to Hell.
This is fallacious too. Because the truth of the proposition "there is a God" is rejected by the atheist, there is no reason for them to respect it beyond the fear of uncertainty of their conviction. But because God is on an equal footing with an infinite number of different "Gods" of infinitely varying qualities, the idea that one should give any credence to the hypothetical whims of any one of them is absurd.
Tell it to God. Maybe you can argue your way into Heaven.
I don't care about all your esoteric hypotheticals, I care about real life.
And in real life, I'm going to Heaven, and, it seems, you are not.
Last edited by Ragtime on 03 Jun 2008, 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
03 Jun 2008, 4:46 pm
03 Jun 2008, 4:58 pm
03 Jun 2008, 5:36 pm
z0rp wrote:
I'm doing my best to reserve my place in hell.
Of course I'm not doing anything 'bad' like murdering people, just general blasphemy and things that don't actually hurt people but are considering sins.
Of course I'm not doing anything 'bad' like murdering people, just general blasphemy and things that don't actually hurt people but are considering sins.
You joke about Hell because you have no experience of it. Hell isn't necessarily an eternal supernatural punishment place. It's a state of mind. It is suffering. Only a fool would joke about this.
03 Jun 2008, 5:48 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Let it never be said that Ragtime doesn't admit when an opponent is right.
03 Jun 2008, 5:51 pm
slowmutant wrote:
z0rp wrote:
I'm doing my best to reserve my place in hell.
Of course I'm not doing anything 'bad' like murdering people, just general blasphemy and things that don't actually hurt people but are considering sins.
Of course I'm not doing anything 'bad' like murdering people, just general blasphemy and things that don't actually hurt people but are considering sins.
You joke about Hell because you have no experience of it. Hell isn't necessarily an eternal supernatural punishment place. It's a state of mind. It is suffering. Only a fool would joke about this.
Can you save me ?
Sniffle
I thought with the level of piety inherent in your being you could rub some off on me.
03 Jun 2008, 5:57 pm
Ragtime wrote:
twoshots wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
z0rp wrote:
I'm doing my best to reserve my place in hell.
Of course I'm not doing anything 'bad' like murdering people, just general blasphemy and things that don't actually hurt people but are considering sins.
Of course I'm not doing anything 'bad' like murdering people, just general blasphemy and things that don't actually hurt people but are considering sins.
So, you won't blame God if you go to Hell, right? You admit you know why you're going there,
so in admitting that, you've forfeited your right to tell God you didn't know any better when you are judged.
Just making sure you're fully okay with God sending you to Hell.
This is fallacious too. Because the truth of the proposition "there is a God" is rejected by the atheist, there is no reason for them to respect it beyond the fear of uncertainty of their conviction. But because God is on an equal footing with an infinite number of different "Gods" of infinitely varying qualities, the idea that one should give any credence to the hypothetical whims of any one of them is absurd.
Tell it to God. Maybe you can argue your way into Heaven.
I don't care about all your esoteric hypotheticals, I care about real life.
And in real life, I'm going to Heaven, and, it seems, you are not.
A) Presumes existence of a god or gods.
B) Real life is subjective; yours is not the same as anyone else's.
C) That is your belief - however, your opinion about the future of others is relatively immaterial - see item B.
M.
03 Jun 2008, 6:00 pm
03 Jun 2008, 6:01 pm
Odin wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Indeed! We do know why Satan would tell us that it's wrong, but beyond his evil and very obvious motives,
there is no true reason not to believe in God. And I find an endless number of correct reasons to believe in God.
WARNING!! ! Fallacy Alert, invalid argument.
Quit using Satan as a crutch to rationalize away arguments you don't like.
shhh.. He is right, and his genius doesn't need rational explanation. Just let him save you!!
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Postapocalypse and people with ASD |
Today, 9:29 pm |
| Are there a lot of crazy people in this world? |
21 Jul 2026, 7:31 am |
