• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Inversion fallacy. YOU are asking for the definition of every word. YOU are asking for them repeatedly, even when they've already been defined.

Buzzword fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Inversion fallacy. YOU are asking for the definition of every word. YOU are asking for them repeatedly, even when they've already been defined.

When were the words defined?
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

By definition!

Which I have and you fail to answer time and time again.

Argument of the stone. Buzzword fallacy. Logic isn't a process. It is a closed functional system, like mathematics.

More argument free nonsense.

Yes it is.

wrong

Yes it is.

just as wrong again.

Two way street, dude.

Except I don't claim things, I make them visible with words and proof and sources. You bring nothing, not one single time.

There is no such thing as a 'standard encyclopedia of philosophy'. False authority fallacy.

You really are incapable of reading aren't you, I did not write or link to STANDARD, my link was from

Stanford!!!!!!!!!!

Buzzword fallacy.

More non-arguments

Buzzword fallacy.

and again More non-arguments

Irrelevance fallacy.

Rinse repeat and yet More non-arguments

False authority fallacy.

Wow 4 times of non-arguments and 1 time of reading failure, you are batting, well was is less than zero?

You have proven nothing. Atheism is based on an argument of faith. It has extending arguments from that initial argument of faith. It is a religion.

You said philosophy defined it, I looked for it, proved that was bogus, as I did with other definitions and reality checks and still you peddle this nonsense. You are not making your position any more believable, the opposite acutally.

You have used no philosophy, your definitions come from a false authority.

Sure, the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is not using philosophy because you have made up nonsense and you are dead set on sticking with that BS. Fine, but I believe the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy 1 million times more than I believe anything you write on this subject.

You have given no explanations, only fallacies.

Bull

No, I ignore them because they are false authorities.

No, you ignore them because they contradict to the letter your claims.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

Wow, more non-arguments.

That, and arguments extending from that circular argument IS what makes a religion.

Which is BS, nonsense, absolute insanity.

I can show you another one:

GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

There. That's a religious tenet too.[/QUOTE]

Actually it does not, because that for religions is the first tenet of many, the other 11 I posted in another post. With atheism that is it, nothing more and nothing less. The non-believing in gods and religion is not a religion. And FYI, I can keep this going for the next 12 months and I will keep adding to the evidence pile that I am compiling while you present more non-arguments on top of non-arguments.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Already did... multiple times. Pay attention.

non-response fallacy....I don't read each and every post/ thread. Either give me a thread and post number in which you did so, or please explain in detail again. thx
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No, Buddhism is not based on the belief of any god, gods, or spirit.
Religions do not require 'tenets'. Religions do not require a belief in any god or gods.
Atheism is a religion.

Actually they do, you are just too, well, uninformed to want to realize that.

And FYI, buddhism is based on the belief of spirituality.

What is Buddhism?

Buddhism is a path of practice and spiritual development leading to Insight into the true nature of reality. Buddhist practices like meditation are means of changing yourself in order to develop the qualities of awareness, kindness, and wisdom. The experience developed within the Buddhist tradition over thousands of years has created an incomparable resource for all those who wish to follow a path — a path which ultimately culminates in Enlightenment or Buddhahood. An enlightened being sees the nature of reality absolutely clearly, just as it is, and lives fully and naturally in accordance with that vision. This is the goal of the Buddhist spiritual life, representing the end of suffering for anyone who attains it.

Because Buddhism does not include the idea of worshipping a creator god, some people do not see it as a religion in the normal, Western sense. The basic tenets of Buddhist teaching are straightforward and practical: nothing is fixed or permanent; actions have consequences; change is possible. So Buddhism addresses itself to all people irrespective of race, nationality, caste, sexuality, or gender. It teaches practical methods which enable people to realise and use its teachings in order to transform their experience, to be fully responsible for their lives.

You keep fumbling the ball with me running it back to the end zone and scoring another touchdown.

And this wisdom about bhuddism and the spirituality nature of it is coming by way the the Bhuddist Centre
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Buzzword fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

more nonsensical words meaning nothing, I expect no different looking at the other fact and argument free posts you are bringing to us.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

True. I've already explained this. Pay attention.

No, you didn't. Buddhism believes in no god, gods, or any spirit.

No, you type a whole lot of messages but in this thread you explain nothing, you just repeat nonsense words, fake definitions and false analogies.

And FYI, the word I used for bhuddism is "spirituality".
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

True. I've already explained this. Pay attention.

No, you didn't. Buddhism believes in no god, gods, or any spirit.

/// No,you didn't. Buddhism believes in no god,gods,or any spirit. //// <------ Same applies to atheism, yet many theists here claim atheism is a religion. Are you in agreement or disagreement that atheism is a religion ?
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No, it is simply a transgression against another. It has nothing to do with religion at all.

Really, well you must inform the catholic church that they have been doing it wrong for all those years thinking sinning is against the rules and tenets of their religion. Because I am pretty sure they go to confession and start with:

Forgive me father for I have sinned......

So you say. Where do you get your morals from, then?

Morals are also available outside of religion. It is not the sole propriety of religions.

And so it is. Where do you get YOUR morals from?

I am not sure about where <alt>doxygen got his from but I got mine from my mother and society as a whole (you know, the law, civil constructs of what is acceptable in a society).
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Buzzword fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

Then there's always the fake "Inversion" fallacy he just made up and gfm parrots mindlessly as if it's real.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Into the Night

Here are the relevant quotes from the post exchange:

Do you think its a feeble attempt to convince others of his ability to talk about these subjects or a feeble attempt to convince himself that he is?
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Do you think its a feeble attempt to convince others of his ability to talk about these subjects or a feeble attempt to convince himself that he is?

His posts are completely irrational and he doesn't even know something as basic as how to cite references - as any freshman who has studied at a University learns the first time they have to submit a paper.

He's not fooling anyone other than himself... and his little parrot friend.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

His posts are completely irrational and he doesn't even know something as basic as how to cite references - as any freshman who has studied at a University learns the first time they have to submit a paper.

He's not fooling anyone other than himself... and his little parrot friend.

Oh I know hes not fooling anyone I was wondering who he was trying to fool
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The and cow horse fling upside down. Religion bulverism flaccid says running tree fly swatter.

You're attempting to equate two completely different levels of communication.

Here, you are forming words, but are not organizing them into a sensible order.

Even at that lesser level of communication, the words which you have presented still individually hold meaning...
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You're attempting to equate two completely different levels of communication.

Here, you are forming words, but are not organizing them into a sensible order.

Even at that lesser level of communication, the words which you have presented still individually hold meaning...

Cart bull in the of candy.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Why do you repeatedly ask questions with no intention of learning?

I would like to learn how you think you access the thing you call philosophy and why you call it philosophy and why you use the word as if it supports whatever you say.

Philosophy sez...blah blah blah. Really? Does philosophy talk to you? How do you know what philosophy says? What is your source of what you claim is definitively philosophy and how does philosophy have the power to be definitive?

I would like to learn the answer to this so I can understand where you are getting "philosophy" from.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I would like to learn how you think you access the thing you call philosophy and why you call it philosophy and why you use the word as if it supports whatever you say.

Philosophy sez...blah blah blah. Really? Does philosophy talk to you? How do you know what philosophy says? What is your source of what you claim is definitively philosophy and how does philosophy have the power to be definitive?

I would like to learn the answer to this so I can understand where you are getting "philosophy" from.

It is not from the standard encyclopedia of philosophy, oops, that should be Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy because I quoted from there.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

It is not from the standard encyclopedia of philosophy, oops, that should be Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy because I quoted from there.

Their source is mysterious. They make claims about what "philosophy" says and defines but they refuse to share how they are so certain of what "philosophy" does or how it does it.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I agree with you there. The root of a word cannot be used to define that word. I missed that mistake.

Here's another:


Discard 2a if the use of "nature" is problematic. "Physics" could work.

Ok, let's start with definition 1. Our ability to observe the universe is limited. We can't see into the vary small. We can't see even most atoms. We can't see beyond a certain range of the universe with our best telescopes. Do you believe atoms, quarks, etc. to be 'natural', or 'supernatural'. Do you believe the universe beyond what our best telescopes can see to exist? Is it 'natural' or 'supernatural'? What is observable about the theory of Newton's law of motion (F=mA)? I'm not talking about the effects, I am talking about the theory itself. How do you observe a theory? Is that theory 'nature' or 'supernatural'?

Definition 2a is circular in nature. It is discarded.

Definition 2b depends on whether a ghost or spirit exists, which is what you are trying to define using the term 'supernatural' itself. That is a circular definition as a result. Discarded.

You say 'physics' could work, but what is 'physics'? Is it part of science? If so, then it too is just a set of falsifiable theories. How do you observe a theory? Again, I'm not talking about the effects described by a theory, but the theory itself. How do observe that? Is a theory of science 'natural' or 'supernatural'?

I still don't see how you could define 'supernatural'. Is it something that is 'natural' that we simply don't understand yet?
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Their source is mysterious. They make claims about what "philosophy" says and defines but they refuse to share how they are so certain of what "philosophy" does or how it does it.

Maybe they think it's being in love with Phil Silvers.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Definitions are either by common usage or specialized technical usage in a given profession or academic field.
Dictionaries give the common usage of a word. Unless it is clear from context, then the common usage (dictionary definition, should be assumed.

Dictionaries don't define any word. They are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation. The examples they give for the use of a word differs from dictionary to dictionary. None are authoritative. No dictionary owns any word.

Words are defined by people. That can be through the use of philosophy, it can be through the the designation of a technical term, etc. The term 'religion' and the term 'science' are defined using philosophy. Philosophy itself is nothing more than a conclusion, and it's predicates described without using any outside sources (the reasoning of the conclusion). Using outside sources for your predicates is just stealing another's argument and not making your own. Using outside sources for your conclusion is just using someone else's argument and not presentint your own. A conclusion presented without the reasoning behind it is not philosophy. It is simply an assertion.

For the reasoning behind why science is defined the way it is, see the reasoning of Karl Popper for a start. It is not definitive or closed, since philosophy is an open system. For example, I also add my bit. The reasoning for this too, has been explained here in this forum several times. 'Science' is not defined by me, or even Karl Popper (although it is mostly defined by Karl Popper's reasoning these days). It is defined by several people all presenting their own bit of reasoning that clarifies and further defines the word from Karl's basic line of thinking.
For the reasoning behind why religion is defined the way it is, see the reasoning of Francis Bacon, Karl Popper, Blaise Pascal, and others for a beginning into that area.

Using links or quotes from others doesn't work in philosophy. That's just plagiarism, and not your own reasoning. It is lazy thinking.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

How do definitions become 'common usage'??
Generally when many people start using a word. A lot of times, however, someone (like the government, the press or the movie industry) redefines a word into something other than what it originally meant and people start using the wrong meaning as if it were correct. An example of this is 'vegetable', and referring to a tomato as a 'vegetable' (it isn't, it's a fruit.). This redefinition of a tomato as a vegetable was done for tax reasons in the United States. The rest of the world followed because of the strength and influence of the U.S.economy. Essentially, most of the world uses 'vegetable' to include tomatoes, even though it's wrong.

Sometimes a word or phrase comes along with no meaning at all, such as 'climate change', or 'assault weapon'. These buzzwords carry no meaning at all, yet they are what you might describe as 'common usage'. Popular buzzwords that appear on forums like this are 'reality', 'fact', or even 'logic'. They are often used as meaningless buzzwords, rather than the meaning they actually have.
Does it have anything to do with people defining words?
Yes. Words are define using philosophy, using mathematics, using logic, or just making up a word to describe a technical term, such as 'watt' or 'volt' (which is really just the name of people contributing or creating the word!). Another example is 'laser', which is actually an acronym, but is also not a commonly used word. Like usual, the movie industry has completely redefined what 'laser' means, that has nothing to do with what an actual laser is.
Does it have anything to do with people doing so through use of philosophy?
Yes. Many words are defined through philosophy, such as 'science', 'religion', 'mathematics', and 'logic'.
How do definitions become 'specialized technical usage'?
By simply creating them. Examples of this are 'watt', 'volt', 'ampere', 'heat', 'thermal', 'electromagnetic', 'aileron', 'debugging', etc.
Does it have anything to do with people defining words? Does it have anything to do with people doing so through use of philosophy?

The study of how words are defined and where they come from is a fascinating hobby. It is called 'etymology'...a technical word itself. The history of a word can reveal a lot about it, just as the history of a theory of science can reveal a lot about it. These snippets of history are what make history much more interesting than memorizing when some relatively inconsequential battle took place.

It's funny how history classes are taught. They really ignore some very important parts of history to concentrate on many inconsequential details. This is a reason for this. Most historians are not well versed in science or even religion as a subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom