God is a Fake

[Abrupt]

Your response is a non sequitur; it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes".  While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well.  Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.

I have committed no fallacy with my argument, unlike this red herring of yours.  Even though the normative was in support of my point I took the time to emphasize my usage of 'scope' to key you in on this.  Instead of picking up on my clue you went on a tangent regarding scope.  Do you even recall the debated point here or are you lost in the details?

Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"?  Of course I will challenge your contention since it is a diversionary tactic employed to shift attention away from the contending assertions regarding "faith" and "belief".  QoN posted a definition of "faith" which you merely disagreed with, without substantiating your opposition to it.

I said nothing about "word games", and what is with the insults anyways?  I was speaking about you making weak (in intention) arguments, leaving them just vague enough to maintain deniability -- arguments where you know the conclusions the reader will be drawn to yet then deny that you meant them.  I am familiar with such methods and in this case the tactic was left to turn an oppositions observations against them.  Whether you did this accidentally and only noticed it after being questioned on it I cannot be certain but I did give you credit for it.

I assure you there is no intended diversionary tactic.  This almost makes me curious as to whether you are attributing more cunning to me than I am worthy of as I may have towards you for a baited conclusion (well maybe not, though, as you did sort of say it following an insult).  Our debate has nothing to do directly with "faith" and "belief".  I fear I may have butted in at a bad time during your debate with another and caused confusion, if so my apologies for the faux pas (note: me being apologetic is not to be construed in anyway as an attempt to surrender or to barter a truce).

I felt I did quite a bit more than simply disagree with QoN's definition of faith.  I gave an opposing definition.  I preceded QoN's definition with an analogy and supported my analogy with counters to the counters.  I did leave with a very weak conclusion but it wasn't so much to be intended a conclusion, instead it was trailer filler for my reaffirmation of my position.

[falcon9]

Your response is a non sequitur; it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes".  While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well.  Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.

I have committed no fallacy with my argument, unlike this red herring of yours. 

On the contrary, a non sequitur is also defined as "a statement (as a response) which does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said".  My reply to your non sequitur does not constitute a "red herring" since it was neither a deliberate nor accidental distraction from the central points contended.  Your tangent regarding "scopes" could be seen as a red herring, however.

Even though the normative was in support of my point I took the time to emphasize my usage of 'scope' to key you in on this.  Instead of picking up on my clue you went on a tangent regarding scope.  Do you even recall the debated point here or are you lost in the details?

Yours was the weak supportive tangent which could easily be used to support the opposite contention, as I indicated in the response you suspiciously snipped out, (almost as if to omit the context).  Here's that response, for handy reference: 'it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes".  While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well.  Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.'

Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"?  Of course I will challenge your contention since it is a diversionary tactic employed to shift attention away from the contending assertions regarding "faith" and "belief".  QoN posted a definition of "faith" which you merely disagreed with, without substantiating your opposition to it.

I said nothing about "word games", and what is with the insults anyways? 

You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;
Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am

"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."

I was speaking about you making weak (in intention) arguments, leaving them just vague enough to maintain deniability -- arguments where you know the conclusions the reader will be drawn to yet then deny that you meant them.  

You never indicated a substantive basis for your belief that the arguements I presented were weak.  You are however, attempting to do so now - again, lacking any supportive basis other than your suspect interpretations.  I do not agree with your interpretations and rejected them as non sequiturs.  Should you disagree with such an assesment, you may want to point out which arguement of mine was either "vague" or "weak in intention" with substantiations beyond your unsupported opinions.  Or not, as the case may be.

I assure you there is no intended diversionary tactic. 

You can go around assuring all you want; the assurance holds no water because of the holes in that bucket.

This almost makes me curious as to whether you are attributing more cunning to me than I am worthy of ...

I wouldn't go that far in supposition; possibly as far as attributing such transparent counter-attacks as attempts at diversions which failed though.

Our debate has nothing to do directly with "faith" and "belief".  I fear I may have butted in at a bad time during your debate with another and caused confusion, if so my apologies for the faux pas (note: me being apologetic is not to be construed in anyway as an attempt to surrender or to barter a truce).

Au contrare, the central premise to this debate _are_ indeed "faith" & "belief" but, perhaps you missed that in your rushed attempt to 'outwit' the opposing argument.  Although _you_ may not want to discuss and debate the premise previously notable in this thread, (and you are certainly as free to opt out as you are to continue), others are and have been discussing and debating that very premise.

I felt I did quite a bit more than simply disagree with QoN's definition of faith.  I gave an opposing definition. 

No, you gave your 'preferred' and subjectively-biased alternate definition.  This is an old and weak argumentative tactic employed by those who wish to redefine the terms being discussed to shore up their weak positions.  It doesn't matter whether or not you like or dislike the standard definitions or words; if you're going to use them, you tacitly accept established definitions or, make up your own new words and define those as you see fit.

I preceded QoN's definition with an analogy and supported my analogy with counters to the counters.  I did leave with a very weak conclusion but it wasn't so much to be intended a conclusion, instead it was trailer filler for my reaffirmation of my position.

Your analogy was poor and inferred false conclusions.  It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry).

[Abrupt]

On the contrary, a non sequitur is also defined as "a statement (as a response) which does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said".  My reply to your non sequitur does not constitute a "red herring" since it was neither a deliberate nor accidental distraction from the central points contended.  Your tangent regarding "scopes" could be seen as a red herring, however.

I find it odd that my expansion on 'scopes', which was directly in support of the one key piece I wanted the reader focused on, is considered by you as a tangent.  Yet you insist that your redundant and irrelevant analysis of scope could be anything other than a red herring.

Yours was the weak supportive tangent which could easily be used to support the opposite contention, as I indicated in the response you suspiciously snipped out, (almost as if to omit the context).  Here's that response, for handy reference: 'it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes".  While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well.  Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.'

Weak supportive tangent?  What are you talking about?  My view was completely in line with the standard sociological model and you took a position in diametric opposition without giving supporting evidence or even attempting go make a case.  The burden of proof is on you.  There is no sinister omission and I cannot ascertain if you are accusing me of not including my quote and only your reply (something I invariably do and a fast review of my previous posts will readily reveal this) or are accusing me of cutting parts of your reply (I assure you that the exact text you have above as reference is in its entirety within my post).  The only reasons I can possibly come up with for your implications of derailment are that you have forgotten what the point of our particular debate is.

You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;

Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."

And that is exactly my point.  I said games and nothing regarding "word games" you are the one who is reading in "word" where it doesn't apply.  "word games" generally refers to efforts to debate the meaning of a word in its usage, and I did not challenge you on any such point.  I challenged you on prying (through leading) a conclusion out of a reader in the hopes that you could use that conclusion against them to strengthen your own point or weaken theirs.  This is not a matter of semantics it is an entirely different exercise.

You never indicated a substantive basis for your belief that the arguements I presented were weak.  You are however, attempting to do so now - again, lacking any supportive basis other than your suspect interpretations.  I do not agree with your interpretations and rejected them as non sequiturs.  Should you disagree with such an assesment, you may want to point out which arguement of mine was either "vague" or "weak in intention" with substantiations beyond your unsupported opinions.  Or not, as the case may be.

[indent]

Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim.  To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real".  That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real.  Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.

[/indent]

The above is a failure to state admitted by yourself as part of an argument to another, while there was a more appropriate quote I wanted to find I grew weary of looking for it and it is overall unimportant to the topic at hand.

You can go around assuring all you want; the assurance holds no water because of the holes in that bucket.

Again, the burden of proof is on you as I hold the position of the normative and therefor have no reason to divert.

Au contrare, the central premise to this debate _are_ indeed "faith" & "belief" but, perhaps you missed that in your rushed attempt to 'outwit' the opposing argument.  Although _you_ may not want to discuss and debate the premise previously notable in this thread, (and you are certainly as free to opt out as you are to continue), others are and have been discussing and debating that very premise.

My contention with you, which I have accused you of losing track of, is your assertion that people make irrational choices deliberately knowing them to be such.

No, you gave your 'preferred' and subjectively-biased alternate definition.  This is an old and weak argumentative tactic employed by those who wish to redefine the terms being discussed to shore up their weak positions.  It doesn't matter whether or not you like or dislike the standard definitions or words; if you're going to use them, you tacitly accept established definitions or, make up your own new words and define those as you see fit.

My definition was far less biased than the cherry picked one QoN presented (which was presented as one of the main definitions and that is something quite contestable as well).  Even the given definition does not weaken my arguments, but I wanted to indicate a challenge QoN's appeal to authority.

Your analogy was poor and inferred false conclusions.  It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry).

I am always delighted to see my opponent resort to ad hominem, but honestly I expected more from you.

[jcribb16]

Quote
You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;

Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."

Quote from: Abrupt:
And that is exactly my point.  I said games and nothing regarding "word games" you are the one who is reading in "word" where it doesn't apply.  "word games" generally refers to efforts to debate the meaning of a word in its usage, and I did not challenge you on any such point.  I challenged you on prying (through leading) a conclusion out of a reader in the hopes that you could use that conclusion against them to strengthen your own point or weaken theirs.  This is not a matter of semantics it is an entirely different exercise.

Abrupt, great point!  I do like the way you put that.

[falcon9]

On the contrary, a non sequitur is also defined as "a statement (as a response) which does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said".  My reply to your non sequitur does not constitute a "red herring" since it was neither a deliberate nor accidental distraction from the central points contended.  Your tangent regarding "scopes" could be seen as a red herring, however.

I find it odd that my expansion on 'scopes', which was directly in support of the one key piece I wanted the reader focused on, is considered by you as a tangent.  Yet you insist that your redundant and irrelevant analysis of scope could be anything other than a red herring.

As previously indicated, your "expansion" on scopes was vague and inconclusive thus failing to directly support your contention.  That made it tangential.  Characterizing reiteration of this aspect of your 'argument' as redundant and irrelevant while you repeatedly ignore the evident vague inconclusiveness noted is hypocritical.

Weak supportive tangent?  What are you talking about? 

As stated previously, your vague and inconclusive assertions regarding "scopes" weakly supported your contention regarding your premise.  If you've forgotten your own premise, that's not my lookout.
 

My view was completely in line with the standard sociological model and you took a position in diametric opposition without giving supporting evidence or even attempting go make a case.  The burden of proof is on you. 

If you are now contending that some unspecified "standard sociological model" supports your view, this is an initial claim and the burden of proof rests first with the one using such an unspecified model, (not with the one opposing such a claim).  In any case, the secondary claim of my opposing contention references evident human behaviour as support.  There are billions of people who base their opinions, (and subsequently, much of their actions), upon "faith" & "belief" - which do not constitute a rational basis.  Why don't they constitute a rational basis?  This is due to the defined meanings of the words "belief" & "faith".  The opposing contention has now been substantiated.  Your turn.

