Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 222829303132
Results 466 to 479 of 479

Thread: Evolution vs Creationism---Is there a God? Or is it all just random chance?

  1. #466 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Cymru/ Wails
    Posts
    2,542
    Thanks
    1,049
    Thanked 910 Times in 666 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 926 Times in 851 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You quoted the bible sure, but that's only credible amonst Christians, and the bible is known for its easy to use soundbites for interpretation and you gave very short quotes..
    Surely it depends what bit of that anthology we are talking about? Like, for instance, there were both a Babylonian and a Persian Empire, and the second had a much more tolerant policy. Does that matter for Christians? Only fundamentalists, and to them not much. Like any other series of historical documents, it is full of interesting material to be interpreted, but anyone who sees 'it' as infallible must be Postmodernprofiteer or someone similar.

  2. #467 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 85 Times in 61 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 19 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    /shrugs......like I said.......you ignore fact........besides, as I recall this argument was about what Jesus said.........can you think of a source besides the Bible that we should use?....
    I'm so feeble I know. Won't you help me by providing those sources? What sources should we use when discussing the philosophical ramifications of abortion? Pragmatism? Science? Religion?

    I personally prefer pragmatism. Studies show that countries that allow more women freedom are generally more prosperous. Historically speaking, women have always had that choice. https://allthatsinteresting.com/silphium

  3. #468 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 85 Times in 61 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 19 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Penderyn View Post
    Surely it depends what bit of that anthology we are talking about? Like, for instance, there were both a Babylonian and a Persian Empire, and the second had a much more tolerant policy. Does that matter for Christians? Only fundamentalists, and to them not much. Like any other series of historical documents, it is full of interesting material to be interpreted, but anyone who sees 'it' as infallible must be Postmodernprofiteer or someone similar.
    Anthology from an anthropological sense, but if we're to take their claims seriously that requires theology.

    If you're worried about the similarities between the biblical 'tax' scene and modern society then perhaps I can put you at ease by saying tropes transcend time.

  4. #469 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    87,683
    Thanks
    5,064
    Thanked 24,271 Times in 19,385 Posts
    Groans
    2,081
    Groaned 2,151 Times in 2,048 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    I'm so feeble I know. Won't you help me by providing those sources? What sources should we use when discussing the philosophical ramifications of abortion? Pragmatism? Science? Religion?
    if you want to argue what humanists say I expect you would use humanist sources........since the discussion was centered around what Jesus said......well, I guess the source is obvious, isn't it......

    Historically speaking, women have always had that choice.
    except well, you know.....no......historically speaking, in the US.....pretty much from 1492 until the 1970s, neither women or men had a legal right to kill their unborn children....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  5. #470 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 85 Times in 61 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 19 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    if you want to argue what humanists say I expect you would use humanist sources........since the discussion was centered around what Jesus said......well, I guess the source is obvious, isn't it...
    Uh what? it wasn't "centered" around what Jesus said. Your Bible quotes weren't even from Jesus.

    except well, you know.....no......historically speaking, in the US.....pretty much from 1492 until the 1970s, neither women or men had a legal right to kill their unborn children....
    My sweet summer child. As if the law has command over nature. But go ahead thinking that just because the law said so it never happened.

  6. #471 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    87,683
    Thanks
    5,064
    Thanked 24,271 Times in 19,385 Posts
    Groans
    2,081
    Groaned 2,151 Times in 2,048 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Uh what? it wasn't "centered" around what Jesus said. Your Bible quotes weren't even from Jesus.
    they weren't from Jesus if you refuse to believe that Jesus was God incarnate.......I do not share your refusal, nor do the other 3 billion Christians.......


    As if the law has command over nature.
    don't be silly........killing your unborn child is not natural......
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  7. #472 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Cymru/ Wails
    Posts
    2,542
    Thanks
    1,049
    Thanked 910 Times in 666 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 926 Times in 851 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Anthology from an anthropological sense, but if we're to take their claims seriously that requires theology.

    If you're worried about the similarities between the biblical 'tax' scene and modern society then perhaps I can put you at ease by saying tropes transcend time.
    Why should I be worried?

  8. #473 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,738
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 1,179 Times in 925 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 32 Times in 32 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Contextual fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
    Fallacy Fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You broke apart the sentence to suggest we're debating in a snide attempt to ignore the context of 'debate class'
    No, just responding directly to what you said.

    However, I am open to the possibility that when you said "debate or logic class" that you meant "debate [class] or logic class" instead of "debate [itself] or logic class". You would have to clarify what you meant there, and I could adjust my response accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    I never denied that we're debating, conversing, chatting etc.
    I will take this to mean that you meant "debate [class] or logic class" instead of "debate [itself] or logic class". So good, then you're not denying that we're debating. That's a good start!

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    but the point is you're playing school yard games and I'm not interested in it. You took my position out of context thus a false position to criticize.
    I'm playing no games. You just needed to further clarify that you meant debate class instead of debate itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Anecdotal Evidence. False claim to authority. Irrelevant back story.
    Fallacy Fallacy. I wasn't using my anecdote as evidence of anything other than my own personal experience with a particular logic class, and I have never claimed to be the authority on logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You have not presented evidence of your certification, and the nature of your so proposed study seems fictitious.
    Correct usage and understanding of logic does not require any certification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    It would mean that in .. wait for it .... THE CLASSROOM.
    Not just in the classroom, but everywhere. Logic applies everywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    But in casual conversation, which is what this non-regulated chat forum is
    Does Mathematics only hold meaning in the classroom?? Likewise, logic fully applies in casual conversation as well. This forum IS regulated, actually. It has rules, and it is organized and has order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    out right disregarding what a person is saying by calling it a fallacy is not a way to go about what's being asked or talked about.
    No, it's precisely the way to go about it. Any argument that contains a fallacy can be completely discarded on sight, as it is erroneous akin to how 2+3=4 (under base 10 mathematics) can be completely discarded on sight as erroneous. Just like you would need to "try again" in mathematics, you also need to "try again" in logic. These are closed systems, you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    This isn't an academic debate for judges.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Debates are about points and arguing that your side is correct
    In part, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    regardless of probably truth.
    What is "probably truth"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Invalid in a classroom.
    Paradox. Make up your mind. Does logic apply in a classroom or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You don't attempt to actually disprove my claims regardless of sources, you just say they're fallacious.
    ...because they ARE fallacious. You need to present valid arguments. You need to follow the rules of logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You even acknolge my point - it still might be true.
    Sure, but you cannot use erroneous reasoning to reach your conclusion. That erroneous reasoning will continue to get called out and discarded as such. You need to form valid arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You, like into the night, never actually try to say anything of fact to the point of the topic. You're just in an academic pursuit of playing fallacy.
    Calling out a fallacy IS a direct counterargument to the argumentation that one has presented. It takes the logical form A->B, C->!A.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    False Authority Fallacy.
    Fallacy Fallacy. I have claimed no such authority over logic. The authority over logic is its own axioms. Anyone can learn them and make proper use of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You have no creditably to judge a source that's sole purpose is to document fallacies.
    What credibility do I need to judge? How do I obtain said credibility? Their purpose is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    See how easy and unproductive this line of rebuttal is?
    Nope. It's not easy. You merely failed at it numerous times, since you are very illiterate in logic.

  9. #474 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2,108
    Thanked 2,772 Times in 2,412 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 123 Times in 119 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    This is not a debate or logic class. Void does not mean "wrong". An argument can contain fallacies and still be right. That is what I cited in the source I provided.
    If an argument is based on an error of logic, it is invalid. All fallacies are invalid arguments. Yes...that DOES affect any debate when they occur.
    A void argument fallacy is not an argument. It is not anything. It is trying to argue about nothing. This can occur, for example, when someone tries to use a meaningless buzzword as the basis of their argument. In some cases, it can happen when someone tries to make a big deal about no subject at all.

    Depending on an outside source for your argument is simply stealing someone else's argument as your own. You are not making an argument at that point, you are merely mindlessly echoing the argument of someone else...someone that isn't here to present their argument for themselves.

  10. #475 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2,108
    Thanked 2,772 Times in 2,412 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 123 Times in 119 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    So you say, but so far as I've already noted you never back it up. This is your hobby I know.
    Logic needs no 'backup'. There is no 'official list' of fallacies. Logic is like mathematics, a closed functional system. You just keep making errors in it.

  11. #476 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2,108
    Thanked 2,772 Times in 2,412 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 123 Times in 119 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Contextual fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
    Fallacy fallacies. No context change occurred. No strawman was constructed to tear down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You broke apart the sentence to suggest we're debating in a snide attempt to ignore the context of 'debate class' - I never denied that we're debating, conversing, chatting etc.
    Yes you have, liar.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    but the point is you're playing school yard games and I'm not interested in it.
    It is YOU that is trying to deny logic and the role it has in any conversation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You took my position out of context thus a false position to criticize.
    Lie. He has not changed context at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Anecdotal Evidence.
    What anecdote? He never used one!
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    False claim to authority.
    He never claimed one in his post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Irrelevant back story.
    He never made one in his last post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You have not presented evidence of your certification,
    He doesn't need one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    and the nature of your so proposed study seems fictitious.
    He never claimed a study.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    It would mean that in .. wait for it .... THE CLASSROOM.
    He never claimed this was a classroom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    But in casual conversation, which is what this non-regulated chat forum is - out right disregarding what a person is saying by calling it a fallacy is not a way to go about what's being asked or talked about.
    A fallacy is an error in logic. It renders any argument invalid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    This isn't an academic debate for judges.
    No one ever said it was.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Debates are about points and arguing that your side is correct regardless of probably truth.
    You can't make a point with an invalid argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Invalid in a classroom.
    No one said we are in a classroom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You don't attempt to actually disprove my claims regardless of sources, you just say they're fallacious.
    A fallacious claim is an invalid argument. The claim is therefore rendered void.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You even acknolge my point - it still might be true.
    An invalid argument makes no point. You can't make a True out of a void.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You, like into the night, never actually try to say anything of fact to the point of the topic. You're just in an academic pursuit of playing fallacy.
    It is not academics. There is no classroom. A fallacy renders an argument invalid. That affects any point you are trying to make. Stop making fallacies and he and I will stop calling you out on them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    False Authority Fallacy.
    Contextomy fallacy. There is no authority, other than the rules of logic. There is no 'official list' of fallacies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    You have no creditably to judge a source that's sole purpose is to document fallacies.
    There is no 'official list' of fallacies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    See how easy and unproductive this line of rebuttal is?
    You are not rebutting anything. You are simply denying logic. You might as well deny mathematics as a whole.

  12. #477 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2,108
    Thanked 2,772 Times in 2,412 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 123 Times in 119 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    No really, you never provided a source. You quoted the bible sure, but that's only credible amonst Christians, and the bible is known for its easy to use soundbites for interpretation and you gave very short quotes..
    The Bible is a source and a valid reference for questions about Christianity.

  13. #478 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2,108
    Thanked 2,772 Times in 2,412 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 123 Times in 119 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    I'm so feeble I know. Won't you help me by providing those sources? What sources should we use when discussing the philosophical ramifications of abortion? Pragmatism? Science? Religion?
    You might try philosophy, but you probably deny that too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    I personally prefer pragmatism.
    Define 'pragmatism'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Studies show that countries that allow more women freedom are generally more prosperous.
    What studies? Who conducted these studies? You are making blanket claims with no reference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Historically speaking, women have always had that choice.
    True. They've also always had to live with the consequences of that choice.

  14. #479 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2,108
    Thanked 2,772 Times in 2,412 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 123 Times in 119 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    Uh what? it wasn't "centered" around what Jesus said. Your Bible quotes weren't even from Jesus.
    I suspect that you are trying to deny what you said again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Leftist View Post
    My sweet summer child. As if the law has command over nature. But go ahead thinking that just because the law said so it never happened.
    What about 'natural law'?

Similar Threads

  1. Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-26-2013, 11:32 PM
  2. Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-31-2012, 04:46 PM
  3. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-11-2012, 12:49 PM
  4. Replies: 81
    Last Post: 04-30-2012, 09:29 PM
  5. Evolution vs. Creationism
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 03-23-2012, 02:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •