hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
So kinda like what happens when you think the term induction means "taken on faith" ?
Cool story bro.
added:
Yes we're certainly taking you totally out of context
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Cool story bro.
added:
Yes we're certainly taking you totally out of context
Would it be easier if I used the term "one?" instead of "you and I" in thought exercises? You are taking it totally out of context.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Sure you did. Multiple times. You are implicitly trying to correlate blind belief of religious faith with inductive reasoning based on observable evidence.
Its not arguable in the least, your entire line of reasoning is "Induction relies on faith, religion relies on faith, therefore they are comparable"
In order to say that's what I'm arguing, I have to say, "This is what I am arguing."
I am not. Let me make this easy for you.
Induction does not rely on faith.
Religion relies on faith.
I am not. Let me make this easy for you.
Induction does not rely on faith.
Religion relies on faith.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
No, you've gone on long enough now that its pretty clear what your argument is. We don't need a big blinking sign on your argument to tell what it is, we can just read your own words, which are clearly attempting to correlate religious belief and scientific evidence as one and the same.
They aren't.
Let me type it again cause I think you missed it.
Induction does not rely on faith.
Religion does rely on faith.
QED I am not making that argument.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
And yet, that's exactly the argument you are making.
You are the one using the term belief as the term faith would be used, no one else, and also conflating induction to mean belief by which you clearly mean faith.
I really wish you would stop making this about religion and faith when I have not mentioned them.
I don't mean induction is faith, as I've stated. Stop frothing.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
I didn't make it about religion and faith. You did.
I realize that actually being consistent, and actually accepting that you yourself have said the words you yourself have is hard because you have contradicted yourself several times, and have been demonstrably proven to be lying because the truth is inconvenient to your argument, but you are now attempting to shift the blame for this debate on to me. I merely attempted to answer your initial question, which you didn't like the answer to, which led to you intentionally misinterpreting my words to be a support for your conclusions, which are baseless and false. You are the one who has brought belief and faith into this discussion. It is you who wish to prove that science involves the sort of blind belief that religion involves, in order to create an equality where none exists. This is, of course, a line drawing fallacy on your part, which you should have recognized since you got such a good grade in sentential logic.
I realize that actually being consistent, and actually accepting that you yourself have said the words you yourself have is hard because you have contradicted yourself several times, and have been demonstrably proven to be lying because the truth is inconvenient to your argument, but you are now attempting to shift the blame for this debate on to me. I merely attempted to answer your initial question, which you didn't like the answer to, which led to you intentionally misinterpreting my words to be a support for your conclusions, which are baseless and false. You are the one who has brought belief and faith into this discussion. It is you who wish to prove that science involves the sort of blind belief that religion involves, in order to create an equality where none exists. This is, of course, a line drawing fallacy on your part, which you should have recognized since you got such a good grade in sentential logic.
No sir I have not.
I have not been demonstrably proved to be anything. I have not brought faith into the discussion. I do not wish to prove that science involving blind faith exists.
Elsewhere, I have engaged in thought exercises. These are not a contradiction to questions posed here. I have not stated a belief in religion. Stop getting butthurt.
I did not make it about religion or faith--please go back and re-read if that concept is difficult for you.
I have not been demonstrably proved to be anything. I have not brought faith into the discussion. I do not wish to prove that science involving blind faith exists.
Elsewhere, I have engaged in thought exercises. These are not a contradiction to questions posed here. I have not stated a belief in religion. Stop getting butthurt.
I did not make it about religion or faith--please go back and re-read if that concept is difficult for you.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Ahem, I direct you to post number 395 in this thread for further clarification.
Is that what you call them?
It occurs to me that the better description would be thoughtless exercises.
But you clearly did. Again, post number 395 in this thread says differently.
And just to reinforce the point, let me quote you again
The comparison is implicit in this statement. And in every statement you've made on the subject to date.
Oh oh one more for good measure
This is a false dichotomy fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Certainly! Any axiom that claims itself as self-evident must be something one believes before building upon the axiom. The axiom is then, the criterion of truth. These axioms are things we choose--and of course, can change any time we so desire, to our credit.
The Axiom of pairing is a good example. The axiom of pairing is uncontroversial, and is widely accepted. It however, has no proof and is taken to be self-evident.
I of course accept the axiom of pairing. It seems common sense to me.
To hearken back to Sextus though, this criterion of truthshouldrequire its own proof, of which it has none, and even were it to, it itself would rely on a criterion of truth, which must be proved, ad infinitum. At some point one must believe a criterion as self-evident.
So you're using yourself, bringing religion into the thread as evidence of me bringing religion into the thread? Nice. Further your assertion of the false dichotomy fallacy is again, out of context. Those are not all the possibilities I suggested--and if you'll fucking note, I said that a belief that God started it all is alsounproven and absurd.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Post 395 has about 2000 words by you quoted in it. With one tiny sentence by me.
Pretty big stretch of the imagination you've got there, but since you believe in invisible fairy magicians in the sky, we can tell you have a very healthy imagination.
You are making these attacks personal for no reason. You quoted me from elsewhere and said I am making it about religion, but I have not: you brought that here. With this line of reasoning I could quote you from any point in your life and claim you were making it about a different subject.
I do not believe in invisible fairy magicians in the sky.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
I quoted you from the thread and conversation that got you so frustrated you had to bring the conversation to this thread.
Like I"ve said, I realize that being honest with yourself is hard, but that's why I'm here to help hold you accountable to your own words.
You can't take a conversation from one thread, go ask for help in another thread, and then deny everything you've said in the other conversation as a matter of convenience for the current debate. You brought that discussion into this thread when you came here and started looking for someone to back you up on the nonsense you were spewing in that thread. This forum has avatars, and personalities, it is not anonymous, here you get to live and die by the words and statements you've made.
Your spurious attempt to pretend that conversation is irrelevant, when its absolutely relevant because its the only reason you're in this thread making the same bad arguments, is rejected on its face for the dishonest intellectual tactic that it is. I didn't bring anything here. Again. You came here and asked a question. I answered it. You took what I said, and turned it into what you wanted to hear, which I then informed you was wrong, and why. This made you upset, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Like I"ve said, I realize that being honest with yourself is hard, but that's why I'm here to help hold you accountable to your own words.
You can't take a conversation from one thread, go ask for help in another thread, and then deny everything you've said in the other conversation as a matter of convenience for the current debate. You brought that discussion into this thread when you came here and started looking for someone to back you up on the nonsense you were spewing in that thread. This forum has avatars, and personalities, it is not anonymous, here you get to live and die by the words and statements you've made.
Your spurious attempt to pretend that conversation is irrelevant, when its absolutely relevant because its the only reason you're in this thread making the same bad arguments, is rejected on its face for the dishonest intellectual tactic that it is. I didn't bring anything here. Again. You came here and asked a question. I answered it. You took what I said, and turned it into what you wanted to hear, which I then informed you was wrong, and why. This made you upset, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Lenas
Trump's Staff
- 7,559
- 2,299
Scientific theories are not beliefs. They are assumptions based on studies and observations; they're our best guess at what is happening but can't yet prove. Scientists don't look at things as self evident, they just say, "this is our best guess." When people study the possibility of that guess, and they all agree that it fits logically, they say, "Yeah we agree that's the most probable solution."
Doesn't make it a belief, just means that they can't come up with anything better yet.
You are making wild assumptions. I didn't come here for any of those things--and I am perfectly calm. Thus, you using another conversation is the definition of irrelevant. You are assuming something because it continues to reinforce what you believe about another poster on the internet. You want to believe it though because it offends you that someone thinks differently than you. I don't know why. It doesn't offend me that you think differently.
I asked a few questions, and introduced a line of reasoning. I made no references to religion or faith and you continue to. I am politely asking you to stop but in your buttflaring rage you can't stop.
I asked a few questions, and introduced a line of reasoning. I made no references to religion or faith and you continue to. I am politely asking you to stop but in your buttflaring rage you can't stop.