Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

some enlightenment for a dimly lit room

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 2:15:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In my debate with Kerrigan Skelly on his radio show, there seems to be a lot of people here who thought he won. The debate topic was this: "Does the Christian God exist?."

In the debate Mr. Skelly had no interest in discussing this topic, He discussed these 2 topic instead:
Where does Erik Dickerson think induction came from?

and

Where does Erik Dickerson think Morality came from?

Now as I pointed out in the debate, these are red herring topics. They are not the subject of the debate. So, he spent his whole debate not addressing the topic at hand. When asked to present his syllogism that concluded god, he refused. He simply said you cannot explain these things. At this point I said that there is a dichotomy of possible answers. For instance induction could be caused by:

(Induction fairies, Allah, thor, pixies, zeus....) the list goes on, same list can be used for morality.

Hie rebuttal was, well you don't believe any of those. As if, that is an actual rebuttal. He was actually correct. My position is that there is a full dichotomy of responses to the questions of morality and induction. With morality I supported the idea of Morality coming from society. Even leaving it at a full dichotomy of choices. He cannot, I repeat cannot just attack the withholding of belief and assert his god. What he was attempting to do was a reductio ad absurdum or reduction to absurdity argument. The problem is this is a fallacy if you use a false dichotomy. He was not actually attacking any of the other options in the dichotomy of possible answers to the questions of where morality or induction come from. If he wanted to do reduction ad absurdum, which would be a ridiculous attempt, he would actually have to attack the alternatives. I asked him to demonstrate it wasn't one of my other options, which he refused, again stating I don't believe it. Well, get this, I don't believe his god. I am doing the intelligent thing and withholding belief.

Idiots like Skelly and Cerebral retard, don't grasp this. They have a failed understanding of all things logic. They base their premises on a false understanding of human knowledge. Human knowledge does not rely on having the answers to the big questions, but acquiring answers to the small ones, to get closer to the answers to the bigger questions. Our knowledge builds. There are certain questions like induction, morality, and logic that need to be assumed as brute facts to survive, at least until we can find a way to demonstrate them. These are properly basic beliefs.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 2:17:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5yw-O4s71c Here is the reference for the debate, though it is long, its 2 hours.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 2:22:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 2:17:32 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Here is the reference for the debate, though it is long, its 2 hours.

Fixed your link.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 2:23:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 2:22:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/4/2011 2:17:32 PM, izbo10 wrote:
Here is the reference for the debate, though it is long, its 2 hours.


Fixed your link.

thanks i can't tell if it works here, im at work and youtube vids get blocked.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 4:01:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have no idea which of my statements is at issue here or how my views supposedly mesh with the views of a Christian in a debate I have not listened to. I am not morally comfortable with defending my views on this thread because the OP is mentally disabled and I am no longer prepared to assist in his public humiliation. It is not right.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 4:32:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 2:15:54 PM, izbo10 wrote:

My position is that there is a full dichotomy of responses to the questions of morality and induction. With morality I supported the idea of Morality coming from society. Even leaving it at a full dichotomy of choices.

Do you mean a polychotomy? Or do you mean only two choices?

I asked him to demonstrate it wasn't one of my other options, which he refused, again stating I don't believe it. Well, get this, I don't believe his god. I am doing the intelligent thing and withholding belief.

Also, more curious than anything, are you actually speaking in the first person here, or is this a transcript?

There are certain questions like induction, morality, and logic that need to be assumed as brute facts to survive, at least until we can find a way to demonstrate them. These are properly basic beliefs.

I take issue with this...

First, induction cannot be a properly basic belief because it, by definition, allows for the notion that the conclusion could be false while the premises are true. The very purpose of a basic belief is to provide an axiom that can be used to discover other truths. It would seem highly illogical to base a methodology for discovering truth on a practice that is by its own nature not necessarily correct. On the other hand, the belief that DEDUCTION works may well be a properly basic belief.

Second, the question of whether morality is a properly basic belief would require the determination of the cognitive/non-cognitive and objective/otherwise questions. Morality cannot be a basic belief if it is non-cognitive because moral propositions would have no truth value. If morality is objective, it cannot be a basic belief because moral propositions would not be assumed to be true - they *would* be true.

