Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shaky?I think Moose is saying you're wrong ...
😕
...and I think you are trying to cause trouble. Moose and I are not disagreeing. A personal computer is something man-made, but a computer can also be in nature (like the human mind). He was speaking in the particular, while I was speaking in the general.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...and I think you are trying to cause trouble. Moose and I are not disagreeing. A personal computer is something man-made, but a computer can also be in nature (like the human mind). He was speaking in the particular, while I was speaking in the general.
In other words, you were using what is called a fallacy of equivocation to try and mess with me, and it was YOU who were actually trying to cause trouble 😬 ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacious reasoning
Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright"😉, this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In other words, you were using what is called a fallacy of equivocation to try and mess with me, and it was YOU who were actually trying to cause trouble 😬 ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacious reasoningEquivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright"😉, this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Look, I can do that too:
[list]Fallacy: Red Herring
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.[/list]
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny,
No, as stated before, in real life, I would not.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If you refuse to follow the assumption, you can't see the reasoning behind the comparison. You can replace "Santa", "Easter Bunny" etc. with Flying Spaghetti Monster, Wookie Jesus, or Xvim the Invader from Mars.
"Wookie Jesus"?
😕
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I never ever indicated that they were dangerous people. You have injected this assumption in because they believe in imaginary beings that we lie to our children about, but somehow Christianity is being given a pass. Why?
Christians don't believe their religion is a lie.
More likely than not, on the other hand, a person who believed, SERIOUSLY believed in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy, in real life, would have a number of other mental instabilities.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Fun fact: the things we found absurd and ridiculous which were later proven right weren't faith-based assertions from singular sources. They were usually scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon.There's a huge difference from disbelief in concepts of gravity, radio waves, or genetics versus disbelief in Middle-Eastern mythology.
"faith-based assertions from singular sources"
versus
"scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon"
Explain the difference for me, please.
Your meaning isn't at all clear to me the way you wrote this.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"faith-based assertions from singular sources"
versus
"scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon"Explain the difference for me, please.
Your meaning isn't at all clear to me the way you wrote this.
"faith-based assertions from singular sources" cannot change. It is ether right or wrong. "scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon" can change when they are proved to be wrong. The disproving of a theory can lead to a great discoveries. Blind faith lead nowhere.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Fun fact: the things we found absurd and ridiculous which were later proven right weren't faith-based assertions from singular sources. They were usually scientific theories advanced before they could be verified or expanded upon.
Square what you're saying with the following then, Moose:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a difficult time for Faraday. His memory was failing and he could often barely get through a morning without extensive notes to remind him of what he was supposed to do. Even worse, Faraday also knew that the world's great physicists, almost all of whom had gone to elite universities, still patronized him. They accepted his practical lab findings, but nothing else. To standard physicists, when electricity flowed through a wire it was basically like water flowing through a pipe: once the underlying mathematics was finally worked out, they believed, it would not be too different from what Newton and his numerous mathematically astute succesors could describe.
Faraday, however, still went on about those strange circles and other wending lines from his religious upbringing. The area around an electromagnetic event, Faraday held, was filled with a mysterious "field", and stresses within that field produced what were interpreted as electric currents and the like. He insisted that sometimes you could almost see their essence, as in the curving patterns that iron filings take when they are sprinkled around a magnet. Yet almost no one believed him -- except, now, for this young Scot named Maxwell.
At first glance the two men seemed very different. In his many years of research, Faraday had accumulated over 3,000 paragraphs of dated notebook entries on his experiments, from investigations that began early every morning. Maxwell, however, quite lacked any ability to get a timely start to the day. (When he was told that there was mandatory 6 A.M. chapel at Cambridge University, the story goes that he took a deep breath, and said, 'Aye, I suppose I can stay up that late."😉
Maxwell also had probably the finest mathematical mind of any nineteenth-century theoretical physicist, while Faraday had problems with any conventional math much beyond simple addition or subtraction.
But on a deeper level the contact was close ...
When the young Scot and the elderly Londoner corresponded, and then later when they met, they cautiously made contact of a sort they could share with almost no one else. For beyond the personality similarities, Maxwell was such a great mathematician that he was able to see beyond the surface simplicity of Faraday's sketches. It was not the childishness that less gifted researchers mocked it for. ("As I proceeded with the study of Faraday, I perceived that his method ... was also a mathematical one, though not exhibited in the conventional form of mathematical symbols."😉
Maxwell took those crude drawings of invisible force lines seriously. They were both deeply religious men; they both appreciated this possibility of God's immanence in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from E=mc2: A Biography of the World's most famous equation, by David Bodanis, 2000, pages 45-47.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8TX2tFLZ7gYC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=aye+i+suppose+i+can+stay+up+that+late+faraday&source=bl&ots=eTs5tDTmuT&sig=Kc0N9JTyJBFvtqB98TAxyqXK1gA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OETgUp-gJc6CyAG2wIDIBA&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=aye%20i%20suppose%20i%20can%20stay%20up%20that%20late%20faraday&f=false
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Look, I can do that too:[list]Fallacy: Red Herring
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.[/list]
Stick to the argument, BWR. My words there are clear. Shaky even defined them for you above. You should open up a red herring department store at this rate.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
bluewaterrider, why do you always defer to someone else when you are asked a question. Do you NOT have any of your own ideas?
I have quite a few of my own ideas.
But if you're going to challenge someone's assertions with real-world counterexamples, it only makes sense to PRESENT real-world counterexamples with real-world documentation that people can verify wherever possible.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I have quite a few of my own ideas.
But if you're going to challenge someone's assertions with real-world counterexamples, it only makes sense to PRESENT real-world counterexamples with real-world documentation that people can verify wherever possible.
Every single time? I'm surprised you didn't refer to someone else on my question.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Every single time?
It's not just you, me, and Moose concerned with this thread, Shaky.
It may seem that way, but there are actually dozens of people looking through this thread, as a simple look at the "views" of this thread in the Religion forum will confirm.
My concern is over what is verifiable, either through direct or indirect means.
Where I've speculated, I've been interested in knowing what the evidence AGAINST a given assertion is. For instance, regarding the second, in response to m317's Adam and Eve question, you said:
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. There is no original sin. I know this to be true because older stories of Adam and Eve exist.
I then asked you what older stories you knew of.
A poster named siriuswriter responded:
Originally posted by siriuswriter
Well, there's the Jewish Adam and Eve story, I guess if you could call it that - that the first woman born was actually Lilith and that Adam didn't want her because she wanted, you know, not to be subservient, and so she was cast out of the Garden and then Eve was made.Judaism predates Christianity. By a lot.
To which YOU responded:
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What siriuswriter said.
And you even quoted MY question, to make certain I knew that was what you were responding to.
All of this is on page 1 for people to see.
Yet you went on to deny that you intended any link between what siriuswriter wrote and your own stance just a page or two ago.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@bluewaterrider You have mixed things that I have said with other people, and strung together your own story. I don't know what the other people were thinking nor am I responsible for things they add to my statements.
Why be so dishonest?
What exactly could I have possibly mixed up?
This is not something hard to verify.
It's right on the first page!
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=1
In relation to THIS particular post though, the important point is that your premise, at least for now, appears to be wrong.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. There is no original sin. I know this to be true because older stories of Adam and Eve exist.
You were shown the Lilith story siriuswriter presented was not older than the "Jewish" Adam and Eve story on page 2. You were also shown the "Jewish" Adam and Eve story and the "Christian" Adam and Eve story were one and the same.
Should not your assertion then have changed?
Did it?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's not just you, me, and Moose concerned with this thread, Shaky.
What? Are there other people in the world? Say it’s not so…
I really don’t understand your point here.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It may seem that way, but there are actually dozens of people looking through this thread, as a simple look at the "views" of this thread in the Religion forum will confirm.
Wait… I almost got it, no… I still don’t see why this point even matters.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
My concern is over what is verifiable, either through direct or indirect means.
That would bother me too, if I knew what you were talking about.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Where I've speculated, I've been interested in knowing what the evidence AGAINST a given assertion is. For instance, regarding the second, in response to m317's Adam and Eve question, you said:
…
I then asked you what older stories you knew of.
…
A poster named siriuswriter responded:
…
To which YOU responded:
…
And you even quoted MY question, to make certain I knew that was what you were responding to.
Okay, your argument hinges on the meaning of thumbs up. Let us look at some possibilities:
I might have been saying:
1. That is the story I was thinking of.
2. That is another good example.
3. Good job posting, I want to encourage you to continue.
4. I could have been flirting with her.
It really could have been any of these. I did clarify. Go back and look.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
All of this is on page 1 for people to see.
You keep making this point. What does public, have to do with opinion? Unless you are a supporter of censorship. Are you in favor of censorship?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Yet you went on to deny that you intended any link between what siriuswriter wrote and your own stance just a page or two ago.
You were wrong, and I tried to tell you, but you would not listen.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Why be so dishonest?
Why be so pigheaded?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What exactly could I have possibly mixed up?
This is not something hard to verify.
It's right on the first page!
You are wrong about a lot of things. I wouldn’t trust you.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In relation to THIS particular post though, the important point is that your premise, at least for now, appears to be wrong.
You were shown the Lilith story siriuswriter presented was not older than the "Jewish" Adam and Eve story on page 2. You were also shown the "Jewish" Adam and Eve story and the "Christian" Adam and Eve story were one and the same.
Should not your assertion then have changed?
Did it?
I never said anything about Lilith, but it really doesn’t matter which came first. Both stories have personifications in them. That disqualifies them from being real. That is NOT to say that the story of Adam and Eve is without value. On the contrary, it is one of the most important stories of mankind. It’s one of the oldest and best known that I can think of. And yes, I have read it, and I like the story. It is a number one hit in my lists of stories to be saved from a zombie apocalypse.
BUT IT IS JUST A STORY. It is not real. Take what works for you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are wrong about a lot of things. I wouldn’t trust you.
Which is exactly why I back my claims with references wherever possible.
So you don't HAVE to trust me.
With my references, you and other people can verify what I'm saying for yourself.
Here, Shaky, if you truly ARE unsure as to why people should reference, here's a place that gives 9 good reasons for doing so:
http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/82797/whyrefc.pdf
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Which is exactly why I back my claims with references wherever possible.
So you don't HAVE to trust me.
With my references, you and other people can verify what I'm saying for yourself.
Here, Shaky, if you truly ARE unsure as to why people should reference, here's a place that gives 9 good reasons for doing so:
So, I don’t like the giving of references, now? 😑 😑
What about the rest of the stuff?
What about my question?
…and don’t ask me what question!