nebula Posted November 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 22, 2011 But I couldn't accept, as some atheists argue, that His non-existence should be the default position. Hi Izzy, how would then be your default position if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Sweden at the time of the Vikings? Ciao - viole Wouldn't the default still be in at least one deity? More people believe in the supernatural (spirit realm, some form of "greater being") than do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted November 22, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 22, 2011 So you're basically a liar as well? <- Question mark. Would you say my question makes an assertion or not? That is a question, and the answer is: No, I am not a liar. A question is not an assertion. From : http://philosophy.la...ic/complex.html I. Complex Question: the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually the answer to the question) must be present either implicitly or explicitly. What in the definition above makes you think that a question is an assertion? If you believe the question to contain something that is not true, you will address it in the answer, but to claim that the question is an assertion is certainly wrong. So far, you have failed to provide a valid example of a question that is an assertion. If you cannot provide such an example, perhaps you should revisit your original assertion that viole's question was an assertion? The fallacy of complex question is usually (but not always) in the form or a question. Usually it's just the fallacy of giving a question that assumes something not generally granted or given unto evidence. If an argument is present, the question, itself, must be considered as a statement, i.e., it implicitly has a truth value. As the bolded indicates, if an argument is present, as in this instance where the question suggests that Izzy's belief would be different had she been born in a different time and place (as shown by Viole providing the desired "conclusion" in her response to the answer), then the question must be considered as a statement as per the article on the introductory rules of logic. Again, you are not addressing the point. Yes, a question can be challenging. Yes, a question can be a fallacy. However, that is not the point. A question can never be an assertion, as you previously claimed. The question viole asked Izzy was pretty straightforward. It asked Izzy what would be her default position if she were born in a different time and place? That is not an assertion. That is a question. You may find that question challenging, or even a fallacy, but the fact remains that it is no assertion. Again, "Either way if Viole's going to play along with your game and submit that she was really just wondering (out of pure curiosity) what people in Sweden during the Viking age generally believed, or what people in Saudi Arabia generally believed then you've inadvertently turned her challenge into just a really stupid question." What viole does is her business. I see what viole asked of Izzy as a straightforward question. You mistakenly claimed it was an assertion, and demanded that viole provide evidence to support that assertion. Again, the point is not that the question was challenging or not. The point is that you mistakenly called viole's question to Izzy an assertion. You various attempts at wriggling out of it is evidence that shows me that you recognize this. Hence your attempts to repaint the point as a challenging question, or a fallacious question is noted. You should look again at the real point. You were mistaken in claiming the question as an assertion. Yes, there can be challenging questions, in that they may not be easily answered Now, you're equivocating challenge in the sense of difficult, with challenge in the sense of a call to engage/provocation. This too is a rather dishonest tactic and confirms that you're just playing semantic games, which in turn shows that your claim that you're not playing games, is a lie, yes? Shall I point you to an introductory level article on equivocation as well? What is dishonest is your deliberate attempts to repaint your original claim that viole's question was an assertion into a challenge and now, a fallacy. I am not the one who is playing games here. I see you doing it. I am not the liar. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted November 22, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted November 22, 2011 Of course something can be true regardless of the origin. It's also true that something isn't true because many people around you believe it. What matters most [or should] is whether there is sufficient evidence for a claim. I agree. That's exactly why I became a Christian. I didn't grow up in a Christian home. In fact, I hated Christians and Christianity. It seemed naive, oppressive and repressive to me. I thought the Bible was a collection of fairy tales. Quite differently from your experience, however, when I actually started to read the Bible I was amazed at what I read. Jesus' words had a clear ring of truth to them that I could not deny. When I read the Old Testament, I was greatly troubled by many passages and struggled with them for years. In hindsight it's amazing how many misconcpetions I had not about what the text said, but what I assumed it said as I was reading. But, I realized that if something is demonstrably truth, you have to change to accept the truth, the truth won't change to accept you. So, to make a long story short, after numerous periods of doubt and skepticism, during which time I studied practical logic and world religions, I found that the evidence pointed firmly in only one, clear direction. I think the evidence is clear, so I accepted it regardless of the fact that most people around me have not. I think you're taking the question to levels way beyond what was intended, Viole can affirm that maybe I'm wrong. I didn't think anyone was suggesting you can't break free from the beliefs of