Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-12-2011, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

But I honestly don't know what the capital of Brazil is! I know it's not New York City or Quebec or Melbourne, though. Am I wrong?..

Well, if you honestly don't know the capital of Brazil then it was ILLOGICAL for you to assert that you KNOW it is NOT Copenhagen.

You should know that there may be countries with the same name for their capital or that it is possible.

You have committed a logical fallacy.

It was ILLOGICAL for you to claim that you KNOW the capital of Brazil was NOT Copenhagen when you admit that you don't know the capital of Brazil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

I don't have to know what the capital of Brazil is in order to know it's not Copenhagen...

PyramidHead · 07-12-2011, 12:43 PM

Are you telling me that my belief that Copenhagen is not the capital of Brazil is mistaken?

Kapyong · 07-12-2011, 02:11 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

aa didn't specify a requirement for a firsthand report.

Oh please !
aa asked for :
"who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories."

John 21 does NOT contain a claim to have "seen Jesus".
You are simply wrong.

aa asked for someone who said "THEY" had met Jesus - that clear English means a personal account.

There is ONLY one way to "see Jesus" while he was alive - personally. It is simply NOT possible to "see Jesus" except by doing it personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Notice the tenses of the words. 'This is the disciple who is testifying'. Implies that the disciple was still alive. Otherwise should have said "This is/was the disciple who WAS testifying".

So what?

It is clearly NOT someone saying they had "seen Jesus" at all.
It is someone UNKNOWN person(s) making a claim about someone else.

The facts are crystal clear :
there is NOT ONE single (authentic) claim to have ever seen or met Jesus (just the 2nd C. forgery 2 Peter.)

Kapyong

Kapyong · 07-12-2011, 02:13 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

well, you didn't specify that beforehand. You asked for something and I gave it to you. Now you are backpeddling...bad boy..

Rubbish.

You were asked for someone who said they had "seen Jesus".
Your claimed passage does NOT say the person had "seen Jesus".
It's a 3rd person claim by some unknown person(s)

THAT's the problem - your claim was just wrong.

Kapyong

J-D · 07-12-2011, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The table summarises sources for HJ theories. It is up to the reader to review these theories. It's never too late to start.

Those authors may have written books and/or articles in favour of their positions, whatever those positions are, but that doesn't answer my question, which was: by whom, where, when, has this theory we're talking about been articulated on this board?

Ask Toto.

I see no reason why Toto should be expected to answer a question just because you refuse to answer it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

If somebody wants to come here and point to things which people have posted to this board and explain how they're supposed to be fallacious, that's a contribution to discussion.

If somebody wants to come here and quote from published books or articles and then explain how the material quoted is fallacious argument, that's a contribution to discussion.

aa5874 quotes from the new testament and every so often from more recent authors. I haven't seen you doing that too much.

I am not making any allegations about anything anybody has said except for things aa5874 has said, and I always quote the statements as I comment on them.

Yes, aa5874 quotes statements from the New Testament, but none of those quoted statements, true or false, have been logical fallacies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

If somebody says 'some people have said things which are fallacious, but I'm not going to show you or tell you what they said', the status of that as a contribution to discussion is open to doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

It's pretty obvious there simply was no historical Jesus at the start of all this.

Even if what you say is true, it is not logically necessarily true, and there is nothing necessarily fallacious about taking a different position.

The status of that as a contribution to discussion is open to doubt. It's about as vacuous as the evidence for the historical jesus.

If you think Kapyong's statements are logically necessarily true and taking a different position is necessarily fallacious, you are free to attempt a demonstration. The same is true for Kapyong personally. So far neither of you has attempted such a demonstration.

mountainman · 07-12-2011, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The table summarises sources for HJ theories. It is up to the reader to review these theories. It's never too late to start.

Those authors may have written books and/or articles in favour of their positions, whatever those positions are, but that doesn't answer my question, which was: by whom, where, when, has this theory we're talking about been articulated on this board?

Ask Toto.

I see no reason why Toto should be expected to answer a question just because you refuse to answer it.

Do you see any reason why anyone should answer your questions, such as those above, when it is quite clear to everyone that you should be making the effort yourself to review, research and answer these questions yourself.

J-D · 07-12-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The table summarises sources for HJ theories. It is up to the reader to review these theories. It's never too late to start.

Those authors may have written books and/or articles in favour of their positions, whatever those positions are, but that doesn't answer my question, which was: by whom, where, when, has this theory we're talking about been articulated on this board?

Ask Toto.

I see no reason why Toto should be expected to answer a question just because you refuse to answer it.

Do you see any reason why anyone should answer your questions, such as those above, when it is quite clear to everyone that you should be making the effort yourself to review, research and answer these questions yourself.

Whether you answer my questions is up to you. I can't stop you from refusing to answer questions. You can't stop me from referring to your refusal.

J-D · 07-12-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Even if what you say is true, it is not logically necessarily true, and there is nothing necessarily fallacious about taking a different position

I suppose, (but I am not certain) that you are trying your best to guide us (or at least, those of us who need guidance!) to comprehend the distinction between (intentionally) "illogical", and "logically fallacious".

About all I comprehend, is that the two are not synonyms, a concept not only alien to my humble way of thinking, but also counter-intuitive from my perspective, since I assume that "fallacious" means "deliberately erroneous". I am wondering whether this terminological quandary has its origin in my having a mere, public, secondary school education, or, possessing a genetic predisposition to working class notions, or to having grown up on the wrong side of the pond.

For instance, spin (and Pete, and others too, I am sure) and I completely disagree about his use of the word "retroject", which he writes to communicate "project" about past events, clearly not the proper definition, since retroject is a medical term, well known to all health care practitioners familiar with urology, and has nothing whatsoever to do with neurology, nor with thinking per se, (since neurons communicate by projection.) Another example, is spin's misuse of the word "falsify", which for me, (perhaps uniquely on this forum, at least) always connotes the probability of fraud, (unfortunately all too common in studying biblical texts,) but which spin, and others, employ to explain the concept of "refute". So, it may well be, that my uncustomary notions of language, explain my inability to grasp the concepts you are trying to explain, here, in this thread.

It would be instructive, at least for me, if you could explain, using any one of aa5874's (many) examples, i.e. passages from the gospels, how that particular passage should have been written, 2000 years ago, in order to qualify, today, as "logically fallacious", instead of simply (deliberately) "illogical". Perhaps, in that manner, it will be possible for everyone to benefit, since it appears that some folks are irritated by the seeming repetitiveness of the submissions to this thread, even though, others (i.e.--ME) remain hopelessly mired in the mud, trying to grasp at what appear to be mind numbing vocabulary constraints.

The goal, it seems to me, ought to be to clarify whether or not those forum members, (thanks to Chaucer, for answering J-D's question!!) who posit faith in the concept of an historical Jesus, with or without the gospel fantasy/myth/demons/supernatural nonsense, can, or should, or ought, to be able to claim support for their position using the gospels.

In particular, J-D, I hope you could focus attention on how something can be concurrently both deliberately illogical, and nevertheless, still possible. Earlier in this thread, (page three perhaps) I inquired about this, but thus far, there has been no response. I inquired how a man born with no legs (thalidomide) could receive bilateral amputation of the lower extremities?

At least in the realm of computers, where I feel a tad more comfortable, it is not unlikely that a computer program will fail to execute to completion, if the memory is insufficient. It is IMPOSSIBLE. There is no circumstance where an 8 gigabyte file created in 2011, will fit on a single, double density, 8 inch diameter, 80 kilobyte floppy disk, manufactured by IBM in 1971. In ancient times, scribes encountering this dilemma, either modified the text, or wrote with smaller handwriting......

avi

Logicians study patterns of reasoning. A logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion--the final point in the chain--is not properly supported by the chain from starting point. Logicians have identified and analysed many different kinds of logical fallacy. What defines something as an instance of fallacious reasoning, and more specifically as an instance of a particular kind of fallacy, is not the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (the conclusion of a piece of fallacious reasoning may be true or false), and not the truth or falsehood of the statements which form the starting point (the starting point from which a piece of fallacious reasoning begins may be true or false), but the pattern of connection in between.

Does that help at all?

TedM · 07-12-2011, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

aa didn't specify a requirement for a firsthand report.

Oh please !
aa asked for :
"who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories."

John 21 does NOT contain a claim to have "seen Jesus".
You are simply wrong.

aa asked for someone who said "THEY" had met Jesus - that clear English means a personal account.

There is ONLY one way to "see Jesus" while he was alive - personally. It is simply NOT possible to "see Jesus" except by doing it personally.

Yes, and clearly the writer in John 21 is bearing witness that the Beloved Disciple said he saw Jesus personally because that writer said that that the Beloved Disciple testified and wrote 'these things'--ie the accounts that included his seeing and talking with Jesus. Do we have a verse in which 'John' says he saw Jesus? No. Did aa say that's what he required? No:

Quote:

..Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

He asked me to tell him who said they saw Jesus. I told him who. It is inferred from John 21 where others said that he (John) testified.

Now, I admit that when I chose that passage I actually was under the impression that the writer was claiming that he was the Beloved Disciple, which would have been more direct. Nevertheless, I still complied with his (unclear) request.

In any case, I was just having fun with aa because I know full well from previous correspondence that he never ever ever backs down on his myopic viewpoints.

mountainman · 07-12-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Even if what you say is true, it is not logically necessarily true, and there is nothing necessarily fallacious about taking a different position

I suppose, (but I am not certain) that you are trying your best to guide us (or at least, those of us who need guidance!) to comprehend the distinction between (intentionally) "illogical", and "logically fallacious".

Logicians study patterns of reasoning. A logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion--the final point in the chain--is not properly supported by the chain from starting point. Logicians have identified and analysed many different kinds of logical fallacy. What defines something as an instance of fallacious reasoning, and more specifically as an instance of a particular kind of fallacy, is not the truth or falsehood of the conclusion (the conclusion of a piece of fallacious reasoning may be true or false), and not the truth or falsehood of the statements which form the starting point (the starting point from which a piece of fallacious reasoning begins may be true or false), but the pattern of connection in between.

Does that help at all?

There is no requirement for anyone in this forum (or elsewhere) to adher to the formalised and restricted definition that formalised logic places on the meaning of this term such that you have been demanding ad nauseam of aa5874. See the bolded disclaimer.

Logical fallacy

Quote:

In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy—a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument, which renders the argument invalid.

However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument that is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies—valid but unsound claims or poor non-deductive argumentation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2011, 12:43 PM	#172
PyramidHead Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Providence, Rhode Island Posts: 4,389	Are you telling me that my belief that Copenhagen is not the capital of Brazil is mistaken?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.