Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: trippymonkey on May 20, 2016, 08:51:38 PM
-
https://www.facebook.com/theirisnogod/
Has anyone else here seen this facebook page ???
VERY interesting but BEWARE all religionists - it MAY cause you to think although we ALL know at least 2 on here that gave THAT up longggg ago !?!??! ;) ;) ::) ::) ::) ;D
Nick
-
https://www.facebook.com/theirisnogod/
Has anyone else here seen this facebook page ???
VERY interesting but BEWARE all religionists - it MAY cause you to think although we ALL know at least 2 on here that gave THAT up longggg ago !?!??! ;) ;) ::) ::) ::) ;D
Nick
Trippy, you aren't Rickrolling are you?
-
No - I always sit like this ?!!??! LOL
-
If the creator of this page can't even spell their subtitle correctly, is it worthy of being taken seriously? ;)
-
Oh Dear - Ignoring ALL the site cos of some spelling ?!?!!?
TUT TUT !!!! How hardened a Christian are you ?!!!??
-
Oh Dear - Ignoring ALL the site cos of some spelling ?!?!!?
TUT TUT !!!! How hardened a Christian are you ?!!!??
Well, there doesn't seem to be anything on the site that hasn't been said over the last 2000 years, and also repudiated by the same type of people who are quoted on the site. One doesn't have to be a particularly hard person, whether of faith or not, to realise that it doesn't seem to be saying much. The spelling mistake is so blatant as to simply reinforce the sense of its going nowhere.
-
'that it's going nowhere'
-
'that it's going nowhere'
Thanks for that, NS. I'm aware of the missing apostrophe, but the use of 'of' was intentional, since one can be 'aware of' something, as well as 'aware that'. One doesn't have to be very bright to be aware of the fact that the 'site and its arguments' (as a singularity) is going nowhere.
-
Intentionally wrong then.
-
If the creator of this page can't even spell their subtitle correctly, is it worthy of being taken seriously?
Yes, it is, because while I detest bad spelling and poor grammar as much as the next grammar Nazi, an argument if sound on its own terms isn't invalidated by a spelling mistake in the words in which it's couched. So the answer to your question, again, is yes.
Thinking otherwise is yet another fallacy. Or rather, at least one certain fallacy - the red herring or ignoratio elenchi, the main fallacy of relevance - and potentially two, the other being ad hominem.
So it goes.
-
Oh Dear - Ignoring ALL the site cos of some spelling ?!?!!?
TUT TUT !!!! How hardened a Christian are you ?!!!??
Chief inspector the Right Reverend Bluehillside has herded his flock away from many of my posts on the pretext of Bad Grammar.......In my humble opinion. Why should we accept it from an antitheist?
-
Intentionally wrong then.
Not so, because I wasn't trying to say what I assume you're hoping I was trying to say.
-
Yes, it is, because while I detest bad spelling and poor grammar as much as the next grammar Nazi, an argument if sound on its own terms isn't invalidated by a spelling mistake in the words in which it's couched. So the answer to your question, again, is yes.
Thinking otherwise is yet another fallacy. Or rather, at least one certain fallacy - the red herring or ignoratio elenchi, the main fallacy of relevance - and potentially two, the other being ad hominem.
So it goes.
Sorry, Shakes, if a site or argument is as hackneyed and lacking in anything new as this Facebook page is, the fact that the author is unable to even get a basic spelling correct simply highlights the poor quality of that argument or site. You can throw in your much-beloved fallacy arguments to your heart's content, but none of them make the site's argument any more viable.
-
Chief inspector the Right Reverend Bluehillside has herded his flock away from many of my posts on the pretext of Bad Grammar.......In my humble opinion. Why should we accept it from an antitheist?
Vlad, several people herd others away from 'many' of your posts on the grounds of irrelevance or incomprehensibility.
-
Sorry, Shakes, if a site or argument is as hackneyed and lacking in anything new as this Facebook page is, the fact that the author is unable to even get a basic spelling correct simply highlights the poor quality of that argument or site.
No, actually, it doesn't. I've explained why.
You can throw in your much-beloved fallacy arguments to your heart's content
Somebody loves fallacy arguments around here and it certainly isn't me.
but none of them make the site's argument any more viable.
Or any less. An argument stands or falls on its own merits - coherence and internal consistency, let's say - and isn't rendered invalid by poor spelling.
I've explained this already.
Either you're capable of understanding this principle of basic logic or you are not.
Given your form in this regard my money is on the latter.
-
Vlad, several people herd others away from 'many' of your posts on the grounds of irrelevance or incomprehensibility.
All my posts are great.....some are comprehensible......but all of them are great.
-
Wish I'd taken a screenshot of the original version of your post before you changed it >:(
-
You can throw in your much-beloved fallacy arguments to your heart's content...
What is it with you and logical fallacies? Do you deny the validity of logic, do you think the fallacies that you continually use are not actually fallacious, or do you think that those fallacies do not apply to your posts?
In the first case, you would be denying reason and hence declaring yourself to be unreasonable. In the second two, you would be able to back up your position using logic, and yet you never even try...
-
Wish I'd taken a screenshot of the original version of your post before you changed it >:(
I knew you'd try, that's why I got in quick.
-
All my posts are great.....some are comprehensible......but all of them are great.
No Vlad, the word is spelled G-R-A-T-E.
-
No Vlad, the word is spelled G-R-A-T-E.
Response time 11 minutes 28 seconds.......Loving the quickfire wit, Shaker.
-
Dear Trip,
That's a very nice site :( we have a saying in Scotland, jist gonnae no dae that, I will add, please ;)
Gonnagle.
-
G
That's Ahl Reet then !!!
-
What is it with you and logical fallacies? Do you deny the validity of logic, do you think the fallacies that you continually use are not actually fallacious, or do you think that those fallacies do not apply to your posts?
I think the problem with some here is they believe that logic is limited to physical, naturalistic concepts and therefore formulaic in a scientific way. I happen to believe that logic reaches beyond this blinkered understanding. For instance (and I've used this example before), I've often challenged people to explain 'love', and the most common response is that it has to do with chemical reactions in the brain. Logically, that doesn't make sense, because chemical reactions don't 'just' happen - there has to be some sort of catalyst or action that initiates the reaction: in other words, the chemical reactions in the brain are symptoms or markers of something else. To extend the example, love isn't a drippy, soft, fuzzy emotion as many like to believe it is: it can be soft and tender, but equally it can be hard and painful.
In the first case, you would be denying reason and hence declaring yourself to be unreasonable. In the second two, you would be able to back up your position using logic, and yet you never even try...
Clearly, you are short on logic yourself, so until you show that you've overcome that shortcoming, I won't be taking any lessons in logic from you.
-
Or any less. An argument stands or falls on its own merits - coherence and internal consistency, let's say - and isn't rendered invalid by poor spelling.
You seem to be suffering from the 'fallacy' of disagreeing with me (and other posters) only then to restate what we have said, but using different vocabulary.
I've explained this already.
Either you're capable of understanding this principle of basic logic or you are not.
Given your form in this regard my money is on the latter.
The problem, as I've pointed out to SKoS, is that you and others seem very keen to limit the scope of logic to what you feel comfortable with.
-
Clearly, you are short on logic yourself
When bereft of argument, break glass and reach for the tu quoque.
so until you show that you've overcome that shortcoming, I won't be taking any lessons in logic from you.
You've more than amply demonstrated in your time here that you are constitutionally incapable of taking lessons from anyone on anything, because you are unable to take on board and process any new information that conflicts with your Christian mindset programming. The most obvious example of this is the number of times that you've been told that you are deploying a logical fallacy - typically of the negative proof variety, though many of the other main ones get a workout at some point - with carefully and clearly explained reasons, only for you to crash on regardless, still deploying the same aberrant reasoning processes as ever, as though nothing had ever happened.
