i think it's shocking there are people that will disagree with this

Reasoning is NEVER superfluous. We reason everything. YOU are sitting there "reasoning" or justifying the exclusive use of faith. So don't tell me reasoning or logic is without use! It's a reliable tool and it's reliable in part because it's repeatable and thus verifiable.

Without logic you couldn't utter a coherent sentence. [Come to think of it you almost prove this wrong when you speak :D ]

So get off your high and mighty horse sweetthang you are subject to same constraints and tools the rest of us are, the diff being you don't know how to use them properly and you're willing to go way too far out on a limb.

reasoning and scinece are no guarantee of "truth" their function is to give you the edge. a way of approaching a problem to arrive at a more probable solution, its all about edges.. shouldn't you know this????

Faith? hmm.. is this a prescription for thinking? NO.
Is faith verifiable in and of itself? No.

Why do you think they call it "BLIND Faith"??
Because it has no EYES! It is sightless! No vision! In the DARK!

faith is fine for a start. We all begin with inspiration. But to stop there is foolish! One must continue to search and scrutinize and doubt and scrutizize some more constantly looking for errors and assessing probability and doubting some more......

You don't just faith it true,, you subject it to every reliable tool you can get your mind on, you hammer on the concept and hammer on it,,,

and what is left is something which doesn't even resemble the notion you started with but is closer to the "truth" [if you've done your job and luck is on your side].

There is nothing more...

:-/
Quote from ARogueTrader:

What precautions have you taken to be sure that logic is not leading you away from the truth?

If you are using logic to verify logic, it is entirely circular.

Many purely "logical" people don't get jokes, nor do they enjoy the beauty of a sunset, nor do they experience the joy of love.

There is this underlying assumption that logic will reveal ultimate truth, but what is the source of logic that you are resting your entire case upon?

It is equally possible that logic is something to be distrusted when it comes to discussions of the existence of God that require God to be knowable via senses and relativistic logic in order to be accepted.

That you choose to employ a relativistic approach is your choice, but there is no proof that this is the correct methodology of evaluation.

Man is more than senses and intellect. If he were not, he would act like a computer.

Data in, logically processed, data out.

That simply is not the fact, nor the facts of life.
More...
 
Wish I had more faith. A finite existence makes this world even more scary. My question to athiests is why get so hung up on trying to prove there is no God? You don't believe so you shouldn't give a sh-it what the he-ll anyone thinks. Why get offended at the words "God Bless America" or "In God we Trust"? Just don't let it bother you since you don't believe.


My REPLY: Becuase I have to live under a system that dictates this god shit. I'm forced to live with this backwards thinking. It's shoved down my throat. This backwards god stuff has and does stunt the evolution of man. I'm really sick of it and its banality makes me want to pucke. Also, it causes wars and this whole terrorist thing is due to god shit. I'm sick of the stupid forcing their god ideas on me. God is 3000 or more years old, can't we, society, be a little more cutting edge. Don't you see the primitiveness of it? It's obvious, how can one be so stupid, it's amazing!
 
LongShot makes a point about maturing into adults and putting childish myths behind:

>a child matures into an adult and realizes that santee
>claus and easter bunny are fairy tales. perhaps we
>atheists have also matured...

ART(ist) responds directly with the assertion that parents know the myths to be false from the start:

>Parents know that Santa Claus and the Easter
>Bunny are imaginary to begin with.

It's easily demonstrable that NO, parents don't "know the myths to be false to begin with", but rather as LS points out they mature from child to adult to the point that they no longer believe.

I challenged ART on the point and he responds with a nice long post that doesn't even address his logically impossible conflict in the least. Talk about ad hominem

Well, what else did we expect?

JB
 
Quote from rowenwood:


My REPLY: Becuase I have to live under a system that dictates this god shit. I'm forced to live with this backwards thinking. It's shoved down my throat. This backwards god stuff has and does stunt the evolution of man. I'm really sick of it and its banality makes me want to pucke. Also, it causes wars and this whole terrorist thing is due to god shit. I'm sick of the stupid forcing their god ideas on me. God is 3000 or more years old, can't we, society, be a little more cutting edge. Don't you see the primitiveness of it? It's obvious, how can one be so stupid, it's amazing!
More...


It's not forced down your throat in the USA. Religion causes no problem within the US, actually helps to increase morals.

On the other hand I see your point with these Arab countries wanting to kill everyone who is not Islamic ("Infidels").
 
You twisted and misquoted the words you reference. Here is the exact quote:


"The parents knew on the basis of their belief systems the Easter bunny and Santa Claus were imaginary when they used these idea with their children."

The operative word in this statement is that the parents knew the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were imaginary when they used these ideas with their children. Whether or not they knew the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus to be imaginary as a child is irrelevant to their adult actions.

A parent who grew up in a society where there was no tradition of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, and had no childhood beliefs one way or the other could move to this country and adopt this tradition with the exact same understanding of using these traditions for the benefit of their children as other parents who grew up with the tradition do.

The parent's personal childhood experiences therefore are not a requirement for implementing this tradition with their own children.

-----------------------------------------

When someone doesn't quote text exactly where it is available the comments made and conclusions drawn on the basis of such a misquote are of little value in the arena of valid and fallacy free argumentation.

Making an argument on the basis of a misquote (especially if the misquote is intentional) is usually the work of a hack who will dismiss the accepted form of argumentation in favor of fabrication to support some agenda having nothing to do with the argument or statement in question.

People who employ this tactic develop a lack credibility in those who observe this behavior if such behavior becomes repetitive in nature.



Quote from Turok:

LongShot makes a point about maturing into adults and putting childish myths behind:

>a child matures into an adult and realizes that santee
>claus and easter bunny are fairy tales. perhaps we
>atheists have also matured...

ART(ist) responds directly with the assertion that parents know the myths to be false from the start:

>Parents know that Santa Claus and the Easter
>Bunny are imaginary to begin with.

It's easily demonstrable that NO, parents don't "know the myths to be false to begin with", but rather as LS points out they mature from child to adult to the point that they no longer believe.

I challenged ART on the point and he responds with a nice long post that doesn't even address his logically impossible conflict in the least. Talk about ad hominem

Well, what else did we expect?

JB
More...
 
ART:
>Making an argument on the basis of a misquote (especially
>if the misquote is intentional) is usually the work of a hack
>who will dismiss the accepted form of argumentation in
>favor of fabrication to support some agenda having nothing
>to do with the argument or statement in question.

>People who employ this tactic develop a lack credibility in
>those who observe this behavior if such behavior becomes
>repetitive in nature.

OH, THIS IS GONNA BE GOOD!!!!!!!!!

Bullshit ART(ist), I didn't misquote you. I included your entire paragraph and I can prove it.

First, here is your quote exactly as you wrote it and exactly as I presented it in *both* of my posts. It constitutes a full paragraph and the entire paragraph was included each time:

>Parents know that Santa Claus and the Easter
>Bunny are imaginary to begin with.

Here is the link to the post from which the quote it taken (its right there 11 paragraphs down.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=437131#post437131

Here are links to those two posts of mine where I quote ART
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=437167#post437167
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=437366#post437366


Falsely accusing one of misquoting (especially if the accusation is intentional) is usually the work of a hack who will use the false accusation to dismiss the accepted form of argumentation in favor of fabrication to support some agenda having nothing to do with the argument or statement in question.

People who employ this tactic develop a lack credibility in those who observe this behavior if such behavior becomes repetitive in nature.

JB

PS: Someday you and TM are going to learn that what you have the right to remain silent and anything you write on ET can and will be used against you when you claim something that ain't true.
 
It is commonly understood that if someone makes a statement, then if the statement is questioned, and then the statement is modified to explain the statment in full, the modified statement has the real meaning and intent of the first statement.

Here is the fist statement:

"Parents know that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are imaginary to begin with."


It was assumed in the first statement that the conditional was the fact that the people were parents, and the words "to begin with" were a reference to that condition of being parents at the time of implementing the tradition of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus to their children.

"...to begin with" is not the beginning of their own understanding of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny as children, but rather the beginning of their use of these traditions as parents to bring enjoyment to their children.

The statement was modified to aid those in confusion of what "to begin with" meant:

"The parents knew on the basis of their belief systems the Easter bunny and Santa Claus were imaginary when they used these idea with their children."

There is a timeline for children from learing about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as a child, to understanding that Sanata Clause and the Easter Bunny are not "real" to becoming parents and then acting as if they are "real" for the sake of their children.

That this was not clear to you, or that you see some point to "sieze" on is curious.




Quote from Turok:

ART:
>Making an argument on the basis of a misquote (especially
>if the misquote is intentional) is usually the work of a hack
>who will dismiss the accepted form of argumentation in
>favor of fabrication to support some agenda having nothing
>to do with the argument or statement in question.

>People who employ this tactic develop a lack credibility in
>those who observe this behavior if such behavior becomes
>repetitive in nature.

OH, THIS IS GONNA BE GOOD!!!!!!!!!

Bullshit ART(ist), I didn't misquote you. I included your entire paragraph and I can prove it.

First, here is your quote exactly as you wrote it and exactly as I presented it in *both* of my posts. It constitutes a full paragraph and the entire paragraph was included each time:

>Parents know that Santa Claus and the Easter
>Bunny are imaginary to begin with.

Here is the link to the post from which the quote it taken (its right there 11 paragraphs down.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=437131#post437131

Here are links to those two posts of mine where I quote ART
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=437167#post437167
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=437366#post437366


Falsely accusing one of misquoting (especially if the accusation is intentional) is usually the work of a hack who will use the false accusation to dismiss the accepted form of argumentation in favor of fabrication to support some agenda having nothing to do with the argument or statement in question.

People who employ this tactic develop a lack credibility in those who observe this behavior if such behavior becomes repetitive in nature.

JB

PS: Someday you and TM are going to learn that what you have the right to remain silent and anything you write on ET can and will be used against you when you claim something that ain't true.
More...
 
ART(ist)
>That this was not clear to you, or that you see some
>point to "sieze" on is curious.

The point siezed is that you accused me of misquoting. I proved by the record for all to see that I didn't misqoute you in ANY way. You simply made a mistake in your accusation and thought that my quote was from a later but somewhat similar statement of yours (and I can prove that by posting the link as well).

Be a man and admit your mistaken accusation or look like even more of a fool.

JB
 
There is misquote, and their is misuse of quote with similar intent.

If in fact that you did not quote the modified statement after it was written, the modified statement which was made with the intent to help the confused as to the real intent of the first statement, and if in fact you continued to reference the previous quote knowing the statement had been clarified in the modified statement.....that behavior has the same effect as an intentional misquote.

I suppose you could simply say that you did not read the modified quote when you used the first quote again after the modified statement had been made.

Knowing the real intent now of the first quote on the basis of the modified quote, you could retract your use of the first quote in comments subsequent to the modified statement and admit that using the first quote was fallacious given knowledge of the clarification that came with the modification.

Now, that would be manly.

Quote from Turok:

ART(ist)
>That this was not clear to you, or that you see some
>point to "sieze" on is curious.

The point siezed is that you accused me of misquoting. I proved by the record for all to see that I didn't misqoute you in ANY way. You simply made a mistake in your accusation and thought that my quote was from a later but somewhat similar statement of yours (and I can prove that by posting the link as well).

Be a man and admit your mistaken accusation or look like even more of a fool.

JB
More...
 
Such gibberish to cover up for a fabrication. It can't be covered ART, it's in the record.

Of course, what else would we expect from ART(ist).

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top