Third, the idea that logic works is not, per se, a properly basic belief. It shares the same realm as objective propositions - i.e. logic is definitionally true because it is made of created rules. Further, these propositions are viable because you can insert values into things like "All S are P" and prove the validity of the statement. Thus, logic is no more a basic belief than the proposition that a bachelor is an unmarried man. The only way logic could possibly be defended a "properly basic" is if we accept that deduction is properly basic as well, and assert that all logic is based on deduction. But deduction is limited by the same criticism as logic - that the very nature of deduction does not have to be assumed to be true - it is by definition always true - and thus cannot qualify as a basic belief.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 4:35:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 4:32:11 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/4/2011 2:15:54 PM, izbo10 wrote:

My position is that there is a full dichotomy of responses to the questions of morality and induction. With morality I supported the idea of Morality coming from society. Even leaving it at a full dichotomy of choices.

Do you mean a polychotomy? Or do you mean only two choices?

I asked him to demonstrate it wasn't one of my other options, which he refused, again stating I don't believe it. Well, get this, I don't believe his god. I am doing the intelligent thing and withholding belief.

Also, more curious than anything, are you actually speaking in the first person here, or is this a transcript?

There are certain questions like induction, morality, and logic that need to be assumed as brute facts to survive, at least until we can find a way to demonstrate them. These are properly basic beliefs.

I take issue with this...

First, induction cannot be a properly basic belief because it, by definition, allows for the notion that the conclusion could be false while the premises are true. The very purpose of a basic belief is to provide an axiom that can be used to discover other truths. It would seem highly illogical to base a methodology for discovering truth on a practice that is by its own nature not necessarily correct. On the other hand, the belief that DEDUCTION works may well be a properly basic belief.

Second, the question of whether morality is a properly basic belief would require the determination of the cognitive/non-cognitive and objective/otherwise questions. Morality cannot be a basic belief if it is non-cognitive because moral propositions would have no truth value. If morality is objective, it cannot be a basic belief because moral propositions would not be assumed to be true - they *would* be true.

Third, the idea that logic works is not, per se, a properly basic belief. It shares the same realm as objective propositions - i.e. logic is definitionally true because it is made of created rules. Further, these propositions are viable because you can insert values into things like "All S are P" and prove the validity of the statement. Thus, logic is no more a basic belief than the proposition that a bachelor is an unmarried man. The only way logic could possibly be defended a "properly basic" is if we accept that deduction is properly basic as well, and assert that all logic is based on deduction. But deduction is limited by the same criticism as logic - that the very nature of deduction does not have to be assumed to be true - it is by definition always true - and thus cannot qualify as a basic belief.

by trying to argue for logic you have hence committed the fallacy of begging the question, hence you can't demonstrate it. Therefore, it is properly basic. In order to demonstrate logic you must assume logic first.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 6:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 4:35:59 PM, izbo10 wrote:

by trying to argue for logic you have hence committed the fallacy of begging the question, hence you can't demonstrate it. Therefore, it is properly basic. In order to demonstrate logic you must assume logic first.

No - that is simply incorrect. A basic belief is one where the truth value is assumed in order to serve as a basis to discover more truth.

The truth value of logic's framework is never assumed, because it is definitionally true.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 6:09:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 6:03:23 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/4/2011 4:35:59 PM, izbo10 wrote:

by trying to argue for logic you have hence committed the fallacy of begging the question, hence you can't demonstrate it. Therefore, it is properly basic. In order to demonstrate logic you must assume logic first.

No - that is simply incorrect. A basic belief is one where the truth value is assumed in order to serve as a basis to discover more truth.

The truth value of logic's framework is never assumed, because it is definitionally true.

It is assumed, as you can't prove that it is correct, it has to be assumed.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 6:10:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 4:01:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I have no idea which of my statements is at issue here or how my views supposedly mesh with the views of a Christian in a debate I have not listened to. I am not morally comfortable with defending my views on this thread because the OP is mentally disabled and I am no longer prepared to assist in his public humiliation. It is not right.

After commenting several times on my debate saying he killed me now you haven't read it. Really quite pathetic.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 6:10:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 4:35:59 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/4/2011 4:32:11 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/4/2011 2:15:54 PM, izbo10 wrote:

My position is that there is a full dichotomy of responses to the questions of morality and induction. With morality I supported the idea of Morality coming from society. Even leaving it at a full dichotomy of choices.

Do you mean a polychotomy? Or do you mean only two choices?

I asked him to demonstrate it wasn't one of my other options, which he refused, again stating I don't believe it. Well, get this, I don't believe his god. I am doing the intelligent thing and withholding belief.

Also, more curious than anything, are you actually speaking in the first person here, or is this a transcript?

There are certain questions like induction, morality, and logic that need to be assumed as brute facts to survive, at least until we can find a way to demonstrate them. These are properly basic beliefs.

I take issue with this...

First, induction cannot be a properly basic belief because it, by definition, allows for the notion that the conclusion could be false while the premises are true. The very purpose of a basic belief is to provide an axiom that can be used to discover other truths. It would seem highly illogical to base a methodology for discovering truth on a practice that is by its own nature not necessarily correct. On the other hand, the belief that DEDUCTION works may well be a properly basic belief.

Second, the question of whether morality is a properly basic belief would require the determination of the cognitive/non-cognitive and objective/otherwise questions. Morality cannot be a basic belief if it is non-cognitive because moral propositions would have no truth value. If morality is objective, it cannot be a basic belief because moral propositions would not be assumed to be true - they *would* be true.

Third, the idea that logic works is not, per se, a properly basic belief. It shares the same realm as objective propositions - i.e. logic is definitionally true because it is made of created rules. Further, these propositions are viable because you can insert values into things like "All S are P" and prove the validity of the statement. Thus, logic is no more a basic belief than the proposition that a bachelor is an unmarried man. The only way logic could possibly be defended a "properly basic" is if we accept that deduction is properly basic as well, and assert that all logic is based on deduction. But deduction is limited by the same criticism as logic - that the very nature of deduction does not have to be assumed to be true - it is by definition always true - and thus cannot qualify as a basic belief.

by trying to argue for logic you have hence committed the fallacy of begging the question, hence you can't demonstrate it. Therefore, it is properly basic. In order to demonstrate logic you must assume logic first.

Hey Izzy: why do you always say "the fallacy of?" Are you trying to prove you're smart? 'Cause it ain't working.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 6:15:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 6:10:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/4/2011 4:35:59 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/4/2011 4:32:11 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/4/2011 2:15:54 PM, izbo10 wrote:

My position is that there is a full dichotomy of responses to the questions of morality and induction. With morality I supported the idea of Morality coming from society. Even leaving it at a full dichotomy of choices.

Do you mean a polychotomy? Or do you mean only two choices?

I asked him to demonstrate it wasn't one of my other options, which he refused, again stating I don't believe it. Well, get this, I don't believe his god. I am doing the intelligent thing and withholding belief.

Also, more curious than anything, are you actually speaking in the first person here, or is this a transcript?

There are certain questions like induction, morality, and logic that need to be assumed as brute facts to survive, at least until we can find a way to demonstrate them. These are properly basic beliefs.

I take issue with this...

First, induction cannot be a properly basic belief because it, by definition, allows for the notion that the conclusion could be false while the premises are true. The very purpose of a basic belief is to provide an axiom that can be used to discover other truths. It would seem highly illogical to base a methodology for discovering truth on a practice that is by its own nature not necessarily correct. On the other hand, the belief that DEDUCTION works may well be a properly basic belief.

Second, the question of whether morality is a properly basic belief would require the determination of the cognitive/non-cognitive and objective/otherwise questions. Morality cannot be a basic belief if it is non-cognitive because moral propositions would have no truth value. If morality is objective, it cannot be a basic belief because moral propositions would not be assumed to be true - they *would* be true.

Third, the idea that logic works is not, per se, a properly basic belief. It shares the same realm as objective propositions - i.e. logic is definitionally true because it is made of created rules. Further, these propositions are viable because you can insert values into things like "All S are P" and prove the validity of the statement. Thus, logic is no more a basic belief than the proposition that a bachelor is an unmarried man. The only way logic could possibly be defended a "properly basic" is if we accept that deduction is properly basic as well, and assert that all logic is based on deduction. But deduction is limited by the same criticism as logic - that the very nature of deduction does not have to be assumed to be true - it is by definition always true - and thus cannot qualify as a basic belief.

by trying to argue for logic you have hence committed the fallacy of begging the question, hence you can't demonstrate it. Therefore, it is properly basic. In order to demonstrate logic you must assume logic first.

Hey Izzy: why do you always say "the fallacy of?" Are you trying to prove you're smart? 'Cause it ain't working.

Because that is the proper way to state it. Again being an absolute idiot.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 6:25:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 4:01:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I have no idea which of my statements is at issue here or how my views supposedly mesh with the views of a Christian in a debate I have not listened to. I am not morally comfortable with defending my views on this thread because the OP is mentally disabled and I am no longer prepared to assist in his public humiliation. It is not right.

Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 4 days ago
I repeatedly asked him... did you address your opponents strawman arguments in your radio debate, did you offer a counter-argument... or a challenge of any sort to his claims that atheists may not inductive reasoning or speak of morality. Several times did I ask him this.

