Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-11-2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

I am amazed at the constant resort to name calling in lieu of argumentation. My remark was part of a larger argument and therefore, unlike yours, has relevance.

*snort*

If I recall, your larger argument went along the lines of, "You made a typo, therefore you're wrong about everything you write."

Tres relevant.

Jeff

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-11-2002, 04:29 PM

Thedophile,

Quote:

You're half right - you're obviously new to any form of logic.

Umm... let's see.... Umm... no. Not so.

Let's see. I got my MS in CS from a university that was at the time number 25 in the country for computer science.

As an undergraduate, I was graduated with High Honors in Computer Science. I also aced (that is, received an A+ in) Symbolic Logic. As part of that course, I wrote a computer program to automatically establish the validity of a logical argument. In addition, I was one course away from a Philosophy minor.

My coursework (particularly in computability theory and algorithms) relied heavily on rigorous mathematical proofs, such as reproducing Church's Thesis, determining computability/partial-computability, and assorted proofs of NP Completeness and the like. Needless to say, I passed all these courses with sufficiently high marks such that I was awarded my degrees.

I know there are plenty of people who know more about logic than I do (though I doubt you're one of them), but I am hardly new to it, either.

Next, please. Now serving number ... 2.

Quote:

It is a categorical statement for which you have still furnished no support.

Nor have you disproven it. It still remains as a valid hypothesis, unless you can show me that, in general, it's not true.

Quote:

Childish.

I am rubber, you are glue.

Quote:

You continue to confirm your ignorance of the doctrine.

As do you, by your continued inability to attack my arguments, only my character. From your opening shot attacking a spelling error (of all things) to this latest salvo calling me childish and unable to frame an argument, I don't believe you've even addressed a single one of my points. For someone as allegedly well-versed in doctrine as yourself, this should be easy.

Quote:

You seem to be having enough trouble managing your own arguments, don't presume to restate mine.

The only difficulty I'm having with my arguments is finding small enough words to use so that you will understand them.

Now, we can continue to go ad hominem like this all year, if you like. It is very entertaining, but it's hardly proving your point. (Which is...?)

Jeff

bonduca · 03-11-2002, 04:42 PM

Quote:

I am amazed at the constant resort to name calling in lieu of argumentation. My remark was part of a larger argument and therefore, unlike yours, has relevance.

Quote:

It may also be characteristic of a lack of mental discipline, as it is here.

Theophilus, I have dyslexia and frequently make spelling errors. Would you say that automatically meant that I had a lack of mental discipline? Would you say that because of this, I am incapable of constructing a rational argument, or that my (possibly misspelled) point is therefore invalid?

If so, I really must take exception to this.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Mageth · 03-11-2002, 05:14 PM

I am amazed at the constant resort to name calling in lieu of argumentation. My remark was part of a larger argument and therefore, unlike yours, has relevance.

Talk about someone who can dish it out but not take it...

Unlike yours, I don't claim my comment had any particular relevance. You claim yours does, but it doesn't, and you can't prove that it does. It is, however, indicative of your general ignorance (to borrow a favorite insult of yours).

A charge of resorting to name calling coming from you, the master of veiled (and not so veiled) insults (what is referring to someone as "childish" if not name-calling?) is laughable, and further indicative of your egocentricity.

Further, am I to assume, by your logic, that your continued inability to grasp the basics of UBB code in posting replies may be characteristic of a lack of mental discipline?

Mageth · 03-11-2002, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by theophilus:

Well, that is very interesting but not at all germaine to your comment which was "theists IN GENERAL," which cannot possibly be interpreted as "some."

It's "GERMANE," not "GERMAINE."

Inconsistency! Learn to spell. Your spelling error is only important because it is symptomatic of your larger irrationality! It may also be characteristic of a lack of mental discipline, as it is here!

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Datheron · 03-11-2002, 05:22 PM

Not Prince Hamlet,

I also snort at Theo's supposed "spelling error argument in the construct of the larger picture of mental incompetence".

Anyway, this is definitely off the topic, but I'm hoping that just this one post will not result in a hijacking of the thread. I was wondering, as you mentioned that you graduated with a BS in CS, that which university did you graduate from? I myself am pursuing a BA in CS, in I believe the 3rd ranked university in CS in the country (UC Berkeley), and sadly I have not had to take any heavy coursework in formal logic. Of course, they make it up by giving us lots of code to pore over.

BTW, as far as I know, the grammatical error that you pointed out against Theo was completely correct, and in my book, such a grammatical mistake is much more severe than a mis-typing of the keys.

Albert Cipriani · 03-11-2002, 06:05 PM

Dear Tercel,

Quote:

Faith is trusting someone with something and not trying to do it yourself.

You make no "cents" and get no credit for "not trying to do it yourself" when the "it" is impossible to do. In your context, then, of Faith = Trust, you have no choice but to Trust God to save you. Ergo, trust is not something you can do. So your statement reduces to a bald-faced repetition of your un-argued assertion: Faith is trust.

Quote:

Empirical information or lack thereof, I hold is not directly related to Faith.

Empirical information or lack thereof is directly related to all things. Indeed, no thing is without empirical information regarding it. God Himself is spiritually empirically "in touch" with His being and thereby experiences Himself as a Trinity.

That you claim to somehow have Faith or trust or knowledge or information independently of empirical means only demonstrates your ability to assert the nonsensical. I'd have to have you're kind of Faith, that is, "super-rational" trust in your being endowed with superhuman capacity you cannot share or explain. No thanks. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-11-2002, 06:37 PM

Datheron,

I received my BA from Clark University, nowhere near as prestigious a school as the one you're attending.

I think the BA is the way to go, by the way, instead of the BS. I find that while the BS gives you a stronger background in math and the sciences, a BA gives you a better overall education. Just my opinion, though.

Jeff

spin · 03-12-2002, 04:33 AM

Whinging about theophilus who wrote:

---Well, that is very interesting but not at all germaine to your comment which was "theists IN GENERAL," which cannot possibly be interpreted as "some."---

Megath says:
-----------------------------------------------
It's "GERMANE," not "GERMAINE."

Inconsistency! Learn to spell. Your spelling error is only important because it is symptomatic of your larger irrationality! It may also be characteristic of a lack of mental discipline, as it is here!
-----------------------------------------------
If you understood what theophilus said why perform these hand stands?

Something anyone who says this sort of thing should know, is that an English language education is so worried about spelling that it pays no attention to grammar, morphology or phonetics. In fact, most teachers don't understand what any of these terms really mean.

The learners of the mother tongue in their respective countries are shocked and amused by the general level of ignorance of an English speaker about his/her own language and understands now why they are hopeless learners of foreign languages.

So, fine gripe about incoherent spellings. The English orthographic system itself is incoherent. Nearly all languages have the system that one letter equals one sound, though often things have become a little more complicated. The worst language after English is French whose orthographic system is quite complex, but a hellovalot more coherent than English. Think of words like: though, tough, thought, thorough, drought and through. Do you see anything coherent about the relationship between spelling and pronunciation? Obviously not. Spelling is a burden which cannot be justified, other than by saying it's the only system we've got and then sticking one's head back in the sand.

Think of the wasted brainspace one needs for spelling. Nearly every word needs to be memorized. A Turkish speaker doesn't need to waste such brain power, nor does an Italian. And both if educated probably know much more about languages than the average educated English speaker.

The major reason why people can't read, behind the economico-culture ones is that the orthography makes no sense. So, why complain about someone who gets one word spelt wrong when you could understand the meaning?

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

spin · 03-12-2002, 04:46 AM

Tercel, attempting to separate the words "faith" and "belief" wrote:

"Why do you insist on relating faith to belief (especially belief + hope) when there is precious little evidence the Bible writers using the word meant anything of the sort.

Epitome and I have already demonstrated to you here that the meaning of "faith" as used in the Bible is best described as relating to Trust. "

While the separation is ideally clear, one needs to consider, when "faith" is used with regard to God, that, as God's existence cannot be validated, his existence is a matter of belief, so that the "faith" being talked about must refer to the "trust" in something that one only believes in. Hence, some tend to equate the terms "faith" and "belief", and I don't think they are particularly unjustified.

The simplest way to demonstrate the nett difference between the two terms is to show the target of the "trust".

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

03-11-2002, 05:14 PM	#64
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I am amazed at the constant resort to name calling in lieu of argumentation. My remark was part of a larger argument and therefore, unlike yours, has relevance. Talk about someone who can dish it out but not take it... Unlike yours, I don't claim my comment had any particular relevance. You claim yours does, but it doesn't, and you can't prove that it does. It is, however, indicative of your general ignorance (to borrow a favorite insult of yours). A charge of resorting to name calling coming from you, the master of veiled (and not so veiled) insults (what is referring to someone as "childish" if not name-calling?) is laughable, and further indicative of your egocentricity. Further, am I to assume, by your logic, that your continued inability to grasp the basics of UBB code in posting replies may be characteristic of a lack of mental discipline?

03-11-2002, 05:17 PM	#65
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by theophilus: Well, that is very interesting but not at all germaine to your comment which was "theists IN GENERAL," which cannot possibly be interpreted as "some." It's "GERMANE," not "GERMAINE." Inconsistency! Learn to spell. Your spelling error is only important because it is symptomatic of your larger irrationality! It may also be characteristic of a lack of mental discipline, as it is here! [ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

03-11-2002, 05:22 PM	#66
Datheron Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 553	Not Prince Hamlet, I also snort at Theo's supposed "spelling error argument in the construct of the larger picture of mental incompetence". Anyway, this is definitely off the topic, but I'm hoping that just this one post will not result in a hijacking of the thread. I was wondering, as you mentioned that you graduated with a BS in CS, that which university did you graduate from? I myself am pursuing a BA in CS, in I believe the 3rd ranked university in CS in the country (UC Berkeley), and sadly I have not had to take any heavy coursework in formal logic. Of course, they make it up by giving us lots of code to pore over. BTW, as far as I know, the grammatical error that you pointed out against Theo was completely correct, and in my book, such a grammatical mistake is much more severe than a mis-typing of the keys.

03-11-2002, 06:37 PM	#68
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Datheron, I received my BA from Clark University, nowhere near as prestigious a school as the one you're attending. I think the BA is the way to go, by the way, instead of the BS. I find that while the BS gives you a stronger background in math and the sciences, a BA gives you a better overall education. Just my opinion, though. Jeff

03-12-2002, 04:33 AM	#69
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Whinging about theophilus who wrote: ---Well, that is very interesting but not at all germaine to your comment which was "theists IN GENERAL," which cannot possibly be interpreted as "some."--- Megath says: ----------------------------------------------- It's "GERMANE," not "GERMAINE." Inconsistency! Learn to spell. Your spelling error is only important because it is symptomatic of your larger irrationality! It may also be characteristic of a lack of mental discipline, as it is here! ----------------------------------------------- If you understood what theophilus said why perform these hand stands? Something anyone who says this sort of thing should know, is that an English language education is so worried about spelling that it pays no attention to grammar, morphology or phonetics. In fact, most teachers don't understand what any of these terms really mean. The learners of the mother tongue in their respective countries are shocked and amused by the general level of ignorance of an English speaker about his/her own language and understands now why they are hopeless learners of foreign languages. So, fine gripe about incoherent spellings. The English orthographic system itself is incoherent. Nearly all languages have the system that one letter equals one sound, though often things have become a little more complicated. The worst language after English is French whose orthographic system is quite complex, but a hellovalot more coherent than English. Think of words like: though, tough, thought, thorough, drought and through. Do you see anything coherent about the relationship between spelling and pronunciation? Obviously not. Spelling is a burden which cannot be justified, other than by saying it's the only system we've got and then sticking one's head back in the sand. Think of the wasted brainspace one needs for spelling. Nearly every word needs to be memorized. A Turkish speaker doesn't need to waste such brain power, nor does an Italian. And both if educated probably know much more about languages than the average educated English speaker. The major reason why people can't read, behind the economico-culture ones is that the orthography makes no sense. So, why complain about someone who gets one word spelt wrong when you could understand the meaning? [ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

03-12-2002, 04:46 AM	#70
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Tercel, attempting to separate the words "faith" and "belief" wrote: "Why do you insist on relating faith to belief (especially belief + hope) when there is precious little evidence the Bible writers using the word meant anything of the sort. Epitome and I have already demonstrated to you here that the meaning of "faith" as used in the Bible is best described as relating to Trust. " While the separation is ideally clear, one needs to consider, when "faith" is used with regard to God, that, as God's existence cannot be validated, his existence is a matter of belief, so that the "faith" being talked about must refer to the "trust" in something that one only believes in. Hence, some tend to equate the terms "faith" and "belief", and I don't think they are particularly unjustified. The simplest way to demonstrate the nett difference between the two terms is to show the target of the "trust".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.