your social group, it's obvious that you can, I'm proof. Let me pose the question a different way. Let's say you have 100 kids raised in Alabama, Arkansas or Texas [take your pick]. Out of those 100, how many do you think will statistically be Christian...now how many will end up Hindu? If you answer that most will end up Christian....why would that be? The main thing I'm asserting is that culture does play into what religion someone will end up embracing, NOT that culture dictates what religion you end up with. That wouldn't even account for the rise of Christianity in the first place, but if I may suggest, I think you're looking at it entirely inappropriately. Most people just accept whatever they're spoon fed. Therefore, statistically most people will adopt whatever their immediate culture tells them to adopt. Now, if the masses are simply content to be complacent the above does nothing whatsoever to establish either ontological truth, or epistomological access to that truth. What the above statement demonstrates is only that most people are complacent, not that most people are earnestly seeking truth nor the extent to which that truth is revealed or hidden from them. Given the background information that we see in Romans, that God's invisible characteristics are clearly seen in nature, the observation that most people accept whatever they're spoon fed in no way contradicts that they don't have to be if they'd just seek the truth and look at the invisible characteristics of God as expressed by nature. If they do, we have no reason to suppose that God is lax on His promise that if we draw near to Him, He will draw near to us and will make Himself known to us. If the numbers of Christians looks skewed in some regions, remember that Jesus told us in Matthew that many will say "Lord, Lord" and He will reply "I never knew you", so not all who claim to be Christian are truely followers of Christ, and not all those living in other cultures are not, but we are told not to expect that many will actually seek the truth: "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matt. 7:14). So it seems to me that pointing out an observation with which we both agree really lends no support to either case if the relevant background information is considered. "God" seems to make himself known in many different ways, some ways which are in stark contrast to another. How do we determine who is right? Can you please clarify for me what you mean? What are these contrasts as you see them? I think we are talking two different points. viole makes this point repeatedly, and it was that to which I was initially responding, but since I've already addressed that, please let's look at the points you're making. Then why do I see so much debate amongst Christians on these objective truths? I can't even get some to agree on how to be saved! There is actually very little debate on how to be saved "if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9), but once again you're presupposing that everyone who calls themselves a Christian actually is, even though the Bible says that such is not the case. Vastly more importantly, however, is that God never said that you will be saved by listening to Christians. What He says "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isaiah 1:18). Those who call themselves Christians do so for many reasons, some political, some familial, some cultural, some economical, etc. People are flawed and can choose to ignore the revealed truth for delusion for any number of reasons, so of course epistomology is going to depend on the extent to which we actually seek truth instead of pay lip-service to truth, and people package and sell versions of the truth for personal gain - the Bible presupposes as much "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you" (2 Peter 2: 1-3). How could it be otherwise? Aren't there people who seek their own gain over the truth? Aren't most people complacent? How do those things negate that the truth is available to those who seek it, earnestly and rationally? But the good news of salvation is simple, according to the Bible (2 Cor. 11:3). We're all susceptible to cultural memes Sure, but the big difference is that if there is an objective truth that's been revealed, and to which we have access then for the Christian something transcends those memes so there's an objective, anchored lifeline. By contrast, the atheist is totally at the mercy of those memes, and nothing more than those memes. The naturalist's worldview permits nothing more than that the naturalist is entirely a product of their environment and could not possibly transcend simply, environmental stimulous response. Therefore the naturalist cannot but think what they do, regardless of the nature of truth. There is no transcendent logos, not access to objective reality and reason, simply the responses determined by environmental pressures. Therefore, if the naturalist is right, it's only by wild conicidence and therefore totally implausible, but if the Christian is right our worldview contains the necessary preconditions to account for why would could trust our conclusions. The atheist must steal from the worldview of the theist, in order to simply make any intelligble use of their own worldview. From where I sit today, we'd both be wrong no matter what god we used to explain the world around us. I don't use a god. I followed the evidence where it led and it was logically and inescapably to Christian theism. I didn't like it. I hated conforming. I hated changing my values. I hated bowing down. I hated giving up my selfishness. I hated losing all my arguments about evolution until I could no longer accept that it was scientific fact. But hey, I recognized the the truth wasn't going to change for me, I'd have to change for the truth, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God, come in the flesh. He died for me to pay for my sins and rose again to defeat the curse of sin and death so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. So I had