• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Fallacies and the Ethical Application of "fault"

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Easiest method for identifying dogma is "how do you know"?
Sure. That would be the Epistemologically relevant thing to do.
People can be extremely passionate about things they merely believe are happening...and have no clue how wrong they are. It could be a Jan 6th protester who unwittingly trusts sources with certain agendas.....could be BLM supporters who think they're marching for civil rights.
That's more or less a truism these days.
Up until 8 or so years ago...I'd never heard the phrase "wrong side of history" used as a vague threat by people who literally do not know any history and imagine there are "sides".
You and me both.
We moved from a political space that didn't require the confederate battle standard to be flown (tmk anyway) and people were attacking it...to a space where a gay pride flag was demanded to be flown. I recall the transition being noticed but the contrast really wasn't. Nobody went in elementary schools putting up confederate flags and insisting upon rewriting history.
I have no problem with wanting confederate flags taken down, finally. However, in the obverse, my not minding that confederate flags are removed doesn't imply that I think an "alternative" must replace it. No, I'm happy with just blue sky and the stars to look at.
All the while...an entire generation that doesn't read or do math well suddenly has opinions we should all consider.

Yep. That's where we are. TikTok - ification.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If I were to suggest that because the average adult male Guatemalan has the average equivalent education of a 4th grade student and doesn't speak English nor likely is he to learn it....importing millions of them illegally in a couple of years is a bad idea for many reasons, the main one being a net negative impact on economic prosperity....but also other things.

Now...even without checking my claims about the average adult male education and English fluency on the potential for net positive economic contributions in the US....how does that argument feel intuitively? Immoral? Unkind? Judgemental? Bigoted? Racist?
What one thinks they feel "intuitively" will depend upon the sort of prior experiences and education one has had in regard to "others."
Yet if I were to throw far more vicious claims at those who one might imagine are in positions of authority or wealth or power....obviously those aren't only acceptable, but they're seen as entirely justifiable even if they're made from a position of total ignorance.

Whether this is ultimately a feature of Christian morality in certain cultures and it's vast influence, or an innate feature of mankind in general is something I'm unsure of....but what I am sure of is the pressures it creates in multicultural societies where assimilation is not necessary or expected.
The Christian formula was born in the social cauldron of being the "other" and "the minority" rather than the obverse we have today.
I think 90% of those around you using the word proletariat conversationally don't have a clue what it means. I think that's why it was generally swapped with "oppressor/oppressed".
That's probably true to some extent, but that's not my point really. My point is that pain and poverty breeds resentment, which then comes out in various ways, one of which is, these days, to become increasingly open to socialist/Marxist modes of acculturation, whether at the elite level or the plebeian level.
I feel more like Gollum. I know what's precious to me. I know what I'm willing to do to keep or get it back. Jump right in the fire.
That's probably not the best route of consideration. I think I'll take the Samwise Gamgee route.............................. I'm sorry if that causes you any consternation. ;)
And that's fair. Anyone smart enough to realize how smart they are should, inevitably, realize how little they know or could possibly understand....but that's a fleeting feeling, isn't it? We prefer simple answers....innately....so we adopt them against better judgment.
I don't prefer simple answers; in fact, from my experience (and education), something known as "simple answers" are very difficult to come by in reality. But I know that some think otherwise.
Ok...I think that I've yet to run into those people lol. They tend to run or become silent. They need a crowd to avoid any serious examination...but alone...without the guardrails of polite society, forum moderation, to protect their ideas? C'mon.....

I remember the old internet lol. You would see the occasional goofball clinging to simplistic notions of complete self reliability and assurance in pure understanding of.....anything. They were chased off by people of average intellect (me!) and silenced themselves in shame or siloed themselves in group thought bubbles.
Yes, I we still see them pop up now and them even today, don't we? The trick is to be able to discern between those who exhibit the dark triadic symptoms of a troll versus those who are simply struggling psychologically through life and run their emotions high.
Nope...well, I may have an interesting story, but I'm not really a story-teller...and can't hope to tell it in an accessible way. Same problem you seem to have.

See...the funny thing is, above, I took you to be suggesting that I'd have some interesting life experiences to relate. To me, those have become boring...so I considered you as the audience for an interesting story and decided upon a thematic question about what good might be found in the greatest evil and what bad might be found in the greatest good. A deeply philosophical and religious question. Then I decided I'm not the one to say it lol.
Your proposed thematic question has already been offered up by many others, Ana. We both know that line of analysis is an age old trope.
How do you think that went down assuming of course, it went down? Obviously, the audience that gets captured is seeing the masterpiece, right? But Picasso didn't start off a master once he put pencil to paper....do you imagine Paul basically blowing it on the first few dozen attempts?
How do I think it "went down"? What is obvious is that the Gospel isn't something that is immediately or overly palatable to most people, most of the time. So, as we see in the book of Acts, and granting that the text of Acts reflects some historical information (which I think it does on some level), Paul didn't have much affect and was seen, as a lot of Christians were seen at that time, as a babbler.

In fact, Paul's "success" wasn't, I think, in accumulating high numbers of converts. Rather, it was in having the gumption to travel as widely as he did and plant as many fledgling micro-communities as he could (obviously,, without the use of the sword and with God's help). Somehow, the Christian movement Jesus started "held out" until............for good or bad..............Emperor Constantine came along, bringing with him the sword of imperial authority.

On here I've had two doubtful Christians thank me for "helping" them accept a non-religious viewpoint they now claimed to hold. Now, was I trying to make convincing arguments? Yes. Was I doing it for their benefit of understanding truth? No. In time, I began to wonder if I had helped in taking something that might have helped them through difficulties of life, or grief. I wondered if I had yanked them from helpful communities that would be a source of comfort at least and left them wandering into new communities that would simply use them or prey upon them. For what it's worth...I don't try to convince anyone from a standpoint of uncertainty anymore. What can I really know of Gods I've never known?
I kind of wish you hadn't done that. But, as they say, "confession is good for the soul." Please feel free to keep sharing about this......................
Doubts are fine, and I don't have a camp for anyone to join. I should have offered advice on what they were getting from their conviction, and what they would lose by abandoning it. What they stand to gain isn't obvious if it's simply a hole of wanting community without self regard. We aren't really supposed to be "doing life" alone. Those few amongst us who wander out into the unknown are often pushed by circumstances we don't see...and imagine greatness led to their deeds if they are recognized as admirable.
This is true. I've always been one to see the value in "doing life" within a communitarian mode of socialization. Unfortunately, family and friends don't necessarily share my affections for this notion.
It's fine. I'm no religious scholar. I'd say revelations describes the collapse of a kind of "order" as the fearful and terrifying thing it is...and glorifying the birth of a new, and in the context, perfect "order"...and that's as general a lesson as I can give it. It's too easy write off as the ravings of lunatics. There's a primordial theme there that's almost subconscious and difficult to access.
It is easy to write off as "the ravings of lunatics," but when when the patterns emerge, and when you wake up realizing after 40 years of study that you aren't actually schizophrenic, you may begin to think that it's only those who are less than well adapted who don't see the forest for the trees where the book of Revelation is concerned.
Not really off topic imo. Maps well onto social collapse.

Or...you know, the ravings of madmen. I think you should ask yourself if you even want to stop collapse and if you think the communists are scary, take comfort that while they are more numerous and zealous than previously understood, they aren't very good at it. They can't see the obstacle right under their noses, have dogmatic views of power, and foolish understanding of needs. They only succeed long enough to become failures. They imagine that the square peg won't go into the round hole because of something wrong with the peg, or maybe the hole...but not themselves.
Stop collapse? I think you're misunderstanding me a little, Ana. As Christians, we're all supposed to work for the peaceful betterment of the society we live in, even if and when that society decides to pull the plug on itself spiritually and socially.

