🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:FKRpd.8819$VL6.2539@clgrps13...
> In article <1jRpd.194070$df2.83196@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:s3Rpd.208953$9b.127735@edtnps84...
> >> In article <XnQpd.194039$df2.157648@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:xdQpd.7205$cE3.2786@clgrps12...
> >> >> In article <EXPpd.193960$df2.21991@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Audodidact is the angliciszed spelling of the Greek Autodidak;
to
> >be
> >> >> >> >self-taught.  No, I don't need a dictionary, and when I do, I
> >readily
> >> >use
> >> >> >> >one.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You quoted me and I was speaking english, therefore it's a
misquote,
> >on
> >> >> >par
> >> >> >> with most of your lying.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >So?  You knew the meaning, so it is semantics.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's semantics when you issue your own blather, when you misquote me
> >it's
> >> >a
> >> >> lie.
> >> >>
> >> >Nope.  I have not cut an ounce of text for that very reason.  Your
quotes
> >> >are all through the thread.  In fact the only text cut, except for
once
> >> >above because the relevance of the argument changed so I did cut, was
by
> >> >you.  That usually means that things are being taken out of context;
> >another
> >> >fallacy my freind.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well it's not a fallacy, because you DID make a mistake.  Now you have
> >> clarified so that's fine.
> >>
> >> (Growing up can be fun!)
> >>
> >Say again, over?  What are you babbling about?
> >
> >> >> Then I guess your challenge wasn't valid after all.
> >> >>
> >> >Oh the challenge is valid enough.  I just have no intention of being
the
> >one
> >> >to take the risk.  Assuming you are as clever as you think, the risk
> >should
> >> >be well worth your taking.
> >>
> >> I already explained that the risk outweighs the benefit.  You haven't
> >refuted
> >> that claim.
> >>
> >Not if you are as clever as you claim.  I suspect you know you can't meet
> >the challenge yourself so you would need someone else to take the risk.
You
> >have lead us all to believe that there is no risk at all.
>
> No, I'm telling you there is a very large risk, in fact, I contend that
the
> more I were to excell at philosophy the greater chances of me being denied
> tenureship.  But that's pure speculation, same as yours.  Nobody will know
> until we put me through the paces.  So is this a red herring?  I think so.
>
You're right.  They won't.  And they won't need too many paces to decide
that it would not be the right move.  They expect intellectual discipline.

>
> >> When you insult or belittle or discount someone's claims without
refuting
> >them
> >> devoid of logical fallacy, you are engaging in ad hominem whether you
want
> >to
> >> or not.  Clearly you don't want to engage in ad hominem because you
> >recognize
> >> that is an inferior position.  But you do not know how not to engage in
ad
> >> hominem when it comes to defending indefensible claims.  You don't know
> >how to
> >> abandon your own bullshit.  You're chained to bullshit you create to
puff
> >your
> >> ego.
> >>
> >I don't need to refute them if they are not supported or if they are
> >contradicted.
>
> You do need to demonstrated how they are not supported or how they are
> 'contradicted'.  Simply proclaiming them as 'not supported' or
'contradicted'
> as if by magic, doesn't accomplish anything, except perhaps in your own
> delusional world.
>
Again, yet another Ad Hominem fallacy.  The object of the game is not to
reprove the tenets of philosophy.  Consequently, the contradiction and
unsupportability of the arguments are self-evident; no magic required.

> >> I've read the thread enough times to determine that I haven't missed
> >anything.
> >>  If you think I've missed something, tell me what.
> >>
> >You have missed a horrendous amount.  In many of the arguments, you have
> >actually made the case for the existence of God.
>
> Because you say so without demonstrating how?  Magic trumps me again.  OH
> dear.
>
Yes.  You went through an entire reem of arguments that actually support the
argument for the existence of God and you didn't even realize it.  I
actually pointed that out to you to give you an out since you screwed up the
argument.  You resorted to an Ad Hominem fallacy and name-calling rather
than clarifying and correcing your position.  At that point, I knew that you
knew nothing about what you were talking about.  Simply regurgitating
references is tandamount to name-dropping; it doesn't prove you actually
know anything any more than it proves that one knows the person whose name
they drop.

>
> >  However, that was not the
> >premise of the argument in the first place.  The premise was, "Is the
> >ascertion that there is no God based on faith?"  I reasoned it, and you
did
> >not; end of argument.
>
> I reasoned that the claim that there is no god is based on faith, well
> reasoned faith.  You insist that reasoning only verifies faith in god, and
> that reason cannot verify faith in the absence of god.  That's because
> you're a biased twit who wants to believe in god because you're a baby.  A
> little baby screaming "WAAAAAAH!!!" at the universe.
>
>
Again.  There is no such thing as reasoned faith.  There are only premises
based on faith from which reason may or may not follow.  You argued no such
thing.  In fact, if you re-read the thread, you argued that the non-belief
in God (ie. the non-committed) is based on faith while the atheist position
is based on reason and the lack of evidence... And, yet again, an Ad Hominem
fallacy which, yet again, invalidates any part of your argument.  How much
more proof do you need?

Don't bother to get up.  It won't help you win.  Everyone can already see
that you have lost.