to follow the truth and I had to give credit where credit was due, and now I'm an enthusiastic defender of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted November 22, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 22, 2011 I am not the liar. U.F. What's important isn't that you admit that you're dishonest, but that your dishonesty is revealed. The pages on this forum do just that, and the great thing about internet forums is that the content remains for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted November 22, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 22, 2011 I am not the liar. U.F. What's important isn't that you admit that you're dishonest, but that your dishonesty is revealed. The pages on this forum do just that, and the great thing about internet forums is that the content remains for a long time. Luftwaffle, The pages on this forum do indeed expose your duplicity and your evasion (challenge, fallacy) when I have called you on your original mistake (assertion). I agree that your dishonesty remains in these pages for a long time. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Luftwaffle, The pages on this forum do indeed expose your duplicity and your evasion (challenge, fallacy) when I have called you on your original mistake (assertion). I agree that your dishonesty remains in these pages for a long time. It is you are being dishonest, UF. Nothing in Luftwaffle's remarks can be said to be dishonest at all. Questions can be phrased to be assertions. Questions can easilly be phrased as assertions, as being accusatory by implication if not explicitly. If someone walks up to you and says, "do you still be your wife?" The implied asssertion is that you have or are still beating your wife. Normal people recognize the accusatory question tactic. It is used all the time. To say that a question cannot be an assertion is plainly false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted November 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 22, 2011 So you're basically a liar as well? <- Question mark. Would you say my question makes an assertion or not? That is a question, and the answer is: No, I am not a liar. A question is not an assertion. The funny thing about lies . . . it just takes one slight bending of the truth to be a lie, yet the liar can get away with calling it the truth because of the 99% accuracy. But even a 1/2 degree deviation can still end you landing on the wrong shore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted November 22, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted November 22, 2011 I am not the liar. U.F. What's important isn't that you admit that you're dishonest, but that your dishonesty is revealed. The pages on this forum do just that, and the great thing about internet forums is that the content remains for a long time. Luftwaffle, The pages on this forum do indeed expose your duplicity and your evasion (challenge, fallacy) when I have called you on your original mistake (assertion). I agree that your dishonesty remains in these pages for a long time. Regards, UndecidedFrog So, is it your position that no assertion can be made at all if it is followed by a question mark, no matter what? Even if the question asserts something? If so, could I push back a little and suggest that this assertion is not correct? Wouldn't you agree that I am now asserting that you're wrong, because I'm asserting you're wrong even though this followed by a question mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I have not read the whole thread (I can be lazy that way). I do not know if this aspect has been adressed, if it has, I apologize. It appears to be from the O.P. that you may be having a conversation with your uncle on Facebook ir equivalent site. If this is going on in a post / counterpost way (and not in messaging), you may want to consider this in a different light. There is a possibility that others are reading the dialogue, not just yourself and your uncle. In such a case you may want to consider that your counterposts can me a form of witnessing to them. You have an oportunity to reply intelligently, respectfully, lovingly etc. This can have a positive effect on those witnessing the dialogue. Since this is not live, but delayed broadcast, you can research your answers, cool off if your buttons are being pushed and in other ways present your case in a way that let's others see both the raionality of faith and of beleivers. If you choose to do so, do not be afraid to admit that you do not have an answer if you do not. It is O.K. to not know everything, we are not God after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted November 23, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 23, 2011 It is you are being dishonest, UF. Nothing in Luftwaffle's remarks can be said to be dishonest at all. Questions can be phrased to be assertions. Questions can easilly be phrased as assertions, as being accusatory by implication if not explicitly. If someone walks up to you and says, "do you still be your wife?" The implied asssertion is that you have or are still beating your wife. Normal people recognize the accusatory question tactic. It is used all the time. To say that a question cannot be an assertion is plainly false. No. It is not being dishonest to state plainly that questions are not assertions. If you walk up to me and say "do you still be your wife?" I will answer: No, I am not my wife. You may imply many things in your question, including challenges. However, bottom line, it is still a question. And questions can never be assertions. Assertions are claims. Claims are never asked. They are made without the "?" at the end of the sentence. Try making an assertion with a "?" at the end of the sentence. It removes it from the status of being an assertion. Example 1: Jesus is god? <--------- Is that an assertion or a question? Example 2: I am my wife? <------------ Is that an assertion or a question? Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts