RE: Why disbelievers believe? They believe in so called “God of the gaps”.
August 26, 2016 at 5:34 am
(This post was last modified: August 26, 2016 at 5:36 am by bennyboy.)
(August 26, 2016 at 2:57 am)Arkilogue Wrote:Nope. It must simply be worded effectively and supported with facts or ta least coherent ideas.(August 26, 2016 at 12:54 am)bennyboy Wrote: Dude, you gotta stop enumerating bullshit points and acting as though you've said something meaningful. What you listed are NOT major types of navigation. (1) is a vague pairing of a specific philosophical idea with human cognition in general; (2) is a vague pairing of a literary form with human feelings.Must everything be triplicate by the book and foot noted for you?
Maybe your 13 year-old girlfriends or whatever think that this deepity shit is actually deep. But unless you can get them to join this forum, please stop doing this.
. . . and again. Dude, if I wrote a program to pick random word parts and put them together with a period at the end, I think I could pass the Turing Test-- because I can prove that at least one real person in the world does this. Any guess who I'm talking about?
Quote:Simply put enough for a child to understand is that some choose to think things through and make decisions rationally based on facts, they are more mentally oriented. Others are more emotionally oriented and react to situations based on the cultural stories they've been told (things they believe). Have you never experienced this in human interactions? Or do you just play asshole on the internet for fun?Don't get mad at me. Use words better.
Quote:Human pregnancy must be a complete mystery to you.eh?
Quote:You're appeal to ridicule is a dime a dozen. If I was looking for that, I hit up the fundamentalist religion forums.1) You spell "your" wrongly. If you want to speak condescendingly to me, then you can do so more effectively if you avoid grade-school grammar mistakes.
Do at least try and show a little more interactive intelligence. Would hate to think you represent the norm around here.
I wonder if Bernays thought most people were rational vs emotional?
2) Adding "appeal to" before things does not automatically make them fallacies. I ridicule your goofy ideas because they are incoherent, and based not at all on fact or logic. Making fun of incoherent ideas is not an appeal to anything, nor is it a logical fallacy.
You have repeatedly enumerated things you want to be accepted as "truths," including your numerology-like world view, but you have not linked your collections of ideas to anything in reality. If you want to keep saying ridiculous stuff, then I reserve the right to keep ridiculing you. If you want to make sensible points, related to ideas or observations beyond your own imagination, and supported with facts and logic, then I will applaud you rather than mock you.