Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#361 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 November 2011 - 07:13 AM

Two things to keep in mind when posting to this OP:

First and foremost, it demands empirical evidence; therefore any other replies are faith-based opinion only.

Secondly, everything not empirical is exposed as equivocation.

As a naive philosopher, I can only validate one temporal coordinate through induction - now.

We are, ALL of us, philosophers. Anyone who attempts to tell you differently is simply trying to sell you something.

We are, ALL of us, creatures of naiveté; as none of the creatures here are “ALL KNOWING”. But we do indeed attempt to learn, as to remain static in knowledge is to slide backward into total ignorance. “What you don’t use, you eventually lose”.

You can validate what YOU and others have done in the past. For example:

I had a fruit smoothie for breakfast this morning, and every morning for the last few months (sans a few mornings when I had breakfast out). This then, is proven inductively (over and over), via the sense of observation, touch, taste and smell (etc…). Further, I personally made the smoothie every morning from fresh fruit, in my blender, for both my wife and I. Therefore I have a first-hand eyewitness who can not only attest to my actions, but can also provide empirical evidence of her own, as she has experience, via the sense of observation, touch, taste and smell.

For the materialist, the “here and now” argument is nothing more than a morass that they cannot sustain logically, rationally or scientifically.

This; these words, this post, is the entirety of the extant John Cantor. This identity, here, is effect; where the cause is question. Ask me to recite this post in a month to see if I'm still this identity; an occurrence I consider to be not possible. This post will conclude, the chains of its causality will break; the links perhaps to be added to a consideration of potential response or discarded in their entirety.

That, of course, is incorrect; as you can indeed “recite this post in a month”, and you can do so verbatim! Why; because it’ll be here for you to read, and therefore you’ll have the ability to repost it word-for-word.

Further, as I (and others) read it, we can quote it verbatim:

Ask me to recite this post in a month

See how easily it is done! Therefore it is indeed possible for you to: Further, as I (and others) read it, we can quote it verbatim:

recite this post in a month

And you will be able to do likewise.

Therefore this post will not only continue beyond your participation, but possibly beyond mine as well. And the “chains of its causality” will be around to provide evidence of not only your participation in it, but the logically fallacious nature of your argumentation.


In no wise do I consider myself anything more than the reinforced pattern of identity built from chains of causality. Two bucks worth of chemicals. Geometry over entropy. Capital A, this atheist. :D


As the OP demanded “empirical evidence” for your assertions, is now incumbent upon you to provide the “empirical” evidence for “chemicals to man gradual and transitional macro-evolution”. Otherwise, as the OP provides for, you are doing nothing more than prevarication.

Therefore to be dogmatic would be as follows. The first cause was entropy, the first effect was geometry; and it's been clockwork ever since. But I got a surprise for ya. I'm not dogmatic. The original cause, was Love.

The dogmatism will be provided by YOU, when YOU return to this thread and attempt to further defend your equivocations. Further, when you return, you will be demolishing your own proposition of “inability to continue the thread” conundrum as well.

Many atheists have attempted to assert the same basic equivocation as you have; they have simply use different and diverse language in their endeavors. But, as you’ll notice (if you are honest with yourself), that they, just as you, have totally failed to meet the OP.

#362 houseofcantor

houseofcantor

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Phoenix, AZ

Posted 28 November 2011 - 08:41 PM

The dogmatism will be provided by YOU, when YOU return to this thread and attempt to further defend your equivocations. Further, when you return, you will be demolishing your own proposition of “inability to continue the thread” conundrum as well.

Many atheists have attempted to assert the same basic equivocation as you have; they have simply use different and diverse language in their endeavors. But, as you’ll notice (if you are honest with yourself), that they, just as you, have totally failed to meet the OP.

What equivocation are you accusing me of? How am I the same, as an identity confined to a post, when this identity contains a quote; a growth beyond the original?

Ron, you are a feisty guy - spry is the word. Are you going to tell me of causal creation, where god is mother; or are we gonna ponder acausal creation, where god is love? ;)

#363 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 December 2011 - 06:42 AM


Two things to keep in mind when posting to this OP:

First and foremost, it demands empirical evidence; therefore any other replies are faith-based opinion only.

Secondly, everything not empirical is exposed as equivocation.


As a naive philosopher, I can only validate one temporal coordinate through induction - now.

We are, ALL of us, philosophers. Anyone who attempts to tell you differently is simply trying to sell you something.