-
You seem to be suffering from the 'fallacy' of disagreeing with me (and other posters) only then to restate what we have said, but using different vocabulary.
I have no idea what the scare quotes are for - a recognition on your part that you're using the word illegitimately, perhaps. It's not a fallacy to point out that somebody is employing a fallacy when they are actually doing so. Restatement comes when somebody is either unwilling or simply unable to grasp something the first time round - like you with fallacious reasoning. If you can't, or won't, grasp something once, whatever the reason for that may be, it's worth the effort of saying precisely the same thing albeit in different terms in case that catches hold where the first explication didn't.
Alas, past that point there seems little point in continuing.
The problem, as I've pointed out to SKoS, is that you and others seem very keen to limit the scope of logic to what you feel comfortable with.
No, it has zero to do with comfort. The real problem is that you are either too blinkered/arrogant to recognise that there are certain rules of logic that you routinely flout because the pointing out of these rules demonstrates that you are in the wrong, or just plain old too stupid to grasp said rules when they are brought to your attention. It's either arrogant, pompous I'm-right-and-the-rules-of-logic-are-wrong-ery, or it's simple stupidity. If there is another option or there are other options, I'm yet to see it or them. Every time you wheel out the "There is no evidence that there isn't ... " or "Where is your evidence that it didn't ..." or something similarly worded - that's the most common logical fallacy that you habitually employ, of course, though not the only one - you demonstrate an elementary failure of logic. Many different posters here have pointed this out to you many, many different times over an extended period of time; this makes absolutely no difference to you whatever, and you continue to make the same basic errors in reasoning. I can't currently call to mind the exact word-for-word quote but Churchill supposedly once said that men occasionally stumble across the truth, but most pick themselves up and carry on as though nothing had happened. That's a perfect capsule summary of your approach to correction from people who understand logic; it never happened - blunder on regardless.
As far as I can see, there are only two reasons for that state of affairs. There's the disagreeable mix of arrogance and wounded pride - nobody particularly likes being told: "Actually you're wrong, and this is the reason/here are the reasons why you're wrong ..." - or dumb incomprehension.
-
For instance (and I've used this example before), I've often challenged people to explain 'love', and the most common response is that it has to do with chemical reactions in the brain. Logically, that doesn't make sense, because chemical reactions don't 'just' happen - there has to be some sort of catalyst or action that initiates the reaction: in other words, the chemical reactions in the brain are symptoms or markers of something else. To extend the example, love isn't a drippy, soft, fuzzy emotion as many like to believe it is: it can be soft and tender, but equally it can be hard and painful.
I think the problem with some here is they believe that logic is limited to physical, naturalistic concepts and therefore formulaic in a scientific way. I happen to believe that logic reaches beyond this blinkered understanding. For instance (and I've used this example before), I've often challenged people to explain 'love', and the most common response is that it has to do with chemical reactions in the brain. Logically, that doesn't make sense, because chemical reactions don't 'just' happen - there has to be some sort of catalyst or action that initiates the reaction: in other words, the chemical reactions in the brain are symptoms or markers of something else.
And your evidence for this is what exactly?
Why doesn't it make sense?
Emotions (including love) can clearly be manipulated by changing the physiology of the brain. I mean this is basic stuff, drink a bottle of Vodka, take LSD and your emotions will change.
Chemical reaction do "just happen". The direction of reaction is determined by the Gibbs' free energy change, which is the arbiter of enthalpic and entropic components.
You are way out of your depth here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
-
Emotions (including love) can clearly be manipulated by changing the physiology of the brain. I mean this is basic stuff, drink a bottle of Vodka, take LSD and your emotions will change.
I used to read the Richard Gordon books when I was much much younger: he also said that changing somebody's emotional state is trivially easy - have a couple of room-temperature drinks on an empty stomach. Bingo bongo, emotional state changed.
I would love to hear an explanation of this from the supernaturalists.
-
I think the problem with some here is they believe that logic is limited to physical, naturalistic concepts and therefore formulaic in a scientific way. I happen to believe that logic reaches beyond this blinkered understanding.
Bully for you - so what do academic logicians working in, say, University departments think about your beliefs on the scope of formal logic.
For instance (and I've used this example before), I've often challenged people to explain 'love', and the most common response is that it has to do with chemical reactions in the brain.
All our subjective feelings and emotions are brain-bound though, unless you can demonstrate differently - assuming you can't, which seems like a safe bet, then you are just expressing either your reluctance to accept reasonable points which don't accord with your preferred perspective or your inability to understand well-established knowledge regarding our biology.
Logically, that doesn't make sense, because chemical reactions don't 'just' happen - there has to be some sort of catalyst or action that initiates the reaction: in other words, the chemical reactions in the brain are symptoms or markers of something else. To extend the example, love isn't a drippy, soft, fuzzy emotion as many like to believe it is: it can be soft and tender, but equally it can be hard and painful.
This is a fallacious argument from personal incredulity, and as such has no merit.
Clearly, you are short on logic yourself, so until you show that you've overcome that shortcoming, I won't be taking any lessons in logic from you.
You certainly need logic lessons from someone - a good place to start would be how to avoid repeatedly falling into fallacies.
-
I used to read the Richard Gordon books when I was much much younger: he also said that changing somebody's emotional state is trivially easy - have a couple of room-temperature drinks on an empty stomach. Bingo bongo, emotional state changed.
I would love to hear an explanation of this from the supernaturalists.
Hope you don't mind me emphasising this. I did it out of love.
-
I think the problem with some here is they believe that logic is limited to physical, naturalistic concepts and therefore formulaic in a scientific way.
Ah, that's your problem! You don't understand what logic is.
Logic is not dependant on what you use it for. Science uses logic - there is no scientific (or naturalistic, or physical) logic - just logic.
Logical fallacies are fallacies no matter what the subject matter. It is just about the form of the argument.
For example, the negative proof fallacy is a fallacy whether it's applied, science, religion, whether it's raining, if there is a largest prime number, or if there is a teapot orbiting Mars - to anything at all that can be true or false.
I happen to believe that logic reaches beyond this blinkered understanding. For instance (and I've used this example before), I've often challenged people to explain 'love', and the most common response is that it has to do with chemical reactions in the brain. Logically, that doesn't make sense, because chemical reactions don't 'just' happen - there has to be some sort of catalyst or action that initiates the reaction: in other words, the chemical reactions in the brain are symptoms or markers of something else. To extend the example, love isn't a drippy, soft, fuzzy emotion as many like to believe it is: it can be soft and tender, but equally it can be hard and painful.
This is a digression that again illustrates your ignorance of the term. The only obvious connection to logic is that it appears to contain an argument from incredulity fallacy.
Clearly, you are short on logic yourself, so until you show that you've overcome that shortcoming, I won't be taking any lessons in logic from you.
I suggest you start by learning what the term means.
-
You certainly need logic lessons from someone - a good place to start would be how to avoid repeatedly falling into fallacies.
I admire your boundless optimism, but on past showing what on earth leads you to think that this would do any good in any way whatsoever?
-
I admire your boundless optimism, but on past showing what on earth leads you to think that this would do any good in any way whatsoever?
It is just my optimism I fear.
I suspect Hope's rose-tinted theoglasses (and it seems that some of his fellow Christians have also acquired these items) are permanently welded on - just as polaroid sunglasses prevent glare these theoglasses prevent the intrusion of reason and logic while allowing the flow of fallacies in the opposite direction.
Thankfully, here in the UK at least, the demand for these items is progressively reducing and stocks may well be running low (but meantime they are still on offer at branches of 'Soulsavers').
-
I suspect Hope's rose-tinted theoglasses (and it seems that some of his fellow Christians have also acquired these items) are permanently welded on - just as polaroid sunglasses prevent glare these theoglasses prevent the intrusion of reason and logic while allowing the flow of fallacies in the opposite direction.
Tinted glasses, yes. But photo-chromatic, rather than rose-tinted.
In fact, I believe that I have suggested in the past that the rose-tintedness is more on your and your fellow-travellers' side.
Thankfully, here in the UK at least, the demand for these items is progressively reducing and stocks may well be running low (but meantime they are still on offer at branches of 'Soulsavers').
I haven't noticed that the demand is progressively reducing, Gordon. The number of atheists and antitheists on this board seem to be racking the demand steadily upwards.
-
Tinted glasses, yes. But photo-chromatic, rather than rose-tinted.
In fact, I believe that I have suggested in the past that the rose-tintedness is more on your and your fellow-travellers' side.
So you have, but sadly your attempts are so mired in various fallacies (which have been pointed out to you repeatedly) that they don't get off the ground.
I haven't noticed that the demand is progressively reducing, Gordon.
So here in the UK Christianity is thriving is it - that isn't borne out by evidence, where in the bit of the UK where I am religious affiliation is in decline.
The number of atheists and antitheists on this board seem to be racking the demand steadily upwards.
Really - by what mechanism are we doing this?
-
In fact, I believe that I have suggested in the past that the rose-tintedness is more on your and your fellow-travellers' side.
Well, you can 'suggest' any old twaddle can't you? And do.
I haven't noticed that the demand is progressively reducing, Gordon.
Again we're faced with a simple binary; either you're unacquainted with the contrary evidence, or don't want to take it on board.
The number of atheists and antitheists
Uh oh; I smell the dead hand of Vlad ...
on this board seem to be racking the demand steadily upwards.
Evidence of this?
-
I won't be taking any lessons in logic from you.
Well, you are clearly in need of lessons from somebody. You obviously don't believe people on this forum, so why not take a look at this introduction (it even has exercises to try, with answers, so you can check your understanding)?
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/120/9-logic.htm
-
https://www.facebook.com/theirisnogod/
Has anyone else here seen this facebook page ???
VERY interesting but BEWARE all religionists - it MAY cause you to think although we ALL know at least 2 on here that gave THAT up longggg ago !?!??! ;) ;) ::) ::) ::) ;D
Nick
What I thought of the little image of the pig and Muslim was unrepeatable.
It's gross and a reflection of the moron who created it.
That's what it makes me think. >:(.
It certainly won't cause me to reflect on religion in a negative way.
Just a loss of respect for people that create such garbage.
There isn't much on there to make someone think, it's full of rubbish!
>:(
-
https://www.facebook.com/theirisnogod/
Has anyone else here seen this facebook page ???
VERY interesting but BEWARE all religionists - it MAY cause you to think although we ALL know at least 2 on here that gave THAT up longggg ago !?!??! ;) ;) ::) ::) ::) ;D
Nick
Nick, are you sober yet?
Had to laugh that anyone would want to be associated with such a page.
Attention seeking at it's worst and yet definitely at it's attention grabbing best.
Do we really need all that stupid insults and sexual provocation against Islam or any religion.
If being an atheist made something like that acceptable then perhaps the thinking person is slowly and sadly in decline.
That was a No. No. even for you. Hope you are not a member of that particular group.
Now we all have to wash our eyes and minds to forget the sight of the humping going on there...
Tell me... did it actually give anyone the hump it is too ridiculous to be angry about. It is a joke.
:)
-
No - I always sit like this ?!!??! LOL
More the way you 'tell em'.
-
If the creator of this page can't even spell their subtitle correctly, is it worthy of being taken seriously? ;)
Aaaargh,
You actually gave this the time of day... I cannot believe anyone really feels it worthy of debate...
Spelling correctly or not... ;D
I see Nicks humour is rocking... ;D
-
AI thank you all !!!
Leaves stage left !!