02-07-2004 17:37									#61
	Put an end to popups!

I'll recommend you this book Lincoln, written by a true atheist:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846

	02-07-2004 17:39									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

the religion is evil? now, Giancarlo, if you reject religionism, as you call it, what right do you have to call anything evil? evil denotes moral absolutes made possible only through belief in religion...

and can we get back on topic? no one has explained to me the distinction between creator and created that makes criticism of the created legit but not criticism of the creator (though, as a i said, criticis criticize the artist as well as the work, right?)

	02-07-2004 17:39									#63
	Remove this text

So you didn't like the book?

	02-07-2004 17:40									#64
	Suffering from ads?

quote: the religion is evil? now, Giancarlo, if you reject religionism, as you call it, what right do you have to call anything evil? evil denotes moral absolutes made possible only through belief in religion...

not so.

	02-07-2004 17:41									#65
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

explain

	02-07-2004 17:41									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer the religion is evil? now, Giancarlo, if you reject religionism, as you call it, what right do you have to call anything evil? evil denotes moral absolutes made possible only through belief in religion... and can we get back on topic? no one has explained to me the distinction between creator and created that makes criticism of the created legit but not criticism of the creator (though, as a i said, criticis criticize the artist as well as the work, right?)

Religion is just an evil force in this world that causes a lot of mayhem and destruction. People have died because of the twisted goals of christians. When I hear about christian missionaries getting killed in South America I don't care.. it isn't their culture to be messing around with. Additionally, I can have morals and not be brainwashed by religion. My morals are existent and I have a right to call it evil. Evil has been around long before religion.

Lincoln, the book is just wrong. In its name at any rate. I suggest reading the book I recommended.

	02-07-2004 17:44									#67
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

can someone for god's sake explain to me what is wrong with ad hominems?

quote: You shouldnt consider the source of the information, only the information itself. Let it be proven or disproven based on its merits.

quote: But why? Are not the artist and the art inter-connected, as in the adage, "the art praises the artist"? Hiedegger's analysis of art can also apply to beliefs, etc. There are three aspects of concern... the creator, the created, and the thing; that which, in a way, sparked the creation. The created is the thing, or the interpretation of the thing, through the perspective of the creator. Therefore, according to Hiedegger (who makes sense to me so why not you?), there is an inter-connection between the artist and the art; a connection made possible through the motivating 'thing'. To transpose this into discussions, you are the artist who creates the art of a reasoned debate, which is but your, the creator's, reflection of the motivating thing. The created is of the creator and of the thing. Therefore, bypassing the created and attacking the creator and the motivational thing is legitimate. In fact, it makes more sense to attack the creator or the thing rather than the created, as attempting to disprove the created does not get you into the heart of the issue... as the art itself is but a continuation or extension, so to speak, of the artist and the motivational thing, reasoned arguements are only the tip of the iceberg in a way... disproving them does not change the motivations for their creation. also, it can not be stressed enough how reasoned debates are just an extension of the creator and the motivational thing and, therefore, understanding and defeating the creator and his motivations is an aspect of understanding and defeating the reasoned debate

	02-07-2004 17:51									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Bad argument: You suck, therefore your argument sucks
Good argument: Your argument sucks, therefore you suck.

	02-07-2004 17:51									#69
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

No evidence for the creator, therefore is no creator. It is a figment of human imagination just as Santa claus, a pink unicorn and one eyed 300 foot tall Britney Spears. In the end, that entire quotation you provided is nothing more then bullshit. The argument for the creator is not well reasoned and is based on assumptions.. such as "he exists, because I know he exists and I feel his presence".

	02-07-2004 17:52									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Lincoln, the book is just wrong. In its name at any rate. I suggest reading the book I recommended.

Yes, the name may be misleading but it is a play on Richard Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker" and partial response to the flawed logic that Dawkin's used.

It is one of my books. You read mine and I will read yours.

	02-07-2004 17:55									#71
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I still don't understand how a blind atheist can exist when there is no evidence for christianity. I'm still waiting for a reply to that one. We aren't believeing in anything, so how can we blind to nothing?

	02-07-2004 17:59									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

A "blind atheist" is one who cannot see the obvious evidence that points to a creator. Kind of like a wasp behind a glass barrier who cannot understand that what he sees is not what he gets.

	02-07-2004 17:59									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Immortal:

whats the difference? one's arguement sucks because one sucks... one sucks because his arguement sucks... whats the difference? At best you can say there is a correlative relation... causality is an illusion.

	02-07-2004 18:00									#74
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Sorry Speer for jacking your thread. I'll leave now.

	02-07-2004 18:00									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Yes, the name may be misleading but it is a play on Richard Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker" and partial response to the flawed logic that Dawkin's used. It is one of my books. You read mine and I will read yours.

Judging from the excerpts, Dawkins isn't the one with flawed logic.

	02-07-2004 18:03									#76
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln A "blind atheist" is one who cannot see the obvious evidence that points to a creator. Kind of like a wasp behind a glass barrier who cannot understand that what he sees is not what he gets.

There is no evidence for a creator. None what so ever. So please stop kidding yourself. In fact the two books in my signature are evidence against the creator. The creator is non-existent as there is no evidence for one.

	02-07-2004 18:04									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Immortal: whats the difference? one's arguement sucks because one sucks... one sucks because his arguement sucks... whats the difference? At best you can say there is a correlative relation... causality is an illusion.

That's a good point. It does seem to be true that some of us are capable of twisting the most obvious fact to conform to our personal world view. Trying to reason with a fool is a fools game. Which reminds me of Apolyton OT.

	02-07-2004 18:04									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer whats the difference? one's arguement sucks because one sucks... one sucks because his arguement sucks... whats the difference? At best you can say there is a correlative relation... causality is an illusion.

The point is that most ad hominems are utterly unrelated to the argument at hand. In this debate, if I were suddenly to start insulting your musical preferences as a way to undermine your arguments on ad hominems, what does that possibly do to negate your argument? Nothing. Even arguing against Giancarlo, it is not strictly enough to say "look, he's a raving nutjob, disregard his argument" because underneath it all, with a few lessons in logic and articulation, he might be able to crudely fashion a point out of his ravings. And in that case, the argument - which is the same argument as before - is clearly valid, however much we agree or disagree.

	02-07-2004 18:04									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

If you want a good example of why ad hominems are a horrible debating technique, go over to IMDB.com, register to their boards, and start talking about movies (especially with a critical air). You'll grow real tired of it after a while.

	02-07-2004 18:07									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by JohnT If you want a good example of why ad hominems are a horrible debating technique, go over to IMDB.com, register to their boards, and start talking about movies (especially with a critical air). You'll grow real tired of it after a while.

Sounds like fun. Or you want something insanely stupid?

http://www.yupapa.com/forums - register and post there. It is like talking to a forum full of five year olds.

	02-07-2004 18:08									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I dont see why ad hominems have to be so irrelevent... i can criticize Picasso as being a bad painter as well as having made bad paintings and no one would have qualms with that. how can you? he makes bad paintings so he therefore is a bad painter... he is a bad painter so he therefore makes bad paintings. you got a circular causation belieing that there is no such thing as causation...

therefore, me criticizing picasso for being a bad painter is an ad hominem that is hard to have a problem with. similiarily, i can criticize Fez' emotions that lead to his beliefs... but only the emotions that lead to his beliefs...

ad hominems can be within the context.

	02-07-2004 18:11									#82
	Tired of ads?

You mean, aside from the fact that maybe he was a good painter who chose to paint paintings that you would perceive to be bad, and aside from the irrelevance of all absolute judgements such as "good" and "bad" in art...?

	02-07-2004 18:11									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

"Picasso sucks" is not an argument. It's a conclusion that should follow a reasoned argument as to why you think Picasso sucks.

	02-07-2004 18:12									#84
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Anyway, that wouldn't be an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be when you said the person who thought that Picasso's paintings were good was was a bad painter, therefore he is wrong about art, therefore Picasso's paintings were bad. Obviously flawed.

	02-07-2004 18:13									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer therefore, me criticizing picasso for being a bad painter is an ad hominem that is hard to have a problem with. similiarily, i can criticize Fez' emotions that lead to his beliefs... but only the emotions that lead to his beliefs... ad hominems can be within the context.

My beliefs are based on sound reasoning. Any christian has his beliefs based on illogical notions of purported assumption.

	02-07-2004 18:14									#86
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer explain

You don't need a belief in a supernatural entity to have a logical belief in right and wrong.

	02-07-2004 18:15									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

That's not an ad hominem, that's simply invalid since a person doesn't have to be a good painter to identify good paintings.

Ad hominem arguments come in two types:

1) Regular - "you're a bastard, so we shouldn't believe you."

2) Circumstantial - "you will benefit from this, so we shouldn't believe you".

Neither are formal fallacies. They are just bad ways of arguing in certain contexts. After all, sometimes the fact that someone is a bastard is a good reason not to believe them.

	02-07-2004 18:16									#88
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You still haven't explained, Azazel.

	02-07-2004 18:17									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: It's a conclusion that should follow a reasoned argument as to why you think Picasso sucks.

so you agree with me, John, that reasoned arguments are just mental justifications of one's emotional instinct (ie- that picasso sucks)? why wont you take this to its conclusion of the man himself being open to debate?

	02-07-2004 18:20									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: My beliefs are based on sound reasoning.

i'll use this quote from Giancarlo to make my point...

beliefs are not based on sound reasoning. even if we could develop a causitive theory, which, like i said earlier, i think at best we have correleations, but if we could assume causation for the interest of simplicity... how could it be that Giancarlo's beliefs are derived from reason? Instinct is the base level of 'being', something which animals possess, so can it not be assumed that firstly, rational agents are instinctual beings who use our minds to justify our instincts? assuming causation, reasoning is the result of instincts and pre-disposed beliefs, not the other way around