eh, we'll grow out of it eventually. these things just take time. we haven't even been around that long :o . we're still stuck in this juvenile / pre-adolescent stage of humanity, where we've barely gained any self-mastery, and things like religion still serve a purpose. I don't believe this will always be the case. guess you could say I have more faith in us than that.
PivotTechno
quote:
Originally posted by Redd
Kant sure was a .. yeah
PivotTechno
...and as per Lira's suggestion in the Hitchens thread:
Desiderata
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
I can't see this picture due to my phone not supporting certain flash content but the ONLY reason I brought up Kant was to emphasise how old this debate seemed to me at the moment of reading the Thread. Not stating anything else other than 1800th Century retoric that inevitably needs to exist til Humans can all be on one side of the fence.
Instead of trying to prove if there is a God or not has TA tried to figure out the other side? The afterlife?!! It makes things more interestingly clown like when trying to explain Satans roll in history or if you were a Cat in a past life rather than if God works in mysterious ways or which Religion is most tolerable.
In all honesty, the city I live in is so very Religious that I think I personally know 2 Atheist besides myself and even amongst us it's not a topic we indulge in at our age anymore. In my case it isn't such a big deal right now because I don't anti-preach to people if that makes sense. This Hispanic culture is too deeply rooted in Religion. Sorry for putting this all under your quote PivotTechno. It was NOT directed at you.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
...and as per Lira's suggestion in the Hitchens thread:
In all honesty, I would say the Archbishop and the other woman won that debate. As bright and obviously eloquent as Hitchens and Fry are, their arguments (when I say 'their' I'm referring mostly to Hitchens) come off as hateful, and are driven by misrepresentations of truths. They make it seem as if the molestations of children were an institutionalized practice in Catholicism. As someone pointed out in one of these threads previously, they were as much an institutionalized practice for the church as they were for collegiate athletics.
The argument of "Catholicism has done bad things in the past, erego it is a bad thing" should be as obviously absurd to anybody as I think it is.
PivotTechno
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
In all honesty, I would say the Archbishop and the other woman won that debate.
O.k., but the audience that was in attendance largely disagrees with you, including the 400 or so who were in agreement, at the commencement of the debate, that the CC was a force for good in the world.
Stand tall brother, you're a proud minority!
(oh, and you conveniently excluded the part where Hitchens and Fry both point out that the CC's trangressions *are indeed* continuing to this very day)
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
O.k., but the audience that was in attendance largely disagrees with you, including the 400 or so who were in agreement, at the commencement of the debate, that the CC was a force for good in the world.
Stand tall brother, you're a proud minority!
(Oh, and you conveniently excluded the part where Hitchens and Fry both point out that the CC's trangressions *are indeed* continuing to this very day)
Appeal to Populace & Poisonous Well Fallacy
PivotTechno
I'm reaching a bit, but would the debate have even taken place had the well not already smelled a bit rank?
One needn't show up to defend a particular position if, there is indeed, nothing to defend.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
I'm reaching a bit, but would the debate have even taken place had the well not already smelled a bit rank?
It doesn't matter.
PivotTechno
Says King Hypothesis.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
I'm reaching a bit, but would the debate have even taken place had the well not already smelled a bit rank?
One needn't show up to defend a particular position if, there is indeed, nothing to defend.
It doesn't really matter to me. I'm just going to start pointing the the fallacies used on both sides, from now on. Then, I'm going to drop every argument used, by whom, along with what fallacy was created when the posted each argument, into an Excel Spreadsheet. I anticipate that 100% of the post directly pertaining to questions of God or even the legitimacy of religion, to involve some element of fallacy.
I'll make sure that statistical cross-sections are taken into account, as well. I've seen a couple of arguments recurring and am planning on being able to track that. Is that what you want me to do? Do you really want a pie chart? You kids keep acting this way and that is exactly what you will get!
Vector A
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
I'll make sure that statistical cross-sections are taken into account, as well. I've seen a couple of arguments recurring and am planning on being able to track that. Is that what you want me to do? Do you really want a pie chart? You kids keep acting this way and that is exactly what you will get!
def geomean(*p)
(p.inject {|x,y| x*y}) ** (1.0 / p.length)
end
