The Long and the Short of it.

[Watson]

I am abble to better and more accurately understand and read people and their reactions to things, help soothe them or aggitate them furthr, depending on my preference at the time, and I can read between the lines of what a person says in relation to themselves and others.

Say you give me a scenario of some sort, I could accurately give you reasons for why one person acted one way or why another reacted to that in another way. I can also help to find solutions to the scenario or problem, whatever it may be. Take that, psychology!(most bullshit pseudo-science ever)

[Minimalist]

Really, fr0d0? Silly word games? It would be illogical to say that a lack of evidence to support the claim that god exists proves that he does not. It is not illogical to admit that the evidence points to answers other than god and decide that 'god' is the least likely thing to exist according to the known laws of the universe.

An argument about logic. Heheh! From the guy who says, "God just is." The irony is not lost on me. Good show!

I knew a xtian fuckwit who actually wrote a paper which said that the FACT that there was no evidence for the exodus was proof that it HAPPENED.

I read the paper ( which he sent to several authors that he thought might be friendly to his cause [ James Hoffmeyer, was one] ). The only guy who replied tried to sell him one of his books. So the heights of illogic that believers can attain when trying to concoct a reason to believe in the unbelievable is no surprise to me, Paul.


I'll have to hold my nose and go check out his web site. That idiot is just dumb enough to have posted his paper on line. It might be good for a few laughs.

---

I am abble to better and more accurately understand and read people and their reactions to things, help soothe them or aggitate them furthr,

Sheesh. You been drinking?

[Watson]

Lol I should really pay more attention to what's on my screen while I type; my keyboard is a piece of shit!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

WE FIGHT OVER THE GROUND WE LIVE ON.

To be fair,so do most other animals.

However,other animals don't kill each other over ideas about god(s) or different economic systems,nor do many other animals kill each other (or other species) for pleasure.

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

@Frodo: I made an honest,if unflattering observation about your powers of reasoning. Although I don't dislike you personally, I still find your posts frequently irritating; you are neither stupid nor a fool,so it's frustrating..-- I do not conflate your often clever use of rationalistion with independent or critical thought.

I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks unless attacked first. On this occasion,you attacked me first.Not believing in turning the other cheek,I hit back.

That's all I have to say to you on this matter..

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

@Watson;Philosophy is not a competition based on who agrees with whom. Your position is based on a common logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum.(appeal to the people or argument by consensus)

It's fine to disagree,and to claim a position is wrong.However, in doing so,you attract the burden of proof. So far you have not met that obligation,so your claim has no credibility.

[Watson]

Wait, which argument of mine are you directing that towards? As in, what point did I make that you find contention with? I'm a bit lost in all this.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Wait, which argument of mine are you directing that towards? As in, what point did I make that you find contention with? I'm a bit lost in all this.

Oh, oops. Yeah,I guess there are a lot from which to choose.

RE: The Long and the Short of it.
Materialism is usually regarded as a pretty ridiculous stand-point by any smart philosopher, theologian, or free-thinker, Padraic. And with good reason, too.

My mistake,I misread.The argument is NOT argumentum ad populum,it's no true Scotsman.


All you have done is to make a bald assertion. You think materialism is ridiculous with good reason? Wonderful! Kindly outline the reason or reasons. The result may not change my mind,but you will at least be accorded some respect. Don't care? Fine,no skin off my arse.


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

Your use of the fallacy indicates you are familiar with or do not understand the notion of the no true Scotsman, so:

No true Scotsman is a potential logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of assertion to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it.[citation needed] The truth or falsehood of the new claim does not follow from the presence or absence of this fallacy.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I Sincerely Want to Be Right?.[1]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)
A simpler rendition would be:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis. [quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[fr0d0]

Really, fr0d0? Silly word games? It would be illogical to say that a lack of evidence to support the claim that god exists proves that he does not. It is not illogical to admit that the evidence points to answers other than god and decide that 'god' is the least likely thing to exist according to the known laws of the universe.

An argument about logic. Heheh! From the guy who says, "God just is." The irony is not lost on me. Good show!

Indeed it isn't illogical to suggest that material evidence should lead you to make scientific claims. I do it myself. What people here are suggesting though... is that this has any bearing on a belief in God. THAT is totally fallacious, ergo illogical. No word games here - just fact.

"God just is" is a logical proposition. Mock it all you like. Call me when you think of anything worthwhile to say about it

---

I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks unless attacked first. On this occasion,you attacked me first.Not believing in turning the other cheek,I hit back.

I was correct then. Note I didn't ad hominem you at all. I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning. I notice you don't address that.

[tavarish]

"God just is" is a logical proposition. Mock it all you like. Call me when you think of anything worthwhile to say about it

Demonstrate it, in any context. It's fine for you, but if you're trying to assert that this is somehow a fact, you need to provide evidence for it - not necessarily empirical. Any evidence would be fine.

Go.

[tackattack]

1- God is a word in the English language
2- Words are verballizations of concepts used for communication
3- concepts are used to identify observances in our reality
4- God is in our reality as a concept

[tavarish]

1- God is a word in the English language
2- Words are verballizations of concepts used for communication
3- concepts are used to identify observances in our reality
4- God is in our reality as a concept

I have absolutely no issue in accepting this. The conflict comes when people say it's necessarily MORE than a concept.