• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If there is a Heaven, I'll be there.[W:417]

Logicman said:
You're going to find out.
Click to expand...

And, this is the logical fallacy known as 'appeal to consequences'. It is an intellectually dishonest maneuver what happens when someone can not support their claims.
 
Logicman said:
You couldn't be more wrong. Jews believe that God dictated the Torah to Moses over a period of time, except perhaps for the last chapter of Deuteronomy. And in the Tanakh, Jews believe God spoke to the people through the prophets.

In addition, the Bible is the story of the history of Israel and God redeeming the Jewish people, and in the NT, all who will believe in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...

Original Jews do but you gotta remember, there are different movements of Judaism these days, who have beliefs nothing like the ones of the OT...they make up their own rules, more like fake Jews if ya ask me...
 
Logicman said:
The more you do your homework on the Gospels and Christianity the more you will find it's true.

I have 40 years of study in it and it's solid as a rock.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's great! I grew up in church and know a lot of people who believe the same thing you do!

And, I hope I didn't come across as some kind of sacrilegious type of person, as I am neither that or religious!

My comment was about people usually following "Better Safe Than Sorry" practices.
 
fishnthec said:
Hey, that's great! I grew up in church and know a lot of people who believe the same thing you do!

And, I hope I didn't come across as some kind of sacrilegious type of person, as I am neither that or religious!

My comment was about people usually following "Better Safe Than Sorry" practices.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many of them believe that all Hindus are going to hell. Logicman believes that. He gloats about that kind of thing. He has often told me that I am going to burn in hell forever while rubbing his hands in glee.
 
zyzygy said:
I wonder how many of them believe that all Hindus are going to hell. Logicman believes that. He gloats about that kind of thing. He has often told me that I am going to burn in hell forever while rubbing his hands in glee.
Click to expand...

We are all going to hell...even you...:roll:
 
Dragonfly said:
A god that can create the Universe and all it contents, will accept me into heaven.

You know why I know that?

Because he/she/it will fully and completely understand why I believe the things I believe, and why I don't believe the things I don't believe.

Simple as that.

I'm a good person. I take care of my family. I take care of my friends.
My worst offenses in life don't rate any higher than breaking speed limit laws occasionally.

I don't have blind faith. God will know why.
I don't go to church. God will know why.
I don't pray. God will know why.
I think most religious folks are wrong in their interpretation of what god requires from people. God will know why.
I think the bible has it all wrong. God will know why.

God made me this way, if there is a God, so why would god punish me for being what he made me?

He/She won't.

If god created all this, then he/she created the path I'm on. So I'll be accepted into the best part of whatever lies beyond this realm of existence.

I'm one of god's "mysterious ways" to those of you who might try to deny my theory.

I'll be there. If there is a "there".

I have done NOTHING in my life to prevent my admission into "heaven".

If there is such a place, I look forward to seeing my parents and grandparents. Plus a few friends I've lost over the years.

Any god that can do the things many of you say he/she can do, and has done, will know exactly why I've lived my life as I have, and he/she will accept me with open arms.
Click to expand...

There is more to living right than that however congratulations are clearly in order.

:cheers:
 
Dragonfly said:
Like what?

Can you list top five "requirements"?
Click to expand...

Let's not go there just now....this thread was a great idea and while I have not read it obviously it is a barn burner.....I dont want to jump in and maybe muck it up.

Maybe later though, some other day.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Let's not go there just now....this thread was a great idea and while I have not read it obviously it is a barn burner.....I dont want to jump in and maybe muck it up.

Maybe later though, some other day.
Click to expand...

I started this thread. I give you permission.
Go for it.
 
Dragonfly said:
I started this thread. I give you permission.
Go for it.
Click to expand...