So, what appears to others, I'm sure, to be my mere ramblings about prophetic patterns in history shouldn't be taken as inferred courses of action, especially not of political action.
If you lack the conviction that is only gained through ignorance to lead....

Then I'd propose that the only good is to serve any as best you can...and by this do good. Those who lead would need such help.
Conviction, in my case, has little to do with it, really. It's more of a matter of denied opportunity.

But you're right, I think: We all need to seek to help those who lead.
Oof...that's dark. Well...if I were king, emperor, or close enough to power to fix problems....

I'd return the focus to family. Absent good education, and gainful or meaningful employment, family will keep social bonds from complete deterioration. Raise wages at the bottom, depress costs at the top, manage growth to a trickle, reorient value along lines of necessity of labor not difficulty or innovation....then rebuild the educational system. Divide what must be public from what should be private. We wouldn't suffer me long...so whatever I do must be hard to undo after me. Essentially, I'd point out that we need garbagemen...doctors, nurses, teachers, farmers, police and the like....far more than financial speculators and value trading gamblers...and remove their toys. Trim away needless bureaucracy. Those I have to hurt are few and should be hurt all at once, those I am responsible to help are many and should be given what they need slowly to understand the continual good of my rule and by the time enough smart people understand what I've done, I'll be loved enough to not be executed.

But who wants to work that hard for those who don't understand? Let it collapse. Serve any seeking help...as best you can.

I'd prefer it not to collapse but reform into something better if possible, for everyone's benefit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,648
2,852
45
San jacinto
✟203,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right...well you can either trust that I can change my view on consideration of new evidence or not. It's simply a suggestion because we're all susceptible to confirmation bias.
There's certain assumptions that are so broad that they render counter-evidence impossible, as they are about the basic nature of reality. These are worldview assumptions and the only way they can be countered is from outside of the worldview, but outside of the worldview they are indefensible. At some point we just have to accept that some very basic things necessary for us to begin to gather evidence are unassailable assumptions that cannot possibly be overturned. The only question is whether we're going to be honest about these assumptions, or feign detachment.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There's certain assumptions that are so broad that they render counter-evidence impossible, as they are about the basic nature of reality.

Sure. Axiomatic truths/assumptions.

These are worldview assumptions and the only way they can be countered is from outside of the worldview, but outside of the worldview they are indefensible.

It's unclear what you're saying. Could you give an example?


At some point we just have to accept that some very basic things necessary for us to begin to gather evidence are unassailable assumptions that cannot possibly be overturned.

Well they cannot entirely be justified either.

The only question is whether we're going to be honest about these assumptions, or feign detachment.

I don't know what's with the "we" stuff.

I gave you an example of such an assumption....honestly. Was there something else you were getting at?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What one thinks they feel "intuitively" will depend upon the sort of prior experiences and education one has had in regard to "others."

Ok...no real disagreement there.

The Christian formula was born in the social cauldron of being the "other" and "the minority" rather than the obverse we have today.

I'm unsure. There's several ways to read into it.


That's probably true to some extent, but that's not my point really. My point is that pain and poverty breeds resentment,

Ok. Well I'd prefer something more than pain or poverty...before accepting resentment. Those are a bit too common to justify the third alone.


which then comes out in various ways, one of which is, these days, to become increasingly open to socialist/Marxist modes of acculturation, whether at the elite level or the plebeian level.

Marxism is a middle class ideology. Upper middle to be specific. It's resentment of the poor, envy of the wealthy, and lies to both. There's few examples of Marxist revolutionaries who succeed outside this realm. It's how a black girl attending Berkeley can claim oppression with a straight face.


That's probably not the best route of consideration. I think I'll take the Samwise Gamgee route.

See? Service. Ever consider the only complex and genuinely moral character was Boromir?


I don't prefer simple answers

Yet here you are...hoping to convince easily lol.

Yes, I we still see them pop up now and them even today, don't we? The trick is to be able to discern between those who exhibit the dark triadic symptoms of a troll versus those who are simply struggling psychologically through life and run their emotions high.