No sir, I did not, to address such childishly simply points were utterly beyond me. So I conceded them. (Or words to that effect).

I mocked him repeatedly for such mental deficiencies and he never rose to the challenge, these arguments are conceded and so therefore have become part of his implied belief system.

Fvcking retard.

HUH! come on now it is in print. Now, your true colors really show.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 8:43:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 6:25:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/4/2011 4:01:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I have no idea which of my statements is at issue here or how my views supposedly mesh with the views of a Christian in a debate I have not listened to. I am not morally comfortable with defending my views on this thread because the OP is mentally disabled and I am no longer prepared to assist in his public humiliation. It is not right.

Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 4 days ago
I repeatedly asked him... did you address your opponents strawman arguments in your radio debate, did you offer a counter-argument... or a challenge of any sort to his claims that atheists may not inductive reasoning or speak of morality. Several times did I ask him this.

No sir, I did not, to address such childishly simply points were utterly beyond me. So I conceded them. (Or words to that effect).

I mocked him repeatedly for such mental deficiencies and he never rose to the challenge, these arguments are conceded and so therefore have become part of his implied belief system.
How does "no response" to arguments (which do not necessarily equal to concessions in real life)=to part of his "implied belief system"?

So if I don't respond to your comments about my idiocy, that does mean: a) I acknowledge my stupidity b) I believe in it???

And how does that equate to being Christian?

Fvcking retard.
I'm not sure if this is a way of being constructive...

HUH! come on now it is in print. Now, your true colors really show.
How is this a sign of your mental competence, Izbo10?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 9:18:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 11:51:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 6:09:48 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/4/2011 6:03:23 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/4/2011 4:35:59 PM, izbo10 wrote:

by trying to argue for logic you have hence committed the fallacy of begging the question, hence you can't demonstrate it. Therefore, it is properly basic. In order to demonstrate logic you must assume logic first.

No - that is simply incorrect. A basic belief is one where the truth value is assumed in order to serve as a basis to discover more truth.

The truth value of logic's framework is never assumed, because it is definitionally true.

It is assumed, as you can't prove that it is correct, it has to be assumed.

How is it assumed? There is nothing to assume - logic is definitionally true, not analytically true. Even if you don't view logic in this fashion, certainly you can view it as the same sort of thing as one of Kant's metaphysical lenses...

It's impossible to prove a definitional truth - asking someone to prove that logical frameworks work is like asking them to prove that a bachelor is an unmarried man.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:20:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Under the epistemological view called foundationalism, basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs) are the axioms of a belief system.

Foundationalism holds that all beliefs must be justified in order to be believed. Beliefs therefore fall into two categories:

Beliefs that are properly basic, in that they do not depend upon justification of other beliefs, but on something outside the realm of belief.

Being logic cannot be justified it has to outside the realm of justification, hence get this, properly basic.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:21:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:22:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 8:21:18 AM, izbo10 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

you may learn something eventually when you stop being so pig headed to think you even have a remote grasp of what I am saying and go back and actually read what I am saying and go get the proper foundational understanding to reply to it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:38:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I must state Izbo after listening to your first round---
you may want to read up on the moral argument and more information about morals. I do not think you fully grasp the moral argument, objective morals, transcendent values, epistimological vs. ontological etc----

When did you have this debate? Was this a long time ago before studying up on the moral concepts?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:44:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:38:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I must state Izbo after listening to your first round---
you may want to read up on the moral argument and more information about morals. I do not think you fully grasp the moral argument, objective morals, transcendent values, epistimological vs. ontological etc----

When did you have this debate? Was this a long time ago before studying up on the moral concepts?

It was probably a year and a half ago, and yes I am better at those subjects now then I was then, but still he did not present a single argument for the christian god, he did a philosophical red herring around the actual topic at hand.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:57:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:38:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I must state Izbo after listening to your first round---
you may want to read up on the moral argument and more information about morals. I do not think you fully grasp the moral argument, objective morals, transcendent values, epistimological vs. ontological etc----

When did you have this debate? Was this a long time ago before studying up on the moral concepts?

by the way it was kerrigan not I who was conflating epistomological vs ontological. Not really a subject I am going to spend a lot of time on a debate to a layman's audience, like his radio show pandered to.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:11:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:44:47 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/5/2011 3:38:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I must state Izbo after listening to your first round---
you may want to read up on the moral argument and more information about morals. I do not think you fully grasp the moral argument, objective morals, transcendent values, epistimological vs. ontological etc----

When did you have this debate? Was this a long time ago before studying up on the moral concepts?

It was probably a year and a half ago, and yes I am better at those subjects now then I was then, but still he did not present a single argument for the christian god, he did a philosophical red herring around the actual topic at hand.

At the end of the day though it was a red herring and I ask him to go from morals exist to god in logical form to show he was not on topic, to get into the moral argument would be to change the topic, something that I did not care to get into anyway, even though i will admit I was not as strong at as I am now. Still would try to get the debate back on topic which he failed to do.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 10:18:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 8:22:16 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/5/2011 8:21:18 AM, izbo10 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

you may learn something eventually when you stop being so pig headed to think you even have a remote grasp of what I am saying and go back and actually read what I am saying and go get the proper foundational understanding to reply to it.

I can easily say the same for you...

A basic belief forms the foundation of a philosophical theory.

Logic itself is not a basis for any philosophical theory. Logic helps analyze philosophical theories.

Logic itself does not explain philosophy. Logic helps analyze philosophy.

Logic is a tool that helps build knowledge on basic beliefs. It doesn't need to be justified any more than other definitional truths need "justification." In order for something to be a basic belief, there must be the assumption that it is true. Logic writ large has no truth value. Therefore, no assumption of truth can be made.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 8:00:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

Logic is a tool that helps build knowledge on basic beliefs. It doesn't need to be justified any more than other definitional truths need "justification." In order for something to be a basic belief, there must be the assumption that it is true. Logic writ large has no truth value. Therefore, no assumption of truth can be made.

Please read what you just wrote and see how stupid it sounds. You call it definitional truth and then say it has no truth to it. Huh really contradictions much.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 8:19:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 8:00:20 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Logic is a tool that helps build knowledge on basic beliefs. It doesn't need to be justified any more than other definitional truths need "justification." In order for something to be a basic belief, there must be the assumption that it is true. Logic writ large has no truth value. Therefore, no assumption of truth can be made.


Please read what you just wrote and see how stupid it sounds. You call it definitional truth and then say it has no truth to it. Huh really contradictions much.

Logic is a set of rules under which the universe runs in many ways. None of these rules have to exist, yet we cannot prove a single one without using it. Therefore we must assume these rules true.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 1:00:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 8:19:59 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/6/2011 8:00:20 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Logic is a tool that helps build knowledge on basic beliefs. It doesn't need to be justified any more than other definitional truths need "justification." In order for something to be a basic belief, there must be the assumption that it is true. Logic writ large has no truth value. Therefore, no assumption of truth can be made.


Please read what you just wrote and see how stupid it sounds. You call it definitional truth and then say it has no truth to it. Huh really contradictions much.

I call it a definitional truth because there is no other good term to describe it. If you want to be technical, logical propositions are not true or false, they are descriptive.

But surely you would understand this if you had any formal training in philosophy and knew that a definitional truth and having a truth value were not the same property.

Logic is a set of rules under which the universe runs in many ways. None of these rules have to exist, yet we cannot prove a single one without using it. Therefore we must assume these rules true.

How many times do I have to tell you that basic logical propositions do not need to be proved? They just ARE. How would you propose to prove that All S are P is true? What about If S, then P?? Furthermore, how do you propose to assign a truth value to either proposition without assigning values to S and P??

We don't assume "All S are P" is true - it just works. There is no assumption involved whatsoever.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 1:04:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 1:00:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/6/2011 8:19:59 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/6/2011 8:00:20 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Logic is a tool that helps build knowledge on basic beliefs. It doesn't need to be justified any more than other definitional truths need "justification." In order for something to be a basic belief, there must be the assumption that it is true. Logic writ large has no truth value. Therefore, no assumption of truth can be made.


Please read what you just wrote and see how stupid it sounds. You call it definitional truth and then say it has no truth to it. Huh really contradictions much.

I call it a definitional truth because there is no other good term to describe it. If you want to be technical, logical propositions are not true or false, they are descriptive.

But surely you would understand this if you had any formal training in philosophy and knew that a definitional truth and having a truth value were not the same property.

Logic is a set of rules under which the universe runs in many ways. None of these rules have to exist, yet we cannot prove a single one without using it. Therefore we must assume these rules true.

How many times do I have to tell you that basic logical propositions do not need to be proved? They just ARE. How would you propose to prove that All S are P is true? What about If S, then P?? Furthermore, how do you propose to assign a truth value to either proposition without assigning values to S and P??

We don't assume "All S are P" is true - it just works. There is no assumption involved whatsoever.

He will never learn anything you have to teach him, he is mentally disabled.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.