(June 7, 2011 at 3:30 pm)Castle Wrote: Don’t you think when you finger point at each other groups arrogant and ignorance, you are really finger point three fingers back at your self

I just checked that. The three fingers are pointing at the people behind me.

(June 7, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Castle Wrote: When you say fallacious arguments, what comes to mine is the Monty Python - Argument Clinic

Even the word argumentment, I would break down as an angry discussion, in which dose not appears to my emotion intelligent way of having a two way conversation. I hear the word argument or debate too often. and it’s not the best style for me to come here to learn and share by.

MY pack circle is made of relationship with my family along with a hand full of good friends . The business work interweavers with the personal life. I think globally and act locally and if that changes the overly religious right with reasoning all the better for all.

In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.

when you use the phrases [what comes to mind, seems to you, or appears to you] to then you follow it with something totally off base of what i was saying is very frustrating. Maybe this explanation of what a fallacy is will help you understand that i am not trying to engage in a 'angry discussion'. I was using the term argument as a technical term for a fallacy.

In summary.
You always ignore or act dismissive of valid points. If you continue this behavior you have no credibility to me at least. I think others would agree.

(June 8, 2011 at 12:22 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:

Castle Wrote:It's the 1% or 2% Rich that really controls or owns most of everything, in which tools Religion. . It appear that religion is ruling and leading crusades, yet in real change in human history is of the 80% collective consciousness of people. Where does that leave the 3% atheist group, when they find it hard enough getting elected as Dog catcher, goD spelled backward.

We can collectively out vote those iron fist into our control , as we have in the pass with an attitude for the whole.

You cannot vote out a being who owns you... it is only they who you are not the property of that you can remove.

The rich certainly don't need religion when they control all governments which supposedly control all people

The few that remain outside of their control even then can simply be eliminated in their eyes... as they are almost certainly not worth keeping around.

And atheism has squat didily to do with it

I did not mean to remove the rich, just have better degrees of people power for our own destinies. Government has protected every conceivable evil own to mankind the only change has been by the people. Yes we do need Governments too, like a fungus to a tree.

I hope to see atheist president in my lifetime; for sure they can’t do worst than killing for God for more than any other reason

(June 8, 2011 at 1:14 am)Castle Wrote:

(June 8, 2011 at 12:22 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:

Castle Wrote:It's the 1% or 2% Rich that really controls or owns most of everything, in which tools Religion. . It appear that religion is ruling and leading crusades, yet in real change in human history is of the 80% collective consciousness of people. Where does that leave the 3% atheist group, when they find it hard enough getting elected as Dog catcher, goD spelled backward.

We can collectively out vote those iron fist into our control , as we have in the pass with an attitude for the whole.

You cannot vote out a being who owns you... it is only they who you are not the property of that you can remove.

The rich certainly don't need religion when they control all governments which supposedly control all people

The few that remain outside of their control even then can simply be eliminated in their eyes... as they are almost certainly not worth keeping around.

And atheism has squat didily to do with it

I did not mean to remove the rich, just have better degrees of people power for our own destinies. Government has protected every conceivable evil own to mankind the only change has been by the people. Yes we do need Governments too, like a fungus to a tree.

I hope to see atheist president in my lifetime; for sure they can’t do worst than killing for God for more than any other reason

The ... words ... they ... don't ... quite ... connect.

Castle Wrote:I did not mean to remove the rich, just have better degrees of people power for our own destinies. Government has protected every conceivable evil own to mankind the only change has been by the people. Yes we do need Governments too, like a fungus to a tree.

People cannot exist without government. Anarchy is inherently self defeating

Quote:I hope to see atheist president in my lifetime; for sure they can’t do worst than killing for God for more than any other reason

Depends... is that atheist president me?

Were I unleashed into a position ready to make war... then I could give a war unlike any this world has even tried to understand (well, some Russians might get it). And I don't say I am coming.

But you're right in a sense... for the war would not be without reason. It would gain in great leaps more resources. A religious war is about people... not about economics.

We've just had an atheist prime minister over here in aus, one who panders to the religious right like crazy in a vain attempt to make up for her atheism, but an atheist nonetheless.

(June 8, 2011 at 5:58 am)Stue Denim Wrote: We've just had an atheist prime minister over here in aus, one who panders to the religious right like crazy in a vain attempt to make up for her atheism, but an atheist nonetheless.

Gillard is a crazy lady. She claims that euthanasia and gay marriage is a major threat to people's freedom of religion (Which is a ridiculous one). She is an atheist yet she argues with the religious christian leaders agaisnt the greens, who she signed an agreement with.

That is a mess. Not doing atheism any good there by stuffing it up.

(June 8, 2011 at 12:47 am)Epimethean Wrote:

(June 7, 2011 at 3:30 pm)Castle Wrote: Don’t you think when you finger point at each other groups arrogant and ignorance, you are really finger point three fingers back at your self

I just checked that. The three fingers are pointing at the people behind me.

That is why I most enjoy the middle ground approuch, In about 95% of the tim,e I am in agreement with boths sides and learn much. It's just that 5% we all may disagree upon, can be a bitch,

---

(June 8, 2011 at 1:02 am)eric209 Wrote:

(June 7, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Castle Wrote: When you say fallacious arguments, what comes to mine is the Monty Python - Argument Clinic

Even the word argumentment, I would break down as an angry discussion, in which dose not appears to my emotion intelligent way of having a two way conversation. I hear the word argument or debate too often. and it’s not the best style for me to come here to learn and share by.

MY pack circle is made of relationship with my family along with a hand full of good friends . The business work interweavers with the personal life. I think globally and act locally and if that changes the overly religious right with reasoning all the better for all.

In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.

when you use the phrases [what comes to mind, seems to you, or appears to you] to then you follow it with something totally off base of what i was saying is very frustrating. Maybe this explanation of what a fallacy is will help you understand that i am not trying to engage in a 'angry discussion'. I was using the term argument as a technical term for a fallacy.

In summary.
You always ignore or act dismissive of valid points. If you continue this behavior you have no credibility to me at least. I think others would agree.

Gee, I connect well within my circle and to my millions of fans

You and I may have a bad connection somewhere. when talking about Einstein quote, mind you it is a very board topic

millions of fans? What's your native language Castle?