Quag and the Angel: a dialogue

[Quag]

MY words "Not at all, I've stated that what you find adequate as proof is acceptable to me for YOUR belief,
but without certainty it fails for MY belief." <-- quote
You are free to exercise belief for reasons you feel to suffice, while I and others are, or at least should be, free to exercise non-belief for reasons we feel to suffice.

From YOUR post #341,


For me that can ONLY mean that any drawn conclusion can be no more than a strong belief, NOT a proven/provable fact.

Angel refuses to even try to support his premises thus his conclusions while he may strongly believe them cannot be considered strong beliefs

 

[Angel]

No you lost Angel your strawman was rejected and that's all you have ever tried to do in this thread You may run away now like you always do knowing that you failed like you always do.

By all means keep posting the nonsensical cry "Strawman! Strawman!" after that charge has been refuted a dozen times. This is typical Internet Skepticism bad-faith posting from you.

 

[Quag]

By all means keep posting the nonsensical cry "Strawman! Strawman!" after that charge has been refuted a dozen times. This is typical Internet Skepticism bad-faith posting from you.

I will continue to point out the strawman you have tried to make as long as you continue to try and make it

As to bad faith posting that describes pretty much all your this thread is, just 36 pages of you desperately trying to make your strawman and getting smacked down every time

 

[Angel]

I will continue to point out the strawman you have tried to make as long as you continue to try and make it

As to bad faith posting that describes pretty much all your this thread is, just 36 pages of you desperately trying to make your strawman and getting smacked down every time

You've been outed, man. There's no strawman. There's only your feeble argument -- "The meaning of belief is the dictionary meaning I select because it says what I mean" -- which is the absolute pits in thinking! -- and that's been shown in these pages to be absurd and to terminate dialogue entirely. Stop the whining and take your medicine like a man.

 

[Quag]

You've been outed, man. There's no strawman. There's only your feeble argument -- "The meaning of belief is the dictionary meaning I select because it says what I mean" -- which is the absolute pits in thinking! -- and that's been shown in these pages to be absurd and to terminate dialogue entirely. Stop the whining and take your medicine like a man.

You keep repeating the same irrelevant point. It is your continued attempts to insert your definitions into my statement than claim that is what I am saying that is the strawman

The fault for any termination of the dialogue rests (as it always does) with you are your refusal to engage honestly

 

[Angel]

You keep repeating the same irrelevant point. It is your continued attempts to insert your definitions into my statement than claim that is what I am saying that is the strawman

The fault for any termination of the dialogue rests (as it always does) with you are your refusal to engage honestly

The repetition of an irrelevant -- indeed a false -- point is this business of a strawman. There's no strawman. There's Quag pretending not to understand the bind I've put him in, or actually not understanding it. I've inserted nothing anywhere. I've accepted all your claims and your reasoning. If you persist in denying this, I'll regularly post a report card of our dialogue explicating all the claims on both sides and the Quag reasoning used throughout.

 

[Quag]

The repetition of an irrelevant -- indeed a false -- point is this business of a strawman. There's no strawman. There's Quag pretending not to understand the bind I've put him in, or actually not understanding it. I've inserted nothing anywhere. I've accepted all your claims and your reasoning. If you persist in denying this, I'll regularly post a report card of our dialogue explicating all the claims on both sides and the Quag reasoning used throughout.

THERE is a strawman you keep trying to make it when you try toi insert your definition into my statement.
ANY attempt by you to deny this is a dishonest claim on your part as all your attempts to do so are recorded in this thread

 

[Angel]

THERE is a strawman you keep trying to make it when you try toi insert your definition into my statement.
ANY attempt by you to deny this is a dishonest claim on your part as all your attempts to do so are recorded in this thread

Dialogue Report Card

Quag's claims
1. If the premises of an argument are nothing more than beliefs, then the conclusion of that argument is nothing more than belief.
2. Angel's arguments for the existence of God contain premises that are nothing more than his beliefs.
3. Belief is nothing more than opinion.

Quag's reasoning
4. One of the definitions of belief in a dictionary is that belief is opinion.
5. Quag chooses this definition of belief because it corresponds to what he means to say in his claims.

Angel ACCEPTS for the sake of discussion ALL of Quag's claims and Quag's reasoning in support of his claims.

Angel's claim
6. All premises in all arguments are beliefs.
7. Belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.

Angel's reasoning
8. Angel adopts Quag's reasoning in #4 and #5 to support his own claim
9. One of the definitions of belief in a dictionary is that belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.
10. Angel chooses this definition of belief because it corresponds to what he means to say in his claims.


And there you have it. No strawman. No insertion of my definition into yours.

Result: All discussion of arguments is futile.

 

[Individual]

Dialogue Report Card

Quag's claims
1. If the premises of an argument are nothing more than beliefs, then the conclusion of that argument is nothing more than belief.
2. Angel's arguments for the existence of God contain premises that are nothing more than his beliefs.
3. Belief is nothing more than opinion.

Quag's reasoning
4. One of the definitions of belief in a dictionary is that belief is opinion.
5. Quag chooses this definition of belief because it corresponds to what he means to say in his claims.

Angel ACCEPTS for the sake of discussion ALL of Quag's claims and Quag's reasoning in support of his claims.

Angel's claim
6. All premises in all arguments are beliefs.
7. Belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.

Angel's reasoning
8. Angel adopts Quag's reasoning in #4 and #5 to support his own claim
9. One of the definitions of belief in a dictionary is that belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.
10. Angel chooses this definition of belief because it corresponds to what he means to say in his claims.


And there you have it. No strawman. No insertion of my definition into yours.

Result: All discussion of arguments is futile.

Not to mention pointless, in the case of Gods existence.
Mental acceptance of a God exists in those who have a mental need/want for such an existence. Some do, some do not.

 

[Angel]

Not to mention pointless, in the case of Gods existence.
Mental acceptance of a God exists in those who have a mental need/want for such an existence. Some do, some do not.

Two things wrong here.
One, your "pointless" adds nothing to "futile" -- it's just strutting.
And two, you miss the point -- ALL discussion of ALL argument becomes futile -- not just your pet peeve.

 

[Individual]

Two things wrong here. One, your "pointless" adds nothing to "futile" -- it's just strutting. And two, you miss the point -- ALL discussion of ALL argument becomes futile -- not just your pet peeve.

Basically, you have a box which weighs exactly the same as an identical empty box which you claim to contain greater value than another box proven to be empty. Your premises offered equate to opening your box and finding nothing in it. Which box should I take the one proven empty or yours claimed, by you, to hold valuable content. So if your "pet peeve" cannot be made to prevail over everyone else's "pet peeve", what then?

 

[Quag]

Dialogue Report Card

Quag's claims
1. If the premises of an argument are nothing more than beliefs, then the conclusion of that argument is nothing more than belief.
2. Angel's arguments for the existence of God contain premises that are nothing more than his beliefs.
3. Belief is nothing more than opinion.

Quag's reasoning
4. One of the definitions of belief in a dictionary is that belief is opinion.
5. Quag chooses this definition of belief because it corresponds to what he means to say in his claims.

Angel ACCEPTS for the sake of discussion ALL of Quag's claims and Quag's reasoning in support of his claims.

Angel's claim
6. All premises in all arguments are beliefs.
7. Belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.

Angel's reasoning
8. Angel adopts Quag's reasoning in #4 and #5 to support his own claim
9. One of the definitions of belief in a dictionary is that belief is the mental acceptance of a statement.
10. Angel chooses this definition of belief because it corresponds to what he means to say in his claims.


And there you have it. No strawman. No insertion of my definition into yours.

Result: All discussion of arguments is futile.

BOLDED IS DERIVED FROM YOUR STRAWMAN!!!!!
Here it is from post 327 (which you left out from this post because even you realize the strawman is too obvious.

If all beliefs are only opinions and all premises are beliefs, then all counter-argumentation is pointless and all discussion at an end.

Discussion is at an end because of your strawman where you try to insert your definition into my statement.
This whole thread was created because you erroneously thought you could sneak the strawman past me and now that you realize you cant you are throwing a hissy fit.

 

[Quag]

Two things wrong here.
One, your "pointless" adds nothing to "futile" -- it's just strutting.
And two, you miss the point -- ALL discussion of ALL argument becomes futile -- not just your pet peeve.

The point is you are trying to make that my claim based on your strawman but it isn't my claim
Yes Angel when you try to insert your definition into my statement you ARE making a strawman

 

[Angel]

BOLDED IS DERIVED FROM YOUR STRAWMAN!!!!!
Here it is from post 327 (which you left out from this post because even you realize the strawman is too obvious.



Discussion is at an end because of your strawman where you try to insert your definition into my statement.
This whole thread was created because you erroneously thought you could sneak the strawman past me and now that you realize you cant you are throwing a hissy fit.

You're embarrassing yourself, man. There is no insertion. The report card is right there. That statement of mine you quote simply explains the "Result" in the report card, and by the way represents your view precisely -- "If all beliefs are only opinions and all premises are beliefs, then all counter-argumentation is pointless and all discussion at an end." There's no strawman here. There's just your awful rationale for your claims.

 

[Angel]

The point is you are trying to make that my claim based on your strawman but it isn't my claim
Yes Angel when you try to insert your definition into my statement you ARE making a strawman

At this point you're just plain lying about this strawman crap. Stop it.

 

[Quag]

You're embarrassing yourself, man. There is no insertion. The report card is right there. That statement of mine you quote simply explains the "Result" in the report card, and by the way represents your view precisely -- "If all beliefs are only opinions and all premises are beliefs, then all counter-argumentation is pointless and all discussion at an end." There's no strawman here. There's just your awful rationale for your claims.

Wow you really are in denial arent you

If all beliefs are only opinions(y definition as used in my statement) and all premises are beliefs(your definition), then all counter-argumentation is pointless and all discussion at an end(based on ussing your definition in my statement).

But please continue I dont mind watching you make a fool of yourself

 

[Quag]

At this point you're just plain lying about this strawman crap. Stop it.

Meltdown from Angel because he isnt as clever as he thought he was and cant sneak his strawman past me in 3,2,1....

 

[Angel]

Wow you really are in denial arent you


But please continue I dont mind watching you make a fool of yourself

No, I used you definition in your statement, my definition in my statement, and your rationale for both yours and my statements, and the result is the result.

You're the one who can't see/read what's right before your eyes.

 

[Quag]

No, I used you definition in your statement, my definition in my statement, and your rationale for both yours and my statements, and the result is the result.

You're the one who can't see/read what's right before your eyes.

You then put the two together and made a strawman claiming it is the result

or in other words you made a strawman

 

[Angel]

You then put the two together and made a strawman claiming it is the result

or in other words you made a strawman

First of all, "putting the two together" is not inserting anything in either.
Given your claim and your rationale and given my claim using the same rationale -- discussion of arguments becomes an exercise in futility.

 

[Individual]

The straw man appears to be God.
For those of us who believe what exists came about as the result of Natural cause, "God did it." is much like a straw man.

 

[Angel]

The straw man appears to be God.
For those of us who believe what exists came about as the result of Natural cause, "God did it." is much like a straw man.

You apparently understand neither the concept of a straw man argument nor the bone of contention between Quag and me.

 

[Individual]

You apparently understand neither the concept of a straw man argument nor the bone of contention between Quag and me.

I never stated that I did.
You appear to have a bone of contention with anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Angel]

I never stated that I did.
You appear to have a bone of contention with anyone who disagrees with you.

Isn't that the meaning of "bone of contention"?

 

[Individual]

Isn't that the meaning of "bone of contention"?

Except that no one is trying to change YOUR views to theirs, ONLY disagreeing to accept YOUR views for their own.
You claim God exists. No problem.
You claim you can prove God exists. Show us.
Your proof fails to be accepted. You show an inability to accept failure.
I think most, if not all, of us who found your philosophical premises lacking for various reasons don't really care if you continue to believe in the existence of a God or not. And while none of us can, or have even tried to prove that God doesn't exist, the reality is that it doesn't change anything as no one REALLY knows anything at all about the being they call God.