Dumb Rhetoric

[Amarok]

I think you have a different definition of refute than I do.   For me, to refute, one would have to give reason against it.   

If you want to defend that position feel free.

Yes yours is pigheadedly refusing to admit you were beaten along with stevey . Mine is the standard definition that Polymath beat you . Position defended and their is what 2 threads as a permanent testament to the fact .

[RoadRunner79]

I think you have a different definition of refute than I do.   For me, to refute, one would have to give reason against it.   

If you want to defend that position feel free.

Yes yours is pigheadedly refusing to admit you were beaten along with stevey . Mine is the standard definition that Polymath beat you . Position defended and their is what 2 threads as a permanent testament to the fact .

I didn't think you would say anything falsifiable (even though you claim that poly already did the work)   If you just want to name call and try to make others small, then back on ignore you go!

[Amarok]

I didn't think you would say anything falsifiable (even though you claim that poly already did the work)   If you just want to name call and try to make others small, then back on ignore you go!

That just it poly already did so. So why must i ? And pointing out he beat you is not name calling or belittling it simply stating a fact . But by all means ignore me that won't change the fact Poly proved this very statement wrong and it written for all to see .

[RoadRunner79]

I didn't think you would say anything falsifiable (even though you claim that poly already did the work)   If you just want to name call and try to make others small, then back on ignore you go!

That just it poly already did so. So why must i ? And pointing out he beat you is not name calling or belittling it simply stating a fact . But by all means ignore me that won't change the fact Poly proved this very statement wrong and it written for all to see .

Ok... I disagree, and since you cannot show where I'm wrong, then good bye!

[Amarok]

Ok... I disagree, and since you cannot show where I'm wrong, then good by

Yes it is okay . Your disagreement is irrelevant. I could but i don't need too poly already did . But goodbye keep being wrong .

[GrandizerII]

And also don't say an actual infinity is not possible because one can't reach the end of an infinity. That would be like arguing that the immaterial is not possible because one cannot visualize it.

No... that is not at all like  the reasoning given for why you cannot reach the end of that which is by definition without end.

And by such reasoning, an actual infinity isn't possible because you can't fully experience it. Hence, my previous post.

---

Ok... I disagree, and since you cannot show where I'm wrong, then good by

Yes it is okay . Your disagreement is irrelevant. I could but i don't need too poly already did . But goodbye keep being wrong .

Indeed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sometimes, peoples' defensiveness about being made to "look small" is more compelling than any desire or need to have communicated something accurate or true.   It's an ideological variant of the sunk cost effect.

Let's try a demonstration.

No one, other than one's self, makes anyone "look small" by stating patently inaccurate things. We all do it, from time to time. It's the easiest thing in the world to say "ah, look at that, I was wrong about that, thanks man." When we can't do that.....-this- is what makes us, or our position, seem small.

What do you think RR? Is holding an inaccurate belief about a triviality important enough to act as a sunk cost for whatever it is you were hoping to communicate in that conversation?

[Edwardo Piet]

Here's an example of dumb rhetoric on the atheist's side "I don't believe there isn't a God... I just lack belief that there is."

First of all it's an absence not a lack.

Second of all you are born not believing in God, but you aren't born believing God is improbable.

Third, do you believe God's probability is unknown or exactly 50/50? I doubt it.

Finally, if you believe that God is improbable in any way, then you do believe there isn't a God, you just don't believe it with absolute certainty.

I was born with a mere absence of belief but then I heard about this ridiculous idea of God and considered it to be improbable for the same reason that anything else that lacks evidence but is absurd is improbable. Fire-breathing dragons are improbable and I certainly don't merely have an absence of belief in them. They could be hiding, I am not absolutely certain that they don't exist. But I do very strongly believe that they don't... and with good reason. Same with God.

Not a fan of Daniel Dennett by any means, he gets on my tits and really grinds my gears, and I recently learned he's a pragmatist... so no wonder (that puts him in the Jordan Peterson camp, yuck.). But still, he got the following absolutely right:

There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view I hold dear.

^ And this is exactly how I feel about this "I don't believe there isn't a God I just lack belief" nonsense. ^

[RoadRunner79]

No... that is not at all like  the reasoning given for why you cannot reach the end of that which is by definition without end.

And by such reasoning, an actual infinity isn't possible because you can't fully experience it. Hence, my previous post.

I don't believe that I or Steve have said any such thing (concerning cannot be fully experienced). I think you misunderstand. I would very much be against someone arguing in such a way, using only what can be experienced.

[Amarok]

Here's an example of dumb rhetoric on the atheist's side "I don't believe there isn't a God... I just lack belief that there is."

First of all it's an absence not a lack.

Second of all you are born not believing in God, but you aren't born believing God is improbable.

Third, do you believe God's probability is unknown or exactly 50/50? I doubt it.

Finally, if you believe that God is improbable in any way, then you do believe there isn't a God, you just don't believe it with absolute certainty.

I was born with a mere absence of belief but then I heard about this ridiculous idea of God and considered it to be improbable for the same reason that anything else that lacks evidence but is absurd is improbable. Fire-breathing dragons are improbable and I certainly don't merely have an absence of belief in them. They could be hiding, I am not absolutely certain that they don't exist. But I do very strongly believe that they don't... and with good reason. Same with God.

Not a fan of Daniel Dennett by any means, he gets on my tits and really grinds my gears, and I recently learned he's a pragmatist... so no wonder (that puts him in the Jordan Peterson camp, yuck.). But still, he got the following absolutely right:

There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view I hold dear.

^ And this is exactly how I feel about this "I don't believe there isn't a God I just lack belief" nonsense. ^

Gotta disagree

---

And more babbling from Road take a hint man your side lost this debate