We are, ALL of us, creatures of naiveté; as none of the creatures here are “ALL KNOWING”. But we do indeed attempt to learn, as to remain static in knowledge is to slide backward into total ignorance. “What you don’t use, you eventually lose”.

You can validate what YOU and others have done in the past. For example:

I had a fruit smoothie for breakfast this morning, and every morning for the last few months (sans a few mornings when I had breakfast out). This then, is proven inductively (over and over), via the sense of observation, touch, taste and smell (etc…). Further, I personally made the smoothie every morning from fresh fruit, in my blender, for both my wife and I. Therefore I have a first-hand eyewitness who can not only attest to my actions, but can also provide empirical evidence of her own, as she has experience, via the sense of observation, touch, taste and smell.

For the materialist, the “here and now” argument is nothing more than a morass that they cannot sustain logically, rationally or scientifically.

This; these words, this post, is the entirety of the extant John Cantor. This identity, here, is effect; where the cause is question. Ask me to recite this post in a month to see if I'm still this identity; an occurrence I consider to be not possible. This post will conclude, the chains of its causality will break; the links perhaps to be added to a consideration of potential response or discarded in their entirety.

That, of course, is incorrect; as you can indeed “recite this post in a month”, and you can do so verbatim! Why; because it’ll be here for you to read, and therefore you’ll have the ability to repost it word-for-word.

Further, as I (and others) read it, we can quote it verbatim:

Ask me to recite this post in a month

See how easily it is done! Therefore it is indeed possible for you to: Further, as I (and others) read it, we can quote it verbatim:

recite this post in a month

And you will be able to do likewise.

Therefore this post will not only continue beyond your participation, but possibly beyond mine as well. And the “chains of its causality” will be around to provide evidence of not only your participation in it, but the logically fallacious nature of your argumentation.


In no wise do I consider myself anything more than the reinforced pattern of identity built from chains of causality. Two bucks worth of chemicals. Geometry over entropy. Capital A, this atheist. :D


As the OP demanded “empirical evidence” for your assertions, is now incumbent upon you to provide the “empirical” evidence for “chemicals to man gradual and transitional macro-evolution”. Otherwise, as the OP provides for, you are doing nothing more than prevarication.

Therefore to be dogmatic would be as follows. The first cause was entropy, the first effect was geometry; and it's been clockwork ever since. But I got a surprise for ya. I'm not dogmatic. The original cause, was Love.

The dogmatism will be provided by YOU, when YOU return to this thread and attempt to further defend your equivocations. Further, when you return, you will be demolishing your own proposition of “inability to continue the thread” conundrum as well.

Many atheists have attempted to assert the same basic equivocation as you have; they have simply use different and diverse language in their endeavors. But, as you’ll notice (if you are honest with yourself), that they, just as you, have totally failed to meet the OP.

What equivocation are you accusing me of? How am I the same, as an identity confined to a post, when this identity contains a quote; a growth beyond the original?

Ron, you are a feisty guy - spry is the word. Are you going to tell me of causal creation, where god is mother; or are we gonna ponder acausal creation, where god is love? ;)


Based upon the OP, you’re entire above response is an equivocation. So, I’m going to give you one more chance to correct it.

Re-read the OP, then come back and adhere to it… Period! No more snide little remarks, no more attempts at back-handed comments concerning God being a “her” on a Christian forum.

As an aside: According to God’s Word, God’s tough love, is love non-the-less. Therefore, if you cannot adhere to the forum rules that you agreed to adhere to prior to being accepted here, you may want to re-assess making condescending comments about that which you either do not understand, or do understand, yet want to make a spectacle.

#364 houseofcantor

houseofcantor

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Phoenix, AZ

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:32 AM

Based upon the OP, you’re entire above response is an equivocation. So, I’m going to give you one more chance to correct it.

Re-read the OP, then come back and adhere to it… Period! No more snide little remarks, no more attempts at back-handed comments concerning God being a “her” on a Christian forum.

As an aside: According to God’s Word, God’s tough love, is love non-the-less. Therefore, if you cannot adhere to the forum rules that you agreed to adhere to prior to being accepted here, you may want to re-assess making condescending comments about that which you either do not understand, or do understand, yet want to make a spectacle.


Ya know, Ron; once upon a time I was known as Ezekiel. And there will come a time when you know this. Even worse, in this information age? If you don't "creatively edit my posts" before the bots come by, the original information may be preserved. Seeing how this is the fourth age, that could mean foreverz. :)

I don't care about me; I'm not pecking keys to pound my chest. The only "right" you could possibly claim over another human being is moral right and its derivative ethical standard. Those "forum rules" of yours are proposed ethical standard; flawed in that they contain moral pronouncement, and understood by me to mean:

"This is Ron's ministry and Ron will is the way." Thus the preceding words of this post do not proscribe, but rather should remind you of a parable... Or not. Be well.

#365 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:41 PM




Based upon the OP, you’re entire above response is an equivocation. So, I’m going to give you one more chance to correct it.

Re-read the OP, then come back and adhere to it… Period! No more snide little remarks, no more attempts at back-handed comments concerning God being a “her” on a Christian forum.

As an aside: According to God’s Word, God’s tough love, is love non-the-less. Therefore, if you cannot adhere to the forum rules that you agreed to adhere to prior to being accepted here, you may want to re-assess making condescending comments about that which you either do not understand, or do understand, yet want to make a spectacle.



Ya know, Ron; once upon a time I was known as Ezekiel. And there will come a time when you know this. Even worse, in this information age? If you don't "creatively edit my posts" before the bots come by, the original information may be preserved. Seeing how this is the fourth age, that could mean foreverz. :)

I don't care about me; I'm not pecking keys to pound my chest. The only "right" you could possibly claim over another human being is moral right and its derivative ethical standard. Those "forum rules" of yours are proposed ethical standard; flawed in that they contain moral pronouncement, and understood by me to mean:

"This is Ron's ministry and Ron will is the way." Thus the preceding words of this post do not proscribe, but rather should remind you of a parable... Or not. Be well.


So, what you’re actually saying is that you cannot adhere to the forum rules OR the OP… In other words, you don't much enjoy having honest conversations.

Too Bad.

As an aside: I didn't make up the rules in this forum. Remember, the one's you agreed to prior to coming here?

#366 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 December 2011 - 11:23 AM

3- If you don't know, simply say "I don't know"! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) "there is no God"; because you said "I don't know". This includes making statements like (for example) "there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God" because; you said "I don't know". If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?


First to answer your question I personally do not know

Second a comment since I saw no limitation on them. It pertains to your rule #3 which I have included in the quote. If it is only for this topic then that is all well and good. If it is supposed to apply board wide then it is IMO invalid.

#367 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:53 AM


3- If you don't know, simply say "I don't know"! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) "there is no God"; because you said "I don't know". This includes making statements like (for example) "there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God" because; you said "I don't know". If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

First to answer your question I personally do not know


And, as #3 shows, once you have admitted “I don’t know” you have given up all principled right to continue with an answer to the OP questions, as the OP questions demand “Factual” answers. And the only fact built into your answer is “I don’t know”, nothing more.

Further – Agnostic is defined as “NO” knowledge; which perfectly fits the answer you gave. The question the OP poses is directed specifically to Atheists. Atheist is defined as “NO” God (god’s, theism etc…). Which begs the question; “Why is an agnostic attempting to answer a question directed specifically to atheists? I’m sure if we flesh-out the question (i.e. unpack it further with additional questioning techniques) we’ll garner further revelation. But that is not what this OP is all about.

Second a comment since I saw no limitation on them.

Actually, if you read the OP rules, you ARE limited to “Factual” comments that pertain to the OP questions. Therefore you are dabbling in further equivocations.

It pertains to your rule #3 which I have included in the quote. If it is only for this topic then that is all well and good. If it is supposed to apply board wide then it is IMO invalid.


Then, once again, you’d be not only incorrect, but equivocating once again:

The first line in the second paragraph states “The bottom line is that only the intellectually honest need apply to participate”, and to prevaricate or dither from the thread rules OR the OP, is, in fact, being intellectually dishonest. It further goes on to say “Our moderators will be primarily looking to identify those who give even the slightest inkling that they are here to waste people’s time, consciously or otherwise.” And any attempt to divert from ANY threads OP (out of context etc…) can be interpreted as attempting to waste time.

Also, rule #6 (in the forum rules) is not limited to “what ‘evolution’ means”! It is ‘all inclusive’ in regard to “EQUIVOCATION”, then goes on to point out the “MACRO”-evolution morass.

Further, rule # 12. (in the forum rules) concerns “Trolling” (questions or arguments that are insincere or for creating a spectacle). Can also be applied to a post such as yours, as given the forum rules AND the OP rules, one can easily deduce that an agnostic purposefully equivocating on a thread directed to ONLY atheists is intended for “creating a spectacle” only!

You may also wish to review rule# 13 when you respond to this post.

Conclusion: not only have you equivocated within the OP, but you have equivocated within the Forum Rules as well.

Are there any other questions? Within the OP and Forum rules that is….

#368 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 19 December 2011 - 02:49 PM

And, as #3 shows, once you have admitted “I don’t know” you have given up all principled right to continue with an answer to the OP questions, as the OP questions demand “Factual” answers. And the only fact built into your answer is “I don’t know”, nothing more.

Further – Agnostic is defined as “NO” knowledge; which perfectly fits the answer you gave. The question the OP poses is directed specifically to Atheists. Atheist is defined as “NO” God (god’s, theism etc…). Which begs the question; “Why is an agnostic attempting to answer a question directed specifically to atheists? I’m sure if we flesh-out the question (i.e. unpack it further with additional questioning techniques) we’ll garner further revelation. But that is not what this OP is all about.


Actually, if you read the OP rules, you ARE limited to “Factual” comments that pertain to the OP questions. Therefore you are dabbling in further equivocations.



Then, once again, you’d be not only incorrect, but equivocating once again:

The first line in the second paragraph states “The bottom line is that only the intellectually honest need apply to participate”, and to prevaricate or dither from the thread rules OR the OP, is, in fact, being intellectually dishonest. It further goes on to say “Our moderators will be primarily looking to identify those who give even the slightest inkling that they are here to waste people’s time, consciously or otherwise.” And any attempt to divert from ANY threads OP (out of context etc…) can be interpreted as attempting to waste time.

Also, rule #6 (in the forum rules) is not limited to “what ‘evolution’ means”! It is ‘all inclusive’ in regard to “EQUIVOCATION”, then goes on to point out the “MACRO”-evolution morass.

Further, rule # 12. (in the forum rules) concerns “Trolling” (questions or arguments that are insincere or for creating a spectacle). Can also be applied to a post such as yours, as given the forum rules AND the OP rules, one can easily deduce that an agnostic purposefully equivocating on a thread directed to ONLY atheists is intended for “creating a spectacle” only!

You may also wish to review rule# 13 when you respond to this post.

Conclusion: not only have you equivocated within the OP, but you have equivocated within the Forum Rules as well.

Are there any other questions? Within the OP and Forum rules that is….


You want facts, I see now.

Fact - dictionary.com says

e·quiv·o·cate
   [ih-kwiv-uh-keyt]
verb (used without object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing. to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge:



Fact - My comment about and reference to rule number 3 of the OP was neither ambiguous nor unclear

Fact - I went back to page one and the OP does not include any rules about comments factual or otherwise

Fact - the first reference to comments is post #8

Fact - the original definition of Agnostic was that no one has all the answers not "No Knowledge"

Fact - Originally I was Atheist but changed to Agnostic and since I had been Atheist I felt I was allowed to answer.

Fact - I may not know how a nuclear reactor works but that does not prevent me from accepting what I read in the books or using what I read to support a position I may have in a discussion of nuclear power. Likewise I may not know where we came from but that does not prevent me from accepting what I read and using it to support a position I have in a discussion here.

Fact - my comment was neither insincere nor aimed at creating a spectacle (as defined in Trolling) but was made to show the fallacy of applying rule #3 of the OP board wide.

#369 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 December 2011 - 07:26 PM

You want facts, I see now.

Yes, facts, were what the OP called for, regardless of how many times you think you read the OP (obviously you didn't read it as well as you claim, or you simply ignored what it said). And of course you took the path of least resistance by cherry-picking the definition for "equivocate" (which in-and-of-itself was a misleading tactic on your part) in order to make yourself look better in your equivocation. So, I'll provide a more concise and inclusive set of definitions for "equivocation":

e·quiv·o·cate (-kwv-kt)

intr.v.
e·quiv·o·cat·ed, e·quiv·o·cat·ing, e·quiv·o·cates

To use equivocal language intentionally.
To avoid making an explicit statement. See Synonyms at lie2.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English equivocaten, from Medieval Latin aequivocre, aequivoct-, from Late Latin aequivocus, equivocal ; see equivocal

OTHER FORMS:
e·quivo·cator(Noun)

equivocate


verb

To use evasive or deliberately vague language: euphemize, hedge, shuffle, tergiversate, weasel. Informal: pussyfoot, waffle. Idioms: beat about (or around) the bush, mince words. See clear

To stray from truthfulness or sincerity: palter, prevaricate, shuffle. See
euphemize

verb

To use evasive or deliberately vague language: equivocate, hedge, shuffle, tergiversate, weasel. Informal: pussyfoot, waffle. Idioms: beat about (or around) the bush, mince words. See clear


tergiversate - verb

To use evasive or deliberately vague language: equivocate, euphemize, hedge, shuffle, weasel. Informal: pussyfoot, waffle. Idioms: beat about (or around) the bush, mince words. See clear
To abandon one's cause or party usually to join another: apostatize, defect, desert3, renegade, turn. Slang: rat. Idioms: change sides, turn one's coat. See approach, trust

http://education.yah...ntry/equivocate


><>><>><>

Main Entry: equiv·o·cate

Pronunciation: \i-ˈkwi-və-ˌkāt\

Function: intransitive verb

Inflected Form(s): equiv·o·cat·ed; equiv·o·cat·ing

Date: 1590

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

synonyms see lie

— equiv·o·ca·tion \-ˌkwi-və-ˈkā-shən\ noun

— equiv·o·ca·tor \-ˈkwi-və-ˌkā-tər\ noun

http://www.merriam-w...nary/equivocate

><>><>><>

equivo·cate (ē kwiv′ə kāt′, i-)

intransitive verb equivocated -·cat′ed, equivocating -·cat′·ing

to use equivocal terms in order to deceive, mislead, hedge, etc.; be deliberately ambiguous

Origin: ME equivocaten < ML aequivocatus, pp. of aequivocari, to have the same sound < LL aequivocus, of like sound < L aequus (see equal) + vox, voice

Related Forms:

equivocation equiv′o·ca′·tion noun
equivocator equiv′o·ca′·tor noun
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

><>><>><>

e·quiv·o·cate (ĭ-kwĭvˈə-kātˌ)

intransitive verb equivocated e·quiv·o·cat·ed, equivocating e·quiv·o·cat·ing, e·quiv·o·cates

1. To use equivocal language intentionally.

2. To avoid making an explicit statement. See Synonyms at lie2.

Origin: Middle English equivocaten, from Medieval Latin aequivocāre, aequivocāt-, from Late Latin aequivocus, equivocal; see equivocal .

Related Forms:

equivocator e·quivˈo·caˌtor noun
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

><>><>><>

This article is about the fallacy. For the concept in literature, see Amphibology. For other uses, see Equivocation (disambiguation).

Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words.

It is often confused with amphibology (amphiboly); however, equivocation is ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word and amphiboly is ambiguity arising from the misleading use of punctuation or syntax.

Examples:

Puns

This form of word play relies upon two different words that sound alike. However, their different senses become obvious only upon a moment's reflection. One example is the contrast between birth and death, and birth and berth, and told and toll'd in Thomas Hood's account of the death of Ben the sailor (which took place at the age of 40, contrasted with his age of zero at birth) in his humorous poem Faithless Sally Brown:

His death, which happen'd in his berth,
At forty-odd befell:
They went and told the sexton, and
The sexton toll'd the bell.

Fallacious reasoning

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright"), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.
Semantic shift

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.

In English language, one equivocation is with the word "man", which can mean both "member of the species, Homo sapiens," and "male member of the species, Homo sapiens." The following sentence is a well-known equivocation:

"Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?", in which "man-eating" is construed to mean a shark that devours only male human beings.

Metaphor

A separate case of equivocation is metaphor:

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.
Switch-Referencing

This occurs where the referent of a word or expression in a second sentence is different from that in the immediately preceding sentence, especially where a change in referent has not been clearly identified.

The following fallacy is an example of amphiboly, and its success relies upon syntactical omissions that obscure an unparallel structure and that result in apparent ambiguity:
"Better than nothing"

Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter.
Therefore, margarine is better than butter.

The fallacy is exposed when the omissions are supplied. Note that, in the first part of the second premise, the present-tense verb, "putting," has been changed to the infinitive, "to put."

[Putting] margarine [on bread] is better than [putting] nothing [on bread].
[However, there is] nothing [to put on bread that]is better than [putting] butter [on bread].

Then note how the meaning would change if the second premise were parallel to the rest of the syllogism:

[Putting] margarine [on bread] is better than [putting] nothing [on bread].
[Putting] nothing [on bread] is better than [putting] butter [on bread].

By supplying the parallel structure, the original conclusion becomes logical.

Therefore, [putting] margarine [on bread] is better than [putting] butter [on bread].

However, by exposing the unparallel structure in the original syllogism, the reader is now able to supply the logical conclusion:

Therefore, [putting] butter [on bread] is better than [putting] margarine [on bread].

Politician's syllogism

A similar example is the Politician's syllogism, satirized on the television show Yes Minister:

Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this must be done.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Equivocation

><>><>><>




Fact - My comment about and reference to rule number 3 of the OP was neither ambiguous nor unclear



Fact – I never said your “comment about and reference to rule number 3 of the OP” was “ambiguous nor unclear”, what I said was “once you have admitted “I don’t know” you have given up all principled right to continue with an answer to the OP questions, as the OP questions demand “Factual” answers. And the only fact built into your answer is “I don’t know”, nothing more.” Therefore your rebuttal is moot, as it is a non sequitur.

Fact - I went back to page one and the OP does not include any rules about comments factual or otherwise



Fact – Obviously you didn’t go back to page one and read the Op as you totally overlooked”

“If you are going to make a “Negative” assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating.”

If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating”

“If you post links to other people’s opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).”

Fact - the first reference to comments is post #8



Fact – You are “FACTUALLY” incorrect, as I provided above. FACTUAL replies were required no less than three times, and FACTUAL replies were inferred throughout. But, so that no-one will be able to attempt this type of “EQUIVOCATION” in this thread (as you attempted to do) in the future, I will highlight the words FACT/FACTUAL in the OP right now!

Fact - the original definition of Agnostic was that no one has all the answers not "No Knowledge"




Fact – The word Agnostic is directly defined as “NO KNOWLEDGE”

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals "ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
agnostic [ægˈnɒstɪk]
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc., is impossible Compare atheist, theist
2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty
adj
of or relating to agnostics
[coined 1869 by T. H. Huxley from A-1 + GNOSTIC]
agnosticism n


http://www.thefreedi...></span></span>

Main Entry: ag•nos•tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag•nos•ti•cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun


http://www.merriam-w...></span></span>

ag·nos·tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag·nos·tics)
noun
Definition:

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood


http://encarta.msn.c...></span></span>


Agnostic - Agnostos
The English term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek "agnostos," which means, "to not know." An agnostic is one who admits, "I don't know." The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover.

http://www.allaboutp...></span></span>


Fact - Originally I was Atheist but changed to Agnostic and since I had been Atheist I felt I was allowed to answer.



Fact – The Agnostic that makes an argument (in support against God[s], or for God[s] or in support of atheism) is an oxymoron, as by making these argument, the person “claiming” to be Agnostic (NO KNOWLEDGE) is “CALIMING TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE”.


Fact - I may not know how a nuclear reactor works but that does not prevent me from accepting what I read in the books or using what I read to support a position I may have in a discussion of nuclear power. Likewise I may not know where we came from but that does not prevent me from accepting what I read and using it to support a position I have in a discussion here.



Fact – Agnosticism is defined as NO KNOWLEDGE. If you reference FACTS from a reputable book, the then have KNOWLEDGE…

First – As I provided, the OP called for “FACTUAL EVIDENCE”, and you only provided personal biographical opinion.

Second – Your analogy is a non sequitur because; if you read FACTS from a book on nuclear power, you can state those FACTS by referencing said book(s). BUT you are stating mere OPINION, not FACTS concerning our origins.


Fact - my comment was neither insincere nor aimed at creating a spectacle (as defined in Trolling) but was made to show the fallacy of applying rule #3 of the OP board wide.



Fact – You totally failed in your attempt to equivocate (as per rule 3 and others in the OP), because (as I provided) you totally failed to show a fallacy to rule#3.


FACT: Your post, in it's entirety was an equivocation. And since you cannot follow OP or Forum rules, all I can say is "Goodby"

#370 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:40 AM

...Fact – You are “FACTUALLY” incorrect, as I provided above. FACTUAL replies were required no less than three times, and FACTUAL replies were inferred throughout. But, so that no-one will be able to attempt this type of “EQUIVOCATION” in this thread (as you attempted to do) in the future, I will highlight the words FACT/FACTUAL in the OP right now!

