Posted: Jan 21, 2011 8:55 am
Царь Славян wrote:If you have no definition for reason then how can you claim it's a human characteristic in the first place?
Now I know you`re just plain lethargic as I already have done and insinuated so. Keep up.
Царь Славян wrote:According to you, isn't cognitive abillity [sic] of the brain, the same thing as any other natural process?
If you simplify as such, yes it is of the brain, but to associate it without difference as the same thing as any other natural process is explicitly showing similar illiteracy in reference to grouping physical processes with chemical processes.
Царь Славян wrote:No, saying atheis [sic] is true, means saying either It is true that God does not exist, It is true that someone does not believe in God.
A thousand gratitudes for fucking proving what I just said according to your context. According to what you said for the umpteenth time, pay attention to my emphasised reiteration: atheism is true is grammatically the same as gawd does not exist is true i.e. your expression of atheism is god does not exist which is linguistically inaccurate. Your failure to realise this grammatical error is duly noted once again. Even in the common understanding of atheism it does NOT even express that someone does not believe in gawd, but that it is the absence of theistic belief. Note that it doesn`t concern an individual, it`s merely the bloody definition. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gawd. Repeating this bullshit at this juncture will just be dismissed for your lack of research.
Царь Славян wrote:Explain why.Viraldi wrote:What`s the problem? NON SEQUITUR if not IGNORATIO ELENCHI
Let`s look at your original phrase and your variation respectively,
“By promoting philosophical or methodological naturalism, you are implying that God either does not exist, or that he is irrelevant, THUS you are either saying that atheism is true, or if not actually ture [sic], that it's the only relevant worldview.”
“By promoting philosophical or methodological naturalism, you are implying that God either does not exist, or that he is irrelevant, THUS you are either saying that it is true that a person who is an atheist does no [sic] believe in God, or if not actually ture [sic], that it's the only relevant worldview.”
Help me out Tsar, by the looks of it the variation is bordering non sequitur, while the original is bloody inaccurate anyhow (as I`ve dealt with here). The variation is precisely saying something tantamount to the following: by promoting theocracy or cosmic divine dictatorship, you are implying that either you are in favour of being ruled over an imperious, overweening oppressor or that you fancy such, THUS saying it is true that a person who is a theist does believe in gawd...
The term THUS (or therefore) is a sentence connector that mandates consistency by following the premise and subject thereof, but my explanation above similar to your variation is precisely pointing out that [the fact that a theist means a person who believes in gawd] is NOT consistent or does not follow (non sequitur) with the premise of the promotion or fancy of theocracy and whatnot. Albeit a fact that being a theist is to believe in gawd, it is an irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) and I may go so far as to establish it as a red herring as this has prolonged long enough.
Царь Славян wrote:So your point is?
It`s something that goes along ... make coherent and sound arguments, FFS.
Царь Славян wrote:This is my definition, so I'm the reference.
In other words, your orgulous and vacuous assertion can be dismissed, as I requested a significant reference.