There is no sinister omission 

The evidence that you snipped portions of the context to which you replied exist in this thread of discussion.  Whether or not it was "sinister" is your subjective interpretation of the act - I merely suggested that it was suspicious.

You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;

Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."

And that is exactly my point.  I said games and nothing regarding "word games" you are the one who is reading in "word" where it doesn't apply.  "word games" generally refers to efforts to debate the meaning of a word in its usage, and I did not challenge you on any such point.  

We're not playing Trivia Pursuit here; we're using words to discuss and debate a premise.  By attempting to imply you meant something other than 'word games' when you specifically used the word "games", (in context), you are tacitly admitting that you are playing such 'word games' rather than address points raised in debate.  In fact, even your counter regarding a general definition of the phrase emphasizes this when you debated the meaning of the word "faith" with QoN.  The evidence of your own words points not only to your familiarity "with such excercises" but, with a penchant for employing them as underpaid staff.

 
[indent]

Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim.  To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real".  That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real.  Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.

[/indent]

The above is a failure to state admitted by yourself as part of an argument to another, while there was a more appropriate quote I wanted to find I grew weary of looking for it and it is overall unimportant to the topic at hand.

"Failure to state"?  What are you talking about?  What you quoted was clearly stated asa response to another and that response originally quoted what was being responded to.  Your weariness is not my concern; if you're going to debate this, finding appropriate references is your own responsibility.  Attempting to dismiss the central premise of the debate as being "unimportant to the topic at hand" is evidentially irrational.  Which goes far in supporting my secondary contention about people making irrational assertions stemming from irrational belief.

Again, the burden of proof is on you as I hold the position of the normative and therefor have no reason to divert.

You are incorrect as the initial burden of proof lies with you in making the initial claim.  Asserting that your initial claim is "the normative" is a poor cop-out.  As to your subsequent claim of having no reason to divert, this is proven false by the evidence you presented yourself within your replies which constitutes diversions. 
The central premise to this debate _are_ indeed "faith" & "belief" but, perhaps you missed that in your rushed attempt to 'outwit' the opposing argument.  Although _you_ may not want to discuss and debate the premise previously notable in this thread, (and you are certainly as free to opt out as you are to continue), others are and have been discussing and debating that very premise.

My contention with you, which I have accused you of losing track of, is your assertion that people make irrational choices deliberately knowing them to be such.

I recall the counter-assertion, (not an initial claim), that I made in response to the original premise regarding "faith" & "belief".  Perhaps you'd lost track of this premise during the course of your diversionary forays?  I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention. 

My definition was far less biased than the cherry picked one QoN presented (which was presented as one of the main definitions and that is something quite contestable as well).  Even the given definition does not weaken my arguments, but I wanted to indicate a challenge QoN's appeal to authority.

No doubt QoN can confirm that the definition she provided was from Merriam-Webster and not "cherry-picked" since it was a standard definition available in other dictionary references.  On the other hand, your own preferred definition _was_ cherry-picked specifically as an attempt to support your point.  Not only does that definition weaken your agruments, despite your contention that it does not, (you can either determine this for yourself or, I may offer to explain it to you in the follow up), but it undermines them.  Calling QoN's posting of a standard definition of the meaning of a contended word an "appeal to authority" is a sophist dodge.  This seems to be a repeating pattern of 'debate' for you, given your prior replies.

Your analogy was poor and inferred false conclusions.  It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry).

I am always delighted to see my opponent resort to ad hominem, but honestly I expected more from you.

Indicating the evidence of your use of poor analogies, drawing false conclusions from them and employing circular reasoning does not constitute "ad hominem" under any definition of the term which has not been 'cherry-picked', (or conveniently reinterpreted).  Your attempt at condencension falls flat.

[falcon9]

Quote
You prevaricate poorly since your own words betray you;

Quote from: Abrupt on September 11, 2011, 08:31:23 am
"I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises."

Quote from: Abrupt:
And that is exactly my point.  I said games and nothing regarding "word games" you are the one who is reading in "word" where it doesn't apply.  "word games" generally refers to efforts to debate the meaning of a word in its usage, and I did not challenge you on any such point.  I challenged you on prying (through leading) a conclusion out of a reader in the hopes that you could use that conclusion against them to strengthen your own point or weaken theirs.  This is not a matter of semantics it is an entirely different exercise.

Abrupt, great point!  I do like the way you put that.

See my reply regarding such 'non-word game' games.

[Abrupt]

As previously indicated, your "expansion" on scopes was vague and inconclusive thus failing to directly support your contention.  That made it tangential.  Characterizing reiteration of this aspect of your 'argument' as redundant and irrelevant while you repeatedly ignore the evident vague inconclusiveness noted is hypocritical.  You are begging the question.  This is the very 'circular reasoning' you seem so fond of accusing others of, yet this is actually a proper example of it and not just a simple accusation without support.

You never indicated anything.  You accused and left it at that.  Now you are trying to cite your accusations as evidence of something.  Demonstrate this 'vague inconclusiveness'. 