Fact – The word Agnostic is directly defined as “NO KNOWLEDGE”

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals "ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
agnostic [ægˈnɒstɪk]
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc., is impossible Compare atheist, theist
2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty
adj
of or relating to agnostics
[coined 1869 by T. H. Huxley from A-1 + GNOSTIC]
agnosticism n

....
....

For evangelistic purposes atheists may blur their position looking more agnostic:

The UK’s first ever atheist advertising campaign launches this week. 800 buses with the slogan “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” are running in cities across England, Scotland and Wales, along with 1,000 adverts on the London underground and two large LCD screens on Oxford Street in London.

The campaign, which is supported by Professor Richard Dawkins and IHEU member organization the British Humanist Association, and in Scotland by the Humanist Society of Scotland, is a response to a series of evangelical Christian adverts running on London buses in June 2008, which featured the URL of a website saying all non-Christians were going to hell. Comedy writer Ariane Sherine suggested the rational, positive slogan to reassure people who may have been scared by the evangelical adverts.

Posted Image
Ariane Sherine, Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee launch the first Atheist Bus in London | Picture © Jon Worth / British Humanist Association

The Atheist Bus Campaign’s donation phase launched in October 2008, aiming to raise just £5,500. However, within four days it had raised £100,000 in individual donations from the general public. It has now raised over £135,000, smashing its original target.

There will be four new atheist adverts running on London’s tube network from Monday January 12, featuring quotations from famous atheists:

“I’m an atheist, and that’s it. I believe that there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people” – Katharine Hepburn
http://www.iheu.org/800-atheist-buses-hit-the-streets
Also : http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/

Note the "probably" as statement to avoid taking a full stance and broaden the potential support base.

#371 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 23 December 2011 - 06:56 AM

thats like saying, if you jump off a cliff you probably will die.

semantics i hate that.

#372 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 23 December 2011 - 07:17 AM

For evangelistic purposes atheists may blur their position looking more agnostic:
Note the "probably" as statement to avoid taking a full stance and broaden the potential support base.


Why only ‘probably’ no god?

As with the famous Carlsberg ads (‘probably the best lager in the world’), the word ‘probably’ helps to ensure that our ads will not breach any advertising codes. The Committee of Advertising Practice advised the campaign that "the inclusion of the word 'probably' makes it less likely to cause offence, and therefore be in breach of the Advertising Code."
Ariane Sherine has said:

"There's another reason I'm keen on the "probably": it means the slogan is more accurate, as even though there's no scientific evidence at all for God's existence, it's also impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (or that anything doesn't). As Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, saying "there's no God" is taking a "faith" position. He writes: "Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist". His choice of words in the book is "almost certainly"; but while this is closer to what most atheists believe, "probably" is shorter and catchier, which is helpful for advertising. I also think the word is more lighthearted, and somehow makes the message more positive."

Source: http://www.humanism....uk/bus-campaign

#373 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 December 2011 - 06:27 AM



For evangelistic purposes atheists may blur their position looking more agnostic:
Note the "probably" as statement to avoid taking a full stance and broaden the potential support base.


Why only ‘probably’ no god?

As with the famous Carlsberg ads (‘probably the best lager in the world’), the word ‘probably’ helps to ensure that our ads will not breach any advertising codes. The Committee of Advertising Practice advised the campaign that "the inclusion of the word 'probably' makes it less likely to cause offence, and therefore be in breach of the Advertising Code."
Ariane Sherine has said:

"There's another reason I'm keen on the "probably": it means the slogan is more accurate, as even though there's no scientific evidence at all for God's existence, it's also impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (or that anything doesn't). As Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, saying "there's no God" is taking a "faith" position. He writes: "Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist". His choice of words in the book is "almost certainly"; but while this is closer to what most atheists believe, "probably" is shorter and catchier, which is helpful for advertising. I also think the word is more lighthearted, and somehow makes the message more positive."

Source: http://www.humanism....uk/bus-campaign



LOL… In other words we can prevaricate on the word “Probably” as long was the other side doesn’t use it against us! No Falcone, when you use the word “Probably” NOT, you beg the question “Probably” IS. Therefore the “Probably” IS carries every bit as much weight as the “Probably” NOT, regardless of the wishy-washy statement by Ariane Sherine. The entire quote can be pulled apart due to the fallacious foundation it was built upon, AND the fallacious foundation of Dawkins’ philosophy and books. Atheists indeed have faith, and anyone who tells you differently is simply trying to sell you something. Further, as the OP calls for, if you are going to make assertions, YOU are required to provide factual evidence to support it. You have failed to do so in your “Probably” assertion, and you have failed to do so in your Ariane Sherine quote.

#374 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 December 2011 - 06:33 AM

For evangelistic purposes atheists may blur their position looking more agnostic:
Note the "probably" as statement to avoid taking a full stance and broaden the potential support base.

Indeed Mark! The atheist cannot support his/her philosophy logically/rationally/scientifically, therefore they have become crypto-agnostics.

#375 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 28 December 2011 - 12:31 AM

i have heard athiests that follow buddhism and or zen and then deny the logical conundrum of that.

#376 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:34 AM

i have heard athiests that follow buddhism and or zen and then deny the logical conundrum of that.


There have been other instances of religous atheists as well (court case accepts atheisim as religion in prison etc...). And yet the denial continues!

#377 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 28 December 2011 - 08:29 PM

indeed.

i have learned that the contra argument is often like that.

its ok to have faith, just not the christian faith.

unless one is a radical muslim, ones religion doesnt matter.

the jews of today like us often deal with genesis as literal book and we dont hear of them being attacked for that.

yet when a christian says that book is to be literal, its as if all hell broke loose. same book , same words in general(their version has their non -trinitarian /non jesus as the messiah bias)

#378 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 31 December 2011 - 10:18 AM

i would like to know how an amoral,uncaring universe has any way of perfoming karma. ie what goes around comes around.

i hear some athiests say that. kinda hard if the universe has no intellegence or their isnt a set of morality to the universe.

#379 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 January 2012 - 07:17 AM



...Fact – You are “FACTUALLY” incorrect, as I provided above. FACTUAL replies were required no less than three times, and FACTUAL replies were inferred throughout. But, so that no-one will be able to attempt this type of “EQUIVOCATION” in this thread (as you attempted to do) in the future, I will highlight the words FACT/FACTUAL in the OP right now!

...Fact – The word Agnostic is directly defined as “NO KNOWLEDGE”


Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals "ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
agnostic [ægˈnɒstɪk]
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc., is impossible Compare atheist, theist
2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty
adj
of or relating to agnostics

[coined 1869 by T. H. Huxley from A-1 + GNOSTIC]
agnosticism n

....
....

For evangelistic purposes atheists may blur their position looking more agnostic:

The UK’s first ever atheist advertising campaign launches this week. 800 buses with the slogan “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” are running in cities across England, Scotland and Wales, along with 1,000 adverts on the London underground and two large LCD screens on Oxford Street in London.

The campaign, which is supported by Professor Richard Dawkins and IHEU member organization the British Humanist Association, and in Scotland by the Humanist Society of Scotland, is a response to a series of evangelical Christian adverts running on London buses in June 2008, which featured the URL of a website saying all non-Christians were going to hell. Comedy writer Ariane Sherine suggested the rational, positive slogan to reassure people who may have been scared by the evangelical adverts.

Posted Image
Ariane Sherine, Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee launch the first Atheist Bus in London | Picture © Jon Worth / British Humanist Association

The Atheist Bus Campaign’s donation phase launched in October 2008, aiming to raise just £5,500. However, within four days it had raised £100,000 in individual donations from the general public. It has now raised over £135,000, smashing its original target.

There will be four new atheist adverts running on London’s tube network from Monday January 12, featuring quotations from famous atheists:

“I’m an atheist, and that’s it. I believe that there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people” – Katharine Hepburn
http://www.iheu.org/...hit-the-streets
Also : http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/

Note the "probably" as statement to avoid taking a full stance and broaden the potential support base.


LOL The whole bus campaign back fired on Dawkins:

Posted Image

http://urbanmennoniteblog.com/pluralism-atheism/dawkins/

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/friday-night-funny-theres-probably-no-dawkins-showing-up-to-debate-craig/

#380 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 02 February 2012 - 07:59 PM

We came from chemicals that were created in stars. The original bits and pieces of the chemicals came from something that happened 14 billion years ago, generally called "The Big Bang". We do not know what "caused" the big Bang.


What!!!!!
So if i believe a divine power created us i am an ignorant but according to you these makes complete sense even withouth any empirical evidence..... !pokerface!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users