EVIDENCE

426 posts / 0 new
Last post
calhais's picture
I think you meant `capital

I think you meant `capital idea' rather than `imperative idea', which is an unidiomatic phrase, even for Sheldon. Why you would want to scrutinize `endless' claims I do not know; perhaps you're exaggerating. I'm glad that you're calm--it is healthier to be calm--but as I wrote, the reminder to be calm applies to talking to people face-to-face, when it is more likely needed. Scrutiny is proper by definition. I wonder what makes you believe that talking to people face-to-face is less productive than trolling this particular forum site for the small subset of the public theist opinion that it will attract; there will be a significant sampling bias. Faith is the basis of assumption and is facile only when poorly placed, such as when ``one assumes'' that a church is a good place for an impulsive atheist to talk to theists face-to-face.

If you're bad at composing yourself in person, then I'm glad that you found a way to avoid conflict.

It is not my calling to entertain you. If you find my comments are unsubstantial, then ignore them as you claim you are apt to do.

Sheldon's picture
No, I absolutely meant

No, I absolutely meant imperative, I even said why I thought it was imperative. I made no mention of trolling, that's just your biased opinion. Though ironically it is you who is chasing me around the forum often ignoring content in favour of being disputatious for the sake of provocation.

"Faith is the basis of assumption and is facile only when poorly placed, "

Indeed, for instance when faith is valued for it's own sake, usually in the absence of any objective evidence, as christianity has done for centuries.

"If you're bad at composing yourself in person, then I'm glad that you found a way to avoid conflict."

I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts, but it's not important.

"It is not my calling to entertain you. If you find my comments are unsubstantial, then ignore them as you claim you are apt to do."

Nice straw man as I never suggested it was. I'll be happy to ignore any post at any time, if and when I am minded to do so. Your comment obviously had nothing to do with the topic in hand, and was leaning towards an ad hominem fallacy, hence it was not a substantive contribution to the op. I realise threads digress, this always happens, but you entered the thread and didn't offer a single salient comment on it's topic.

calhais's picture
I did not accuse you of

Now I wonder whether you know what the word `imperative' means. That isn't an idiomatic way to use the word 'salient,' either. It's possible that you keep doing that because you're using UK English rather than US English.

Insofar as the word `trolling' means ``being disputatious for the sake of provocation'', I did not accuse you of trolling; I wrote `trolling . . . for [content].' That's a fishing metaphor.

Faith is valuable because it's the means by which we decide--or make as though we have decided--value, which is close to writing that faith itself is inherently valuable; wherefore axiom is valuable, therefore faith is valuable.

You have no reason to fear my being wrong.

If that was a straw man, then it is likewise a straw man to assert that it was a straw man, and so on. It was not a straw man; you don't have to make an argument for me to make a point that would fit as a response to said argument, and my making a point that would fit as a response to said argument does not entail the assumption that you made the argument.

Comments cannot be fallacious as a whole; an argument can have the property of fallacy, but the property of fallacy is undefined for mixed statements and sets of multiple arguments. Moreover, naming fallacies doesn't get to the bottom of things. That's why fallacies aren't usually named in mannered academic discourse--that, and that fallacies are usually taught because high school students have a hard time getting their heads around the less corruptible, more rigorous practice of arguing in good faith.

You can read my original comment. It was relevant even though it did not exactly obey the instructions in the main post. I still wonder why you think that it would be less productive for you to talk with theists face-to-face than to write a post about it.

Sheldon's picture
imperative

imperative
adjective
1. of vital importance; crucial.

As I said I felt it was imperative, and for the reasons already stated.
----------------------------------
"You have no reason to fear my being wrong."

Nor do I, hence my stating it wasn't important in my sentence.
--------------------------------------------
There is literally nothing that can't be believed using faith, and I using it in the context religions like christianity have traditionally used it.
-------------------------------------
You said "It is not my calling to entertain you."

Since I never claimed, nor even implied it was, this struck me as a straw.

"A fallacy is an argument or belief based on erroneous reasoning. Straw man is one type of logical fallacy. Straw man occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes."

calhais's picture
That's a fair definition,

That's a fair definition, though the word is rather meant to describe verbs as an adjective. The most common form is ``it is imperative to . . . .'' When used as an adjective about a concrete noun (like `character' or `idea') it usually means `commanding.' You said that the idea was imperative, which suggests the meaning is `commanding.' A vitally important idea is not necessarily an imperative idea; it is, simply, an imperative.

Nor do I, hence my stating it wasn't important in my sentence.

Idioms are not pure connotation; their denotation is a part of their meaning. When you wrote, ``I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts,'' the word, `afraid,' denoted fear and connoted an apologetic or passive tone.

I do not know what you mean when you write, ``nor do I,'' since the subject of the sentence to which it responded, ``you have no reason to fear . . .'' was already you.

There is literally nothing that can't be believed using faith, and I [use] it in the context religions like [Christianity] have traditionally used it.

The Christian traditionalists assign to faith two components: and emotion, and a belief. Since you were writing about the soundness of beliefs, few of your statements make sense if faith is viewed only as an emotion, so I assume that you mean that you use the word, `faith' to refer to a quality of belief, as I have also done.

On the straw man fallacy
If the claim `struck you as straw,' then it's reasonable to infer that you held the belief that I held the belief that you held the belief that it was my calling to entertain you. I did not hold the belief that you held the belief that it was my calling to entertain you, so your reasoning was erroneous in the way named to the straw man fallacy. This is not a productive application of the straw man fallacy because address to an argument that has not been made is insufficient to show belief in belief in the argument. This is elementary doxastic logic. Avoid mind-reading.

Sheldon's picture
"it's reasonable to infer

"it's reasonable to infer that you held the belief that I held the belief that you held the belief that it was my calling to entertain you."

Hilarious fair play. It was your assertion that "It is not my calling to entertain you."

I never said it was, nor did I imply it was, hence this is a straw man.

calhais's picture
Pretending that you're

Pretending you're illiterate makes you wrong rather than right. You can't be trusted to correctly and productively identify the straw man fallacy because you misidentified it here, as I argued in detail in my previous comment. Avoiding reasoning in response to that argument, as you have done, is incompetence.

Sheldon's picture
I can't say I'm particularly

I can't say I'm particularly bothered what you've convinced yourself of. It clearly was a straw man .

Tin-Man's picture
@Sheldon Re: Calhais

@Sheldon Re: Calhais

Hey there, Sheldon. Don't mean to cause you any alarm, but after skimming over several threads the past day or two, I could not help but notice you seem to have attracted a not-so-secret "admirer". Matter of fact, it's almost starting to look like some sort of warped "fatal attraction" man-crush stalking thing happening. Oddly enough, though, I'm not sure whether to be disturbed or jealous.

Zale45e's picture
if energy cannot be created

if energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed, then how was energy created in the first place? My thought is that it didn't, and that the energy was changed from something else. If indeed we look at the Eastern concept of Akasha, we will find that it lines up quite nicely with this thought. The base substance of everything, the First Cause of everything. Ether. Essentially, energy. Therefore instead of focusing on a personified God, I think we must focus on the substance of Life. If the substance of Life is energy, the ability to act or work- then we should focus on experiencing life to it's fullest. We should, instead of starving ourselves and surpressing our passions- strive to learn everything about life there is to know, to totally immerse ourselves in living, and embrace what is real, what we can feel. We should love this world, not hate it.
This Existential Atheistic view matches up with Hermeticism.

Nyarlathotep's picture
adam22 - if energy cannot be

adam22 - if energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed, then how was energy created in the first place?

What makes you think it was? When estimating the total energy in the observable universe, the result is more or less 0 (0 is inside the margin of error).

calhais's picture
A good-faith interpretation

A good-faith interpretation of @adam22's question would therefore ask why energy is partitioned as it is.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Because of primary anisotropy

Because of primary anisotropy (because of lumpiness in the distant past).

calhais's picture
Though that isn't so much an

Though that isn't so much an explanation as a restatement of the fact.

Zale45e's picture
It's ironic how atheists can

It's ironic how atheists can (sometimes) be so fanatical and closed minded.

arakish's picture
@ adam22

@ adam22

But not so much as the closed mindedness of Absolutists...

rmfr

calhais's picture
``rmfr'' . . . `read my

``rmfr'' . . . `read my fucking response'?

arakish's picture
No comment deserved... rmfr

No comment deserved...

rmfr

calhais's picture
That's really mother fucking

That's really mother fucking retarded.

Sheldon's picture
Fri, 07/27/2018 - 23:55

Well well, and after your condescending sententuous lecture on being polite as well.

calhais's picture
Mind the joke.

Mind the joke.

Sheldon's picture
Fri, 07/27/2018 - 23:55

Fri, 07/27/2018 - 23:55
(Reply to #396)
calhais

"What a condescending comment.

Be nice. Be respectful"
______________________
Sun, 07/29/2018 - 22:38 (Reply to #343)
calhais

"That's really mother fucking retarded"
____________________

Oh dear...How far apart are those posts? Just 2 days, well well...

calhais's picture
Mind the joke.

Mind the joke.

Sheldon's picture
You've a strange notion of

You've a strange notion of humour.

arakish's picture
What joke? Even you said

What joke? Even you said English was the last language you learned.

Reference Link

And if you are speaking the truth, which I must assume you are because I accept everyone at their word until proven false.

As said, you have at least another decade worth of learning English before you should attempt making a joke. Because you ain't made one yet.

rmfr

calhais's picture
What joke? Even you said

What joke? Even you said English was the last language you learned.

No, I didn't. Different user. Get it straight. Ass.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Calhais

@ Calhais

Ass?

What the fuck has a donkey to do with anything?
They are relatively clever animals, loyal, can be stubborn but treated right will live and be boon companions for up to 30 years.

" You are an ass" of course, has an entirely different meaning. But that is not clear in your comment.

calhais's picture
Asses are stubborn and often

Asses are stubborn and often bullheaded. `Cleverness' 'is a bad quality in horses and asses and does not mean what it does when said of humans.

arakish's picture
I stand corrected.

I stand corrected.

But you still need to learn more English before attempting to make a joke.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Why? An atheist is someone

Why? An atheist is someone who lacks the belief a deity exists. How does the absence of that single belief negate the possibility all atheists will avoid any bias on all topics?

On the whole atheists I've encountered strive to view reality as objectively as they can, and treat all claims and ideas without bias and therefore with an open mind.

It's nonsensical to imagine every atheist can achieve this on every single topic.

Open minded just means you approach all ideas without bias, it is of course the very antithesis of faith based religious belief.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.