Replying to a lack of reason with reason

Page 7 of 9 [ 136 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 1:52 pm

TM wrote:

Sam Harris put it in the best way I've heard here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG9pDNSAXA

He says the problem is you'll get laughed at. Essentially he's saying the most powerful faction is right (because as a nonautistic his biology tells him that). The Jew won the argument.

Dizzy: I haven't made any claims, I'm just point out the logical flaws in arguments.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 Mar 2012, 2:21 pm

fraac wrote:

TM wrote:

Sam Harris put it in the best way I've heard here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG9pDNSAXA

He says the problem is you'll get laughed at. Essentially he's saying the most powerful faction is right (because as a nonautistic his biology tells him that). The Jew won the argument.

He says that when making an argument that is entirely based upon a subjective experience of the world, one can add any metaphysical aspect to such an argument, however that does not make it a valid argument. In fact, given that the argument is absurd enough, it would be excluded from any other field than religion. In effect, arguments based on personal revelation are not valid.

fraac wrote:

Dizzy: I haven't made any claims, I'm just point out the logical flaws in arguments.

No, what you do has little to do with logic, what you do based on my observation of your post is to introduce your own definitions and entirely subjective claims into otherwise valid argumentation. Per that Sam Harris video, you're the dude that would chime in and go "But I met Kurt Cobain yesterday".

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 2:29 pm

You agree then that it would be foolish for anyone who understands subjectivity to try to convince another person to share their beliefs?

dizzywater
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 275
Location: sitting by the computer

01 Mar 2012, 2:40 pm

fraac wrote:

Dizzy: I haven't made any claims, I'm just point out the logical flaws in arguments.

Fraac,
You made plenty of claims, for example the claim we don't agree because we can't understand.

Your logic seems very flawed in this particular argument, yet you fail to point to it.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 Mar 2012, 3:00 pm

fraac wrote:

You agree then that it would be foolish for anyone who understands subjectivity to try to convince another person to share their beliefs?

It would be foolish for anyone to view subjective opinion as the equal to objective truth. However, it would not be foolish to try and convince someone that they have a faulty subjective belief if it is possible to objectively prove that the subjective belief if false. There is also a need to separate different forms of subjective beliefs, a belief that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor is not the same as a belief that gravity does not exist.

Last edited by TM on 01 Mar 2012, 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:04 pm

I don't think you know what words mean.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

01 Mar 2012, 3:10 pm

Oodain wrote:

fraac wrote:

simon: acknowledging that our perceptions are subjective isn't 'unmooring from reality'. It's letting go of the storyline. It's the best we can do.

Narcissus: I can't show you it, you're a dog! All you understand is doggy concerns: links, references, proofs written down. But in fact all one can possibly write down are stories - and stories are never real. When every genuinely religious person says the evidence is available but you have to get there yourself, maybe you should stop thinking you're smarter than them.

this is just aboutn the worst post i have read on wp to date.

in many ways.

I agree, its kind of sad that theists seem to jump towards this argument regularly: "God is too complicated!! Nobody can understand him using rational methods, you can only believe him unquestionably!"

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:15 pm

No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

01 Mar 2012, 3:15 pm

fraac wrote:

No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.

Your whole "dog & arithmetic" example is pretty blatantly this generic complexity argument

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:18 pm

No. A dog has no use for arithmetic. Arithmetic is irrational in a dog's world. Not too complicated, just meaningless.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 Mar 2012, 3:18 pm

fraac wrote:

I don't think you know what words mean.

Tell me where I made a mistake according to the fraac school of sophism then.

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:23 pm

TM wrote:

fraac wrote:

I don't think you know what words mean.

Tell me where I made a mistake according to the fraac school of sophism then.

How can you have a faulty subjective belief? Faulty according to who? The majority? The strongest faction? You? I'm tired of demonstrating the solipsism of people who don't understand what subjective means.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 Mar 2012, 3:36 pm

fraac wrote:

No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.

Oooh, I can play with that.

If god is only perceivable subjectively and I assume you here mean "perceive" defined as 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. Then each person's subjective perception of God is unique. If each persons subjective perception of god is different, then it follows that such a god cannot be invoked in an argument as everyone's god is equal and thus they negate each other.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

01 Mar 2012, 3:39 pm

fraac wrote:

No. A dog has no use for arithmetic. Arithmetic is irrational in a dog's world. Not too complicated, just meaningless.

How sad

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Mar 2012, 3:40 pm

TM wrote:

fraac wrote:

No one ever said "too complicated", no. Only perceivable subjectively and not transmittable in words, yes.

Who in this thread has offered an argument in favour of God? I've said many times that anyone who genuinely knows God would understand it was non-transmittable in words.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

01 Mar 2012, 3:43 pm

When I read arguments like this I'm reminded of the gentle words of Charles Manson.

Quote:

Will of God.. whatever you wanna call it.. you call it Jesus, call it Mohammed, call it goobybob, call it nuclear mind, call it blow the world up, call it your heart. Whatever you wanna call it, it's still music to me. It's there. It's the will of life

Page 7 of 9 [ 136 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Replying to a lack of reason with reason Post Reply New Topic

Replying to a lack of reason with reason