|
|
#181 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Saying "Argument x applies in context y" doesn't mean anything if context y is just as retarded as argument x, which often enough happens to be the case by necessity. Thus I should hope you would see why your continual doing of this pisses me the hell off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#182 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Using something as evidence for or against, in an argument that is well outside the bounds of the kind of argument the thing was intended to be evidence for or against tends to have the natural effect of making it not stand up very well.
Quote:
I didn't say you were only allowed to object to Pascal from inside Pascal. I said that Pascal was starting from very specific premises when framing his wager, and so if your problem is with the premises, you need simply prove that the premises are incorrect (which you made a strong argument for, and I agree with you) and then simply don't bother addressing the argument at all, because, having disproved the premises as true, the entire thing falls apart. My whole issue was with the fact that the previous poster said that the prospect of the larger theological stage in which the world operates made Pascals "guarenteed outcome" not guarenteed, when premise 1 of Pascal's wager is "Assume that iff there is a God, it is the christian god" The question the original poster was addressing had no room for Pascal at all, because Pascal's wager doesn't allow for itself to be considered in the larger theological stage. I was correcting what appeared to be a misunderstanding of the scope of Pascal's wager, and therefore using it in a context where it was not appropriate to prove another point (Thus, my claim of straw man) As so often seems to be the case Kilroy, I make a minor statement that is intended merely to clear up one single use of something in a thread, and instead of seeing where and why and how I was framing what I said, you leap directly to some larger context issue that has nothing to do with what I was saying, and we get drawn into this (albiet enjoyable and fascinating) discussion about some wholly unconnected problem to the problem at hand. My entire issue that sparked this back-and-forth was basically "You used Pascal to prove your point, in a situation where I don't feel using Pascal made any sense" That's all...nothing more. I wasn't trying to declaim disagreeing with anything by pointing to larger issues, I wasn't trying to claim that Pascal's wager was the God's own truth, I was just pointing out that it is only really meaningful to consider Pascal's wager from a christian perspective, because (As you went to great lengths to point out) in a larger perspective, his entire point doesn't work. All kinds of arguments and experiments are conducted starting from premises that are in some cases even provably false. (I've taken part in physics experiments that assumed a frictionless universe, that assumed gravitational constants other than the one which is presumed to exist) They set up beforehand the context in which they are claiming to work, and so only -want- to be judged within the context in which they are claiming to work. If I hatch a clever scheme to abuse the welfare system in Canada, pointing out that the welfare system doesn't work that way in the United States does an excellent job of proving why you couldn't use my scheme in the United States, but does no job at all in proving why I couldn't use my scheme in Canada. Last edited by devonin; 06-16-2007 at 03:16 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#183 | ||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's effectively what you've said. Yo which my reply was "here is a given context, including all necessary foundational assumptions. You can argue against it, just do not introduce any extra or contradictory assumptions from an external source." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the context of mid 20th century German antisemitism, the Jew is responsible for the social and moral degradation of society. The intellectual climate of the time focused around very specific types of thought, including politicized concepts of evolution and the notions of certain philosophers. Now, given that the claims made in this particular antisemitic tradition are made from within a very specific section of intellectual tradition and thus have limited scope, analyzing the validity of the statement from other ways of intellectual thought is noncontextual. Therefore you can't do it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, but here's another contextualization, whether you like it or not. There are plenty of martial arts techniques which only work in the Dojo. Much of Shotokan Karate is designed with the goal of being able to counter other practitioners of Shotokan Karate. However, in terms of actual fights other arts have both more efficient counters and more efficiency on the whole. So while you can technically say "this is a valid move when taken within the context of Shotokan karate", you're GOING TO F U C K I NG DIE if you fight outside the Dojo. And while you might say "So? It's still sound strategy in the context of the art", you're effectively saying that within the context of an UNSOUND art, UNSOUND STRATEGY WORKS. How about that? There's equivalency there. The functionality of a given system, of thought or of combat or whatever, includes its errors as part of the functionality. So of course you wouldn't understand them as errors except in comparison to a system that doesn't have them. And since you've ruled out such comparison, calling it a strawman, you're effectively given yourself the gift of looking at any singular system through rose colored glasses and going "I can see the sense in that". |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#184 | |||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
As you seem to keep misunderstanding, my issue wasn't with the way Pascal's Wager was necessarily described, my issue was that in being used for this particular arguement, one of two things needed to be happening: 1) The person posting was under a misapprehension of what the Wager was referring to or b) They're just no good at picking evidence to support their claim. And I chose to assume it was the one that gave them the most credit. Quote:
The fact that there is a much larger theological stage in which to be asking Pascal's question makes Pascal's question invalid, not wrong. And being invalid (as it is based on false premises when taken in the larger theological stage) holding up a patently invalid argument to try and make your point is bad logic. I can hold up a thousand equally invalid points, can make them up as I go, if that somehow proves my point correct (which of course it doesn't) Quote:
Quote:
If Hitler had written Mein Kampf about how just his Jewish neighbour was responsible for all of the evil in the world, and nobody else...using what he said in Mein Kampf as evidence that all Jewish people were responsible for the evils of the world would be closer in line to what I'm getting at. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Shotokan as a self-defense martial art is assuming a few basic things: Most namely, that you will be within physical striking range of your attacker in order to use any of the techniques you've been taught. As such, an situation that goes "I have a rifle, and I'm going to start shooting people from across the square. Looks like Mr Shotokan wasted all his time learning martial arts, because he's going to get shot from 50 feet away" and concluding therefore that Shotokan Karate specifically is a completely useless martial art is just a very bad argument in which to reference any specific martial art. Because when they all start from the foundational principle that you will be in a physical fight with someone, any situation in which there is the explicit statement that you will not be in physical contact with your attacker renders -any- discussion of martial arts in that situation completely invalid. In the face of a trained rifleman from 100 feet away, -any- martial art that doesn't explicity carry the ability to dodge accurately fired bullets is equally useless. Using the fact that bullets work from far away to say that martial arts are -completely- invalid makes no sense, because you are forcing them into a context that they make no pretensions about applying to. Thus, by presenting the argument as far -more- universal than it ever tried to be, in order to prove it wrong, is a strawman. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#185 | |||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
... ... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Apparently you're completely incapable of realizing the complete absurdity of your position. This is truly the most depressing set of events I've experienced in a long while. The heavy modification of pascal's wager is not a statement of complete invalidity, it is a way of validating the original method of deduction by removing its errors. It is saying "pascal's original wager is invalid because of new data x, y, z, however pascal's wager was originally designed to serve function P. Pascal's wager can be made to serve function P by adapting to the new data x, y, z". If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to do with you. Last edited by Kilroy_x; 06-16-2007 at 03:49 PM.. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#186 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I describe my position, and you -tell- me "Actually, what you really mean is -this-" and go on to state something that does not actually reflect what I meant at all.
As I continue to keep trying to explain what I mean, and you keep jumping to the same conclusions about what I -really- mean that aren't correct, I find myself wondering whether the fault lies with me for not explaining myself well, or with you for being so dead-set on proving wrong a statement of mine that I never even made, that you aren't seeing what I'm saying. Let me try this -again- The person took a random and idle shot in passing at Pascal's Wager while talking about something that I felt had nothing to do with Pascal's Wager. I said "That's really not anything to do with Pascal's Wager" That's it. That's all. I felt they mentioned apples during a discussion of oranges, and said so. That's all. I really don't see how this needed or wanted to devolve into some grandiose claims of my absurdity and intellectual bankruptcy when it comes to knowledge of debate and how to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#187 | ||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#188 | |
|
Banned
|
Quote:
Firstly, in my opinion and in being an atheist, this is my interpretation of God. Say for example, a child is in a dark room, and is afraid of what might be in his or her closet, simply because they can't see what's there. They will begin to speculate what might be in there, and eventually, come up with a hideously scary monster which may devour them, if it pleases. Now, let's look at our society. We are humans, living in a vast, dark universe, and a lot of what's out there is still unknown to us. You know where I'm going with this... we begin to speculate what's out there, and in our case, what created us and controls us. Because there's no one to give us an answer, like a parent to the child, we assume there is a "God" which has created us, and lurks out in the vast universe. And as such, I believe God is simply a variable for what is unknown to us. Now, back to your article... firstly I believe your cousin is very dense in stating that it's common knowledge that there is a God, as this is only one view on a highly controversial topic. This seems like a very arrogant statement to me, but despite this I'll continue reading... What scientific proof is there that a God exists? I've never heard a single fact in that field which indeed gives proof of God's existence, and I would be intrigued to see some. It's really too bad your cousin gives no examples here what so ever from a high-ranked personal in the science field... another display of laking intelligence... I'll continue further in the article... Time is a very complex mechanism, I personally know next to nothing about it, so I can't really pose much argument about it. However, stating that God has been around since the start of the universe is a very cliché thing for a religious person to say, and nothing special in my opinion... further along we go... Yes, indeed there are many religions with reference to the same God. This however, does reflect the fact that we are also all humans. Now, in having this similarity, I will refer back to the child and the closet. Each of those religions is a different interpretation of the same monster in the closet. Does this mean there is ACTUALLY a monster in the closet? I think not... and finally... All birds in a cage and God is the keeper... another highly over-used idea used by religious people when trying to describe our relationship with God. Who's to say we're in a cage. What if we're simply free birds. A scary thought, I guess, for someone who believes in god, to be out alone in a strange universe without a master. And what's this... a new outlook on life? HA! I find that rather humorous, when this is quite possibly the most generic religious article I've ever seen. I'm sorry, but this article really just takes what anyone trying to persuade others to believe in their religion would say, and does it poorly. Once again, this is not a flame, and if you do have an argument against any I have presented please feel free to state them and we'll debate further. TY. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#189 |
|
FFR Player
|
ehhh, not any particular religion. I prefer not to let religions interfere with my life.. and yes, I use the term "interfere" because that's what they do for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#190 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
"All birds in a cage and God is the keeper"
Does this quote not bring out the idea that we are not simply people with life, liberty, or property but servants to a god where "All birds in a cage and God is the keeper"? Why does this quote sound anywhere near right to anyone? Sure, some god may be greater than us, but if any god is to a human what a parent is to us, we shouldn't be full blown servants to our parents or god(s) (if they exist). If a god really was like a parent, wouldn't he/she allow us to have the freedom to release us from such a "cage"? Any god who wants to keep us in such a "cage" is denying rights unless the "cage" is for what I define as a bad person (limiting life, liberty, or property without a justifiable cause). |
|
|
|
|
|
#191 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6
|
he doesnt want to be a parent or keep us in a cage. I think that he is allowing us to figure things out for our selves.We do have freedom its really not like he chooses for us.we all choose for our selves.we can choose to either be a good person in his eyes or do what we want even if it is going against what it is he wants.I dont think he would limit what a "bad" person would do either.you really choose your own path.stuff happens and its not really His fault.I think that He helps you along the way through life but desnt guide it step by step or by every tiny detail of your life but He is still there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#192 |
|
FFR Player
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#193 | |
|
Banned
|
Quote:
And I suppose God is helping out all those poor starving people in the streets as they go, right? Get one of them to give you their opinion, and see how much God has done for them. It's not like they were bad children, or did anything wrong in the eyes of God to deserve a fate like this, they were born into it. And what's your reasoning for that? Is God selective with who gets to live a good life, and who takes all the crap? I thought we were all supposed to be equal in his eyes. Right... Right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#194 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wouldn't you like to know
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
Without reading other post I'm going to say/type what's on my mind. God may or have may not have existed. I don't think we can really trust most of the stuff in the bible (Old testement) because, it's (Supposedly) over 2000 years old, was manipulated by the church, and we don't know who translated it. But then again, how was matter created in the first place? Who put it all in our universe so that we could evolve? Oh and i think Bamboozler was right about evry religion pointing at the same "Monster" because they do have the same feature... kinda..
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Fat kid rules the world. And space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#195 |
|
FFR Player
|
I do not believe there to be a god in any context. The apostles were simple mortal men as any other man. They followed the teachings of Jesus well, but when they chose to wrote a book, what kept them from lying? I mean, Man is man, man is capable of anything.
Another possible reason it doesn't exist as a recent news article had caught my interest. Recent discoveries yielded a temple of a god, I cannot recall where or who, but it was a known god of some religion. They'd found various things you'd see, offerings and the like. They also found drugs of some sort. It made me think that, if the drugs existed and could impair judgement, were the people of the past deluded into a god because of a psychadelic experience? Take LSD, I believe it can make you see holes in the floor, if not LSD, some drug does. Now if this possible drug can make you see holes, can it not make you also see "spirits". I'm simply very skeptical of religion because it cannot co-exist with current religion. Take the muslim faith, they want everyone to be muslim, IE destroy the infidels or christians or whatever it is. Did he want it to occur violently like they do it? Simply doesn't stand true to the nature. I never heard of Allah blessing AK-47's, have you?
__________________
Formerly known as Almsty. (AlMsTy744, look it up.) |
|
|
|
|
|
#196 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
__________________
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." - Frank Lloyd Wright |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#197 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Ironically, the koran has many interesting literary tidbits in it, for example: the words male and female, and the words he and she appear an identical number of times in the original text, to reflect how everyone is equal in the eyes of God.
Funny how the twisting of church texts to create church doctrine gives so many people an ill view of how the original stated intent was meant to be carried out. Remember: Church != Faith, and Dogma != Doctrine |
|
|
|
|
|
#198 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 411
|
Wonderful.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#199 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. 2:228 When ye rise up for prayer, wash you faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles. And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it. 5:6 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. 24:31 Not to say the bible is any better... And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. Leviticus 12:1-5 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Matthew 5:32 (it's not just the church and the dogma, my friend.)
__________________
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." - Frank Lloyd Wright |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#200 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I'm assuming that before you claim that you are displaying the unadorned and original texts of these documents, you explain the english quotes from the koran as the result of your own exhaustive translation work? I'm no muslim scholar, but my information comes from someone who is, someone who is happy to speak at length about his anger and disgust at how what he considers to be the most beautiful piece of writing in existance has been deliberately misinterpreted and cast to support what he certainly seems to have felt were corruptions of the original purpose.
Quote:
So um...yes, it is -precisely- church and dogma. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|