Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Begging the question

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism. Here is an entry on begging the question. It is the dumbest entry I have ever seen.

This articles author confuses a hypothesis with assumptive action.

Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging. I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:59:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
They are mistaking skepticism for refusal. There is clear examples that something designed, ordered, and functions within us and nature but that is refused because it is unthinkable to them.
TheAsylum
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 12:17:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism. Here is an entry on begging the question. It is the dumbest entry I have ever seen.

This articles author confuses a hypothesis with assumptive action.

Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging. I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates.

Most people on the internet believe they understand logic when they really don't. They don't understand that arguments don't beg the question, people do. Using deductive reasoning, such as in the example of abortion being murder, is not begging the question.

Now I don't claim to have all the answers. I am still learning. In fact, the more I learn about philosophy, the less I see I really know. Philosophy is a life-long endeavor, but it's been my experience that atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 12:48:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 12:33:36 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
philosophy shouldn't be the primary source of arguments to prove god's existence.

They are not primary in the sense I believe you mean.
We would say they are foundational. They are the base explanation for the experience of the reality of God that follows.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 3:24:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was just reading that site a few days ago. Didn't think much of their definitions either.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 3:36:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think that's the correct definition, but I haven't really looked it up before. Doesn't feel right though.
My legend begins in the 12th century
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 3:40:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 12:17:45 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism. Here is an entry on begging the question. It is the dumbest entry I have ever seen.

This articles author confuses a hypothesis with assumptive action.

Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging. I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates.

Most people on the internet believe they understand logic when they really don't. They don't understand that arguments don't beg the question, people do. Using deductive reasoning, such as in the example of abortion being murder, is not begging the question.

Now I don't claim to have all the answers. I am still learning. In fact, the more I learn about philosophy, the less I see I really know. Philosophy is a life-long endeavor, but it's been my experience that atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious.

"atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious."

This is ironic, considering every theistic argument has been refuted many times.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:03:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 3:40:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious."

This is ironic, considering every theistic argument has been refuted many times.

If that were true there would be a lot fewer theist haha
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:16:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 12:33:36 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
philosophy shouldn't be the primary source of arguments to prove god's existence.

^that sir, is a philosophy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:19:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:03:40 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/3/2012 3:40:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious."

This is ironic, considering every theistic argument has been refuted many times.

If that were true there would be a lot fewer theist haha

Not really, if I go to my local church I doubt any of them have heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Most people believe out of faith dude...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:23:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:19:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Not really, if I go to my local church I doubt any of them have heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Most people believe out of faith dude...

I believe out of faith too as well as reason. Of course there is people who are theist with no philosophical reasons, but there are many atheist that are the same way. I'm just saying there would be a lot less theist if all the arguments had been refuted many times.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:45:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:23:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:19:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Not really, if I go to my local church I doubt any of them have heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Most people believe out of faith dude...

I believe out of faith too as well as reason. Of course there is people who are theist with no philosophical reasons, but there are many atheist that are the same way. I'm just saying there would be a lot less theist if all the arguments had been refuted many times.

I doubt there would be that much less to be honest, even William Lane Craig himself said that if he felt all the arguments had been refuted he would still have strong faith due to the "holy spirit". The philosophical argumentation for God's existence is not why Muslims are Muslims or why Christians are Christians or what any other religious group is religious.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:50:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:45:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:23:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:19:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Not really, if I go to my local church I doubt any of them have heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Most people believe out of faith dude...

I believe out of faith too as well as reason. Of course there is people who are theist with no philosophical reasons, but there are many atheist that are the same way. I'm just saying there would be a lot less theist if all the arguments had been refuted many times.

I doubt there would be that much less to be honest, even William Lane Craig himself said that if he felt all the arguments had been refuted he would still have strong faith due to the "holy spirit". The philosophical argumentation for God's existence is not why Muslims are Muslims or why Christians are Christians or what any other religious group is religious.

WLC says this for good philosophical reasons though. He affirms Foundationalism, the view that beliefs are like a system of pyramids, etc. Where the more basic beliefs are more immediate & are a priori for the person who truly has the Holy Spirit's witness.

Of course many people can falsely claim such an immediate experience, but that doesn't undercut a true experience... this is why reason & logic is the common ground to see which side is correct.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:03:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 3:40:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/3/2012 12:17:45 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism. Here is an entry on begging the question. It is the dumbest entry I have ever seen.

This articles author confuses a hypothesis with assumptive action.

Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging. I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates.

Most people on the internet believe they understand logic when they really don't. They don't understand that arguments don't beg the question, people do. Using deductive reasoning, such as in the example of abortion being murder, is not begging the question.

Now I don't claim to have all the answers. I am still learning. In fact, the more I learn about philosophy, the less I see I really know. Philosophy is a life-long endeavor, but it's been my experience that atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious.

"atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious."

This is ironic, considering every theistic argument has been refuted many times.

That's exactly the point. *No* Theistic argument has been refuted. No one has the last word on any argument. Additionally, internet atheists continually try to find logical fallacies where none are present. The KCA is a logically airtight argument. The only way to refute it is to rebut the premises. But many atheists continue to try and find fallacy with it, despite the fact that Theists like myself continually point out the flaws in atheistic thinking.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:11:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 5:03:37 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/3/2012 3:40:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/3/2012 12:17:45 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism. Here is an entry on begging the question. It is the dumbest entry I have ever seen.

This articles author confuses a hypothesis with assumptive action.

Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging. I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates.

Most people on the internet believe they understand logic when they really don't. They don't understand that arguments don't beg the question, people do. Using deductive reasoning, such as in the example of abortion being murder, is not begging the question.

Now I don't claim to have all the answers. I am still learning. In fact, the more I learn about philosophy, the less I see I really know. Philosophy is a life-long endeavor, but it's been my experience that atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious.

"atheists are not willing to give up their arguments, even if they are clearly shown to be false, illegitimate, or fallacious."

This is ironic, considering every theistic argument has been refuted many times.

That's exactly the point. *No* Theistic argument has been refuted. No one has the last word on any argument. Additionally, internet atheists continually try to find logical fallacies where none are present. The KCA is a logically airtight argument. The only way to refute it is to rebut the premises. But many atheists continue to try and find fallacy with it, despite the fact that Theists like myself continually point out the flaws in atheistic thinking.

What atheists do is show fallacies in the logic which is put forth to lead one into accepting a premise, not logic of the the argument itself.

P1: If I pick my nose gold is cheese
P2: I pick my nose
P3: Therefore, gold is cheese

The above is logically airtight, but the premises are false and the logic I could tell you I used to reach those premises is most likely fallacious even if the wording of the argument itself is not fallacious.

Either way, we could debate the Kalam Cosmological Argument again if you would like.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:58:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:16:21 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/3/2012 12:33:36 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
philosophy shouldn't be the primary source of arguments to prove god's existence.

^that sir, is a philosophy.

lol.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 6:32:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism. Here is an entry on begging the question. It is the dumbest entry I have ever seen.

This articles author confuses a hypothesis with assumptive action.

Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging. I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates.

That site does not have good examples of begging the question I certainly agree. However there are also some terrible begging the question examples on the theistic side too:
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Most of the theistic arguments online is absolutely terrible. While non-theistic arguments certainly are far from perfect, they tend to be more reasonable.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:19:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism.
Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging.(adherring to popularity)
I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. (personal feeling)
I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates. (based of personal feelings)

The Fool: All "Logicians logic" won't allow for theism. I say Logicians Logic because I have come to notice that theolgins use the term 'word' to refer to a different concept all togther, then Logicians do, A theo-logic, perhaps. Something I know nothing of.

Gileandos: Here is an entry on begging the question.

The Fool: its as good as it gets. You can't presuppose what you are trying to prove!
Its just your typical circular argument, under with a different 'lable'.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:20:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 12:33:36 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
philosophy shouldn't be the primary source of arguments to prove god's existence.

The Fool: argumentation is philosophic by nature.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:23:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 12:48:03 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/3/2012 12:33:36 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
philosophy shouldn't be the primary source of arguments to prove god's existence.

They are not primary in the sense I believe you mean.
We would say they are foundational. They are the base explanation for the experience of the reality of God that follows.

The Fool: You mean FUNDEMENTAL there is a big difference.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:48:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 6:32:32 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism. Here is an entry on begging the question. It is the dumbest entry I have ever seen.

This articles author confuses a hypothesis with assumptive action.

Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging. I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates.

That site does not have good examples of begging the question I certainly agree. However there are also some terrible begging the question examples on the theistic side too:
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

1: This is written by an astrophysicist.
2: AIG does not claim to be Philosophical resource, but a resource within the discussion.
3: I found the examples to be amazingly accurate. I will cite for you.

- "The Bible cannot be true because it contains miracles. And miracles would violate the laws of nature!"
Great question begging here as the person is presuming the laws of nature cannot be violated.

- "The Bible cannot be true because it teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old; whereas, we know the earth is billions of years old."
This is begging the question spot on.
The person is presuming 'billions of years old' is accurate.

All of them are examples of question begging, though they perform additional fallacies.


Most of the theistic arguments online is absolutely terrible. While non-theistic arguments certainly are far from perfect, they tend to be more reasonable.

I fundamentally disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:58:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:48:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/3/2012 6:32:32 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism. Here is an entry on begging the question. It is the dumbest entry I have ever seen.

