Koyaanisqatsi

Well, it's not my concern whether anyone "sees me as conceding" anything; the "concession" is there. All I need to do is point that out.

Again, it is not my concern how many other people do or do not "see the difference," only that the person who made the fallacious argument sees the difference and, hopefully, conceeds that he or she was incorrect in their post.

God is in the details

Well, for example, you thought yourself to be "correct/right" to use the terms you were using, but they were not "correct/right" and the only way to show you that was by delving into the details.

Otherwise, you would continue to go around presenting a fallacious argument and defending it passionately, without ever recognizing the flaw in it.

That is anathema to me as I'm sure you already know .

I am passionate about seeking the truth. Anything that derails that denigrates us all, IMO.

A common problem with theism is that it necessarily entails the destruction of critical reason; the collateral damage of which is to randomly redefine terms so that they have the opposite meaning. Thus, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword," to a properly conditioned theist becomes in their mind, "I came not to bring a sword, but peace."

What you did here is a perfect example of that. You are turning a statement completely around so that, to your ears and, worse, your mind, when someone says, "I hold no beliefs," you hear "I hold beliefs."

That is not acceptable and demonstrates perfectly the inherent destructive problem with such mentality; it not only destroys your ability to properly apply critical analysis to your own beliefs, but causes you to actually change what others tell you into something that is its own polar opposite.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

What are you talking about? I was making the distinction between "holding no beliefs" and "rejecting a belief" in Helen's invalid syllogism.

To say, "I hold no beliefs" is a fundamentally different statement than to say, "I reject a particular belief."

She had equated them.

Were you not following?

DRFseven

This is just like the problem with the "God" concept. Like when we were little kids and would ask each other, "Does your mother know you smoke?" I would think anyone in this forum would realize that a yes or no answer is just inappropriate to that question. No matter how easy and simple it might make things to just answer yes or no, an unintended meaning will be conveyed. Apparently that seems trifling to many theists and atheists, alike.

WJ

Koy said;

"I am passionate about seeking the truth. Anything that derails that denigrates us all, IMO."

Koy,

Could you please explain to us the difference between truth and belief? In otherwords, your answer will determine how passionate (and comprehensive) you (your thought process) really are about seeking the truth.

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Here we go again...



"Truth" is that which has been established by the evidence to a reasonable certainty according to both an individual and a group consensus after considered critical review of said evidence, subject to the rigors of the scientific method.

"Belief" is that which is accepted as true by an individual regardless of the evidence, either to the contrary or in insufficient amounts to establish as true according to the same rigors of the scientific method.

WJ

Koy,

Thanks for your reply. One last question. In your view (opinion, belief, assumption, etc.), using the 'logic' from the definitions (some of the words) and breaking it down further, how would you 'define' or what, in your mind, would you consider the 'appropriate' definitions for the following:

'God' "evidence" = ?

"scientific method" [viz the proposition/assertion/concept God]= ?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Can I hold you to that?

Nice try. Thought you could just equate "belief" with "view" did you?

You can not as they are not equivalent, nor is "belief" equivalent with "opinion" or "assumption."

Clear? If you ever attempt to put either the word "belief" or "believe" in my mouth in any further post directed at me it will instantly end the interchange, capisca?

I will therefore take your unparanthesized terms as the only legitimate one to your question.

I don't know what that means. There is only one "logic."

If I can decipher this, I would define "God" as a fictional character from ancient cult mythology and "evidence" as that which supports to a reasonable degree of certainty a truth claim.

Again, if I can decipher what you're asking me, I would define the "scientific method" as the rigorous application of critical analysis to all relevant evidence in support of a given truth claim, including verification, falsification and repetition, where applicable.

As for the "proposition/assertion/concept God" I will not assume what you mean by this.

You will have to spell it out correctly and coherently.

You will have to take a position and establish your proposition.

I have defined my terms. You are free to challenge any aspect of those definitions.

First, of course, you will have to explain to everyone in this thread why any of this is relevant or on topic, since you are the one who has (yet again) engaged me in defining my terms.

WJ

Koy,

I'm trying to follow your logic, but you refuse to completely and thouroughly explain the [your] differences between a truth and belief. So how is one supposed to understand your position?

Let me try again. (For instance, re:scientific method))You then said: "Again, if I can decipher what you're asking me, I would define the "scientific method" as the rigorous application of critical analysis to all relevant evidence in support of a given truth claim, including verification, falsification and repetition,where applicable."

Please explain the "where applicable" part relative to the concept God?


Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

What logic? I simply defined terms.

I not only did not "refuse," I did precisely that.

You got me. Remedial English?

The "where applicable" part is in referrence to "verification, falsification and repetition," not the "concept God."

Clear?

Now, please first explain how this pointlessness is at all relevant to the topic, thereby justifying why you have initiated this sidetrack before you go into specific detail re:

WJ

Koy,

The "where applicable" part is in referrence to "verification, falsification and repetition," not the "concept God."



Helen, is the discussion not in reference to 'the ficticious creature' known as God?

Koy? Anyone?

Walrus