Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy.

[astro]

Jesus… what is this thread even about anymore? Time to put this multi-headed beast to bed.

[Crotalus]

@astro

Jesus… what is this thread even about anymore? Time to put this multi-headed beast to bed.

Have we established whether or not tomndebb is a hypocritical pussy? Isn’t there going to be a vote or something?

[Princhester]

I mean, you’ve lost the strand of that part of the conversation. Not the whole thread, doofus.

[Malacandra]

@Princhester

I mean, you’ve lost the strand of that part of the conversation. Not the whole thread, doofus.

Oh, okay.

@Printchester

Sorry, you’ve lost the thread. This part of the conversation started with you saying: “Or, more formally, I do not understand why you should think that non-falsifiability should be sufficient grounds for believing in something”

Something I don’t think, and never suggested I did.

But you seemed to think that because I believe in something non-falsifiable, I should believe in everything non-falsifiable.

@Printchester

So if you got nothing ever you would just go on thinking that prayer worked?

Why do you care how I maintain my relationship with God?

@Printchester

Got you to answer though, didn’t I?

Made you jump up and down and yell first though, didn’t I?
:rolleyes:
Dude, I like, totally, fear your mad debatin skillz.

@Printchester

None of your examples have particular and unlikely characteristics for which there is no evidence, nor are they entities that you and I agree don’t exist. They are merely everyday entities we cannot detect. Not as effective as IPU’s as an example of what the argument is about.

We can’t agree that invisible Emperor penguins don’t exist? Seems like we share less of a common frame of reference than I’d thought.

@Printchester

So why do you reject so many potential beliefs that are non-falsifiable? The number of non-falsifiable potential beliefs that are not inconsistent with your beliefs is infinite.

You want to get down to cases, or what?

@Printchester

Yes, well whether the Christian God is absurd is in the eye of the beholder, trust me. Do you think the gods of other religions besides your own are absurd? If not, why don’t you believe in them? If so, how are they different to your own?

As absurd as a non-existent mythical beast that is simultaneously pink and invisible? I’ve already indicated that I don’t find other people’s religions the stuff of belly-laughs; since you do, perhaps we don’t have enough common ground to reach a consensus.

@Printchester

My objection was to your statement that the argument entailed asking you to believe in something when the argument asked nothing of the sort.

Oh, so now the IPU argument, though demanding to know why I don’t believe in an invisible pink unicorn, is not in fact asking me to believe in anything?

[badchad]

@Zoe

I would like to see this particular thread closed. I have no objections to the other threads where you are participating.

Ok, so you just want to censor me (and invoke the last bastion of theism) in a limited way?

That’s right! You cannot know with certainty what another person’s motives are unless you can read her or his mind!

Well strictly speaking, I can’t know that the sun will rise tomorrow. However that won’t stop me from speaking about it as a fact. The more probable a given thing is, the less qualifiers I will use.

That’s why you can’t state another person’s motives as if they were fact in your argument! You and I may agree that there is a strong likelihood that a guy did something because he was insecure or because he was excited or because he was afraid – but we are not the authorities on his motives.

I’m not sure how much I have stated other people’s opinions as facts in my argument, but it sounds to me like you think it highly probable that I have been right.

So if we make that claim in an argument, any rational person or anyone who has studied logic is going to think “poor argument” or “flaw in his thinking.”

Forgive me, but you don’t sound that rational or studied in logic. I think the reason you try so hard to discredit others backgrounds is to draw attention away from your own. If you were all you made out, I don’t think you would have folded so quickly in our other discussion. Or is it a learned debating technique to play dumb and ignore repeated questions?

I think it was Daniel Monihan who said something along the lines of, “You have a right to your own opinion, but you don’t have a right to your own facts.”

Is this what your trying to say?

“Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions. But no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” Bernard Baruch

You have not said, “I am a troll,” but you have admitted to doing things for some of the same reasons that a troll does them.

Well admitting to doing some things for some of the same reasons a troll does them, is not the same as admitting to be a troll, now is it? I have a hard time thinking a person schooled in logic and debate would make such an error.

Just because you think they are relevant doesn’t mean that they are. The question on marriage and divorce seemed to come from left field, for example.

I have already explained this. Based on previous discussions, I wanted to know if cosmosdan supports everything Jesus said or if he thinks Jesus did err.

[/quote]
I can’t “trust you” to listen. You are a human being with a lot of things being put to you at once. Some of the things that I explained to you above about not being able to know with certainty the motives of others, I have explained before. You either didn’t allow time to absorb what I was saying or you were busy constructing an argument to it in your head.
[/quote]

Or I just didn’t agree with your criticism. I would not expect a person as schooled in debate, as you claim, to be to make use of an obvious false dichotomy.

There were some things that I told you which you could not understand, but it is not your fault.

So now you are stating facts about what’s in my mind? Surely a person schooled in debate can see the irony here.

You cannot insult and listen at the same time.

True, but I can listen and then insult, can’t I?

But if you really hear me, you will be civil if I have been civil to you.

I don’t think you have been civil. I think you were condescending and evasive to me. You have been worse to others.

[What_Exit]

@Crotalus

Have we established whether or not tomndebb is a hypocritical pussy? Isn’t there going to be a vote or something?

I vote No! tomndebb is not a hypocritical pussy.
I vote No! **Psuedo ** is not a troll or a jerk.
I vote Yes! **Psuedo ** is a professor.
I vote No! **BadChad ** is not a troll.
I abstain on whether **BadChad ** is a Jerk as…
I vote Yes! **BadChad ** is rude and guilty of declaring himself the winner of debates.
I vote Yes! **Zoe ** has embarrassed herself with her declarations about Psuedo.

I will also vote that I continue to admire **Crotalus ** for being the most level headed person who has slogged through this entire thread. I think **Tom ** is running second and he was the person pitted, so bonus points and 3 new shiny spikes on his Jackboots of Doom.

Jim

[Polycarp]

@astro

Jesus… what is this thread even about anymore?

Whether or not you stand a chance in Hell (if it exists) of getting an answer to that question from the person addressed?

[badchad]

@Malacandra

Sorry, I must’ve been going too fast for you. This was in answer to how many unanswered prayers it would take for me to lose my faith.

But you are aware that Jesus did promise to do your every bidding if you believe in him, right? So why is he letting you down so often? Also, try praying for me 491 and tell me how your faith is doing.

I’m at liberty to ask God for anything or bring him anything that’s on my mind. I don’t expect to get everything I ask.

Jesus did promise to give you everything you ask, if you believe, didn’t he?

(I liked badchad’s response: “Christianity is ridiculous”. I’ll make a note in the rulebook: “Appeal To Ridicule is not a fallacy if the person doing the ridiculing thinks that the object of ridicule is indeed ridiculous”. That’ll fly.)

You do have ridiculous beliefs, that much is pretty certain, and I don’t mind pointing it out. So much as you reject the IPU example it seems you don’t know the difference between the appeal to ridicule and reductio ad absurdum

Let me explain it more patiently: it is entirely appropriate for me to reject a non-falsifiable thing if I do know that someone made it up.

Fine, substitute Zeus for the IPU and have at it.

But if you’d like to come up with a variant of the IPU argument that doesn’t entail believing in something we both know you just made up, we might get somewhere.

Zeus baby, now lets hear it.

[badchad]

@Polycarp

The one condition I personally impose when involved in a debate is that you must have some reasonable grounds for your beliefs that is not completely circular in nature.

So you agree that it is stupid to say “I follow the teachings of Jesus, but only when they agree with what I think is right already?”

And that is the point I’ll end my involvement with this discussion, unless something absolutely calls for an answer from me.

I am absolutely calling you to respond to my posts to you about miracles. Refute or agree please.

[Malacandra]

@badchad

But you are aware that Jesus did promise to do your every bidding if you believe in him, right? So why is he letting you down so often? Also, try praying for me 491 {times} and tell me how your faith is doing.

You’re not paying attention. 490 times is the starting point for my forgiving my penitent brother; only rhetorically do I assert that I should even consider forgiving God for anything, let alone restricting it to seventy times seven.

I know what Jesus promised the Twelve. Whether I consider myself a worthy inheritor of that promise, and whether I think it logically possible for God to grant everything every Christian prays for, even if two devout Christians are asking for exactly opposite things and both for the best possible motives, is another matter.

@badchad

Jesus did promise to give you everything you ask, if you believe, didn’t he?

Maybe he thinks I need a lesson in belief, then.

@badchad

You do have ridiculous beliefs, that much is pretty certain, and I don’t mind pointing it out. So much as you reject the IPU example it seems you don’t know the difference between the appeal to ridicule and reductio ad absurdum.

laughs
I see you’re following Printchester’s definition of “to point out”; simply saying that what I believe is ridiculous. Doesn’t alter the fact that merely because you consider something ridiculous you don’t get an exemption from the appeal to ridicule fallacy. Doesn’t make building your man of straw as to what I believe and calling it ridiculous a valid argument either.
Now, here’s a reductio ad absurdum for you:

Suppose sqrt(2) is rational.
Then there exists a fraction x/y in its lowest terms such that x/y=sqrt(2)
Then x[sup]2[/sup]/y[sup]2[/sup]=2
Then  x[sup]2[/sup]=2y[sup]2[/sup]
Since the RHS is even, the LHS must be and hence x is even; hence x=2t
Then (2t)[sup]2[/sup]=2y[sup]2[/sup]
Then 4t[sup]2[/sup]=2y[sup]2[/sup]
Then 2t[sup]2[/sup]=y[sup]2[/sup]
Since the LHS is even, the RHS must be and hence y is even
Hence x and y are both even and the fraction x/y is not in its lowest terms
Hence sqrt(2) is a fraction which both is and is not in its lowest terms
Hence there is no such fraction
Hence sqrt(2) is not rational

Do you notice how it doesn’t entail comparing anything to a great big silly thing? Instead you proceed from your supposition until you find you have reached two incompatible conclusions, and therefore prove your supposition false. I’ve yet to see how the IPU argument achieves that.

@badchad

Fine, substitute Zeus for the IPU and have at it.

Do I take it you’ve sworn off the IPU then?

@badchad

@Malacandra

But if you’d like to come up with a variant of the IPU argument that doesn’t entail believing in something we both know you just made up, we might get somewhere.

Zeus baby, now lets hear it.

“Baby”? :dubious: Why do I have the strong impression I’m old enough to be your bio-dad?
Zeus: If you mean some guy in a toga who lives atop Mount Olympus and throws lightning bolts at people who annoy him, we have that mountaintop too well mapped and the cause of lightning too well understood to swallow that. But as a God-concept Zeus may deserve a little more attention and no mere mocking dismissal. From the conception of God as an uncaused cause, Zeus fails, since he himself has an origin, and his originator Cronos has an origin, and even his originator Ouranos has an origin. I also personally find polytheism unsatisfactory. Also, since you cry out on God for his callousness towards, say, the Amalekites or the Exodus Pharoah, you may understand that I find Zeus not only callous but petty: answering a prayer for eternal life with exactly what was asked for - life unending but old age and senility according to their usual schedule - and rewarding the prayers of frogs first with King Log and then with King Stork. Perhaps the folk-tales are at fault.

This is a hasty first draft. With more time and research I might do better. But if you wish to argue a counter-case on Zeus’s behalf, I’m willing to hear it.

[Crotalus]

I vote as follows:

tomndebb is not a hypocritical pussy.

What Exit? is a really nice guy.

badchad is not a troll. badchad is a jerk. His stated purpose for his relentless, partially informed and frequently rude attacks on various Christian beliefs is the noble fight against ignorance. I’m not appealing to authority to fortify my own beliefs, but I would like to state that this seems to mean that badchad believes that Garry Wills, William F. Buckley, J.R.R Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are or were ignorant. He probably does, and maybe they were, but all seem intelligent and informed to me. For me, badchad made the leap from pugnacious, half-informed punk to jerk when the following exchange took place:

@Polycarp

Whatever else he may have accomplished in this world, he has made a place I derived great pleasure in repartee from for over six years into a place I tend not to spend much time in. I hope that accords with his goals in life.

@badchad

Believe me, it does.

Someone whose goals in life include making a message board such as this a less pleasant place for one such as Polycarp meets my criteria as a contemptible jerk.

[Larry_Borgia]

You can be sincere and still be a troll.

[Zoe]

pseudo: "“A dash is used … to set off an introductory series.”
Now WTF do you suppose “if I’d described myself in one post as a high school instructor for thirty years, and as a College dean for thirty years in another, and as being only forty years old in yet another thread” IS if not an introductory series, you impossibly stupid old woman?

You are correct that a dash is used to set off an introductory series. Your original sentence as written is not an example of an introductory series. Neither is the section you quoted above. These are examples of introductory series. How are they different from what you wrote?

“Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute – I was all of these.” --Max Shulman

“Farmer, laborer, clerk – that is a brief history of the United States.” --John Naisbitt

A stone, a leaf, and an unfound door – all these appear in his introduction.

Your contribution by contrast was:

The only way to make that stick would be some internal evidence from my own posts–if I’d described myself in one post as a high school instructor for thirty years, and as a College dean for thirty years in another, and as being only forty years old in yet another thread, that would be evidence that I was lying about something.

Your question was “Now WTF… IS if not an introductory series, you impossibly stupid old woman?”

It is two sentences run together with a dash in between.

The section that you quoted above, you originally wrote AFTER the dash. In the examples given, the dash would need to be written after them. Even then, there would not be parallel structure and the sentence would be awkward.

Try Hemingway’s suggestion. I write it at the top of every notebook I fill:

“Write one true sentence.”

What Exit?, don’t worry. Old women don’t embarrass easily. (And heads of departments don’t determine which doctoral programs a university will offer.) Pseudo’s enemy is not who you think it is.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

If I can get five sincere re

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

sorry–hit "submit: by mistake:

If I can get five sincere requests that I respond to **the idiot **'s post (obviously not courteously but germanely), I’ll do so, but does a single poster want me to be helping her continuing to hijack this thread any further? If so, just post your request here, and when when we hit five, I’ll answer her. Thanks.

[the_PC_apeman]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

sorry–hit "submit: by mistake:

If I can get five sincere requests that I respond to **the idiot **'s post (obviously not courteously but germanely), I’ll do so, but does a single poster want me to be helping her continuing to hijack this thread any further? If so, just post your request here, and when when we hit five, I’ll answer her. Thanks.

If you got five sincere requests to STFU and go away, would you?

[cosmosdan]

@ThePCapeman

If you got five sincere requests to STFU and go away, would you?

Count this as request #2

[DrDeth]

@Crotalus

I vote as follows:

tomndebb is not a hypocritical pussy.

What Exit? is a really nice guy.

badchad is not a troll. badchad is a jerk. …For me, badchad made the leap from pugnacious, half-informed punk to jerk when the following exchange took place:Someone whose goals in life include making a message board such as this a less pleasant place for one such as Polycarp meets my criteria as a contemptible jerk.

I agree. It’s a huge difference to be an atheist, and attack what you believe is ignorance (as **Diogenes the Cynic ** does with his well written posts) as opposed to stalking another poster because they have a certain religous belief. There’s another difference between DtC and badchad- DtC is part of the SDMB community. He posts in many areas, on many things, and isn’t just a “one trick pony” (note that DtC and I have gotten into some huge debates, but I still respect him, even when he’s wrong. ) .

I just can’t understand why badchad’s stalking of Polycarp hasn’t gotten badchad banned- it’s clear jerk behaviour. It’s not that badchad has strong atheistic beliefs- that’s OK, and not uncommon around here. It’s how he espouses those beliefs and his jerkish stalking of Polycarp. I have no doubt at all that if a Fundy came here and started stalking one of our more well-known atheistic members, he’d be banned in an instant. Why *is * it that badchad gets a pass on his clear jerk behaviour? I have two guesses- either his constant assholish behavior towards Tomndebb means that the Mods lean over backward to avoid appearances that the banning is personal, or that some of the Staff agree strongly with badchad. I’m leaning towards #1. (it’s OK, Tom, you can ban him, I won’t think it’s just personal. )

Dudes- ignore poor pseudotriton ruber ruber. He has no capacity for original thought, and all he can do is act as badchads dittohead. That’s so sad- all you can do is be a kissass to a jerk. I mean, at least **badchad ** is original.

[badchad]

@Malacandra

You’re not paying attention. 490 times is the starting point for my forgiving my penitent brother; only rhetorically do I assert that I should even consider forgiving God for anything, let alone restricting it to seventy times seven.

Ok, so you’re a liar, I thought so. 490 times is, as I recall, and as you cite it now, is the number of times you should forgive someone. However, you originally cited this as an answer to how many prayers it would take for you to stop believing that prayer worked and for you to lose your faith. Remember?

@Princhester

How many prayers would have to fail before you stopped believing they worked at all?

@Malacandra

How many times am I to forgive you if you offend me and say sorry?

@Malacandra

Sorry, I must’ve been going too fast for you. This was in answer to how many unanswered prayers it would take for me to lose my faith.

So go ahead pray for me 490 more times and see what happens. You should be able to pump out a few prayers a minute, I would think.

I know what Jesus promised the Twelve. Whether I consider myself a worthy inheritor of that promise, and whether I think it logically possible for God to grant everything every Christian prays for, even if two devout Christians are asking for exactly opposite things and both for the best possible motives, is another matter.

Regarding prayer Jesus made comments to the twelve that are by and large applied to everyone. So why would you think prayer different (excusing that it doesn’t work)? Also Jesus when talking to his disciples about prayer, Jesus frequently used terminology that sure sounded generalizable to all, not just a person in particular. Next, Jesus did make similar promises to answer prayers to the multitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. Finally, if you don’t really think prayer is meant to work for you, why are you publicly trying it on me?

Maybe he thinks I need a lesson in belief, then.

Maybe I do. If you lack the faith and belief necessary to get more prayers answered, by praying to your god, then you would praying to Joe Pesci, what makes you think your faith is adequate to get into heaven.

I see you’re following Printchester’s definition of “to point out”; simply saying that what I believe is ridiculous. Doesn’t alter the fact that merely because you consider something ridiculous you don’t get an exemption from the appeal to ridicule fallacy. Doesn’t make building your man of straw as to what I believe and calling it ridiculous a valid argument either.
Now, here’s a reductio ad absurdum for you:

Here’s a link about the “appeal to ridicule,” which further links to “reductio ad absurdum” for which it is cautioned not to be confused:

Appeal to ridicule

Do I take it you’ve sworn off the IPU then?

Not at all.

But as a God-concept Zeus may deserve a little more attention and no mere mocking dismissal. From the conception of God as an uncaused cause, Zeus fails, since he himself has an origin, and his originator Cronos has an origin, and even his originator Ouranos has an origin.

God or gods, do not have to be uncaused causes. Because Zeus may have had an origin does not mean he does not exist.

I also personally find polytheism unsatisfactory.

Personally I find deism unsatisfactory but neither of our personal feelings disprove the existence of a deist god, Zeus, or an IPU.

Also, since you cry out on God for his callousness towards, say, the Amalekites or the Exodus Pharoah, you may understand that I find Zeus not only callous but petty: answering a prayer for eternal life with exactly what was asked for - life unending but old age and senility according to their usual schedule - and rewarding the prayers of frogs first with King Log and then with King Stork. Perhaps the folk-tales are at fault.

Regarding the above it seems you are just saying Zeus callous and petty. That in no way disproves his existence or gives you more or less reason to believe in him than a deist god, other polytheistic gods, your god, or IPUs.

This is a hasty first draft. With more time and research I might do better. But if you wish to argue a counter-case on Zeus’s behalf, I’m willing to hear it.

Sure, arguments for the existence of a deist god, hold up with about equal strength as that for the existence of Zeus in that you can disprove neither. Arguments for the existence of a Christian god fair worse, but we can get to that later.

[What_Exit]

@badchad

…snip…
Maybe I do. If you lack the faith and belief necessary to get more prayers answered, by praying to your god, then you would praying to Joe Pesci, what makes you think your faith is adequate to get into heaven.
…snip…

All this time and you never told us you were George Carlin?