|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 6:14:13 GMT -5
Franko's confusing out-of-context response to my original post does not in any way hold that Christiantiy and Judaism are the same thing, and the church is not a coming together of like-minded folks except accidentally. Didn't think I was out of context . . . just asking a question and pointing out a fact: Christianity arose (or morphed) out of Judaism. I merely suggested that Jesus came to bring people to God, not to start yet another new religion. Of which I am a part.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 6:16:58 GMT -5
Actually, a couple of years ago, I got into this online "resident Catholic" thing because a person with highly insulting and abusive language was giving Franko a whupping in what he thought was a sound "science"- based rationality. Hey, I take offense with that. In no way was I being given a whupping! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2006 6:26:27 GMT -5
Creation was 4,000 years ago? I know Creation is wrong because I FEEL older then that....... You are ... that timeline actually says that creation was 6000 years ago, so fear not. But if creation was 6000 years ago, that tree sure has some 'splaining to do!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2006 6:29:10 GMT -5
Can math or any science tell me what a fly is ? Most assuredly it can. Every living creature can be defined in terms of its DNA. DNA can be broken down mathematically, and is why we can do DNA testing.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 6:44:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2006 6:45:13 GMT -5
I have not idea of what you mean about something to hide? This makes no sense to me. You said that the Bishops have the authority given by God to tell us the truth. It imples that there is something to hide. Why? Because you are inadvertently suggesting that we can't find the truth ourselves and we need only "the Holy Roman Catholic" church to do so. I don't think Jesus or God would support an elitest attitude like that (and I am not implying that you are elitist, only your post seemed to suggest an elitist attitude) I think you are missing my whole point with regards to the Bible. The Bible, as a whole, would never be able to hold up to any challenge in a court of law. It is why in some jurisdictions you now longer have to marry using the Bible, or even swear on the Bible anymore. The bible is a very good book, but it is not a factual historical account of man. When you examine the validity of something in court (because that is society's judgement afterall) you examine the whole. You don't take one chapter and say you see this is true. It doesn't work like that. Something being totally wrong in one place, causes reasonable doubt on the whole book. Let's take Noah's Ark. Even though it is the Old testament, it is the Bible. Everyone knows about the water cycle. And everyone knows that water can not be created or destroyed. There is not enough water on earth for a worldwide flood that kills every person on earth. It is mathematically impossible for the flood, as explained in the Bible, to have occured. So, IMO, that casts doubt on the Bible as a resource for citing history. I have no doubt that you are well versed in the Bible, and its teachings, but THEORHETICALLY, it is possible that the Bible may be historically incorrect. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2006 6:55:12 GMT -5
The universe is intelligently ordered to develop intelligent life. Cause and effect. You are close. It is not a matter of cause and effect, it is an equation of actions. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction - Newton's Third Law of Motion in Physics. Some claim the existence of parrallel universes (there is Star Trek being theorhetically correct again) to explain the opposite and equal reaction of human nature. Mathematically is it sound .... just like faithfully the existence of God is sound. Two trains of thought and both totally justified.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 6:55:36 GMT -5
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception incidentally refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus. Duh. I knew this. But it begs the question where the doctrine itself comes from. It certainly isn't a Biblical Doctrine. In fact, it seems quite gnostic to me. Oh, and I've done a bit of a search on the matter and even the Catholic Church admits that No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. .
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2006 7:01:26 GMT -5
James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a Wednesday'. further . . . But but but .... I thought Monday's child was full of grace, but this does explain why Wednesday's child is full of woe. And if creation was on Sunday October 23 (I got to laugh at that since the calendar as we know it did not even exist back then) than the Bible supports homosexuality since " the child born on the Sabbath Day, Is fair and wise and good and gay. " .... (I know I know ..bad joke ... shhheeshhh I was just trying to lighten the mood)
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2006 7:11:10 GMT -5
I can't believe I confused "Angels and Demons" with the "Da Vince Code" on the location question!!! DOH!
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2006 7:36:08 GMT -5
You don't Really think that Christianity, except for a small number of "fundamentalists" or biblical literalists, think the earth is only a few thousand years old, eh? Complete with fossils! LOL! Good one.You can read that 12 different ways! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 7:46:00 GMT -5
Franko's confusing out-of-context response to my original post does not in any way hold that Christiantiy and Judaism are the same thing, and the church is not a coming together of like-minded folks except accidentally. Didn't think I was out of context . . . just asking a question and pointing out a fact: Christianity arose (or morphed) out of Judaism. I merely suggested that Jesus came to bring people to God, not to start yet another new religion. Of which I am a part. The context was a response to the common and hurriedly stated " I don't like "organized" religion often along with "I'm spiritual, but not religious" and my reponse was that the Jesus that everybody likes to talk about most certianly was very much for "organized" religion. He started what I believe is still the world's largest and other religions, like yours are also routed in His person. ( I didn't mean for this to sound dismissive of the reformation religions, but only historical) Your post was unrelated to the point, hence out-of-context and ambiguously stated, such that the context rendered it as saying that Jesus dd not intend to start a new religion when he did, which is of course ridiculous. If you had intended merely to speak of Jesus' mission to the Jews, a change of context should have made that clear, and I still have to respond to it again, now.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 7:51:40 GMT -5
Actually, a couple of years ago, I got into this online "resident Catholic" thing because a person with highly insulting and abusive language was giving Franko a whupping in what he thought was a sound "science"- based rationality. Hey, I take offense with that. In no way was I being given a whupping! ;D You were certainly offering a valiant and dare I say "spirited" resistance, but the root of the attack, thougn he didn't recognize it either, was in the very real discipline of philosophy. He was a disciple of scientism, the belief that only science can arrive at truths, howsoever limited they be. That view is of coourse unscientific , false and self-contradictory. Naive dogmatic materialism is the formal description.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 7:53:43 GMT -5
Creation was 4,000 years ago? I know Creation is wrong because I FEEL older then that....... You are ... that timeline actually says that creation was 6000 years ago, so fear not. But if creation was 6000 years ago, that tree sure has some 'splaining to do!! ;D It sure as hell (an interesting idea) does. At this age though, I'd bet its bark is worse than it's plight! I really should spellcheck BEFORE I post.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 26, 2006 8:00:02 GMT -5
Didn't think I was out of context . . . just asking a question and pointing out a fact: Christianity arose (or morphed) out of Judaism. Try telling that to some people....and take cover from the barrage of anti-Semites. That is also why fundamentalist Muslims lump Christians and Jews together. Which reminds me of something.... I was reading a passage from a book at Passover Seder dinner. The word "chosen ones" was repeater often enough. I wonder if there is ANY major religion that doesn't tell it's followers that they are "chosen/special". ~~~~~~~~~~ SPIRO.....you mutt! Make the text LARGER in the message box. I can barely read the text and I am ALWAYS going back to correct my spelzing. Grrrrr.......
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 8:01:44 GMT -5
LOL! Good one.You can read that 12 different ways! ;D I was [almost] thinking specifically of you!
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 8:17:04 GMT -5
Didn't think I was out of context . . . just asking a question and pointing out a fact: Christianity arose (or morphed) out of Judaism. Try telling that to some people....and take cover from the barrage of anti-Semites. That is also why fundamentalist Muslims lump Christians and Jews together. Which reminds me of something.... I was reading a passage from a book at Passover Seder dinner. The word "chosen ones" was repeate often enough. I wonder if there is ANY major religion that doesn't tell it's folowers that they are "chosen/special". I would suspect, that along with any differentiation, or recommendation for a particular course, the idea of special would be common. I n the idea of Christianity, in that God necessarily transcends time, the future is present to Him, as is the past. Accordingly, and this actually ties into why the church was called, identified, and referred to as "catholic" or universal. All are special. God knows us before we are born and has already seen our future life and the choices we have made. God's love is universal. The church doesn't teach that God loves a turkey like me becasue I am a little religious, more than he loves some kid walking down a path in North Vietnam. That wouldn't be a God worth bothering about. In fact, in the parable of the "lost sheep", God is shown as having a particular concern for those on the "outside". And, going to the church, and saying you believe, which can ammount to affirming some propositions as true, is not in itself salvific, but neither is it necessarily too serious a fault to get caught up a little with the externals or accidentals. The human soul is eternal, as is seen in its spiritual powers, the intellect and free will. (That should spark a minor riot!) So we are all "special". It is often quite hard for me to think of the big guy in the sky "loving" a person or anything at all. That's the witness and in part the sense of the crucifixion, and too, it is evident that real love exists in the world. I like an old Jewish saying, that "God couldn't be everywhere, so he made mothers."
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 8:33:02 GMT -5
Another funny thing I heard on CBC today, is that a scientist thinks he has accurately answered the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I don't care, although I thought his answer the most plausible (whatever my agreeing on that issue is worth!) , but the chiken or the egg question does get pretty close to the real and deep question of how things are actually caused, and why I think the cosmological arguments prove the existence of a God who is pure Act and creator, a necessary being upon which contingent reality (like us for instance) is held in being.
Metaphysical arguments deal not with things that exist, but that things exist. Being itself. That's why its so difficult a science. How does one study being?
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 8:58:39 GMT -5
I n the idea of Christianity, in that God necessarily transcends time, the future is present to Him, as is the past. Accordingly, and this actually ties into why the church was called, identified, and referred to as "catholic" or universal. All are special. God knows us before we are born and has already seen our future life and the choices we have made. God's love is universal. Hey . . . a closet Calvinist! This comment begs the question: If God does indeed know us since before we are born and has already seen our future life and the choices we have/will make, how can we have free will? For a questionable fiction read on the issue, Blink, by Ted Dekker. His Circle Trilogy is somewhat intriguing, somewhat interesting, and mostly worth the [easy] read [books in the trilogy: Black, White, Red].
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 9:00:22 GMT -5
Here's something on topic (so we can remember what it's like): TORONTO, June 23 /CNW/ - A National Geographic Channel survey reveals 32% of Canadians who have read The Da Vinci Code believe the theories outlined in the bestselling novel are true -- particularly that a holy bloodline exists and that this secret has been protected through the ages by a dedicated society.
Conducted by Decima Research Inc. among 1,005 Canadians 18 years of age or older, the National Geographic Channel survey was commissioned to coincide with the network's broadcast of Da Vinci Code Sunday -- a special day of programming on June 26 featuring three back-to-back documentaries exploring The Da Vinci Code and author Dan Brown's controversial theories. This lineup includes the Canadian broadcast premiere of Breaking the Da Vinci Code at 6 p.m. ET.
"Dan Brown's thriller was such a phenomenal success because readers felt they were being let in on an explosive historical secret," said Vanessa Case, Vice President of Programming, National Geographic Channel and Life Network. "It is obvious that The Da Vinci Code has had a huge impact on Canadians and their beliefs. We expect Dan Brown fans and skeptics alike will be captivated by our programming on Da Vinci Code Sunday."
The survey reveals that almost one in five Canadians (16%) have read The Da Vinci Code. Canadian women are significantly more likely (20%) to have read the novel than men (12%). Throughout the country, Ontarians (19%), Quebeckers (18%) and British Columbians (18%) were most likely to have read the book while only 8% of Atlantic Canadians and 9% of Albertans claim to have read it.link
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 26, 2006 9:31:25 GMT -5
Here's something on topic (so we can remember what it's like): TORONTO, June 23 /CNW/ - A National Geographic Channel survey reveals 32% of Canadians who have read The Da Vinci Code believe the theories outlined in the bestselling novel are true
32% believe the theories are true? I sure hope more Americans believe it to be true than Canadians. I believe it might be more accurate to state one-third of the population would like more proof (more than just the Bible, holy scriptures, and religious writings based on both) that the history surrounding Jesus is accurate. Records that far back are sketchy at best, heresay mostly. Today's skeptism towards religion and church officials is at an all-time high, and now we are questioning everything they force-fed through the ages, and putting the church under the microscope. The fact the church appears to resist such scrutiny makes the conspiracy theories (and I dont mean just Dan Brown's) plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 9:41:50 GMT -5
I n the idea of Christianity, in that God necessarily transcends time, the future is present to Him, as is the past. Accordingly, and this actually ties into why the church was called, identified, and referred to as "catholic" or universal. All are special. God knows us before we are born and has already seen our future life and the choices we have made. God's love is universal. Hey . . . a closet Calvinist! This comment begs the question: If God does indeed know us since before we are born and has already seen our future life and the choices we have/will make, how can we have free will? For a questionable fiction read on the issue, Blink, by Ted Dekker. His Circle Trilogy is somewhat intriguing, somewhat interesting, and mostly worth the [easy] read [books in the trilogy: Black, White, Red]. Me! A closet Calvinist??!!!!!! God spare me!! In typical Calviinist form those emoticons are good...you have ascribed your theological boondoggle to me. If on a hill, you see a busload of Leaf fans on their way across a bridge, and see that the bridge is out, and that they are travelling too fast to stop and will fall off the bridge and no doubt as Leaf fans all go to hell without passing go, your fore-knowlledge does not cause the behaviour. Neither does God's foreknowledge cause the behaviours in that respect. Karl Barth, the Calvinist theologian of note, absolutely hated Saint Thomas Aquinas' "Analogy of proper proprtionality" a great shame......Calvinist ...mutter ...mutter...
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 10:02:56 GMT -5
Here's something on topic (so we can remember what it's like): TORONTO, June 23 /CNW/ - A National Geographic Channel survey reveals 32% of Canadians who have read The Da Vinci Code believe the theories outlined in the bestselling novel are true
32% believe the theories are true? I sure hope more Americans believe it to be true than Canadians. I believe it might be more accurate to state one-third of the population would like more proof (more than just the Bible, holy scriptures, and religious writings based on both) that the history surrounding Jesus is accurate. Records that far back are sketchy at best, heresay mostly. Today's skeptism towards religion and church officials is at an all-time high, and now we are questioning everything they force-fed through the ages, and putting the church under the microscope. The fact the church appears to resist such scrutiny makes the conspiracy theories (and I dont mean just Dan Brown's) plausible. Horsepucky. I've always known that well more than 32% of Americans are way beyond dumb, and to believe theories thirty-five years after the principal con man (Plantard) an arrested con man has gone on TV to admit the forgeries and deception, is well beyond uninformed. Thaty's why the lying Brown's fraud is so terrible a thing to do. The extremeley consistent actual godprld (as virtually any SERIOUS scholar) will tell you are just about the most well evidenced of any material in all of western human antiquity. And by a factor of a hundred times other documents accepted by historians. The major problem in the culture at large, is a vast see of near total ignorance. That's always the major problem. Exactly what "scrutiny" are you saying the church is resisting? The stuff and somewhat paranoid ravings you instance, are taught to kids in the fifth grade and have been for centuries? Protestants, especially of the congregationalist variety with some exceptions, almost never are biblical scholars. The US is a nation that suffers from such sholarly lacunae. Black holes. This is new stuff for them. It's ancient to Catholicism. It is quite common for protestants who decide to read the earliest church history to find themselves compelled by conscience to become Catholics. I'm sorry if all this stuff is so new to you. It's older than the chunk of dead cheddar in the back of my fridge. Now that's old. What's really happening is a very strong backlash against the moral teaching of the church, specifically about abortion, homosexual acts, divorce, and the ahole subculture that regards sex without any care for its impact upon the lives and deaths of others as sacrosanct. A slight silver lining to the Da Vinci Hoax is that maybe a few people might actually dig a little deeper than A&E and a lying fraud for education. As to stuffing down your throat, I wish you would stop using such perjorative and abusive language. It has precious little justification. Following the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, the civil means of Rome did sway the church towards the standard ethics of the day. All societies tend to absolutize the state, and in medieval setting, it was considered better to suffer physical ill, than to lose one's soul. Christ did, and the church does still, and quite accurately teach that obvious fact, but the excesses, and we are talking about some quite diversed populations, were bound to occur and did.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 10:18:18 GMT -5
In typical Calviinist form those emoticons are good...you have ascribed your theological boondoggle to me. Not sure what you mean here. I'm Wesleyan/free-will, through-and-through. No, but foreknowledge in this way limits the possibility that one rotten Leaf fan may remember that he can kick the back door open and jump out. The question kicked around is this: if god knows that I will act in some certain way, do I have the ability to act differently? If I can't, do I have free will? Did God know that Dan Brown would write this book and raise such a ruckus? If so, is it therefore His fault that there is such a controversy? Did He know that we would discuss it? If He knows what I will write, do I have the ability write something differenct, and if so, where is my free will to change my mind? And am I evr going to get any work done today? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 10:38:02 GMT -5
In typical Calviinist form those emoticons are good...you have ascribed your theological boondoggle to me. Not sure what you mean here. I'm Wesleyan/free-will, through-and-through. No, but foreknowledge in this way limits the possibility that one rotten Leaf fan may remember that he can kick the back door open and jump out. The question kicked around is this: if god knows that I will act in some certain way, do I have the ability to act differently? If I can't, do I have free will? Did God know that Dan Brown would write this book and raise such a ruckus? If so, is it therefore His fault that there is such a controversy? Did He know that we would discuss it? If He knows what I will write, do I have the ability write something differenct, and if so, where is my free will to change my mind? And am I evr going to get any work done today? ;D Ya ..I've got to go to the Hammer today...eventually.. One can only have knowlege or foreknowledge of what is. Truth is actually, just reality. Peopale are confused about objective truth and what it means. They think it's something to do with an attitude, or unemotionality (That makes me SO MADDD. just kidding) . That was the maitake of aur culture since Descartes and Kant and all the other crazy people. A lie is actually just a case of giving something to nothing. Only waht is is true, so most questions on even complicated issues can be resolved, if the good will and capacity for honesty is there. Signs of madness or a useful meaning of insanity, is when people say things like "That's true for you." or "Everything is relative." or "Everything is subjective." All insane. Thus God will see the Leaf fan escape the bus to the rescue vehicle of the good ship Habbyness if that's what is freely chosen. P.S. Sorry about the Calvinist assumption...by which I don't mean somethng like the Immacualte Assumption. That would and I'm sure did spin Mr Barth around a few times. Now I gotta go to work...I've used up all the extra time I did yesterday, though I'm not paid by the hour. Ciao baby.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 10:43:52 GMT -5
Can math or any science tell me what a fly is ? Most assuredly it can. Every living creature can be defined in terms of its DNA. DNA can be broken down mathematically, and is why we can do DNA testing. I missed this post earlier. Let the games begin. I'll have to throw my first bomb later...(Thor was just about to .......) Oh goody goody goody. Before I start, I will extend the opportunity to completely and unconditionally surrender. In any event, if you are killed in combat, I will take up a collection for the women and children you leave behind.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 11:20:21 GMT -5
Protestants, especially of the congregationalist variety with some exceptions, almost never are biblical scholars. MY FRIEND, YOU GO TO FAR! (and yes, I know that I am yelling). As you are fond of saying, Horsepucky. Protestant scholars may not be doctrinally on the same page as Catholic scholars, but they are scholars just the same. G. E. Ladd, F. F. Bruce, Barth, Tillich, Schleiermacher, Bultmann (the gamut from Conservative to Liberal) are all scholars and well versed in biblical studies. Some even studied under Catholic teaching (I can do that in Ottawa if I so desire, at St. Paul’s University). This assertion went too far. I would also suggest that it is quite common for Catholics who decide to read the earliest church history to find themselves compelled by conscience to become Protestant. Which is what many of us Protestants said since the beginning (see the links to Christianity today as previously posted). There is a lot more effort in defending the gospel than is necessary. But it is fun.
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on May 26, 2006 13:30:40 GMT -5
For those like me who are following this interesting debate at a certain distance, here a list I picked up that might help analyze posters argumentation. The list comes from a website which is clearly the work of evil www.nobeliefs.com/ so it is most probably incomplete and biased. The web site itself, that i just discovered, while blasphemous, is interesting nonetheless if you are, like me, walking through your life in a constant state of confusion waiting for THE enlightenment. Some background infos on me: My parents are born catholics, but I'm not baptized. They wanted me to choose to be religious or not, I chose not. My parents are happily separated, not divorced cause they weren't married. In no way they consider their 11 years union or separation to be a mistake or a failure. In fact their separation were probably the best decision they made, for the family. My brother, my sister and I, benefited from that decision as it meant less argument, happier parents, two houses, chance to know other adults (moms and dads new loves), etc. No one got traumatized by their separation. Jesus has never been present in my life, apart from these annual biblical movie marathons on TV each easter. Nonetheless, I've been thought to be generous, open-minded and curious, kind with others and respect them as I wanted to be respected, to love in disinterested manner, to be honest. I completed my set of moral tools with good philosophical readings and experimentation, but again mostly no Jesus here. Today, I'm a happy guy soon to be thirty. Most importantly, I think I've been enjoying that happiness while making (or least trying) to make people around me happy also. I'm proud of the heritage and values of my families and I intend to pass it on to my kids. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- List of common fallacies (since the debate level at HabsRus is of high quality, you might not find that many fallacies in our posters reasoning, but its good to have'em underhand expecially in hardcore debate) ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger. appeal to ignorance: (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence. argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute." appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence. appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability. argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it. argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way. argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell) argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance. argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease. begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior? circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.) composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.) confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best). confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man). excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes." half truths (suppressed evidence): An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description. loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?) meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been." misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations? observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true. post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China. proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims. red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject. reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, etc. slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur. special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or: Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.) statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances. straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument. two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 26, 2006 14:48:40 GMT -5
For those like me who are following this interesting debate at a certain distance, here a list I picked up that might help analyze posters argumentation. The list comes from a website which is clearly the work of evil www.nobeliefs.com/ so it is most probably incomplete and biased. The web site itself, that i just discovered, while blasphemous, is interesting nonetheless if you are, like me, walking through your life in a constant state of confusion waiting for THE enlightenment. Some background infos on me: My parents are born catholics, but I'm not baptized. They wanted me to choose to be religious or not, I chose not. My parents are happily separated, not divorced cause they weren't married. In no way they consider their 11 years union or separation to be a mistake or a failure. In fact their separation were probably the best decision they made, for the family. My brother, my sister and I, benefited from that decision as it meant less argument, happier parents, two houses, chance to know other adults (moms and dads new loves), etc. No one got traumatized by their separation. Jesus has never been present in my life, apart from these annual biblical movie marathons on TV each easter. Nonetheless, I've been thought to be generous, open-minded and curious, kind with others and respect them as I wanted to be respected, to love in disinterested manner, to be honest. I completed my set of moral tools with good philosophical readings, but again mostly no Jesus here. Today, I'm a happy guy soon to be thirty. Most importantly, I think I've been enjoying that happiness while making (or least trying) to make people around me happy also. I'm proud of the heritage and values of my families and I intend to pass it on to my kids. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- List of common fallacies (since the debate level at HabsRus is of high quality, you might not find that many fallacy in pour posters reasoning, but its good to have'em underhand expecially in hardcore debate) ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger. appeal to ignorance: (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence. argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute." appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence. appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability. argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it. argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way. argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell) argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance. argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease. begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior? circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.) composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.) confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best). confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man). excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes." half truths (suppressed evidence): An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description. loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?) meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been." misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations? observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true. post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China. proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims. red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject. reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, etc. slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur. special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or: Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.) statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances. straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument. two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion. Excellent post. I studied logic, symbolic and natural language logic at U fo T and we covered the fallacies you list. Most conversations have a tonne (metric) of them. I don't want you getting the idea that I think everybody on earth should be a catholic or that the church or me thinks that you must be. She does not. Blasphemy as far as I know requires an awareness of and assent to (just like a criminal charge) the substance of the act. In my experience, most people carry a religious and cosmological knowledge base, roughly equivalent to a third grader. While this "resident Catholic" thing for me started with a lot of ugly statements directed at another poster, I too get more than a little fed up with the really flat cliche arguments, accusations and gratuitous insults directed towards me and Catholicism. We are the new "blacks " which is fine by me. I'd rather be a slave than slave-"owner". I find most of my culture, and most criticisms of Catholicism to be almost brainless, on all the big questions. I think homosexuals are not in the least designed for male on male sexual acts, (and so does all of modern medicine) so I must therefore be an irrational right wing conservatve (I'm a liberal) filled with "hate" and judgementalism. Ya, sure. Most criticism runs along that kind of vein. And it's really, really dumb. Very few people ever take up the challenge and adress the My mother "converted" genuinely to Catholicism when she married my dad, who was a bloody good man though demanding and one who didn't suffer fools lightly as the saying goes. If not for him and his resolve, I think the marriage might have floundered. All it takes is one bad spell. His lifelong convictions and strength won through. I realize that the claims of the church are unavoidably a challenge to other notions about life, and I am not in the least trying to suggest that I'm holding some idealized standard over all of mankind, but neither am I able or inclined to dismiss or trivialize the most famous man in human history and his works. The challenge to us all is undeniable. That is the main source of the anti-religious sentiment so popular today. It's a bit of a catch 22 I realize, but for me there is only one interesting question vis a vis religion, that being as follows. Is it true. Is this the way it is. I am persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that this is how it is, and must defend what I see as reality. The test is in the challenge to this claim. All have failed in 2000 years. But please don't take what I see as reality and imagine it constitutes a critique of you, your values or your personl history. Catholicism reveals that God is no enemy of anyone. The statistical evidence on divorce is overwhelmingly negative incidentally, but it may well be that your parents relationship never should have been a marriage. I know of a family with four kids whose marriage was annulled on reasonable grounds, odd as that may seem. It was a mistake from the beginning and the preconditions of maturity and psychological health thought to be there, upon examination, were seen not to be there. A mistake. God is not a religious bigot or an anti-religioius bigot insofar as it is given to me to understand and as Groucho Marx said "I refuse to be a member of any club that would have a person like me as a member." That's pretty much how I view the church. it's for the flawed, like me and leaf fans everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 26, 2006 14:51:29 GMT -5
For those like me who are following this interesting debate at a certain distance, here a list I picked up that might help analyze posters argumentation. What, now I have to make sense or someone is going to throw Latin at me? I'm already having enough problems dodging Catholic! ;D
|
|