| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ivan_Melgar_M 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
 Posted: December 05 2010 at 20:06 |
 Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
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.  |
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
- 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)
- 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 )
- 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. |
Never said that Dean.
Neither mentioning who is a head of a medical institution or who denies religion is a complete argument from authority fallacy, unless Mike or I believe in something only because they say so.
My only point is to prove that Mike accuses me of something he has done several times, I mentioned an expert on the medical field, he quoted The Amazing Atheist..
Iván
|
|
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 05 2010 at 20:07 |
Again, no point in replying Textbook.
'They bark, Sancho, a sign that we're moving Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 05 2010 at 20:10
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 05 2010 at 20:17 |
You don't have faith Ivan. If you had faith you wouldn't be throwing yourself into trying to defend and explain it here. You wouldn't be attempting to use your versions of logic and facts to prove why it is a sensible and defensible position because faith does not require logic and facts, it is something that is simply felt and accepted. You use 'faith' when it suits you to get out of tricky situations but your persistent arguing shows someone who wants to make it appear rational. But if something is rational, then faith isn't required.
You can either:
i) Accept that faith appears irrational but that you choose to maintain it because you trust in god's love and walk away from the argument
ii) Remain in the argument and argue that real world evidence proves the existence of god
You're trying to do both at once and it's fruitless and exasparating.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 05 2010 at 20:39 |
Having faith doesn't imply we should be fanatics and ignore EVIDENCE.
I have just notice you prefer incoherent fanatics because it's easier to contradict them.
It would be a paradise for you if we all were Genesis literal Creationists and believers in geocentricism because in that case all your mental cliches would be true.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 05 2010 at 22:43
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 01:01 |
Firstly, evidence is worthless to someone who has faith.
Secondly, you only accept evidence which is in your favour and virtually none of this "evidence" is physical, but all subjective or unrecorded phenomena, or things written by people which frankly makes you look like a joke.
And Ivan, you are a fanatic.
Would you die for your religion?
Would you sacrifice the lives of your family for your religion? Would you defy god and break his will for something as trivial as their flesh when you believe they would live on in heaven anyway?
Is there any conceivable experience or evidence that would cause you to renounce your religion or are you irrevocably devoted for life no matter what?
If your answers are yes, yes, no, welcome to Fanaticsville, population: you.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 09:34 |
Textbook wrote:
Firstly, evidence is worthless to someone who has faith.
Secondly, you only accept evidence which is in your favour and virtually none of this "evidence" is physical, but all subjective or unrecorded phenomena, or things written by people which frankly makes you look like a joke. |
I've been the first to protest against fanatism from any religion, I accepted evidence such as evolution before anybody authorized me, I accept abortion in 3 cases (Church only accepts therapeutic abortion in case of life danger for the mother), used condoms since I'm 17, etc, I only talked about religion when some people started to attack us, before I only manifested my position against Rock used as a weapon or evangelism.
Textbook wrote:
And Ivan, you are a fanatic.
I need to prove you nothing Textbook, but I will play your game with honest answers as I always do.
Would you die for your religion?
I'm not a martyr or have martyr vocation, but I would fight for my religion as much as i would fight for freedom or the rights of the people, and not talking just because I'm in a civil society, I fought against a tyranny when you placed your life in risk.
Would you sacrifice the lives of your family for your religion? Would you defy god and break his will for something as trivial as their flesh when you believe they would live on in heaven anyway?
No, my family is my priority. I don't believe in a God that will ask me to sacrifice my family; as I don't believe in a God that will make you self torture or punish yourself to praise him.
Is there any conceivable experience or evidence that would cause you to renounce your religion or are you irrevocably devoted for life no matter what?
No, I can't conceive anything that would make me believe there s no God.
If your answers are yes, yes, no, welcome to Fanaticsville, population: you.
You are nobody to classify people with a silly test that only describes your fanatic anti theism....I say, you are a fanatic anti religion bigot ( a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) . |
Iván
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 13:49 |
But your god does and has asked people to die for him. It's a matter of fact that people die for their faith. That you have created some special magical god who doesn't ask for this despite historial record that he does all the time, is simply ridiculous. You live in a fantasy land.
Also I noticed you pouring scorn on Mike's championing of the Amazing Atheist. I don't like the AA either but I prefer him as a figure of moral authority over the pope because as far as I know the AA does not belong to an organisation whose primary function has been an attempt to create a global tolerance for systematic child abuse.
|
|
Xanatos
Forum Senior Member
Banned
Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Latin America
Status: Offline
Points: 305
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 13:55 |
|
Mr.Prog Freak please change your avatar , its completely hateable , its like "hey i am the smart guy here" xD
Edited by Xanatos - December 06 2010 at 13:56
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 15:09 |
Textbook wrote:
But your god does and has asked people to die for him. It's a matter of fact that people die for their faith. That you have created some special magical god who doesn't ask for this despite historial record that he does all the time, is simply ridiculous. You live in a fantasy land.
Also I noticed you pouring scorn on Mike's championing of the Amazing Atheist. I don't like the AA either but I prefer him as a figure of moral authority over the pope because as far as I know the AA does not belong to an organisation whose primary function has been an attempt to create a global tolerance for systematic child abuse. |
That'll be the same god that doesn't exist?
Pope Benedict XVI apologised for the abuse scandal on his recent visit to the UK. The important point being that he referred to this not as sins but, for the first time, as ''unspeakable crimes''. I don't think you'll find any Catholics here trying to defend the Church on this issue, in fact we have been some of the most critical in this and other threads.
The recent Chilean miners rescue has been hailed as a miracle, by doctors, relgious people and the miners themselves. The rescue was indeed a miraculous dual victory for faith and science (technical expertise, equipment and a meticulous rescue operation).
Mikhail Gorbachev famously stated that : The collapse of the Iron Curtain would have been impossible without John Paul II. In 1978 Karol Wojyla became the first non-Italian pope in 455 years, and his 1979 visit to his homeland of Poland helped bring about the collapse of communism. Miracle or not, this was miraculous, and was acheived with the supreme efforts of the workers and dissident intellectuals, many who would undoubtedly have been atheists.
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 16:05 |
It would be a disaster to assert and accept that all unexplainable phenomena is ' a miracle'. Surely we need curiosity and further investigation.
In linguistics, explanations are in many cases impossible. (theorist speak of theories with varying degrees of explanatory force)
There's no explanation as to why English allows Peter loves Mary but not *Peter love Mary
We can't explain why Greenlandic has only 3 phonemic vowels and Danish 9.
But it's highly likely that it's not because God wants it that way. A lot of 'phenomena' just has no reason - so it currently seems. Also, it's presumptious to think that humanity (at present and future stages) is capable of explaining and grasping all the complexities of the world. But it's stupid, lazy and far worse to invent some fairy-tale like explanations involving Gods and miracles in order to make sense of the world. |
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:05 |
Sojourn: Oh don't be silly. Obviously I'm asking Ivan from the POV that god exists and has done things that are recorded in history because this is Ivan's POV.
And good grief, the Chilean mining rescue is a miracle? A process which is completely and wholly explicable and was performed entirely by humans is a miracle?
Once again, this miracle label is a cheap PR grab by the church. Anything good happens, IT'S A MIRACLE SO THANK THE CHURCH. Anything bad happens, church can't be found. "Nope, wasn't god that time when the miners died."
I mean the miracle label is offensive because in New Zealand we have just had a mining disaster where 29 miners died. What are you implying by saying that the Chilean rescue was a miracle? That god hates New Zealanders and chose to sit about twiddling his thumbs while they all died? What rubbish.
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:08 |
Paravion wrote:
It would be a disaster to assert and accept that all unexplainable phenomena is ' a miracle'. Surely we need curiosity and further investigation.
In linguistics, explanations are in many cases impossible. (theorist speak of theories with varying degrees of explanatory force)
There's no explanation as to why English allows
Peter loves Mary
but not
*Peter love Mary
We can't explain why Greenlandic has only 3 phonemic vowels and Danish 9.
But it's highly likely that it's not because God wants it that way. A lot of 'phenomena' just has no reason - so it currently seems.
Also, it's presumptious to think that humanity (at present and future stages) is capable of explaining and grasping all the complexities of the world. But it's stupid, lazy and far worse to invent some fairy-tale like explanations involving Gods and miracles in order to make sense of the world. |
Hi Paravion 
Many fairy tales have existed for thousands of years, but they tend not to involve belief in the tale and they do not usually take place during an actual period of time. Although there are even some religious fairy tales.
Thing is, and I don't for one minute think you're trying to belittle theists, that this kind of argument just seems to amount to name-calling. Not that you're the first to use it, mind you.
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:10 |
Textbook wrote:
Sojourn: Oh don't be silly. Obviously I'm asking Ivan from the POV that god exists and has done things that are recorded in history because this is Ivan's POV.
And good grief, the Chilean mining rescue is a miracle? A process which is completely and wholly explicable and was performed entirely by humans is a miracle?
Once again, this miracle label is a cheap PR grab by the church. Anything good happens, IT'S A MIRACLE SO THANK THE CHURCH. Anything bad happens, church can't be found. "Nope, wasn't god that time when the miners died."
I mean the miracle label is offensive because in New Zealand we have just had a mining disaster where 29 miners died. What are you implying by saying that the Chilean rescue was a miracle? That god hates New Zealanders and chose to sit about twiddling his thumbs while they all died? What rubbish. |
I didn't say it was a miracle. You might want to read my post again.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:12 |
Whether you said it was was irrelevant. I didn't talk about you when discussing the mining incident. I was just talking about anyone having the position that it was a miracle. But you're much more interested in being a smartarse and trying to show me up than actually entering the debate.
Much like myself half of the time ;)
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:19 |
Textbook wrote:
But your god does and has asked people to die for him. It's a matter of fact that people die for their faith. That you have created some special magical god who doesn't ask for this despite historial record that he does all the time, is simply ridiculous. You live in a fantasy land. |
You asked ME what I believe and I aid I don't have martyr vocation...Is that so hard to swallow by you?.
There's people who die for freedom for a principle or their country, each one decides what to believe in and hopw to do it. . But I know you didn't cared for the answer, if I answered that I would die and sacrifice my family, I would be a fanatic, if I answered no...Then I'm delusional incoherent.
Your question are always directed to leave us without answer, but you can't, we knoiw what we believe in and we decide how to believe.
Textbook wrote:
Also I noticed you pouring scorn on Mike's championing of the Amazing Atheist. I don't like the AA either but I prefer him as a figure of moral authority over the pope because as far as I know the AA does not belong to an organisation whose primary function has been an attempt to create a global tolerance for systematic child abuse. |
Yes yes...Catholic Church has for primary function to create tolerance for child abuse......I knew that each time you run out of arguments you try to offend others with absurd nonsenses.
It doesn't surprise me that you prefer the Amazing Atheist, birds of a feather flock together
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 06 2010 at 17:23
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:29 |
Yes Ivan, my questions are designed to leave you without answer- if they weren't my position would make no sense. There is no sensible answer to my questions unless you abandon religion, hence my position that religion is false.
And who are you to decide that refusing to die for god is OK? Surely that's his call and he has asked people to die for him. You can't pick and choose.
You don't seem to understand arguing very well.
Ask people what the Catholic Church is best known for and you'll generally get the answer "Raping young boys." Their foremost contribution to society of modern times is the notion that priests are pedophiles. Also there is plenty of evidence that in order to avoid the embarrassment of exposure, the Catholic church decided not to punish the offenders which led to a situation where it inadvertently become an international pedophile club as pedophiles signed up in order to offend with impunity, thus meaning they are directly responsible for a proliferation of child abuse and their refusal to punish it was a message to the affected communities that it should be tolerated and accepted.
Edited by Textbook - December 06 2010 at 17:41
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:41 |
Textbook wrote:
Yes Ivan, my questions are designed to leave you without answer- if they weren't my position would make no sense. There is no sensible answer to my questions unless you abandon religion, hence my position that religion is false.
And who are you to decide that refusing to die for god is OK? Surely that's his call and he has asked people to die for him. You can't pick and choose.
You don't seem to understand arguing very well. |
So I have to accept your position in order to be right?...Hey, you really overrate yourself.
I understand arguing in Prog Archives, as an exchange of ideas by people trying to learn from each other, not in a way to induce people to think like you, this is discussion, not a political debate.
Textbook wrote:
Ask people what the Catholic Church is best known for and you'll generally get the answer "Raping young boys." Their foremost contribution to society of modern times is the notion that priests are pedophiles. Also there is plenty of evidence that in order to avoid the embarrassment of exposure, the Catholic church decided not to punish the offenders would led to a situation where it inadvertently become an international pedophile club as pedophiles signed up in order to offend with impunity, thus meaning they are directly responsible for a proliferation of child abuse and their refusal to punish it was a message to the affected communities that it should be tolerated and accepted. |
Probably because due to the act of 0.1% of the priests, people love to attack the church...Do you know that kids are more likely raped by a teacher or even their parents and nobody says a word?
Do you know that more than 99% of the accusations to the priests are false?
And yes, the Church has protected themselves from accusations, just as the school system, the military or any organization will try to hide this things. I know it's wrong, but even the Church is an institution run by humans that can make mistakes.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 06 2010 at 17:42
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:44 |
Arguing is not people trying to learn from each other. In fact if you're trying to learn from someone in an argument it means you're hopeless because you don't know enough about the other party to begin with, You're supposed to do your learning BEFORE you begin arguing. Arguing is where you have already learned about the other person's POV and decided that they are *wrong* and then illustrating why,
Now I understand why your arguments are so poor if this is your attitude,
Edited by Textbook - December 06 2010 at 17:45
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:45 |
When will I learn that it's useless to discuss with a troll?
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 06 2010 at 17:47
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 17:49 |
What a cowardly cop-out.
Seriously now, your definition of arguing is just plain wrong. According to you, students who listen to their teacher and ask questions are arguing with them.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