This articles author confuses a hypothesis with assumptive action.

Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging. I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates.

That site does not have good examples of begging the question I certainly agree. However there are also some terrible begging the question examples on the theistic side too:
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

1: This is written by an astrophysicist.
2: AIG does not claim to be Philosophical resource, but a resource within the discussion.
3: I found the examples to be amazingly accurate. I will cite for you.

- "The Bible cannot be true because it contains miracles. And miracles would violate the laws of nature!"
Great question begging here as the person is presuming the laws of nature cannot be violated.

- "The Bible cannot be true because it teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old; whereas, we know the earth is billions of years old."
This is begging the question spot on.
The person is presuming 'billions of years old' is accurate.

All of them are examples of question begging, though they perform additional fallacies.


Most of the theistic arguments online is absolutely terrible. While non-theistic arguments certainly are far from perfect, they tend to be more reasonable.

I fundamentally disagree.

The Fool: its doesn't matter what we call it, its wrong by logical form.

The bible is word of God. Why?
Because it says so in the Bible. WHy?

Because the is word or God. And around and around we Go.

The Fool: Any argument regardless of what we call it, circular if it has thing form.

If you are trying to proof A with B but be depend on A. Its circular, AKA Begging the question. Its the most simplist, fallacy to know. I don't think they don't understand.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 9:17:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:19:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism.
Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging.(adherring to popularity)
I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. (personal feeling)
I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates. (based of personal feelings)


The Fool: All "Logicians logic" won't allow for theism. I say Logicians Logic because I have come to notice that theolgins use the term 'word' to refer to a different concept all togther, then Logicians do, A theo-logic, perhaps. Something I know nothing of.

Gileandos: Here is an entry on begging the question.

The Fool: its as good as it gets. You can't presuppose what you are trying to prove!
Its just your typical circular argument, under with a different 'lable'.

The Fool is correct. He is also correct on the other posts on this thread. It's convenient that he's been ignored, but unsurprising.

Often when we find ourselves confronted with that which we cannot bring ourselves to accept, we dismiss it or ignore it, for the sake of our own comfort, at the expense of understanding.
Tsar of DDO
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:15:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:48:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:

1: This is written by an astrophysicist.

Which makes it true?

2: AIG does not claim to be Philosophical resource, but a resource within the discussion.

I consider claimed scientific resources too.

3: I found the examples to be amazingly accurate. I will cite for you.

- "The Bible cannot be true because it contains miracles. And miracles would violate the laws of nature!"
Great question begging here as the person is presuming the laws of nature cannot be violated.

Begging the question is when the premises assume the conclusion. You can argue that this argument makes assumptions.

P1: The bible contains miracles.
P2: Miracles are violations of the laws of nature.
P3: Violations of the laws of nature are impossible.
C: Therefore the bible is wrong.

This argument does not beg the questions because the premises do not assume the conclusion. However you can argue that there is no evidence that P3 is true.

- "The Bible cannot be true because it teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old; whereas, we know the earth is billions of years old."
This is begging the question spot on.
The person is presuming 'billions of years old' is accurate.

That is also not an example of begging the question.

P1: The earth is millions of years old.
P2: The bible claims the earth is only thousands of years old.
C: The bible is wrong.

Again this is not begging the question because none of the premises is assuming the conclusion. However you can argue with both P1 and P2.

Remember, an incorrect premise does not mean begging the question.

I fundamentally disagree.

Ok, then...what about creationist arguments?

A few bad arguments are the argument from beauty, and the ontological argument, and the argument from religious experience.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:20:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:17:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:19:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism.
Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging.(adherring to popularity)
I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. (personal feeling)
I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates. (based of personal feelings)


The Fool: All "Logicians logic" won't allow for theism. I say Logicians Logic because I have come to notice that theolgins use the term 'word' to refer to a different concept all togther, then Logicians do, A theo-logic, perhaps. Something I know nothing of.

Gileandos: Here is an entry on begging the question.

The Fool: its as good as it gets. You can't presuppose what you are trying to prove!
Its just your typical circular argument, under with a different 'lable'.

The Fool is correct. He is also correct on the other posts on this thread. It's convenient that he's been ignored, but unsurprising.

Often when we find ourselves confronted with that which we cannot bring ourselves to accept, we dismiss it or ignore it, for the sake of our own comfort, at the expense of understanding.

The Fool: Its speaks for itself. Silence is the best response in a debate forum. Because people are only going to say something if they feel confident enought to refute, it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:00:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 10:20:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:17:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:19:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism.
Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging.(adherring to popularity)
I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. (personal feeling)
I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates. (based of personal feelings)


The Fool: All "Logicians logic" won't allow for theism. I say Logicians Logic because I have come to notice that theolgins use the term 'word' to refer to a different concept all togther, then Logicians do, A theo-logic, perhaps. Something I know nothing of.

Gileandos: Here is an entry on begging the question.

The Fool: its as good as it gets. You can't presuppose what you are trying to prove!
Its just your typical circular argument, under with a different 'lable'.

The Fool is correct. He is also correct on the other posts on this thread. It's convenient that he's been ignored, but unsurprising.

Often when we find ourselves confronted with that which we cannot bring ourselves to accept, we dismiss it or ignore it, for the sake of our own comfort, at the expense of understanding.

The Fool: Its speaks for itself. Silence is the best response in a debate forum. Because people are only going to say something if they feel confident enought to refute, it.

Indeed.
Tsar of DDO
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 11:09:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 9:17:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:19:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism.
Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging.(adherring to popularity)
I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. (personal feeling)
I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates. (based of personal feelings)


The Fool: All "Logicians logic" won't allow for theism. I say Logicians Logic because I have come to notice that theolgins use the term 'word' to refer to a different concept all togther, then Logicians do, A theo-logic, perhaps. Something I know nothing of.

Gileandos: Here is an entry on begging the question.

The Fool: its as good as it gets. You can't presuppose what you are trying to prove!
Its just your typical circular argument, under with a different 'lable'.

The Fool is correct. He is also correct on the other posts on this thread. It's convenient that he's been ignored, but unsurprising.

Often when we find ourselves confronted with that which we cannot bring ourselves to accept, we dismiss it or ignore it, for the sake of our own comfort, at the expense of understanding.

First, be careful where you sit.
Proverbs 1:1 -
"Blessed is the man who does NOT walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers"
She is a mocker and scoffer. You are new here and do not know who she is.

Second,
It is a she and she is very immature. She has been banned in the past for poor behavior.

Third,
She does not speak clearly enough. I have no desire to spend time debating on what I think she meant by what she said and what she thinks she meant by what she said. I can think of better ways to throw away my life.

Fourth,
It is a sin to bring your own personal bitterness against me here.
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2012 11:32:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/4/2012 11:09:36 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/3/2012 9:17:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:19:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:50:01 AM, Gileandos wrote:
http://www.skepdic.com...

The skeptics dictionary, a bias compilation against all forms of theism.
Even the readers comment points out these examples are not question begging.(adherring to popularity)
I have become more and more appalled at literally the mountains of information on the internet that represents itself as scholastic when it is not by any stretch of the imagination. (personal feeling)
I have seen more and more debates utilizing low quality cite sourcing in debates. (based of personal feelings)


The Fool: All "Logicians logic" won't allow for theism. I say Logicians Logic because I have come to notice that theolgins use the term 'word' to refer to a different concept all togther, then Logicians do, A theo-logic, perhaps. Something I know nothing of.

Gileandos: Here is an entry on begging the question.

The Fool: its as good as it gets. You can't presuppose what you are trying to prove!
Its just your typical circular argument, under with a different 'lable'.

The Fool is correct. He is also correct on the other posts on this thread. It's convenient that he's been ignored, but unsurprising.

Often when we find ourselves confronted with that which we cannot bring ourselves to accept, we dismiss it or ignore it, for the sake of our own comfort, at the expense of understanding.

First, be careful where you sit.

lol

Proverbs 1:1 -
"Blessed is the man who does NOT walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers"
She is a mocker and scoffer. You are new here and do not know who she is.

I grow tired of your bombast. And I'm not new here. I've been here longer than you.

Second,
It is a she and she is very immature. She has been banned in the past for poor behavior.

Whatever.


Third,
She does not speak clearly enough. I have no desire to spend time debating on what I think she meant by what she said and what she thinks she meant by what she said. I can think of better ways to throw away my life.

I'm sure you have a point to lambasting another member on the open forums, but I'm not especially interested in it.


Fourth,
It is a sin to bring your own personal bitterness against me here.

I am not biter against you. But in this instance (in this thread and other), once again, you're talking about what you do not understand. That does irritate me. And when you are confronted about it, you make it personal. That really irritated me. Now it doesn't. You're a hypocrite and a judgmental, petulant child. This isn't me judging you, btw, that is me describing how you have behaved. You question others faith, go out of your way to flame other members, and now have developed a victim complex.

If you think you're a better Christian then I am, then so be it. If you feel like it's your place to judge the faith of others, more power to you. If you think it's appropriate to cavalierly use scripture to try to achieve that, ok. You're the person you're affecting, not me. If you want to have a rational discussion about logical fallacies, then please do respond. If not.... whatever.

And by the way, the Fool is smarter than you. I've dealt with him in other threads that would have gone well over your head. He's strange, but a significantly more valuable member to DDO then you, because unlike you, the Fool has actually contributed.
Tsar of DDO