Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An infinite series of finite causes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Did what? Become an authority on how to commit ad hominems and live in denial.
    Are you kidding?

    You are really making a serious ass out of yourself with this one and that is saying something based on your history.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by element771 View Post
      Are you kidding?

      You are really making a serious ass out of yourself with this one and that is saying something based on your history.
      No, I am not kidding, but projection of the problems with your own behavior appears to a problem as well as resorting to ad hominems avoiding responding where you are unable to make a coherent response due to your false statements.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-26-2018, 05:30 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        No, I am not kidding, but projection of the problems with your own behavior appears to a problem as well as resorting to ad hominems avoiding responding where you are unable to make a coherent response due to your false statements.
        Do you get charged a fee for each punctuation mark you include in a sentence or did you fail 3rd grade english?

        I provided a source. You ignored it. You are also a proven liar and cannot be trusted to have an honest conversation.

        Pointing out that you lie is not an ad hominem because it calls into question your ability to be honest about what you say. This undercuts any meaningful dialogue.
        Last edited by element771; 04-26-2018, 07:54 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          No kidding, because they already defined the source of rights in the DOI. They already knew where they came from.
          That's just the Evangelical narrative. The demonstrable fact is that there is no reference to Christianity in the Constitution; one can reasonably assume that this was intentional. It is hardly likely the FF's simply forgot.

          That is false - completely! John Quincy Adams was not a founder, Jefferson believed that God was involved in the affairs of man (something no true deist would believe). Washington was a regular church goer, no one really knows what Madison believed, Paine was a true deist. Benjamin Franklin believed in prayer, asked for help from God during the Constitutional Convention though perhaps he leaned towards deism.
          It is generally agreed amongst those not pushing the Evangelical agenda that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others set out to create a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice.

          Never mind the fact that early Congresses not only invoked God but Jesus Christ in NATIONAL days of thanksgiving and prayer:

          https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
          Yes, I said so. Nevertheless the Continental Congress to which you are referring was superseded by the implementation of The Constitution, which is a purely secular document. This has long been recognised by the SCOTUS whenever some of these religion-based State Laws are put to the test.

          Nonsense, I'm speaking of laws on the state level where they affected everyday life. And there you find many of the founders instituting biblical laws. Even instituting taxes to support state Churches.

          https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
          See above.

          I would not doubt that with the regular army, especially later in the war, but I doubt that he saw that with US Marines. Anyway my fellow Marines had only good things to say about your guys.
          Well it must have been demoralising to be fighting a war nobody really wanted. .
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by element771 View Post
            Do you get charged a fee for each punctuation mark you include in a sentence or did you fail 3rd grade english?

            I provided a source. You ignored it. You are also a proven liar and cannot be trusted to have an honest conversation.

            Pointing out that you lie is not an ad hominem because it calls into question your ability to be honest about what you say. This undercuts any meaningful dialogue.
            Reality ad hominem by definition. Personal attacks not addressing the subject of the thread are Ad hominem, English lesson for seer and you.

            Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem+definition&oq=ad+hominem&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.19912j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



            ad ho·mi·nem
            1.(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by element771 View Post
              Sure but when you say I am uncomfortable it makes it seems like an emotion response as opposed to a scientific one.
              “Uncomfortable” was the word you used in your previous response.

              That is where you are in error. This wasn't a serendipitous discovery. It was predicted as a consequence of the BB.
              Yes ‘cosmic background radiation’ was predicted, but it was discovered in 1965 by chance "when Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories were testing a sensitive horn antenna which was designed for detecting low levels of microwave radiation..."

              http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/PenWil.html

              The multiverse is also predicted by several major fields of physics including relativistic physics, quantum physics, cosmological physics, unified physics, and computational physics – all lead to some form of a multiverse. All we need now is the equivalent to Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories and a similar chance discovery to validate the multiverse as fact.

              You keep stating that many reputable cosmologists believe this. I am not disputing that. I am not appealing to authority...I am appealing to the science which I have already indicated why I think that it is shaky.
              Many high profile, reputable cosmologists are also "appealing to the science" and maintain the multiverse as a viable hypothesis.

              I also do not lightly dismiss the idea. I think it is worthy of investigation (weirder things have been shown to be true)....however, if it turns out that the multiverse cannot be verified empirically, then I think everyone should remain skeptical until there is empirical evidence.
              Well science hasn't reached this stage as yet.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Reality ad hominem by definition. Personal attacks not addressing the subject of the thread are Ad hominem, English lesson for seer and you.

                Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem+definition&oq=ad+hominem&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.19912j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



                ad ho·mi·nem
                1.(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

                © Copyright Original Source

                I think the point being made is that, although this definition is correct, it does not mean that all uses of an ad hominem response are problematic. Several examples have been shown. If a person can be shown to be a habitual liar, or to brag about lying, or suggest it is proper to lie, then their subsequent statements can be justifiably called into question. I take this position with Mr. Trump. He has lied frequently, has bragged about making claims he did not know to be true, and has argued (in his books) that lying is a perfectly acceptable strategy in a negotiation or if it will get you what you want. Ergo, when someone makes a claim about him, and he denies it, I am likely to reject his denial as credible evidence that the claim is false.

                There is a decent (brief) article here that summarizes a book by Douglas Walton called "Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric." Walton is a Philosopher from the University of Winnipeg.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  That's just the Evangelical narrative. The demonstrable fact is that there is no reference to Christianity in the Constitution; one can reasonably assume that this was intentional. It is hardly likely the FF's simply forgot.
                  Tass, this country would not have been founded as is except for Christianity and the Bible, these are secular historians:


                  The Bible and the Founding of the American Constitutional Republic https://www.c-span.org/video/?440587...ional-republic

                  The Bible and the Founding of America Roundtablehttps://www.c-span.org/video/?440587...ica-roundtable

                  It is generally agreed amongst those not pushing the Evangelical agenda that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others set out to create a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice.
                  Right, Madison and Washington who said that we basically could not survive or govern with out religion?

                  Yes, I said so. Nevertheless the Continental Congress to which you are referring was superseded by the implementation of The Constitution, which is a purely secular document. This has long been recognised by the SCOTUS whenever some of these religion-based State Laws are put to the test.
                  What are you talking about? These religious based laws, many of which, lasted into the 1960s. Yes leftist courts shot them down. But most of the Founders had no problem with them. And we are speaking of the Founders.


                  Well it must have been demoralising to be fighting a war nobody really wanted. .
                  Well I enlisted during that war, I still have mixed feelings...
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    “Uncomfortable” was the word you used in your previous response.
                    Ahhh..sorry.


                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Yes ‘cosmic background radiation’ was predicted, but it was discovered in 1965 by chance "when Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories were testing a sensitive horn antenna which was designed for detecting low levels of microwave radiation..."

                    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/PenWil.html

                    The multiverse is also predicted by several major fields of physics including relativistic physics, quantum physics, cosmological physics, unified physics, and computational physics – all lead to some form of a multiverse. All we need now is the equivalent to Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories and a similar chance discovery to validate the multiverse as fact.
                    No these two things are not even on the same planet. Who cares how it was discovered...the fact is that it was predicted from the BB theory as something that would support the BB theory. The multiverse theory makes no such predictions to find by accident.

                    You keep telling me about these major fields and how they all lead to a multiverse. Let us go through one by one so I can show you the flaws in each of them.

                    I also believe this appeal to many fields is misleading. If ALL of the fields led to a single type of multiverse, then I would agree with you. However, this isn't the case AT ALL. They all lead to vastly different multiverse phenomenon which means that you cannot use a cross-field analysis to support your position. Do you see what I am saying?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      I think the point being made is that, although this definition is correct, it does not mean that all uses of an ad hominem response are problematic. Several examples have been shown. If a person can be shown to be a habitual liar, or to brag about lying, or suggest it is proper to lie, then their subsequent statements can be justifiably called into question. I take this position with Mr. Trump. He has lied frequently, has bragged about making claims he did not know to be true, and has argued (in his books) that lying is a perfectly acceptable strategy in a negotiation or if it will get you what you want. Ergo, when someone makes a claim about him, and he denies it, I am likely to reject his denial as credible evidence that the claim is false.

                      There is a decent (brief) article here that summarizes a book by Douglas Walton called "Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric." Walton is a Philosopher from the University of Winnipeg.
                      Thank you for that but I don't that he will listen.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Tass, this country would not have been founded as is except for Christianity and the Bible, these are secular historians:


                        The Bible and the Founding of the American Constitutional Republic https://www.c-span.org/video/?440587...ional-republic

                        The Bible and the Founding of America Roundtablehttps://www.c-span.org/video/?440587...ica-roundtable
                        "Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time"

                        https://www.britannica.com/topic/The...ianity-1272214

                        Right, Madison and Washington who said that we basically could not survive or govern with out religion?
                        And Jefferson said that "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man ..."

                        "That Washington’s pastors in Philadelphia clearly viewed him as significantly influenced by Deism says more about Washington’s faith than do the opposite views of later writers or the cloudy memories of a few Revolutionary veterans who avowed Washington’s orthodoxy decades after his death." Ibid

                        What are you talking about? These religious based laws, many of which, lasted into the 1960s. Yes leftist courts shot them down. But most of the Founders had no problem with them. And we are speaking of the Founders.
                        The Supreme Court "shot down" any state laws that did not conform to the demands of The Constitution. The fact that some such laws may have lasted into the 60's means no more than they were not brought before the higher court for testing.

                        Well I enlisted during that war, I still have mixed feelings...
                        It was an undeclared war and should not have happened in my view. But I gather that the politics of the day were complicated.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          I think the point being made is that, although this definition is correct, it does not mean that all uses of an ad hominem response are problematic. Several examples have been shown. If a person can be shown to be a habitual liar, or to brag about lying, or suggest it is proper to lie, then their subsequent statements can be justifiably called into question. I take this position with Mr. Trump. He has lied frequently, has bragged about making claims he did not know to be true, and has argued (in his books) that lying is a perfectly acceptable strategy in a negotiation or if it will get you what you want. Ergo, when someone makes a claim about him, and he denies it, I am likely to reject his denial as credible evidence that the claim is false.

                          There is a decent (brief) article here that summarizes a book by Douglas Walton called "Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric." Walton is a Philosopher from the University of Winnipeg.
                          I have never said that ad hominums cover anything more than the personal attacks made by element771 and seer on me instead of responding to the questions that applied to to the thread. They are classic ad hominems. When they are personal attacks as in this thread they are indeed problematic and worse.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by element771 View Post


                            No these two things are not even on the same planet. Who cares how it was discovered...the fact is that it was predicted from the BB theory as something that would support the BB theory. The multiverse theory makes no such predictions to find by accident.

                            You keep telling me about these major fields and how they all lead to a multiverse. Let us go through one by one so I can show you the flaws in each of them.

                            I also believe this appeal to many fields is misleading. If ALL of the fields led to a single type of multiverse, then I would agree with you. However, this isn't the case AT ALL. They all lead to vastly different multiverse phenomenon which means that you cannot use a cross-field analysis to support your position. Do you see what I am saying?
                            The Argument comes down to the fact that you do not support the multiverse hypothesis, whereas I remain open-minded on the subject. Several eminent scientists agree with you. OTOH, my position, as an interested observer, is that multiverse theory in its various forms remains a proposition supported by numerous scientists. These include Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Lawrence Krauss and Sean Carrol and many others (cited Wiki) Stephen Hawking was also a proponent.

                            There is really nothing more to be said. All we can do is agree to disagree and await developments.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I have never said that ad hominums cover anything more than the personal attacks made by element771 and seer on me instead of responding to the questions that applied to to the thread. They are classic ad hominems. When they are personal attacks as in this thread they are indeed problematic and worse.
                              That I leave to ya'll to sort out. I was mostly interested in the discussion about the meaning and use of "ad hominem."
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                "Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time"
                                So what is your point? Christianity was far more prevalent with the Founders than Deism (as my past link showed). Your link spoke of the influence of John Locke on the Founders who was a Christian who grounded human rights in the God of scripture.


                                "That Washington’s pastors in Philadelphia clearly viewed him as significantly influenced by Deism says more about Washington’s faith than do the opposite views of later writers or the cloudy memories of a few Revolutionary veterans who avowed Washington’s orthodoxy decades after his death." Ibid
                                And Washington's contemporaries also viewed him as a Christian, after all he attended Church and was an Anglican vestryman and warden. But that does not change what both Washington and Madison said - that religion was necessary to govern.

                                The Supreme Court "shot down" any state laws that did not conform to the demands of The Constitution. The fact that some such laws may have lasted into the 60's means no more than they were not brought before the higher court for testing.
                                Except that is not what the courts did. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that states could not have laws against sodomy for instance, nor that they could not have school prayer. "Congress shall make no law..." A school district having voluntary teacher led prayer is not "Congress making a law." So the leftist courts invented these prohibitions.


                                But I gather that the politics of the day were complicated.
                                Yes, there was a real and genuine worry of communism spreading through out the whole Asian rim.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                510 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X