TheGuy's repeating theme Threads, that're all on the same tangent, merged here.
- Thread starter TheGuy
- Start date
Re: What is FAITH?
Fallacy: Personal Attack, Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Fallacy: Personal Attack, Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Re: What is FAITH?
{What reasons can you think of, that would cause others to disagree with or deny that which is observably true.}
Here is one...
They assume that simply because it is NOT TRUE from some other perspective that it is not true AT ALL..
Example
one might say 1+1 = 2
another could say 1+1=11
simply because in some other perspective one could say
1 + 1 =11 is TRUE
does NOT mean that
1+1 = 2 is FALSE...
Another reason is this..
That TRUTH is in conflict with their dogmatic fundamentalists assumptions and if they were to accept that TRUTH then they would NOT know what to do.. Thus they would feel helpless as a result, this would most likely result in a feeling of LOSS resulting in emotional distress (mourning).. In order to avoid that emotional unpleasantness, they would simply deny the TRUTH that is plainly observable..
In the grand scheme of things it is not necessary for one to NOT suffer.. as necessity is purely a matter of a chosen objective.
Clearly if one seeks to achieve an objective they must first discover the TRUTH of how one might act in order to achieve that chosen objective.. Obviously choosing to deny the FACTS of LIFE are not the most effective way to discover TRUTH as it is quite literally the exact opposite of that..
{What reasons can you think of, that would cause others to disagree with or deny that which is observably true.}
Here is one...
They assume that simply because it is NOT TRUE from some other perspective that it is not true AT ALL..
Example
one might say 1+1 = 2
another could say 1+1=11
simply because in some other perspective one could say
1 + 1 =11 is TRUE
does NOT mean that
1+1 = 2 is FALSE...
Another reason is this..
That TRUTH is in conflict with their dogmatic fundamentalists assumptions and if they were to accept that TRUTH then they would NOT know what to do.. Thus they would feel helpless as a result, this would most likely result in a feeling of LOSS resulting in emotional distress (mourning).. In order to avoid that emotional unpleasantness, they would simply deny the TRUTH that is plainly observable..
In the grand scheme of things it is not necessary for one to NOT suffer.. as necessity is purely a matter of a chosen objective.
Clearly if one seeks to achieve an objective they must first discover the TRUTH of how one might act in order to achieve that chosen objective.. Obviously choosing to deny the FACTS of LIFE are not the most effective way to discover TRUTH as it is quite literally the exact opposite of that..
Last edited:
Re: What is FAITH?
Some disagree with or deny the TRUTH because they are “self-righteous” literally self-right, they assume they are RIGHT because SELF says so..
They seek only to establish themselves as RIGHT.. They disagree only in order to establish their own “intellectual superiority” by causing you to “feel inferior” essentially by stating that you are wrong.. they have many tricks and deceitful ways to accomplish this..
The particular problem with this one is that not everyone is “self-righteous” some are in fact actually “righteous”, as in “RIGHT” and it can be quite difficult to distinguish the difference..
Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing..
It can be difficult to listen to one who is “righteous”as they may cause you some emotional distress (mourning).. at your loss of KNOWING what to do..
But this is not the same as the “self-righteous” who have the opposite effect, as they come as angles of peace.. but they seek to enslave you with rules of morality that you must obey in order to earn deservingness in the eyes of your peers and in the eyes of God.. They are the religious.. They are the BLIND leading the BLIND, they are the Scribes and the Pharisees, they are the hypocrites of reasoning..
Some disagree with or deny the TRUTH because they are “self-righteous” literally self-right, they assume they are RIGHT because SELF says so..
They seek only to establish themselves as RIGHT.. They disagree only in order to establish their own “intellectual superiority” by causing you to “feel inferior” essentially by stating that you are wrong.. they have many tricks and deceitful ways to accomplish this..
The particular problem with this one is that not everyone is “self-righteous” some are in fact actually “righteous”, as in “RIGHT” and it can be quite difficult to distinguish the difference..
Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing..
It can be difficult to listen to one who is “righteous”as they may cause you some emotional distress (mourning).. at your loss of KNOWING what to do..
But this is not the same as the “self-righteous” who have the opposite effect, as they come as angles of peace.. but they seek to enslave you with rules of morality that you must obey in order to earn deservingness in the eyes of your peers and in the eyes of God.. They are the religious.. They are the BLIND leading the BLIND, they are the Scribes and the Pharisees, they are the hypocrites of reasoning..
Re: What is FAITH?
The only one that has been self righteous in this thread has been you. From the very beginning.
The only one that has been self righteous in this thread has been you. From the very beginning.
Re: What is FAITH?
It is when one assumes that one particular perspective is the TRUE NATURE of reality, that fundamentalist religion exists, irrelevant of whether or not that religion contains something named “GOD”.
It is when identities are mixed between fundamentally different perspectives (contexts) of reality, that impossibilities exist..
If one flips a coin, then my opinion might be that heads will come up, as opposed to tails..
What makes it my opinion is that I realize that my opinion might be wrong..
What I call "assumption" is when one knows as a certainty, that heads will come up.. when in reality it is only their opinion..
What I “know” as opposed to what I “opinion” or “assume” is heads or tails MAY come up, because I know that I do not currently realize enough information to “KNOW” which one will come up..
So
{X} = {I do not currently realize enough information to “KNOW” which one will come up.. }
I KNOW {X} is TRUE..
So I have now realized that “I know” something, what else do I know,? What further logical conclusions can I realize based on “what I know”?
Well, I just did , I now KNOW that I KNOW something TRUE..
So
I know that I know something..
and
I know that I don't know everything
I know that I can realize things which I had not realized before..
Now I realize that I could have realized that on my own, if I had thought about, but maybe I never thought about it, until someone expressed that information to me..
But never the less,
I now realize that I know something, and have not been convinced by some one else that there assumption was true..
But rather I can realize TRUTH for myself..
So I no longer need to depend on the assumptions of others, I now realize that I can realize things for myself..
I can also listen to others who reveal things they have realized, which I have not yet realized..
Because now I can tell the difference between “opinion”, “assumption” and “truth”
All that I know, is that I know nothing..
If it is up to each individual to simply CHOOSE whatever they LIKE as TRUTH, then there is no TRUTH..
But then again that would be the TRUTH, wouldn't it..
So back to square one..
It is when one assumes that one particular perspective is the TRUE NATURE of reality, that fundamentalist religion exists, irrelevant of whether or not that religion contains something named “GOD”.
It is when identities are mixed between fundamentally different perspectives (contexts) of reality, that impossibilities exist..
If one flips a coin, then my opinion might be that heads will come up, as opposed to tails..
What makes it my opinion is that I realize that my opinion might be wrong..
What I call "assumption" is when one knows as a certainty, that heads will come up.. when in reality it is only their opinion..
What I “know” as opposed to what I “opinion” or “assume” is heads or tails MAY come up, because I know that I do not currently realize enough information to “KNOW” which one will come up..
So
{X} = {I do not currently realize enough information to “KNOW” which one will come up.. }
I KNOW {X} is TRUE..
So I have now realized that “I know” something, what else do I know,? What further logical conclusions can I realize based on “what I know”?
Well, I just did , I now KNOW that I KNOW something TRUE..
So
I know that I know something..
and
I know that I don't know everything
I know that I can realize things which I had not realized before..
Now I realize that I could have realized that on my own, if I had thought about, but maybe I never thought about it, until someone expressed that information to me..
But never the less,
I now realize that I know something, and have not been convinced by some one else that there assumption was true..
But rather I can realize TRUTH for myself..
So I no longer need to depend on the assumptions of others, I now realize that I can realize things for myself..
I can also listen to others who reveal things they have realized, which I have not yet realized..
Because now I can tell the difference between “opinion”, “assumption” and “truth”
All that I know, is that I know nothing..
If it is up to each individual to simply CHOOSE whatever they LIKE as TRUTH, then there is no TRUTH..
But then again that would be the TRUTH, wouldn't it..
So back to square one..
Re: What is FAITH?
When I say "All that I know, is that I know nothing."
I am being sarcastic...
Because it is a paradox, for clearly I do indeed, KNOW something...
You are no doubt equally a TROLL.. who insists that you are RIGHT and I am WRONG.. which also makes you a hypocrite..
Another reason is this..
That TRUTH is in conflict with their dogmatic fundamentalists assumptions and if they were to accept that TRUTH then they would NOT know what to do.. Thus they would feel helpless as a result, this would most likely result in a feeling of LOSS resulting in emotional distress (mourning).. In order to avoid that emotional unpleasantness, they would simply deny the TRUTH that is plainly observable..
In the grand scheme of things it is not necessary for one to NOT suffer.. as necessity is purely a matter of a chosen objective.
Clearly if one seeks to achieve an objective they must first discover the TRUTH of how one might act in order to achieve that chosen objective.. Obviously choosing to deny the FACTS of LIFE are not the most effective way to discover TRUTH as it is quite literally the exact opposite of that..
When I say "All that I know, is that I know nothing."
I am being sarcastic...
Because it is a paradox, for clearly I do indeed, KNOW something...
You are no doubt equally a TROLL.. who insists that you are RIGHT and I am WRONG.. which also makes you a hypocrite..
Another reason is this..
That TRUTH is in conflict with their dogmatic fundamentalists assumptions and if they were to accept that TRUTH then they would NOT know what to do.. Thus they would feel helpless as a result, this would most likely result in a feeling of LOSS resulting in emotional distress (mourning).. In order to avoid that emotional unpleasantness, they would simply deny the TRUTH that is plainly observable..
In the grand scheme of things it is not necessary for one to NOT suffer.. as necessity is purely a matter of a chosen objective.
Clearly if one seeks to achieve an objective they must first discover the TRUTH of how one might act in order to achieve that chosen objective.. Obviously choosing to deny the FACTS of LIFE are not the most effective way to discover TRUTH as it is quite literally the exact opposite of that..
Re: What is FAITH?
I have plenty of faith you have never experienced true spirituality.
Re: What is FAITH?
You stand alone against the world, can I call you Don?
And I would offer a valid argument, if I was so inclined to present one, but since all you've done is mumble in circles, while dismissing reality, there really isn't an argument to form.
Partly true. I insult, because you aren't here to discuss. You have been shown the globally accepted definition of faith, and yet you still maintain that your version is the real version.
You stand alone against the world, can I call you Don?
And I would offer a valid argument, if I was so inclined to present one, but since all you've done is mumble in circles, while dismissing reality, there really isn't an argument to form.
Actually, if reveals something about you.
Same reason I feed the wild Deer.
fify.
And yours are baseless.
Your whole shtick is abusive. To bandwidth.
I don't know, why do you deny what is true, like the definition of faith.
Yep, that's your MO.
Re: What is FAITH?
Faith is a position of belief taken based on a claim that has very little empirical evidence to justify it's certainty. The more likely that claim is to be certain, the less faith is incurred.
So, for instance, in order to believe in Santa, a high degree of faith is needed. To believe that a struck baseball hits me in the face after the next pitch, requires much less faith since the truth of that claim is more plausible. The second scenario requires faith nonethless, since there is still some degree of uncertainty about the outcome.
Faith is a position of belief taken based on a claim that has very little empirical evidence to justify it's certainty. The more likely that claim is to be certain, the less faith is incurred.
So, for instance, in order to believe in Santa, a high degree of faith is needed. To believe that a struck baseball hits me in the face after the next pitch, requires much less faith since the truth of that claim is more plausible. The second scenario requires faith nonethless, since there is still some degree of uncertainty about the outcome.
Last edited:
Re: What is FAITH?
That entier post, like every other, was nothing but insults, and claims of KNOWING the TRUTH yourself... but no arguements what so ever, let alone valid ones..
I see no difference between FAITH and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS...
FAITH in a religious context is to simply ASSUME TO KNOW what is TRUE, when it is not reasonable or logical to assume it as TRUE at all...
Just like Santa.....
Partly true. I insult, because you aren't here to discuss. You have been shown the globally accepted definition of faith, and yet you still maintain that your version is the real version.
You stand alone against the world, can I call you Don?
And I would offer a valid argument, if I was so inclined to present one, but since all you've done is mumble in circles, while dismissing reality, there really isn't an argument to form.
Actually, if reveals something about you.
Same reason I feed the wild Deer.
fify.
And yours are baseless.
Your whole shtick is abusive. To bandwidth.
I don't know, why do you deny what is true, like the definition of faith.
Yep, that's your MO.
That entier post, like every other, was nothing but insults, and claims of KNOWING the TRUTH yourself... but no arguements what so ever, let alone valid ones..
I see no difference between FAITH and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS...
FAITH in a religious context is to simply ASSUME TO KNOW what is TRUE, when it is not reasonable or logical to assume it as TRUE at all...
Just like Santa.....
Re: What is FAITH?
See you're home from school and trying to redefine words again. Good luck with that....
See you're home from school and trying to redefine words again. Good luck with that....
Re: What is FAITH?
The TRUTH is not like Santa, and is not even like a base ball, the TRUTH is FOR SURE, either the base ball will hit you, or it won't but you can be 100% sure that one of these will happen....
Also you can realize in your mind, how to avoid getting hit by the base ball, or if you wanted you could realize how to get hit by the baseball, but if you did not have an accurate conception of reality, then the TRUTH you realized would most likely be in error and would therefore not be the TRUTH but would be a LIE...
Honestly is that the best you can do.
The TRUTH is not like Santa, and is not even like a base ball, the TRUTH is FOR SURE, either the base ball will hit you, or it won't but you can be 100% sure that one of these will happen....
Also you can realize in your mind, how to avoid getting hit by the base ball, or if you wanted you could realize how to get hit by the baseball, but if you did not have an accurate conception of reality, then the TRUTH you realized would most likely be in error and would therefore not be the TRUTH but would be a LIE...
Honestly is that the best you can do.