Trolling is inherently disingenuous.

At its core, it's emotional button pushing....for a reaction.


Your proposed thematic question has already been offered up by many others, Ana. We both know that line of analysis is an age old trope.

Well...there's only so many to choose from.

How do I think it "went down"? What is obvious is that the Gospel isn't something that is immediately or overly palatable to most people, most of the time. So, as we see in the book of Acts, and granting that the text of Acts reflects some historical information (which I think it does on some level), Paul didn't have much affect and was seen, as a lot of Christians were seen at that time, as a babbler.

Right...


In fact, Paul's "success" wasn't, I think, in accumulating high numbers of converts. Rather, it was in having the gumption to travel as widely as he did and plant as many fledgling micro-communities as he could (obviously,, without the use of the sword and with God's help). Somehow, the Christian movement Jesus started "held out" until............for good or bad..............Emperor Constantine came along, bringing with him the sword of imperial authority.

How many preachers could hope for that? If he's crawling at the start....he's sprinting by the end.


I kind of wish you hadn't done that. But, as they say, "confession is good for the soul." Please feel free to keep sharing about this......................

Yeah me too. No clue how it happened. For what it's worth, I never saw deconversion as some goal. Like I said, there's no camp to join here and it seems really uncomfortable for most people. With no camp...there's no teacher to tell you how to do atheism.

How does one test a non-religious belief then if not against a religious one? Jews aren't looking to convert you, they don't care. Muslims see you as the lowest type of filth and lie or mock only...simply to move you along. Christians have a long history of apologetics however.


This is true. I've always been one to see the value in "doing life" within a communitarian mode of socialization. Unfortunately, family and friends don't necessarily share my affections for this notion.

They ever say why?


It is easy to write off as "the ravings of lunatics," but when when the patterns emerge, and when you wake up realizing after 40 years of study that you aren't actually schizophrenic, you may begin to think that it's only those who are less than well adapted who don't see the forest for the trees where the book of Revelation is concerned.

Like I said...no religious scholar here.

Stop collapse? I think you're misunderstanding me a little, Ana.

My mistake.

So, what appears to others, I'm sure, to be my mere ramblings about prophetic patterns in history shouldn't be taken as inferred courses of action, especially not of political action.

Fair enough.

Conviction, in my case, has little to do with it, really. It's more of a matter of denied opportunity.

But you're right, I think: We all need to seek to help those who lead.

Right...just consider what I might have meant by help lol.

I'd prefer it not to collapse but reform into something better if possible, for everyone's benefit.

Wouldn't that be nice?
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,648
2,852
45
San jacinto
✟203,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure. Axiomatic truths/assumptions.
Yeah
It's unclear what you're saying. Could you give an example?
Wherever we stop and say it "just is"...for many, that means the world of phenomenon saying it's just rocks and trees(which is really unclear when we get into the nitty gritty of it all) For others, it's whatever God they believe in. It's the basic belief that we rely on to develop every subsequent belief, the lens we see the world through.
Well they cannot entirely be justified either.
I prefer to speak in terms of warrant, because I'm sold on Munchaussen's trilemma(though I think it's actually a dilemma in practice). These are the things that lead to how we interpret the data we're presented with in order for it to become evidence. The rudimentary assumptions to allow us to develop any sort of conviction in our beliefs.
I don't know what's with the "we" stuff.
From your reply, I think you do.
I gave you an example of such an assumption....honestly. Was there something else you were getting at?
It seems to me there's more to that assumption than you're recognizing. Especially when you turn around and speak of falsification. How would you possibly demonstrate the assumption false? What reasonable counter evidence could possibly be presented?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah

Wherever we stop

It's not a stop.

I prefer to speak in terms of warrant, because I'm sold on Munchaussen's trilemma(though I think it's actually a dilemma in practice).

I've never seen it in practice lol.


From your reply, I think you do.

Because you're holding the same assumption I am?


It seems to me there's more to that assumption than you're recognizing.

Ok...


Especially when you turn around and speak of falsification.

Alright...


How would you possibly demonstrate the assumption false?

Why would I need to? Didn't we just agree it's axiomatic?
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,648
2,852
45
San jacinto
✟203,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's not a stop.
How do you know that?
I've never seen it in practice lol.
Sure you have, though you may not have known its name.
Because you're holding the same assumption I am?
Are you sure about that?
Ok...




Alright...




Why would I need to? Didn't we just agree it's axiomatic?
I don't remember coming to such an agreement, saying something is axiomatic is just another name for dogmatic.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How do you know that?

Didn't I mention this in a previous post?

You can either accept my claim to be able to change belief or not.


Sure you have, though you may not have known its name.

I know the Baron's trilemma. Something about a Baron, mud, hats, etc. And no...I've never seen it in practice lol.

Are you sure about that?

Pretty sure. Take a cookie from the jar and place it on the counter. Now stare at it. Now close your eyes and picture it.

If you know which cookie you can eat...we're holding at least 2 of the same assumptions.

I don't remember coming to such an agreement, saying something is axiomatic is just another name for dogmatic.

That sounds like a you thing. Go back a couple posts where I asked if we were talking about axiomatic truths/assumptions. You said "Yeah". I don't need to justify it if you understand what axiomatic means.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,648
2,852
45
San jacinto
✟203,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Didn't I mention this in a previous post?

You can either accept my claim to be able to change belief or not.
Or I can challenge the premise. I accept that you believe you can change beliefs, but I doubt that such a thing is truly possible.
I know the Baron's trilemma. Something about a Baron, mud, hats, etc. And no...I've never seen it in practice lol.
The particular attribution isn't all that important, but it's a problem in epistemics that points out that eventually "justification" comes down to one of three possibilities. Dogmatic(axiomatic) truth, circular reasoning, or a hypothetical infinite regress. While it doesn't get much focus it remains an unsolved problem in epistemics. I see it as a dilemma rather than a trilemma because all human justifications are ultimately limited by our finite abilities so one of the other two will ineviteably be invoked.
Pretty sure. Take a cookie from the jar and place it on the counter. Now stare at it. Now close your eyes and picture it.

If you know which cookie you can eat...we're holding at least 2 of the same assumptions.
We probably share a number of assumptions, but there is a significant difference in our base assumptions.
That sounds like a you thing. Go back a couple posts where I asked if we were talking about axiomatic truths/assumptions. You said "Yeah". I don't need to justify it if you understand what axiomatic means.
We are talking about "axiomatic" assumptions, because that's just another word for dogmatic statements. I understand what axiomatic means, but I question whether there is any truly self-evident truth(and if there is, I know of only one thing that such a belief appears proper for me) Axioms are defined as true, and then believed. But if your beliefs are believed to be axiomatic(and how many of these axiomatic beliefs were missed by the majority of humans for all of recorded history and only came to prominence within the last 300 or so years is quite mystifying) then there is no amenability to evidence, because these things are supposed to be self-evident. So how do you remain open to being wrong about these assumptions? How do you remain amenable to falsification?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Or I can challenge the premise. I accept that you believe you can change beliefs, but I doubt that such a thing is truly possible.

Ok....I don't mean to rush you to the point, but can I ask why?

The particular attribution isn't all that important, but it's a problem in epistemics that points out that eventually "justification" comes down to one of three possibilities. Dogmatic(axiomatic) truth,

Look, if you want to claim dogma and axioms are the same....fine. It's not as if I'm claiming to have come up with various epistemic axioms all by myself.

Anytime I imagine I held an original thought, I inevitably find someone who held it before. I wasn't told to believe this though...and I do think it's a difference.

circular reasoning, or a hypothetical infinite regress.
Mhmm.

While it doesn't get much focus it remains an unsolved problem in epistemics.

Unsolvable.

We probably share a number of assumptions, but there is a significant difference in our base assumptions.

Well I doubt there's a lot of difference in those two.

We are talking about "axiomatic" assumptions, because that's just another word for dogmatic statements. I understand what axiomatic means, but I question whether there is any truly self-evident truth(and if there is, I know of only one thing that such a belief appears proper for me)

Right...which is why I call it an assumption as well.


Axioms are defined as true, and then believed.

Not a great definition is it? I'd call them assumptions held true by necessity.

But if your beliefs are believed to be axiomatic(and how many of these axiomatic beliefs were missed by the majority of humans for all of recorded history and only came to prominence within the last 300 or so years is quite mystifying)

Pretty sure there's a bit more time between us and those who came up with them than that.
then there is no amenability to evidence,

Well...consider that cookie you ate.

If you could eat the one you pictured in your mind I doubt you'd be in the grips of this horrible cookie addiction.

because these things are supposed to be self-evident.

Sure seem that way.


So how do you remain open to being wrong about these assumptions?

Same way I'm wrong about any belief previously discarded....something needing consideration for which those previous assumptions simply cannot account for.


How do you remain amenable to falsification?

Look...if tomorrow upon waking I find myself some dendritic body -less convulsing and retracting mind speaking in beams of light to a giant duck with fur and spiky teeth about a 40+ year long dream I had where I was an overly honest, highly disagreeable walking ape surrounded by other walking apes desperately confused to understand themselves in novel ways yet entirely similar in most ways....

I'm pretty sure I'll need new assumptions.

If that isn't what you meant....I don't know what you're asking me.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm unsure. There's several ways to read into it.
I am sure about it since I don't accept the theory held by some 'mythicists' that Christianity was "made up" by those in Imperial seats of Rome.


Ok. Well I'd prefer something more than pain or poverty...before accepting resentment. Those are a bit too common to justify the third alone.
I'm only speaking from observation (such as that presented by Generation Z).
Marxism is a middle class ideology. Upper middle to be specific. It's resentment of the poor, envy of the wealthy, and lies to both. There's few examples of Marxist revolutionaries who succeed outside this realm. It's how a black girl attending Berkeley can claim oppression with a straight face.
I'm not really wanting to get into a discussion here about what Marx (and Engels) thought in his political locus of "who does what to whom."

Although I'd say that Marxian theory has its sociological uses, mininimally speaking, there are several reasons I'm not a Marxist, one of which should be very obvious ...........................
See? Service. Ever consider the only complex and genuinely moral character was Boromir?
No, I tend to think better of his brother, Faramir.
Yet here you are...hoping to convince easily lol.
I don't think that is a fair appraisal of my intentions or mindset, particularly when I have only limited time to spare here in most cases, along with the fact that most of my interlocutors have limited attention spans and inhibited motivations to dig more deeply, most of the time.
Trolling is inherently disingenuous.

At its core, it's emotional button pushing....for a reaction.
Quite right, you are. It's sad that some folks feel they have to sink to such levels of "Nietzschean ressentiment"..................................... (yes, that's spelled with 2 'ss's' ;))
Well...there's only so many to choose from.
In my case, I don't hang my hat on the book of Job...........or 1984.
How many preachers could hope for that? If he's crawling at the start....he's sprinting by the end.
How many preachers have a family in tow and need a weekly paycheck?
Yeah me too. No clue how it happened. For what it's worth, I never saw deconversion as some goal. Like I said, there's no camp to join here and it seems really uncomfortable for most people. With no camp...there's no teacher to tell you how to do atheism.
I'm glad to know that deconverting others isn't a personal goal. I think I get your mission, you're more like "The Watcher" who springs up from time to time in Marvel Comics, whose presence may occassionally and "accidentally" affect outcomes.
How does one test a non-religious belief then if not against a religious one? Jews aren't looking to convert you, they don't care. Muslims see you as the lowest type of filth and lie or mock only...simply to move you along. Christians have a long history of apologetics however.
One tests any belief by first studying Epistemology, then Worldview and Paradigm structures, among other things. Of course, there are a few sheer pragmatists out there who are at the core, 'statesmen,' and they just simply jump into the fire for what are claimed to be practical points of admin, regardless. I can't say that I empathize with that approach, but each to his own.
They ever say why?
Yes, they do. Every other day.
Right...just consider what I might have meant by help lol.
There are various considerations for legitimate employment I might make in the future, I suppose. We'll see about those.
Wouldn't that be nice?

