🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:03Spd.208969$9b.24671@edtnps84...
> In article <9ZRpd.194083$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?
>
>
Go read what the logical fallacies are; they are pretty well defined.  Then
re-read the thread.  If it doesn't become obvious, then there is no hope of
me pointing out any further.  I pointed them out as they occurred during the
thread.  its all there.
>
> >> >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.
>
Go re-read the thread.  I pointed it out twice.

>
> >  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.
>
Not drama at all.  I didn't really find it fascinating.  I found it
nauseating; the same as I find any bogus claims from an over-inflated ego
that cannot back it up with capability.

>
>
> >Again.  There is no such thing as reasoned faith.
>
> So all faith is unreasonable?  Thank you!
>
That is what I have been saying all along.  Like I said, you clearly have no
idea what you are talking about.  You are the one who declared that your
faith was based on 'highly-developed tools of reasoning'.

OK.  I don't teach for free. I am done with this thread.  It has been mildly
amusing, but I don't really think this is a productive use of my time.
Reasoning requires intellectual discipline.  After you have tried it for a
while, come back and talk to me.  OK?

>