🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9ZRpd.194083$df2.61818@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>act, 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.


Is there something about the words RED and HERRING you don't understand? 


>>
>> 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.

'reprove the tenets of philosphy'?  What does that mean?  What are you accusing 
me of, and by what reference to a logical fallacy do you declare my claim 
invalid?



>> >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.

So help me realize it, via reason not magic or so-called prima-facie evidence.


>  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.
>
>>

Sounds like a fascinating drama, if my favorite show was Matlock.



>Again.  There is no such thing as reasoned faith.

So all faith is unreasonable?  Thank you!