Yes, it very much would be. You and I could enjoy dinner and propose a toast as we kick up our feet with our guests.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,818
1,696
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,009.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The following Ethically related chatpoint is a video featuring tech philosopher, Tom Chatfield, and it pertains to the misapplication of reasoning. sometimes causing us to assert fault, guilt or any other insinuated blameworthy attribution to, or upon, another person.

I know a number of folks take umbrage with me over my occasional citation of other people's qualifications to have a "right" to gripe. Yes, I do at times view others people's opinions as essentially void of worthy content because they haven't taken the time to learn details about a topic they seem to be rigidly and maybe even defiantly, assured about. And I'll be the first to admit that I often feel ambivalent about having to redress my critical view point. But even so. That doesn't give me the "right" to disvalue other people as fellow human beings.

Some of you please feel free to do me a favor, listen to Tom Chatfield's short video presentation on fallacious reasoning and let me know if you feel you've ever been disvalued by me and what specifically it was I said that genuinely demonstrates that I indeed failed to give you and your ideas the credence they deserve. None of us wants to be an abuser ............................

Thanks!

Understanding Fallacies and their Seductive Abuse of Reasoning - with Tom Chatfield​
For additional ethical bits to chew on in relation to this thread, please also see the following thread I made a while back:

I am reminded of ad hominems from our history and how ad hominems were the only means of establishing moral character. I picture the stuckup socilites gossiping. Oh did you hear so and so was seen with x or has a illgeitimate child. Peoples reputations were destroyed.

I think this may go back to religion annd about witneses. There needs to be two or more witnesses to verify the truth. Witnesses of good character held a lot of weight in vouching for the truth of the matter or a persons moral character.

I think most logical fallacies are based partly on truth. Like ad hominems, appeals to authority and popularity there is an element of this with true propositions. But as Tom says this grain of truth is made into the whole truth. Or as a means of dismissing the whole truth of the matter which may be based on a number of things.

The one obvious one I seen was with Trump. It got to a point where the word Trump equalled bad. But thats what happens usally with fallacious thinking. People lose touch with reality. Listen to some of the Lefts logic. It is literally back the front to reality.

Thats why exposure therapy is best lol. Keep reverting back to the facts and reality. Critically questioning things, having different perspectives and then doing it again because you may have been decieving yourself a second time. We are sneaky little devils.

In some ways we are prone to create logical fallacies as its a way to soften the blow of reality. Of the truth hitting home too hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am reminded of ad hominems from our history and how ad hominems were the only means of establishing moral character. I picture the stuckup socilites gossiping. Oh did you hear so and so was seen with x or has a illgeitimate child. Peoples reputations were destroyed.
Yeah, and as we know, some folks attempted to use this form of disparagement on Jesus, too, insinuating that he was illegitimate.
I think this may go back to religion annd about witneses. There needs to be two or more witnesses to verify the truth. Witnesses of good character held a lot of weight in vouching for the truth of the matter or a persons moral character.

I think most logical fallacies are based partly on truth. Like ad hominems, appeals to authority and popularity there is an element of this with true propositions. But as Tom says this grain of truth is made into the whole truth. Or as a means of dismissing the whole truth of the matter which may be based on a number of things.

The one obvious one I seen was with Trump. It got to a point where the word Trump equalled bad. But thats what happens usally with fallacious thinking. People lose touch with reality. Listen to some of the Lefts logic. It is literally back the front to reality.

Thats why exposure therapy is best lol. Keep reverting back to the facts and reality. Critically questioning things, having different perspectives and then doing it again because you may have been decieving yourself a second time. We are sneaky little devils.

In some ways we are prone to create logical fallacies as its a way to soften the blow of reality. Of the truth hitting home too hard.

Those are good points, Steve.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,818
1,696
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,009.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, and as we know, some folks attempted to use this form of disparagement on Jesus, too, insinuating that he was illegitimate.
I think there was a time when we were more sympathetic towards God and Christ. I remember shops having mangers in their windows and all the religious Christmass carols celebrating Christs birth. Even the lapsed Catholics went to church at Christmass lol.

I think you are right that its the message and people will attack the messenger as a way of shutting it down. This may also go back to old times when they use to shoot the messenger lol.
Those are good points, Steve.
By the way I meant to say, you have not abused me lol. May have given me some hard truth and good advice actually. But I can take that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think there was a time when we were more sympathetic towards God and Christ. I remember shops having mangers in their windows and all the religious Christmass carols celebrating Christs birth. Even the lapsed Catholics went to church at Christmass lol.

I think you are right that its the message and people will attack the messenger as a way of shutting it down. This may also go back to old times when they use to shoot the messenger lol.
Yeah. But as they say, the Devil is in the details and it is those details that has unfortunately persuaded people that Jesus is now meaningless.
By the way I meant to say, you have not abused me lol. May have given me some hard truth and good advice actually. But I can take that.

I know, Steve. You're a trooper, and the Lord made you that way. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
26,189
21,419
Flatland
✟1,079,853.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Some of you please feel free to do me a favor, listen to Tom Chatfield's short video presentation on fallacious reasoning and let me know if you feel you've ever been disvalued by me and what specifically it was I said that genuinely demonstrates that I indeed failed to give you and your ideas the credence they deserve. None of us wants to be an abuser
Well, I would never have brought it up, but since you asked...there was this one time when you confused a melting pot, where the different ingredients become one (e pluribus unum), with a tossed salad where the ingredients remain separate. Then you rolled your eyes at me. I cried for days. I felt very disvalued, whatever that means. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,818
1,696
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,009.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah. But as they say, the Devil is in the details and it is those details that has unfortunately persuaded people that Jesus is now meaningless.
I think it started with the glowing plastic Jesus in the 70's. Or maybe Jesus Christ superstar lol.

But can Christ be meaningless to anyone. Christ said your either for me or against me. Those trying to make Christ meaningless or into something He is not like a cool liberal kind of guy are every bit against Christs truth as a non believer who explicitely rejects Christ.

Perhaps even more so as Christ said that there would be wolves in sheeps clothing trying to attack Christs church. Its the enermy within that can sneek up on you.
I know, Steve. You're a trooper, and the Lord made you that way. ;)
I love it. Its not a hassle. I think its how God made us all in our own way. But its good to be able to banter.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, I would never have brought it up, but since you asked...there was this one time when you confused a melting pot, where the different ingredients become one (e pluribus unum), with a tossed salad where the ingredients remain separate. Then you rolled your eyes at me. I cried for days. I felt very disvalued, whatever that means. :)

Yeah. ............... I was bad like that back then. ^_^ If you need a big hug, though, just let me know.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,570
11,468
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think it started with the glowing plastic Jesus in the 70's. Or maybe Jesus Christ superstar lol.

But can Christ be meaningless to anyone. Christ said your either for me or against me. Those trying to make Christ meaningless or into something He is not like a cool liberal kind of guy are every bit against Christs truth as a non believer who explicitely rejects Christ.

Perhaps even more so as Christ said that there would be wolves in sheeps clothing trying to attack Christs church. Its the enermy within that can sneek up on you.
Yes, and this is one reason folks need to do more critical thinking than they do these days.
I love it. Its not a hassle. I think its how God made us all in our own way. But its good to be able to banter.

I prefer table tennis to bantering. ^_^
 
Upvote 0