You are talking about not being toxic generally and that is a huge part of it....but the problem is that there is a whole other part to it....using your gifts, exploring the world and exploring the living in this world, getting better at it...growing into yourself as a Zennist might put it. In the old days when we were Christian maybe someone would have put this so:

"If you show up to the Pearly Gates claiming that you have to be let in because you were not toxic but the fact is that you got there by playing it safe....playing not to lose.....so you have in this process of not screwing up wasted almost all of the opportunity you were gifted dont be expecting praise".
 
Last edited:
veritas1 said:
That proves zero. There used to be lack of evidence for myriad things we now know about. I would also disagree with your assessment about evidence.
Click to expand...

How could there ever be a lack of evidence of things we know now? I think you meant that we were unable to observe the evidence for whatever reasons.
 
veritas1 said:
Another unproven claim which you keep using as if it's a fact. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between fact and opinion.
Click to expand...

What are the sources of writing other than man?
 
veritas1 said:
Nonsense. Nobody kills you for telemarketing. There was NO earthly benefit for the first Christians and, therefore, no reason to make up anything.
Click to expand...

There was the earthly benefit of believing in something that made them feel good. Do you think they had no choice but to believe or believed and felt miserable about it. Its the same earthly benefit that all religions give their followers; a reason for their lives and a cause to believe in.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, this is the logical fallacy known as 'appeal to consequences'. It is an intellectually dishonest maneuver what happens when someone can not support their claims.
Click to expand...

There's also a logical fallacy called the "fallacy fallacy":

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy,[2] the fallacist's fallacy,[3] and the bad reasons fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It's up to you to prove YOUR case.
 
it's just me said:
There's also a logical fallacy called the "fallacy fallacy":

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy,[2] the fallacist's fallacy,[3] and the bad reasons fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It's up to you to prove YOUR case.
Click to expand...

No, that actually is not the fallacy fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is if I said that you were wrong because your argument was wrong. I didn't say that. That makes yoru claim a misapplication of the fallacy fallacy. Do try to keep up.

And, when it comes to 'it's up to you to prove your case', that is the exact issue. You are not proving your case, and i am not the one making the claim. THat makes it the classic 'shifting the burden of proof'. That is twice you are misapplying a fallacy.
 
devildavid said:
There was the earthly benefit of believing in something that made them feel good. Do you think they had no choice but to believe or believed and felt miserable about it. Its the same earthly benefit that all religions give their followers; a reason for their lives and a cause to believe in.
Click to expand...

That's complete silliness. The only thing that was going to happen was persecution and death at the hands of the Romans. These were all Jews. They already had an ancient religion and a God they believed in. They allowed themselves to be martyred not for an earthly benefit but for what Christ showed them was an eternal one.
 
veritas1 said:
That's complete silliness. The only thing that was going to happen was persecution and death at the hands of the Romans. These were all Jews. They already had an ancient religion and a God they believed in. They allowed themselves to be martyred not for an earthly benefit but for what Christ showed them was an eternal one.
Click to expand...

Your view is silliness. They saw a benefit to following their new religion because it did something for them. You make it sound as if they thought that the religion was all about letting themselves be killed to achieve eternal life. Is that really what christ was asking them to do? Nothing in the bible supports that view.
 
RAMOSS said:
No, that actually is not the fallacy fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is if I said that you were wrong because your argument was wrong. I didn't say that. That makes yoru claim a misapplication of the fallacy fallacy. Do try to keep up.

And, when it comes to 'it's up to you to prove your case', that is the exact issue. You are not proving your case, and i am not the one making the claim. THat makes it the classic 'shifting the burden of proof'. That is twice you are misapplying a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I can post a definition from your very favorite non-accredited source and if it's not what you want to hear it's wrong. And we weren't talking about any claim I made, we were talking about a claim Logicman made, which you fallaciously claimed was a fallacy, hence the "fallacy fallacy", do try to keep up.

You just make things up as you go along and you keep using the same tricks over and over again, but people are starting to catch on.
 
it's just me said:
Yeah, I know, I can post a definition from your very favorite non-accredited source and if it's not what you want to hear it's wrong. And we weren't talking about any claim I made, we were talking about a claim Logicman made, which you fallaciously claimed was a fallacy, hence the "fallacy fallacy", do try to keep up.

You just make things up as you go along and you keep using the same tricks over and over again, but people are starting to catch on.
Click to expand...

You seem to love to mimic other people's arguments against them. It would be more effective if you did several things. First.. have it properly applied. Second, if you are going to use the points of fallacy's against someone, you have to realize what a logical fallacy actually is, (your context does not show that understanding).

Let me give some explanations for you. First, you have to realize a logical fallacy is 'a bad argument'. The specific logical fallacy describes the reasoning of why a bad argument is a bad argument. The next step is you have to look and understand to see what the arguments actually are. That step also seems to be lacking in your case. I am flattered you are trying to mimic me, but to be effective you really need to understand what that various logical fallacy's are, and to get better reading comprehension so you can understand what the arguments actually are.

Do try to work on that. The reading comprehension part might be a real stretch for you, but I am sure, with proper effort, you might start to improve a bit. When you actually understand Logicman's argument, and my counter point of it being a logical fallacy, then you can actually make a comment that is worthwhile.

I also will give you a hint. Erroneously claiming something is a fallacy when it isn't is NOT the fallacy fallacy. Making that claim is showing a lack of understanding of how arguments work. It also demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. Those are the two skills you really should work at.
 
RAMOSS said:
You seem to love to mimic other people's arguments against them. It would be more effective if you did several things. First.. have it properly applied. Second, if you are going to use the points of fallacy's against someone, you have to realize what a logical fallacy actually is, (your context does not show that understanding).

Let me give some explanations for you. First, you have to realize a logical fallacy is 'a bad argument'. The specific logical fallacy describes the reasoning of why a bad argument is a bad argument. The next step is you have to look and understand to see what the arguments actually are. That step also seems to be lacking in your case. I am flattered you are trying to mimic me, but to be effective you really need to understand what that various logical fallacy's are, and to get better reading comprehension so you can understand what the arguments actually are.

Do try to work on that. The reading comprehension part might be a real stretch for you, but I am sure, with proper effort, you might start to improve a bit. When you actually understand Logicman's argument, and my counter point of it being a logical fallacy, then you can actually make a comment that is worthwhile.

I also will give you a hint. Erroneously claiming something is a fallacy when it isn't is NOT the fallacy fallacy. Making that claim is showing a lack of understanding of how arguments work. It also demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. Those are the two skills you really should work at.
Click to expand...

This is the usual "I'm wonderful and you're not" rant with a healthy dose of "you're copying me" and "you have bad reading comprehension". Over the time I have known you, you have demonstrated an shocking inability to understand or comment on anything anybody else is saying unless it fits your own worldview. There are two possible reasons for this: (1. You don't know what is being said, or (2: you don't care about what is being said and you are arguing just to argue.

I know what Logicman was saying and I know what you're saying, and what you're saying is the usual pseudo-intellectual jazz we get from you. HINT: if Logicman is saying something wrong how about telling us all what it is without resorting to crying "fallacy".
 
it's just me said:
This is the usual "I'm wonderful and you're not" rant with a healthy dose of "you're copying me" and "you have bad reading comprehension". Over the time I have known you, you have demonstrated an shocking inability to understand or comment on anything anybody else is saying unless it fits your own worldview. There are two possible reasons for this: (1. You don't know what is being said, or (2: you don't care about what is being said and you are arguing just to argue.

I know what Logicman was saying and I know what you're saying, and what you're saying is the usual pseudo-intellectual jazz we get from you. HINT: if Logicman is saying something wrong how about telling us all what it is without resorting to crying "fallacy".
Click to expand...

BUt, do you know what his argument is, and do you realize why it's a logical fallacy??? And yes, you copy the arguments people use against you. YOu use the logical fallacies against me, you used the 'you are angry' line against someone who said you are angry. It's pretty obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom