Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 156157158159160 174>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 04 2010 at 16:33
Impossible. adj. Not able to occur, exist, or be done.

So yes if a doctor described an occurrence which has occurred as impossible, he is saying something pretty stupid. 

Way to ruin the joke meanie. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 04 2010 at 18:03
Impossible from the medical perspective.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 04 2010 at 18:12
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
This just re-itterates what I said earlier about making false assumptions based upon inconclusive investigations.
 
Cancers can go into remission without an external "cure" - cancers in remission are not cures, it is only when the remission extends for a prolonged period can it be said to be a cure - the patient can later die from complications caused by the cancer (or the chemotherapy) but the cancer will not be recorded as the cause of death. There is no miracle in this other than the miracle of life itself.
 
"Remission" simply means that the patient is not showing any signs or symptoms of the cancer - it could be that the cancerous cells have been eliminated, or just that their effects have been negated or masked (ie they could still be there but showing no signs or symptoms in the patient) - not all cancers show as tumors, many are only detectable by protein markers that the body creates as a reaction to the cancer - if these markers stop then it is said that the cancer is in remission, but it could simply indicate that the body has stopped fighting the cancerous cells rather than the cells themselves disapearing.

I have read documents by doctors not only about cancer, I heard some even say that what happened it's impossible.

Your response is anti-scientific:
  1. I don't have a clue how it happened
  2. There's no scientific explanation
  3. I assure you that it's anything except a miracle because I say so.
Why? If you don't have an explanation, any other option, even when unlikely is possible

So, while you don't give me an explanation, I will believe it could be a miracle.

Iván
 
1. you re not a doctor.
 
2. Cases of spontaneous remission are rare so the amount of research into the subject is limited - detailed studies cannot be made after the event on anecdotal evidence, so speculation to the cause of the remission is based upon very limited data. One possible explanation centres around the biological mechanisms that causes cancers - apoptosis (cell death) and angiogenesis (growth of new blood cells). 70 billion cells die naturally each day in the average human body, this is perfectly normal and is a necessary biological function that keeps us "alive". The biochemical process that cause this are not fully inderstood, but what is known is that if one of these is disturbed then the cells do not die, but multiply and pass on the defect to new cells forming a cancerous tumor. Spontaneous remission is believed to occur when the apoptosis pathways are restored. It has been speculated that this is perhaps triggered through some external agent such as a fever.
 
3. pardon?
 
 
1a. I am not a doctor either, but I am more receptive to a natural medical explanation than I am to a supernatural non-medical one.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 04 2010 at 22:48
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Sorry, but I will have to use the blue that so few like. Wink
 
1. you re not a doctor.

I'm describing the position of those who deny the posibility of a miracle even when they can't explain a word
 
2. Cases of spontaneous remission are rare so the amount of research into the subject is limited - detailed studies cannot be made after the event on anecdotal evidence, so speculation to the cause of the remission is based upon very limited data. One possible explanation centres around the biological mechanisms that causes cancers - apoptosis (cell death) and angiogenesis (growth of new blood cells). 70 billion cells die naturally each day in the average human body, this is perfectly normal and is a necessary biological function that keeps us "alive". The biochemical process that cause this are not fully inderstood, but what is known is that if one of these is disturbed then the cells do not die, but multiply and pass on the defect to new cells forming a cancerous tumor. Spontaneous remission is believed to occur when the apoptosis pathways are restored. It has been speculated that this is perhaps triggered through some external agent such as a fever.

Rae, lack of detailed studies, speculation, believed to occur, etc....All mean that those who deny the chance of a miracle don't have a better explication (or any explanation to be honest), for spontaneous healing.

At lack of better explanation...why not he miracle? 
 
3. pardon?

That's exactly what most people who deny a miracle without any alternative explanation are doing, they are ready to say anything is possible except a miracle.
 
 
1a. I am not a doctor either, but I am more receptive to a natural medical explanation than I am to a supernatural non-medical one.

But in some of this DOCUMENTED cases, there's no other alternative explanation. In other words, our's is as good as your's.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 01:50
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

They're pretty stupid doctors then if they're going to say something that has happened is impossible. You probably shouldn't listen to people like that. 

All te accepted miracles (at least by the Vatican) are checked by doctors with impeccable credentials, for example Dr. Sandro de Franciscis is  eminent in surgery and internal medicine,.

He knows what he says.

As a fact he's anything except stupid.

Nice argument from authority ... you're a veritable fountain of logical fallacies.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Now, a miracle is not easily accepted by the Church, there are strong requisites, for example in Lourdes:


M@x really should add a proper ROFL emoticon ...

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Quote For a cure to be recognized as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:
  • The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
    That's not even possible. But I'll grant that you mean "beyond reasonable doubt".
  • The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
    Sure - this means that we currently don't know how to cure it.
  • The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
    Which surely is a extraordinarily rare thing to occur, given the fact that millions of terminally ill people visit Lourdes every year - and the place is filled with doctors trying to prove miracles.
  • The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
    So - God snaps his fingers and the cancer is gone. Now that would certainly be impressive. Has anyone ever got it on tape? I'm serious - not the snapping of fingers, but a video tape of a tumor dissolving would be something that would make me scratch my head.
  • The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
    Which would be consistent with "remission".
  • The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)
    Again: Remission. Typically people die a couple of years later of other causes, and you'll never know if the remission was really permanent or not. But even if it was - especially with cancer I think that it's perfectly possible that someone has stage 4 cancer and suddenly, over the course of a week, it disappears. It's not *necessarily* a miracle. Mind the word "necessarily" here - that's where you keep misunderstanding Dean and me. We're not saying that it's impossible - we're just saying that other explanations are more plausible.

Not only a temporal remission, it must be permanent.

Iván


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 05 2010 at 01:51
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 02:00
http://www.slate.com/id/2090198/

Quote  Traditionally, a panel of five Consulta Medica doctors will review the putative miracle, examining any available CT scans, X-rays, and medical reports. At least three of the five must agree that the hand of God has prevailed where science faltered.

Now, these are supposed to represent science - and they're voting on whether God was involved or not? That's ridiculous, they are clearly biased - normal scientists would simply determine that there are no apparent reasons. And even then, who says that the "available CT scans" etc. are authentic? Doctors aren't detectives.

Quote Following a thumbs-up from the Consulta Medica, a panel of cardinals and priests will then convene to determine whether the cure came as a result of praying to the saintly candidate. If evidence of healing prayer exists, the miracle is approved, and the panel issues a declaration saying so.

Well, that was easy. Of course they're making sure that numerically speaking, only few miracles get approved - so they don't come across as being credulous. Instead they'll probably try to let this miracle angle be a trump card in political maneuvers - or they'll use them to promote their religious agenda. Mother Teresa is a good example - she's an icon for the prohibition of birth control, so beatifiying her helps to promote that idea.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 02:43
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:


At lack of better explanation...why not he miracle?


Because a miracle implies an intervening God, a postulate that infinitely complicates (needlessly) our universe and leave a wake of questions (God could have stopped the person from getting cancer in the first place instead of making them go through pain and humiliation. What kind of God...? etc.)

It is much more logical and reasonable to assume that all miracles--every single one--has a scientific explanation that we just can't show yet. Even the most outrageous and improbable cures. From an outsider's perspective you have to understand how nonsensical it seems to say, given a remarkable occurence, that God did it, instead of just saying we don't know how. Because you don't know how. No religious person can ever prove God did anything at any time, to anyone, or even ever existed at all. No one knows anything of Gods movements or existence. So, we're all on the same page regarding any supposed instant cures, only the faithful go a step further and nonsensically believe it was God.

People like to tie up loose ends. That is all the phenomenon of miracles is.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 03:43
And they don't even tie them up properly. How can you get from "Someone was miraculously healed" to "Jesus died for my sins"? Even if the first proposition was true beyond any reasonable doubt (which it is not), then second would still not follow.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 05:05
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:


Sorry, but I will have to use the blue that so few like. Wink
 
I don't mind the blue, it's the use of BOLD that I don't like, so I'll take the liberty of removing it.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

1. you re not a doctor.

I'm describing the position of those who deny the posibility of a miracle even when they can't explain a word
Ah, I misunderstood what you were doing - I didn't realise you needed to quote some imaginary non-believer when there are so many of us real ones here providing quotable text for you to argue against.
 
Things we cannot explain are not miracles, they are just things we haven't discovered an explanation for. Just because we cannot explain something today does not exclude the notion that we can explain it tomorrow when new reliable evidence is examined.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

2. Cases of spontaneous remission are rare so the amount of research into the subject is limited - detailed studies cannot be made after the event on anecdotal evidence, so speculation to the cause of the remission is based upon very limited data. One possible explanation centres around the biological mechanisms that causes cancers - apoptosis (cell death) and angiogenesis (growth of new blood cells). 70 billion cells die naturally each day in the average human body, this is perfectly normal and is a necessary biological function that keeps us "alive". The biochemical process that cause this are not fully inderstood, but what is known is that if one of these is disturbed then the cells do not die, but multiply and pass on the defect to new cells forming a cancerous tumor. Spontaneous remission is believed to occur when the apoptosis pathways are restored. It has been speculated that this is perhaps triggered through some external agent such as a fever.

Rae, lack of detailed studies, speculation, believed to occur, etc....All mean that those who deny the chance of a miracle don't have a better explication (or any explanation to be honest), for spontaneous healing.

At lack of better explanation...why not he miracle? 
Because I don't believe in magic. 
 
The body has the ability to heal itself - that's what white blood cells do, that's what the immune system does, that's what the lymph system does and that's what some of the naturally occuring bacteria in your gut does. If you cut yourself it is your body that heals the wound, not the Band-aid you stick over the cut or the Savlon you smear over it. This has limitations, if you cut off a finger you cannot grow a new one, but there are animal species that can grow new limbs, so even if we could, it would be miraculous but not a miracle. Cancers are this cell regrowth mechanism gone wrong - something causes the cells to grow instead of dying - the spontaneous formation of a tumor is not a miracle, so its spontaneous remission isn't one either.
 
Medicines are enhancements to that auto-repair system that allows the body to affect a cure, some of those medicines are naturally occurring chemicals, for example herbal medicines that work are called "medicine" (those that don't work are called "herbs"). Antibiotics are naturally occurring, they evolved to do a job,and that job was to kill bacteria - we have cunningly harnessed that ability to kill harmful bacteria in our bodies that prevent the immune system from working properly. Other medicines trick the body into creating a defence against stronger forms of the disease, these are called "vaccines". Some of these medicines do not act directly on the disease but fool the body into creating more of its own natural medicine, these are called "placebos". The placebo effect is extremely potent, it has been shown that even real medicine has a placebo effect and will produce better results in patients who believe the medicine will cure them than in patients who don't. Faith healing, if it works at all, is a placebo effect - just because we don't fully understand how nature works does not make it supernatural - by that definition all supernature is simply nature.
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

3. pardon?

That's exactly what most people who deny a miracle without any alternative explanation are doing, they are ready to say anything is possible except a miracle.
 
And that would be true, I would go as far as to say a miracle is not impossible, but then if a miracle was possible it wouldn't be a miracle. However, since you attempted to put words in our mouths, I will correct them - "I assure you that it's anything except a miracle not because I say so, but because alternative explanations are possible and many alternatives have been given."
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

1a. I am not a doctor either, but I am more receptive to a natural medical explanation than I am to a supernatural non-medical one.

But in some of this DOCUMENTED cases, there's no other alternative explanation. In other words, our's is as good as your's.
The documentation is not scientific evidence, there are plenty of alternative explanations, but none of them are conclusive due to the lack of sound, reliable evidence to draw a conclusion from. Science needs facts to draw conclusions, science can hypothesise and speculate, but without irrefutable data they cannot state categorically what caused an event. You can chose to ignore the alternative explanations if you wish, but I chose not to.
 
Yours is not as good as ours as "yours" fits within the gamut of pseudoscience, Miracle Cures and Prayer Healing are variants of Faith Healing, Lying On Of Hands, Psychic Surgery, Shamanism, Witchdoctors,  Wise Women, Witches, Herbal Remedies, Holistic Medicine and Magic.
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 

 
Iván

 


Edited by Dean - December 05 2010 at 05:25
What?
Back to Top
Xanatos View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
Banned

Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Latin America
Status: Offline
Points: 305 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 10:15
Let the games begin! >:D Muajajajajajaja
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 12:14
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Nice argument from authority ... you're a veritable fountain of logical fallacies.

Well Mike, if you are talking about medical science, you need to go to an authority, and you can find the guy's credentials, if I have to believe  to his opinion or your's, I choose his.

And why do you protest? You usually present  The Amazing Atheist videos as argument from authority. 






Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:




Now, a miracle is not easily accepted by the Church, there are strong requisites, for example in Lourdes:


M@x really should add a proper ROFL emoticon ...


 

It's easy to laugh when you don't know the complete process.

Even the document by the Lourdes Doctors, is noyt enough, Canonical Law obligues to another process which is extremely complex, but of course when you ignore it, s it's easy to laugh

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Quote For a cure to be recognized as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:
  • 1.- The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
    That's not even possible. But I'll grant that you mean "beyond reasonable doubt".
  • 2.- The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
    Sure - this means that we currently don't know how to cure it.
  • 3.- The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
    Which surely is a extraordinarily rare thing to occur, given the fact that millions of terminally ill people visit Lourdes every year - and the place is filled with doctors trying to prove miracles.
  • The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
    So - God snaps his fingers and the cancer is gone. Now that would certainly be impressive. Has anyone ever got it on tape? I'm serious - not the snapping of fingers, but a video tape of a tumor dissolving would be something that would make me scratch my head.
  • 4.- The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
    Which would be consistent with "remission".
  • 5.- The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)
    Again: Remission. Typically people die a couple of years later of other causes, and you'll never know if the remission was really permanent or not. But even if it was - especially with cancer I think that it's perfectly possible that someone has stage 4 cancer and suddenly, over the course of a week, it disappears. It's not *necessarily* a miracle. Mind the word "necessarily" here - that's where you keep misunderstanding Dean and me. We're not saying that it's impossible - we're just saying that other explanations are more plausible.

