- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 34,697
- Reaction score
- 13,299
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Inversion fallacy. YOU are asking for the definition of every word. YOU are asking for them repeatedly, even when they've already been defined.
Inversion fallacy. YOU are asking for the definition of every word. YOU are asking for them repeatedly, even when they've already been defined.
By definition!
Argument of the stone. Buzzword fallacy. Logic isn't a process. It is a closed functional system, like mathematics.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Two way street, dude.
There is no such thing as a 'standard encyclopedia of philosophy'. False authority fallacy.
Buzzword fallacy.
Buzzword fallacy.
Irrelevance fallacy.
False authority fallacy.
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 have used no philosophy, your definitions come from a false authority.
You have given no explanations, only fallacies.
No, I ignore them because they are false authorities.
Argument of the stone fallacy.
That, and arguments extending from that circular argument IS what makes a religion.
I can show you another one:
Already did... multiple times. Pay attention.
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.
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.
Buzzword fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
Buzzword fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
True. I've already explained this. Pay attention.
No, you didn't. Buddhism believes in no god, gods, or any spirit.
True. I've already explained this. Pay attention.
No, you didn't. Buddhism believes in no god, gods, or any spirit.
No, it is simply a transgression against another. It has nothing to do with religion at all.
So you say. Where do you get your morals from, then?
And so it is. Where do you get YOUR morals from?
Buzzword fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
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?
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.
Perhaps. But believing in a god is akin to believing in Santa Claus.
The and cow horse fling upside down. Religion bulverism flaccid says running tree fly swatter.
How can we learn if we don't ask questions?
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...
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.
It is not from the standard encyclopedia of philosophy, oops, that should be Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy because I quoted from there.
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.
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.
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.
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.How do definitions become 'common usage'??
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 defining words?
Yes. Many words are defined through philosophy, such as 'science', 'religion', 'mathematics', and 'logic'.Does it have anything to do with people doing so through use of philosophy?
By simply creating them. Examples of this are 'watt', 'volt', 'ampere', 'heat', 'thermal', 'electromagnetic', 'aileron', 'debugging', etc.How do definitions become 'specialized technical usage'?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?