timberlandko wrote:Implicator wrote:timberlandko wrote:Implicator wrote:
I have no need to demonstrate it as rational or logical. You claimed it was irrational, and have not demonstrated it to be so. It is a fairly open and closed case at this point.
What is open and closed is that you have no case; in no way can faith be proven to be rational. As previously stipulated, faith is succeptible to no proof.
I see no such previous stipulation in our exchanges.
Implicator wrote:Faith (by definition) is not susceptible to any type of validation, at least not in the sense of a linear proof. That is obvious based on the definition of what faith it.
There again is your own statement, stipulating faith be insusceptible to proof.
That is indeed my own statement; it does not say what you claim it says. You seem to have this ability to read only the portion of my response you
want to see, skipping over a very important phrase. Let me help you out:
Quote:Faith (by definition) is not susceptible to any type of validation, at least not in the sense of a linear proof.
There is my statement, in its entirety, with the crucial qualifier highlighted specifically for your benefit. Now, if you think that an inability to provide validation in the sense of
linear proof makes something irrational, then have at it
demonstrate why this is the case.
Implicator wrote:Now, nowhere, despite your persistent attempt to misdirect through mischaracterization, do I equate faith with emotion
Nor did I claim that you equated faith with emotion, only that you claimed faith is irrational because it is "purely emotion" (your own words.) Be careful who you accuse of straw men.
timberlandko wrote:I merely point out faith, in concert with its twin, superstition, is and are emotional constructs as opposed to logical or rational constructs.
Yes, that is indeed what you suggested, and that is what I responded to, not the straw man that I somewhere claimed you equated faith with emotion.
timberlandko wrote:In a fashion typical of apologists of the religionist proposition, you have employed straw man fallacy in support of petitio in principii fallacy.
There have been no straw men on my part, nor any begging of the question as I have not assumed a distinction between faith and superstition in order to support my contention that they are unique.
timberlandko wrote:Now, granted, that's entailed in any defense of the religionist proposition, but that in no way relieves the practice of its self evident absurdity. You have demonstrated no marked difference between faith and superstition; you merely have claimed to have done so.
Once again you provide your perspective of our interchange, but offer nothing in the way of argument to support your claims. In fact, the rhetoric to argument ratio in your responses is now severely out of balance, being indicative of an argument that has lost the little punch it might have had at the outset. I predict our discussion will deteriorate rapidly from this point on, as you have nothing new or insightful to offer by way of defense of your position. I won't bother to respond to the next few paragraphs, as they are simply a restatement of your position, something you are well accomplished at doing.
timberlandko wrote:I think it not at all irrelevant that others in this thread agree with me - I think that too demonstrates well that you have no case.
What it demonstrates is
Argumentum ad populum on your part.
timberlandko wrote:
as you noticed, the folks agreeing with me in this discussion generally aren't exactly what you mught call my supporters, are they :wink:
Who the crowd normally agrees with has no bearing on whether an appeal to them constitutes proof that I "have no case".
I