Not only a temporal remission, it must be permanent.

Iván

Lets see:

  1. Beyond the doubt of a group of medical doctors that are trained for this.
  2. It means no doctor knows how to cure it......Isn't that enough?
  3. Of course is very rare, the definition of miracle includes the adjectives: 
    1. Wondrous
    2. EXTRAORDINARY: If it was common, it would cease to be a miracle.
    3. Permanent
  4. Could be consistent with many things, but medical science don't have a "rational and scientific" explanation better than our.
  5. It doesn't work as you say Mike, again you show your lack of knowledge, the person is followed for many years and can't die for a reason related (directly or indirectly) with the original disease.
Not as simple as you claim Mike.

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 05 2010 at 12:19
            
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 14:57
Ivan: So because medical science isn't developed enough now to explain things, it means a magical man flying in the sky is waving his wand to selectively save certain people while letting millions of others die. Mhmm.
 
And why are miracles always positive? What about the many cases of an extremely unlikely and bizarre tragedy where some shockingly and suddenly dies?
 
God can't be found all of a sudden.
 
Miracles are only positive because they're a transparent PR exercise by the church.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 15:49
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Nice argument from authority ... you're a veritable fountain of logical fallacies.

Well Mike, if you are talking about medical science, you need to go to an authority, and you can find the guy's credentials, if I have to believe  to his opinion or your's, I choose his.

And why do you protest? You usually present  The Amazing Atheist videos as argument from authority. 


That's the most idiotic response I've ever heard from you. You're either a complete and utter idiot, or you're deliberately misrepresenting the argument from authority. Take your pick. BTW: This isn't an insult, because I think the latter is correct - but of course I could be wrong.Wink

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:



Right back atcha.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:




Now, a miracle is not easily accepted by the Church, there are strong requisites, for example in Lourdes:


M@x really should add a proper ROFL emoticon ...


 

It's easy to laugh when you don't know the complete process.

Even the document by the Lourdes Doctors, is noyt enough, Canonical Law obligues to another process which is extremely complex, but of course when you ignore it, s it's easy to laugh


It's also easy to laugh because the way this is set up, your argumentation is doomed to fail no matter what you come up with. If the premise isn't sound, nothing can ever follow. In this case, the flaw in the premise being - guess what - the argument from ignorance.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Quote For a cure to be recognized as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:
  • 1.- The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
    That's not even possible. But I'll grant that you mean "beyond reasonable doubt".
  • 2.- The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
    Sure - this means that we currently don't know how to cure it.
  • 3.- The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
    Which surely is a extraordinarily rare thing to occur, given the fact that millions of terminally ill people visit Lourdes every year - and the place is filled with doctors trying to prove miracles.
  • The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
    So - God snaps his fingers and the cancer is gone. Now that would certainly be impressive. Has anyone ever got it on tape? I'm serious - not the snapping of fingers, but a video tape of a tumor dissolving would be something that would make me scratch my head.
  • 4.- The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
    Which would be consistent with "remission".
  • 5.- The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)
    Again: Remission. Typically people die a couple of years later of other causes, and you'll never know if the remission was really permanent or not. But even if it was - especially with cancer I think that it's perfectly possible that someone has stage 4 cancer and suddenly, over the course of a week, it disappears. It's not *necessarily* a miracle. Mind the word "necessarily" here - that's where you keep misunderstanding Dean and me. We're not saying that it's impossible - we're just saying that other explanations are more plausible.

Not only a temporal remission, it must be permanent.

Iván


Once cancer is in remission, it's permanent until the cancer returns. If the patient dies before that happens, there's no way to determine whether the remission was permanent or not.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:



Lets see:

  1. Beyond the doubt of a group of medical doctors that are trained for this.
  2. It means no doctor knows how to cure it......Isn't that enough?
  3. Of course is very rare, the definition of miracle includes the adjectives: 
    1. Wondrous
    2. EXTRAORDINARY: If it was common, it would cease to be a miracle.
    3. Permanent
  4. Could be consistent with many things, but medical science don't have a "rational and scientific" explanation better than our.
  5. It doesn't work as you say Mike, again you show your lack of knowledge, the person is followed for many years and can't die for a reason related (directly or indirectly) with the original disease.
Not as simple as you claim Mike.

Iván

"It means no doctor knows how to cure it......Isn't that enough?"

No, that isn't enough - unless you also claim that doctors are infallible. Of course they're not, which is why we can't deduce from the fact that they can't find a natural cure that there isn't one.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 17:53
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

 

That's the most idiotic response I've ever heard from you. You're either a complete and utter idiot, or you're deliberately misrepresenting the argument from authority. Take your pick. BTW: This isn't an insult, because I think the latter is correct - but of course I could be wrong.Wink 

No ;Mike, you are the one rubbing the Amazing Atheist's videos in our faces and telling us how much you agree with him....Ergo, if you quote him with such respect, you are placing him as a figure of authority or an eminence in the field:

The argument of authority is simple

  1. Source A says that p is true.(We have seen the 3 or 5 videos of the amazing Atheist you posted with him insisting in how religion is idiotic)
  2. Source A is authoritative.(At least for you The Amazing Atheist is authoritative, if you quoted him is because you consider him an authority....I wouldn't post the video of someone I don't respect to support my claims )
  3. Therefore, p is true.(Again, at least for you and the Amazing Atheist)
So, calling me an idiot won't hide that you quoted The Amazing Atheist as an authority several times, and will only prove that when the arguments end, the insults come, even if you use an emoticon.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

 

It's also easy to laugh because the way this is set up, your argumentation is doomed to fail no matter what you come up with. If the premise isn't sound, nothing can ever follow. In this case, the flaw in the premise being - guess what - the argument from ignorance.

Mike, your inference reaches an opposite conclusion, but yo still start from a premise of ignorance, you say I can't explain it, so it can be anything except a miracle

I know my belief is based in faith, your denial of my belief is based exclusively in the premise that if you don't know how this happens, it can be anything except a miracle


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


"It means no doctor knows how to cure it......Isn't that enough?"

No, that isn't enough - unless you also claim that doctors are infallible. Of course they're not, which is why we can't deduce from the fact that they can't find a natural cure that there isn't one.


No Mike, but  your  explanations (without any evidence)  for the fallibility of the doctors, neither your opinions prove that my conclusion (based on observation and faith) is wrong, even if you loose your temper and insult as you have done repeatedly calling us ignorants, delusional and even idiots I believe..

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 05 2010 at 18:03
            
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 17:58

Ivan, if you want your view to be treated with respect, write something respectable. Your logic-free arguments merely receive the derision and scorn they earn.



Edited by Textbook - December 05 2010 at 17:58
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 18:00
Some posters don't even deserve a reply.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 18:51
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

 

That's the most idiotic response I've ever heard from you. You're either a complete and utter idiot, or you're deliberately misrepresenting the argument from authority. Take your pick. BTW: This isn't an insult, because I think the latter is correct - but of course I could be wrong.Wink 

No ;Mike, you are the one rubbing the Amazing Atheist's videos in our faces and telling us how much you agree with him....Ergo, if you quote him with such respect, you are placing him as a figure of authority or an eminence in the field:

The argument of authority is simple

  1. Source A says that p is true.(We have seen the 3 or 5 videos of the amazing Atheist you posted with him insisting in how religion is idiotic)
  2. Source A is authoritative.(At least for you The Amazing Atheist is authoritative, if you quoted him is because you consider him an authority....I wouldn't post the video of someone I don't respect to support my claims )
  3. Therefore, p is true.(Again, at least for you and the Amazing Atheist)
So, calling me an idiot won't hide that you quoted The Amazing Atheist as an authority several times, and will only prove that when the arguments end, the insults come, even if you use an emoticon.
Iván
Eh? Quoting an (aledged) authority does not make it an argument from authority. That is, as Mike suspected, a deliberate misrepresentation of what an argument from authority fallacy is.
What?
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 19:18

That's why I can't be bothered responding to your arguments point by point Ivan. Your arguments are the product of blind, mindless devotion.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 19:54
Maybe Textbook I have faith, that doesn't make me mindless.

This are the arguments used to make us look inferior to you, we are used to them.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Proletariat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 05 2010 at 19:57
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

That's why I can't be bothered responding to your arguments point by point Ivan. Your arguments are the product of blind, mindless devotion.

I think that defines all arguments, including yours... otherwise it would merely be a disscussion (which we all know are no fun at all)WinkLOL
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 156157158159160 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.294 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.