I think I like this site. The writing is quite well but I'm afraid it is suffering from it's own use of logical fallacies. Can share some if you want to hear it.
Posts by Daunt
-
33Are You a Christian Because You Born in America?
by Shining One infollow this link and scroll down to the article, "solid ground".
it explains the faulty logic of 'genetic fallacy'.
learn from this site how to defend your belief against the logical errors typically used to dismiss christianity.
-
-
-
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
Daunt
When I say humankind I mean the accumulation (mostly scientists) of demonstratable evidence of reality. Not preception. Eh I should say scientists but even non-scientists can test reality and whatnot.
-
33
Are You a Christian Because You Born in America?
by Shining One infollow this link and scroll down to the article, "solid ground".
it explains the faulty logic of 'genetic fallacy'.
learn from this site how to defend your belief against the logical errors typically used to dismiss christianity.
-
-
Daunt
I've read most of the topic paragraphs and their bases for their apologetics in that article is laughable. The statements such as, "You believe in God because you need an emotional crutch," and, "You are pro-life because you are a man," is laughable. I will happily refute statements such as these. I would rather see a few real questions asked and answered that are not filled with simple criticisms that refuse to acknowledge the problems with the actual standpoints.
(edited to add) Right on Oldsoul! -
33
Are You a Christian Because You Born in America?
by Shining One infollow this link and scroll down to the article, "solid ground".
it explains the faulty logic of 'genetic fallacy'.
learn from this site how to defend your belief against the logical errors typically used to dismiss christianity.
-
-
Daunt
My real wonder through all of this is what logical fallacies do many people use to dismiss christianity? I know there are some but I would just like to know the ones that you see.
-
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
Daunt
When you mean that I read your last post I did not mean the one I was replying to, but the one that came up right before I posted my post. The post I was replying to did not mention anything about your belief having no proof to back it up. I was too busy typing my post to realise the few posts from Tetra and you that were posted while I was typing.
And sorry if it seemed that I implied that you said your position mattered outside of your mind. It was meant more of an continuation of the conversation rather than critique of what you have said. And I don't think I refered to your beliefs as delusional, I might have said it sorry if I have. But overall I feel that I have not been totally clear on my position (the many posts of "What I mean" after you repy to one of my early posts) and I am sorry for that. I do not feel that your viewpoint is specifically delusional, however just not totally compatible with human kind's current understanding about the reality around us, that's all.
And oh believe me, extra dimensional activity is a big past-time study of mine. It is your extra dimensional activity that I am calling suspect to. -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
Daunt
I read and commented on your post Oldsoul. I would suggest quoting my third paragraph along with my second because it addresses that reality is not perspective like you agree with it and also took it a step further into saying that your implication that this lack of perspective judging reality does not automatically support your stance. You can suggest that our perspectives does not allow us to see this extra dimension, however in reality it just isn't there unless there is some concrete proof to suggest otherwise.
Since I feel that I have somewhat explained my post better than it was before I would really enjoy an answer to my statement, "Explain how it is demonstrable to you Oldsoul or whoever else wants to contribute."
Since reading your last post I finally realise that it's more perception and preceiving for you than actually being able to provide proof. I respect that entirely, because many individuals would try to find anything and everything to support their claim that is mainly just perception and preceiving. However, (and I mean no hostility or offensiveness to the statement coming up.) Why should your preceiving matter outside of your emotions and perspective? How is it contributing to reality and how is it relevent when it is mostly perception. (just again no offense so sorry if it seems that way). -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
Daunt
If you want to look at history and consensus, that last statement that tetra said would seem to be the other way around. (is evil).
-
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
Daunt
I don't demand that what I have experienced has to be demonstrable to you for it to be real. You cannot demonstrate the color "green" to a man born color-blind, can you?
And implying that individuals are much like the color blind man is an example of using an analogy that does not equate properly. In the color blind man's situation, reality still exists because it exists. Your extra dimensional activity has just not been demonstrated before, in an individual's perspective reality nor in reality as a whole. Of course I can not say that absolutely but from evidence as a guide it is up there with the teapot around mars.
Explain how it is demonstrable to you Oldsoul or whoever else wants to contribute. -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
Daunt
There could be more deminsions to our 4D reality, however, knowing us humans, we will claim anything and it's mother as that other deminsion. Whether it be Wiccan beliefs or Christian cults. People atribute this forth dimension to the devil to Buddha however there has been nothing demonstrated and observed besides the excess of human emotions and irrationalism behind those kind of thoughts. Sorry but it is just the plain truth... too many people atribute this extra dimension to them to support cult activity and ethnic cleansing. Just nothing substantial supporting them.
-
23
When believers attack!
by daystar inpeople often react most defensively when challenged not on their firmly held beliefs but on beliefs they wish were true but suspect at some level to be false.... .
- christopher f. chabris.
* snagged from an acquaintance's site as i thought it might be of interest here.
-
-
Daunt
I feel that beliefs are protected with hostility not because they fear it not to be real (many folks can not even begin to think their views aren't real), however I feel that when a view is not provable with sufficient real life evidence then a person has to use intangible, more subjective atributes of life (usually emotions) to support that view. When a belief that is not based on reality impacts a person's life dramatically they will put more and more of these intangible, subjective, emotions and different other things (logically fallacies anyone?) to support this claim even more.
Just my thoughts on it.
Not that the person thinks it maybe not true but more because the person can not base it with anything of substance. Emotions, individual gain, and many other things along those lines can only go so far. Facts and proof keeps us in check.