One does not have to 'prove' a reasoned argument, especially one back up with verifiable documentaton. One does not have to 'prove' what one has experienced in his/her own life.
In my opinion, however, it is decidedly unclassy to call somebody myopic, rhetoric-jaded, unintelligent, uniformed, or a liar when one has absolutely no better information to counter a reasoned argument, and especially when it is obvious the critic has no clue what the argument actually is.
I wonder if Chumly can PROVE that he has read all of Reallife's arguments?
All you are doing is repeating yourself, so will I then:
How absurd. How Bizarre. You want to debate with me, the absurd illogical claims of Real Life as defeated by logic and science, with no logical congruent scientific arguing as done by yourself.
While your at it show me the establishment of facts for the christian god.
Chum wrote-
Quote:
Sure nothing is real, so send me all your money. Or at the least monthly payments
Dream on sunshine.
Anyway-my money causes less carbon dioxide emissions where it is than I suspect it might do if you had it.So even if I wanted to send it to you I would grit my teeth and,in the interests of saving the planet,resist doing so.
I was just trying to show you how real God is to some people.To a lot of people in the last analysis.
Does it or does it not make them nicer and more productive people than they would be if you talked them out of it.
You may define "nicer".That's the real debate.
Hi Spendius,
Some people believe in Leprechauns, Trolls, Taro Cards, Gods, Zen, Prayer, Animal Spirits, Zombies, Devils, Heaven, Astrology, Reincarnation, Hell, Purgatory, UFO's, etc.
Do these beliefs make people nicer and more productive? I'll leave that up to you to assess. I will say it makes them less realistic.
I promise to use your money only for healthy happy green things!
Chumly wrote:All you are doing is repeating yourself, so will I then:
How absurd. How Bizarre. You want to debate with me, the absurd illogical claims of Real Life as defeated by logic and science, with no logical congruent scientific arguing as done by yourself.
While your at it show me the establishment of facts for the christian god.
I'll tell what establishment of facts I have for the Christian God when you prove you have read and understood all of Reallife's posts and links in context. You've made the claim. Now prove it.
Hi Spendius,
I should add, taken as a whole, from a sociological-historical perspective, I would agrue the beliefs I have referred to have had a net negative effect. But as to how the beliefs in question affect each individual as per "nicer and more productive" that's something I have no direct way of knowing.
To demonstrate such a thing on an unbiased individualistic basis would require two exact worlds, the only difference being in world 1 subject A+ believed in X, and in the world 2 subject A- did not believe in X.
X = Leprechauns, Trolls, Taro Cards, Gods, Zen, Prayer, Animal Spirits, Zombies, Devils, Heaven, Astrology, Reincarnation, Hell, Purgatory, UFO's, etc.
Foxfyre.
You know, I consider myself to be quite intelligent. IQ tests and other such external measures confirm this.
I also consider myself to be a logician, and value reason over all else.
For these reasons I cannot help but chuckle at your claims of real lifes 'arguments' (if you can even call them that) are 'reasoned and rational'
'real life' has done nothing but present rhetoric and jaded opinion, with naught but a desparate attachment to theological fantasy to back any of it up.
That's why I asked 'if you were for real'
Consider perhaps your own possible misunderstanding of what constitutes logical and/or reasonable arguments.
Doktor S wrote:Foxfyre.
You know, I consider myself to be quite intelligent. IQ tests and other such external measures confirm this.
I also consider myself to be a logician, and value reason over all else.
For these reasons I cannot help but chuckle at your claims of real lifes 'arguments' (if you can even call them that) are 'reasoned and rational'
'real life' has done nothing but present rhetoric and jaded opinion, with naught but a desparate attachment to theological fantasy to back any of it up.
That's why I asked 'if you were for real'
Consider perhaps your own possible misunderstanding of what constitutes logical and/or reasonable arguments.
I'll offer you a different challenge than I offered Chumly then, Doktor. How about you pull out and post a statement, in context, that Reallife has offered to support her position, and then you scientifcally prove it to be false. Be prepared to be challenged if you do not use her full context complete with any qualifiers, however. An intelligent person so convinced of his position on this should be able to do it quite easily. Be sure to post the link information though so we can verify that you have not omitted pertinent arguments.
Take your time. I'll wait.
Hum.
Foxfyre.
See that right there re-enforces my budding opinion that you do not understand logical methodology.
I would think from that you would also find "prove god does not exist" to be a reasonable statement.
Nothing is accomplished, reasonably, by dealing with negatives. Only positives are really useful.
In this example, you are asking me to pull up one of real lifes (what I find to be) absurd claims and disprove it. I could just as easily say "sure, just as soon as you disprove talking pigs"
Not very useful, is it? Although I could never produce evidence for talking pigs, disproving them would be completely impossible.
As such, you are hiding behind an imaginary shield of pseudo-logic.
No, the right way to go about this is as such: You, as the champion of the cogency of poster 'real lifes' arguments, have put yourself in the position of showing just where/how poster 'real lifes' arguments hold water.
I, and anyone else who has read the thread with a modicum of intelligence, realize no support has been offered for any of poster 'real lifes' claims. The ball is now in your court to produce what you find to be a cogent argument from poster 'real life' and illustrate why and how you find said argument reasonable..
Do you understand?
Doktor S wrote:Hum.
Foxfyre.
See that right there re-enforces my budding opinion that you do not understand logical methodology.
I would think from that you would also find "prove god does not exist" to be a reasonable statement.
Nothing is accomplished, reasonably, by dealing with negatives. Only positives are really useful.
In this example, you are asking me to pull up one of real lifes (what I find to be) absurd claims and disprove it. I could just as easily say "sure, just as soon as you disprove talking pigs"
Not very useful, is it? Although I could never produce evidence for talking pigs, disproving them would be completely impossible.
As such, you are hiding behind an imaginary shield of pseudo-logic.
No, the right way to go about this is as such: You, as the champion of the cogency of poster 'real lifes' arguments, have put yourself in the position of showing just where/how poster 'real lifes' arguments hold water.
I, and anyone else who has read the thread with a modicum of intelligence, realize no support has been offered for any of poster 'real lifes' claims. The ball is now in your court to produce what you find to be a cogent argument from poster 'real life' and illustrate why and how you find said argument reasonable..
Do you understand?
I fully understand that you appear to be hiding behind a version of the 'you can't prove a negative' argument. This is a typical ploy of he who debates via insult, dismissal, and disrespect while claiming immunity from having to present any evidence of his own to support a different opinion.
So my challenge to you stands. If you can produce scientific or other verifiable evidence that any substantial, supported argument of Reallife's is incorrect or misrepresented, then you can put the ball in my court to defend her opinion. Until then I say she has already defended it quite well as evidenced by her posts in this thread and the ball is still in your court.
LOL.
Ok then, I accept your resignation.
I simply can't spell it out any clearer for you than I already have. You simply aren't rational, and as such I am not going to waste any more of my time on you.
Until of course, you can produce a claim you are willing to defend.
Doc wrote-
Quote:You know, I consider myself to be quite intelligent. IQ tests and other such external measures confirm this.
All IQ tests confirm is that you have a similar outlook and knackiness that the people who set the tests have.The external measures are more subtle but the basic principle is the same.
Doc also wrote-
Quote:I also consider myself to be a logician, and value reason over all else.
For these reasons I cannot help but chuckle at your claims of real lifes 'arguments'
Logicians don't chuckle Doc.They feel pity and anybody who chuckles at the piteous is a sadist.
spendius wrote:Doc also wrote-
Quote:I also consider myself to be a logician, and value reason over all else.
For these reasons I cannot help but chuckle at your claims of real lifes 'arguments'
Logicians don't chuckle Doc.They feel pity and anybody who chuckles at the piteous is a sadist.
Err..that's..quite the..'interesting'..claim you have there.
I would ask you to support it if I didn't think such an endeavor futile.
Chum wrote-
Quote:Some people believe in Leprechauns, Trolls, Taro Cards, Gods, Zen, Prayer, Animal Spirits, Zombies, Devils, Heaven, Astrology, Reincarnation, Hell, Purgatory, UFO's, etc.
Do these beliefs make people nicer and more productive? I'll leave that up to you to assess. I will say it makes them less realistic.
In my experience the ones who believe in Leprechauns and Tarot shag like bunnies.You'll have to do your own research on the others.I'd probably start with the astrologists if I ran out of the others but I can't gaurantee it.
You would also think a Logican, especially one claiming superior intelligence, would not use a rather incoherent 'you haven't proved it, therefore it isn't so and I win' defense too.
I concede nothing. I will accept that Doktor is ducking the challenge, however.
You havne't provided a coherent 'challenge' as all of 'real lifes' claims have been adressed, or are simply nonsensicle. If you want me to 'disprove' a claim, you will have to first show me a claim that holds water for me to start with.
If you find his/her arguments to be truly cogent, and find his reasonable arguments to be in abundance, producing and defending just one shouldn't be hard right?
As an aside I find that you see 'you can't prove a negative' to be a duck, rather than an axiom, to be rather amusing.
Please, prove to me talking pigs do not exist.
Can't, can you?
All pigs talk Doc.I know that most of them are not as articulate as you but they can talk.They can not only communicate with other pigs using vocalistations but they can communicate with humans as well.
Are you claiming that anybody who can't talk as good as you,or better,can't talk at all.
It's a scientific fact that non-talking pigs don't exist.
I don't believe pigs talk or fly because I have known many pigs but never one that could talk or fly. Also I know many many MANY people, none of whom have ever known a pig to talk or fly. I believe there is no research data available from any source suggesting that pigs talk or fly.
Conversely, as I am sure that all pigs in the universe have not been checked for such phenomena, we can say with no absolutely certainty, but with a good deal of probability that pigs in all likelihood can neither talk nor fly.
Are you paying attention, Doktor? I just presented you with a reasoned argument.
I don't use the axiom that you can't prove a negative as evidence of anything or to duck an argument.
I certainly don't use it to disrespect, insult, or dismiss people who have at least as much evidence for their opinion as we have evidence that pigs neither talk nor fly.
I offered you a very reasonable challenge and you are ducking it like crazy. I will accept that you do not wish to accept it. I will also believe that you do not wish to accept it because you know you won't be able to do it.
Heh
So you can't prove talking pigs don't exist.
Anyhow, as to your ridiculous challenge, as is it is my position 'real life' has presented no cogent argument for me to refute, and you are unwilling or unable to point out such an argument, I am left scratching my head as to what you are asking of me.