If you are now contending that some unspecified "standard sociological model" supports your view, this is an initial claim and the burden of proof rests first with the one using such an unspecified model, (not with the one opposing such a claim).  In any case, the secondary claim of my opposing contention references evident human behaviour as support.  There are billions of people who base their opinions, (and subsequently, much of their actions), upon "faith" & "belief" - which do not constitute a rational basis.  Why don't they constitute a rational basis?  This is due to the defined meanings of the words "belief" & "faith".  The opposing contention has now been substantiated.  Your turn.

It is awfully convenient how you are able to decide what is the first claim and what isn't.  The first claim was made by you and that was "SOme people are therefore choosing to be irrational while others are not".  You  have now presented some support to your claim -- possibly because you realized this or possibly to speed along the debate.  I will now bring up this standard model you seem to be unaware of.  It is Rational Choice Theory and is the basis for models in sociology, criminology, economics, behavior, macroeconomics, etc.  Rational Choice Theory basically states that all choices are rational in terms of the chooser and failure to be able to predict these choices (seeing them as irrational) is only due to a lack of understanding of the variable at play.  Basically it is the position that choices are rational ipso facto and while this may seem a bit of a tautology, it is the basis of all our behavior modelling.  Qf2+.

The evidence that you snipped portions of the context to which you replied exist in this thread of discussion.  Whether or not it was "sinister" is your subjective interpretation of the act - I merely suggested that it was suspicious.

Present this evidence.  I already indicated my confusion about what you were talking about.  You charge me with some sort of deliberate and suspicious omission.  Present your evidence and explain where its sinister nature lies.

We're not playing Trivia Pursuit here; we're using words to discuss and debate a premise.  By attempting to imply you meant something other than 'word games' when you specifically used the word "games", (in context), you are tacitly admitting that you are playing such 'word games' rather than address points raised in debate.  In fact, even your counter regarding a general definition of the phrase emphasizes this when you debated the meaning of the word "faith" with QoN.  The evidence of your own words points not only to your familiarity "with such excercises" but, with a penchant for employing them as underpaid staff.

It is obvious I meant something other than word games as when I cautioned you about games I had just pointed out where you showed your hole card regarding your previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational in the previous sentence.  If I wanted to accuse you of word games I would likely call you an arguer of prestigious jargon, but I don't mind that (and sometimes find it enjoyable) and I often am guilty of arguing by poetic language.  I admit I am prone to tactical deceptions and am a veteran of many forum sniping battles (I have lost more than I have won and admitted to losing way less than that -- this being due to pride and the false assumption that I was the only strategist and thinker in the fight -- which I cautioned you about and you mistook games for word games).  Assumed anonymity alters people in such a way that sometimes such things are necessary.

"Failure to state"?  What are you talking about?  What you quoted was clearly stated asa response to another and that response originally quoted what was being responded to.  Your weariness is not my concern; if you're going to debate this, finding appropriate references is your own responsibility.  Attempting to dismiss the central premise of the debate as being "unimportant to the topic at hand" is evidentially irrational.  Which goes far in supporting my secondary contention about people making irrational assertions stemming from irrational belief.

A failure to state is when you make attacks and ask questions without giving your position.  It is a weak form of argument as you rely on challenging the opposition and while it may be useful for reductio ad absurdum it is still a form of disproof by fallacy.

You are incorrect as the initial burden of proof lies with you in making the initial claim.  Asserting that your initial claim is "the normative" is a poor cop-out.  As to your subsequent claim of having no reason to divert, this is proven false by the evidence you presented yourself within your replies which constitutes diversions. 
The central premise to this debate _are_ indeed "faith" & "belief" but, perhaps you missed that in your rushed attempt to 'outwit' the opposing argument.  Although _you_ may not want to discuss and debate the premise previously notable in this thread, (and you are certainly as free to opt out as you are to continue), others are and have been discussing and debating that very premise.

I already noted my objection as to the owner of the initial claim above.  I am aware of the topic and it was actually why I was reading the thread.  I challenged you on your position that one can choose to be irrational.  I already pointed out that this may have been a faux pas by me to inject myself in a debate of a matter not directly central to the topic, nonetheless I felt compelled to.

I recall the counter-assertion, (not an initial claim), that I made in response to the original premise regarding "faith" & "belief".  Perhaps you'd lost track of this premise during the course of your diversionary forays?  I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention. 

Again, you are trying to rely on a disproof by fallacy.  I already mentioned rational choice theory so I will now interject a different point.  It is estimated that over 85 percent of the population of the world subscribes to a religion, with approximately 12 percent and 2 percent being non-religious or atheistic respectively.  Following your logic we can conclude that the bulk of the human population is choosing to be deliberately irrational (this is not a hasty generalization when you consider the prevalence of religion throughout history and its importance in societies).  Since a belief in a religion seems to be an almost inherent trait or tendency we could reliably conclude that humans are irrational by nature.  If such was true then sites like this and other polling and sampling data would be mostly useless as one would have to assume that there would be no reason behind the choices people make (if there were reasons we would have rationale for the reasons, thus countering the concept that people choose irrationally).  Considering that sites like these as well as the other polling and survey related studies do spend and pay large amounts of money to gain their data we have to conclude that the data is reliable and thus their is discernible rational explanations for the choices people make.

No doubt QoN can confirm that the definition she provided was from Merriam-Webster and not "cherry-picked" since it was a standard definition available in other dictionary references.  On the other hand, your own preferred definition _was_ cherry-picked specifically as an attempt to support your point.  Not only does that definition weaken your agruments, despite your contention that it does not, (you can either determine this for yourself or, I may offer to explain it to you in the follow up), but it undermines them.  Calling QoN's posting of a standard definition of the meaning of a contended word an "appeal to authority" is a sophist dodge.  This seems to be a repeating pattern of 'debate' for you, given your prior replies.

The standard you tout seems to be an anomaly as my simple research turns up the following:  belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof; belief that is not based on proof; belief in something that has not been proved or is not capable of being proved; unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.  Any of those is less judgmental than saying "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".  When a definition is presented as "one of the main definitions" and a casual sampling reveals just how little it fits the patterns of comparable definitions I can say without reserve that it is cherry-picked.  It is definitely an appeal to authority as QoN cited the source and stipulated "remind" for no reason other than to stress that the matter was already subject to expert consideration and determination.  This was no dodge, it was a direct rebuttal to the value of the definition being considered as expert.  Why you choose to inject yourself on that front I still haven't figured out (not that you can't it is just that I didn't see where it could strengthen your position or weaken mine either way).  Yes, if you care to enlighten me, I am curious as to where you see that my definition weakened my arguments -- when time is convenient though so as not to muddle up this duel anymore than it is.
 

Indicating the evidence of your use of poor analogies, drawing false conclusions from them and employing circular reasoning does not constitute "ad hominem" under any definition of the term which has not been 'cherry-picked', (or conveniently reinterpreted).  Your attempt at condencension falls flat.

I thought you might take this stance when I brought up this point (baited conclusion?  It wasn't intended that way but after I typed it I did some reply predictions).  You are trying to say that you were attacking my argument and not me -- and if that were true you would be correct in that it wasn't ad hominem.  This is not the case though as you insulted my arguments by description without giving any specific explained examples and that is an attack on the man and not the argument and you are obviously familiar enough with debate to know this.


As a side note, this is a question that I am curious of and it doesn't pertain to this topic at all but to written debates in general.  Sometimes when I read back over my own words I get the idea that it comes off as sounding rude, angry, or snide where it was never typed in such a frame.  I never infer emotion into an opponents words, although I have seen others do this quite commonly (and especially if they read the others posts out loud).  What are the norms of such things if any know or experience similarities at their own words?

[falcon9]

As previously indicated, your "expansion" on scopes was vague and inconclusive thus failing to directly support your contention.  

You never indicated anything.  You accused and left it at that.  Now you are trying to cite your accusations as evidence of something.  Demonstrate this 'vague inconclusiveness'. 

Quote from: Abrupt on September 10, 2011, 05:23:34 pm:
"An action may be irrational, but a choice is invariably rational within the scope of the variables the chooser has at hand."

No iteration of the proposed "scope of the variables the chooser has at hand" was provided thus, such a conclusion is unwarrented and inconclusively vague.

It is awfully convenient how you are able to decide what is the first claim and what isn't.  The first claim was made by you

Convenience has no bearing on what the initial claim was or, wasn't, (unless you are referring instead to your convenience in cherry-picking the first claim out of several claims at the point of your entry into this debate).  Either the initial claim is constituted by the thread title, ("God is a fake"), or by the several examples of posters professing their "belief" / "faith" in the opposite view.  What you seem to be trying to slip past is your notion that I'd made the initial claim regarding "faith" & "belief" when the responses documented prior to such a secondary contention clearly show your assertion to be false.

I will now bring up this standard model you seem to be unaware of. 
It is Rational Choice Theory and is the basis for models in sociology, criminology, economics, behavior, macroeconomics, etc.  Rational Choice Theory basically states that all choices are rational in terms of the chooser and failure to be able to predict these choices (seeing them as irrational) is only due to a lack of understanding of the variable at play.  Basically it is the position that choices are rational ipso facto and while this may seem a bit of a tautology, it is the basis of all our behavior modelling.  Qf2+.

While I am somewhat previously familar with the "rational choice theory" it is not precisely the standard model you claim, (without substantiation), and it is a "theory", (as the name indicates).  Regardless, the relevant and contended phrase within the description you presented is "all choices are rational in terms of the chooser".  This phrase is a vague non sequitur in that it is an a priori assumption without proof and that it does not specify what the "terms of teh chooser" are.  Such vague "terms" may be and often are, irrational and this means that conclusions drawn from such an irrational basis are far more likely to be irrational rather than rational ones.  The second a priori assumption made in such a theory is that "choices are rational ipso facto".  This assumption does not follow, (which makes it a non sequitur and sophist).

The evidence that you snipped portions of the context to which you replied exist in this thread of discussion.  Whether or not it was "sinister" is your subjective interpretation of the act - I merely suggested that it was suspicious.

"Present this evidence.  I already indicated my confusion about what you were talking about.  You charge me with some sort of deliberate and suspicious omission.  Present your evidence and explain where its sinister nature lies."

The evidence of omission is presented by the thread itself in which a perusal will show what was stated and what was omitted.  I'm not going to repost the existing thread.  Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made.  Your continued alledging of "sinister" motives is disregarded as a red herring.

It is obvious I meant something other than word games as when I cautioned you about games I had just pointed out where you showed your hole card regarding your previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational in the previous sentence.  

Oh, I see; you presumed we were playing 'poker' instead of debating with words here.  The analogy holds no water since you followed that implication with a 'word-gamed' counter-attack of "previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational".  Nevertheless, I am not playing poker, Trivia Pursuit, chess or any other types of 'games', (unless disabusing another of sophistry is now considered a "game").

"A failure to state is when you make attacks and ask questions without giving your position.  It is a weak form of argument as you rely on challenging the opposition and while it may be useful for reductio ad absurdum it is still a form of disproof by fallacy."

I'm noting not just a tendency but, a penchant on your part for accusing others of doing what you are doing.  It's becoming a downright pattern with your arguments.  Firstly, accusing others of doing what they aren't is a deceptive tactic.  Secondly, your attempts to bog this debate down in minutia of logic will continue to fail as continuosly demonstrated already.  Thirdly, you haven't supported your inherent contention that "faith" & "belief" rely upon rational choices.  Instead, you presented a dubious "theory" containing so many holes that the bucket leaks like a sieve.

I recall the counter-assertion, (not an initial claim), that I made in response to the original premise regarding "faith" & "belief".  Perhaps you'd lost track of this premise during the course of your diversionary forays?  I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention. 

"Again, you are trying to rely on a disproof by fallacy."

No, you are making a false accusation since "disproof by fallacy" relies upon reaching a conclusion in a fallacious way, which I have not done.  Your empty accusation with substantiation notwithstanding.  To reiterate my contention as a simple syllogism; many people rely upon religious faith/beliefs to form subsequent opinions and conclusions.  This basis, (faith/belief), is an irrational one since it is essentially defined as 'unprovable'. Making choices which rest upon such an irrational basis directly infers a deliberate decision to make irrational choices.

I already mentioned rational choice theory so I will now interject a different point.  It is estimated that over 85 percent of the population of the world subscribes to a religion, with approximately 12 percent and 2 percent being non-religious or atheistic respectively.  Following your logic we can conclude that the bulk of the human population is choosing to be deliberately irrational (this is not a hasty generalization when you consider the prevalence of religion throughout history and its importance in societies).  Since a belief in a religion seems to be an almost inherent trait or tendency we could reliably conclude that humans are irrational by nature.  If such was true then sites like this and other polling and sampling data would be mostly useless as one would have to assume that there would be no reason behind the choices people make (if there were reasons we would have rationale for the reasons, thus countering the concept that people choose irrationally). 

Again, the contentions center upon whether or not "faith" and "belief" form an irrational basis for making decisions.  The percentages you've presented presumably show numbers only and not the "reasons" those people choose to adhere to any particular religion.  Those will vary in 'explanations' for why they adhere, not the "reasons", (which implies reasoning that has not been substantiated).  Belief in a religion is not "almost an inherent trait or tendency", it's a learned one.  While humans invariably have some sort of explanation for their choices, (some apparently do not, however), these are not necessarily based upon 'reason' even if they are called "reasons".  There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make; ranging from "enlightened self-interest" to "because they felt like it".  These are not reasoned 'reasons', they constitute an irrational basis of 'excuse'.  As to this site polling for opinions, they are just that - opinions - and need not be based in rationality, (no doubt they quite often are not).  This does not impair the utility of the polling site since people often make decisions and purchases on a less than rational basis, (something which both impulse buyers and marketers are well aware of).

The standard you tout seems to be an anomaly as my simple research turns up the following:  belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence; strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof; belief that is not based on proof; belief in something that has not been proved or is not capable of being proved; unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.  Any of those is less judgmental than saying "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".  Yes, if you care to enlighten me, I am curious as to where you see that my definition weakened my arguments -- when time is convenient though so as not to muddle up this duel anymore than it is.

Variations upon the definition presented merely worsen your assertion and provide additional support to the contention QoN and I have made.  Namely, that "belief" is not based upon proof, (therefore, the logical deduction is that since belief does not have a rational basis, it has an irrational one).  I find the phrase "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence" especially telling.  It emphasizes the lack of such proof or evidence quite well and underscores why those adhering to it hide behind it professing no need to 'prove' or provide any evidence for making such claims of "faith" or "belief".  Essentially, this weakens any argument based upon belief and faith by opting out of the debate at that point of contention. 
Speaking of which, you still haven't given a definition for a "true atheist" - which was alluded to in a reply to QoN.
 

Indicating the evidence of your use of poor analogies, drawing false conclusions from them and employing circular reasoning does not constitute "ad hominem" under any definition of the term which has not been 'cherry-picked', (or conveniently reinterpreted).  Your attempt at condencension falls flat.

I thought you might take this stance when I brought up this point (baited conclusion?  It wasn't intended that way but after I typed it I did some reply predictions).  You are trying to say that you were attacking my argument and not me -- and if that were true you would be correct in that it wasn't ad hominem. 

These posted replies constitute evidence that I was countering your unsubstantiated argument and not attacking you personally, (notice the lack of name-calling and simular personal attacks on my part).  Therefore, your accusation of my using ad hominem is false.

This is not the case though as you insulted my arguments by description without giving any specific explained examples and that is an attack on the man and not the argument and you are obviously familiar enough with debate to know this.

False.  Specific counter-arguments with a reasoned, logical basis were given which were not attacking the man but, disagreeing with the man's arguments themselves.  Your own penchants notwithstanding, presumably any attack upon a man's arguments could be construed as an attack upon the man however, a man is not his arguments.  The man makes such arguments, on either a rational or irrational basis.  The central theme of this debate is whether or not "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis for choice.  I've contended that they do not and demonstrated rationally how such a conclusion was drawn.  You haven't substantiated your counter-claim during your extensive hair-splittings, (to which I'll admit going along for the ride to an extent for reasons you are free to hypothesize about as wished).

As a side note, this is a question that I am curious of and it doesn't pertain to this topic at all but to written debates in general.  Sometimes when I read back over my own words I get the idea that it comes off as sounding rude, angry, or snide where it was never typed in such a frame.  I never infer emotion into an opponents words, although I have seen others do this quite commonly (and especially if they read the others posts out loud).  What are the norms of such things if any know or experience similarities at their own words?

In general, such impressions are highly subjective and aren't necessarily representative of any emotions which may or may not have been present during the exchange.  For instance, I'd felt a low level and brief surge of exasperation while attempting to return a discussion to the main bones of contention, rather than spend significant time on tangential arguments).

[Abrupt]

Quote from: Abrupt on September 10, 2011, 05:23:34 pm:
"An action may be irrational, but a choice is invariably rational within the scope of the variables the chooser has at hand."

No iteration of the proposed "scope of the variables the chooser has at hand" was provided thus, such a conclusion is unwarrented and inconclusively vague.

Perhaps I am too close to this problem to understand the loss of communications.  I am a hobbyist programmer and 'scope' is a widely used industry term that directly conveys its meaning simply by its usage.  I suppose you are correct and that it is unfair of me to attribute such familiarity to a reader.  The problem is that I didn't realize that, until just now, and this could have been avoided had you indicated your confusion about what I meant directly, instead of concealing it in verbosity.  I never challenged you on your use of the objected definition (quote -- "Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance")) because I was possibly being too kind and wanted to make it clear to you that what you saw in one way was seen by another in an entirely different way and that you cannot alter a  local value of a variable 'globally' that has its own 'local' declaration (and again this is explaining it as a programmer might and I will concede that might be vague -- but if you understood it as I intended then I will have to confess that I am entirely unsure of your objection and meaning).

Convenience has no bearing on what the initial claim was or, wasn't, (unless you are referring instead to your convenience in cherry-picking the first claim out of several claims at the point of your entry into this debate).  Either the initial claim is constituted by the thread title, ("God is a fake"), or by the several examples of posters professing their "belief" / "faith" in the opposite view.  What you seem to be trying to slip past is your notion that I'd made the initial claim regarding "faith" & "belief" when the responses documented prior to such a secondary contention clearly show your assertion to be false.

Yes, I am saying that the initial claim in our particular debate where you said a person could "choose to be irrational".  If you object to this then why is it that the reason we are actually talking about an "initial claim" is because you accused me of making the initial claim (quote -- "If you are now contending that some unspecified "standard sociological model" supports your view, this is an initial claim and the burden of proof rests first with the one using such an unspecified model, (not with the one opposing such a claim).  In any case, the secondary claim of my opposing contention references evident human behaviour as support.").  Now please explain your contradiction in your position now as to your position earlier.

While I am somewhat previously familar with the "rational choice theory" it is not precisely the standard model you claim, (without substantiation), and it is a "theory", (as the name indicates).  Regardless, the relevant and contended phrase within the description you presented is "all choices are rational in terms of the chooser".  This phrase is a vague non sequitur in that it is an a priori assumption without proof and that it does not specify what the "terms of teh chooser" are.  Such vague "terms" may be and often are, irrational and this means that conclusions drawn from such an irrational basis are far more likely to be irrational rather than rational ones.  The second a priori assumption made in such a theory is that "choices are rational ipso facto".  This assumption does not follow, (which makes it a non sequitur and sophist).

The evidence of omission is presented by the thread itself in which a perusal will show what was stated and what was omitted.  I'm not going to repost the existing thread.  Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made.  Your continued alledging of "sinister" motives is disregarded as a red herring.

The only evidence of omission here is the evidence of your omission to show the evidence of omission. (too much of an attempt to use cute language by me?).  To steal a point you made: "Your" laziness (intentional substitution for original word 'weakness') " is not my concern; if you're going to debate this, finding appropriate references is your own responsibility".  Since I never choose to be irrational we must assume you are implying that 'this' snipping was deliberate.  While the word "sinister" is of my choosing it is done as intentional exaggeration to alert the reader that you have accused me of 'snipping' in order to lead the reader to a conclusion.  If my reason is not nefarious then why make an unfounded and empty accusation.  If I don't challenge you strongly on this point the reader may have stuck in their mind "Abrupt was snipping Falcon9's quotes -- that *bleep*", without ever realizing that no evidence was presented and even now you seem to contend that even if I had that I may not have done it for any foul reasons.

Oh, I see; you presumed we were playing 'poker' instead of debating with words here.  The analogy holds no water since you followed that implication with a 'word-gamed' counter-attack of "previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational".  Nevertheless, I am not playing poker, Trivia Pursuit, chess or any other types of 'games', (unless disabusing another of sophistry is now considered a "game").

You have just attacked an analogy of your own making with the attempts that you can attribute that analogy to me and thus somehow defeat me indirectly by defeating your own analogy  -- it will not work.  I see the chess reference, did you pick up on that Kasparov vs the world move or is it just coincidental?  The reason I was so adamant about pointing out your reading 'word games' into my use of games was specifically because of the insulting way you said it (quote -- "Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"?).  Whether or not I lack sufficient reasoning skills is up to the reader to decide.  I think that most readers, whether they agree with me or not, will conceded that I am up to the challenge (not that I am winning or losing but that I am confidently capable of presenting my rationale and thus by reason quite capable of fleshing out the pertinent matters).

I'm noting not just a tendency but, a penchant on your part for accusing others of doing what you are doing.  It's becoming a downright pattern with your arguments.  Firstly, accusing others of doing what they aren't is a deceptive tactic.  Secondly, your attempts to bog this debate down in minutia of logic will continue to fail as continuosly demonstrated already.  Thirdly, you haven't supported your inherent contention that "faith" & "belief" rely upon rational choices.  Instead, you presented a dubious "theory" containing so many holes that the bucket leaks like a sieve.

Firstly, I didn't accuse you of anything.  I presented an example of you committing a "Failure To State".  I think the only thing I have accused you of is "baiting" and the above false attribution.  One accusation (at the time of your making this accusation) is hardly a pattern.  You, on the other hand, have accused me of using faulty premises, lacking sufficient reasoning skills, trying to divert, a propensity to non sequitur, sophistry, prevarication, cherry-picking, using circular reasoning, being condescending, evading, projecting accusations, etc.  If we scattered such claims about I wonder who they would stick to the most? 

Secondly, I honestly believe it is you who is trying to bog the debate down and I will not be so bold and arrogant as to claim that I have won every point but I am quite positive I haven't continuously failed as you assert -- this is something we must leave up to the readers as our judgments will be biased. 

On your third point I must again disagree.  I have supported it indirectly by showing that virtually all aspects of our society and human nature use models that are based on rational choice theory (and there are none that are based on the opposite which would be needed for your position).  This theory is in no way dubious anymore than "relativity" is, and the use of the word 'dubious' is a desperate attempt on your part to appear as an authoritative expert on the field and additionally trying to "poison the well".  This theory is comprised of tested and reliable observations that allow for profiling to a very high degree of accuracy.  Considering the proliferation of its usage into so many aspects of our society, you must do far more to discredit it than calling it dubious (although I do like your use of poetic language with the bucket analogy).  Not to throw your accusations back at you, but I feel my support is much more respectable than yours in your claims.  As a reminder, your supporting claim was "I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention".  The fallacy you demonstrate with this is approach is known as "Begging the Question" and you are using the very point that is to be proven as reasoning for the point being true.

No, you are making a false accusation since "disproof by fallacy" relies upon reaching a conclusion in a fallacious way, which I have not done.  Your empty accusation with substantiation notwithstanding.  To reiterate my contention as a simple syllogism; many people rely upon religious faith/beliefs to form subsequent opinions and conclusions.  This basis, (faith/belief), is an irrational one since it is essentially defined as 'unprovable'. Making choices which rest upon such an irrational basis directly infers a deliberate decision to make irrational choices.

The fallacious way you are reaching the conclusion comes from your "begging the question".  You are reaching your conclusion based on using the point you are trying to prove as reasoning for the point itself (you are proposing that if people are making deliberate choices using an irrational bases that it proves people are choosing to be deliberately irrational).  You are reaching your conclusion based on a fallacy (begging the question).

Again, the contentions center upon whether or not "faith" and "belief" form an irrational basis for making decisions.  The percentages you've presented presumably show numbers only and not the "reasons" those people choose to adhere to any particular religion.  Those will vary in 'explanations' for why they adhere, not the "reasons", (which implies reasoning that has not been substantiated).  Belief in a religion is not "almost an inherent trait or tendency", it's a learned one.  While humans invariably have some sort of explanation for their choices, (some apparently do not, however), these are not necessarily based upon 'reason' even if they are called "reasons".  There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make; ranging from "enlightened self-interest" to "because they felt like it".  These are not reasoned 'reasons', they constitute an irrational basis of 'excuse'.  As to this site polling for opinions, they are just that - opinions - and need not be based in rationality, (no doubt they quite often are not).  This does not impair the utility of the polling site since people often make decisions and purchases on a less than rational basis, (something which both impulse buyers and marketers are well aware of).

No, no, no, the contentions center upon whether or not a person can choose to be irrational so don't go moving the goalpost now.  Did you just concede that people have "reasons" to adhere to a religion?  If you did then you are crediting them with choosing to be rational.  And again you state "There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make" -- which side of this argument are you arguing now? 

If someone said "The reason I am religious comes from my fear of mortality and the strain such awareness has upon my psyche.  By my belief in a religion I can satisfy this fear enough to allow me a peaceful existence -- whether it is true or not" would you say that strengthens your argument more or mine?  I hold this as strengthening mine, as the person has rationalized a reason to subscribe to a religion that satisfies the need of self preservation. 

People rationalize and even make excuses in order to find a reason to make a choice that they otherwise know is foolish.  Oftentimes the Id (the irrational part of the mind) is responsible for driving this need and these include such things as lust and impulse buying.  Nobody ever chooses to have sex with the ugly person because they find ugly people beautiful, as that would be irrational, they choose for other reasons and sometimes introduce judgement impairing tools to this end (hence phrases such as "she is a 12 packer" to describe the amount of alcohol required to...well you get the idea, "went to bed with a 10 at 2 in the morning woke up with a 2 at ten", etc).  People find a reason strong enough to choose a difficult choice when the reason they want to make is initially, to them, irrational.  People come up with reasons to do something to convince themselves to do it, they don't come up with reasons not to do something to convince themselves to do it.

Variations upon the definition presented merely worsen your assertion and provide additional support to the contention QoN and I have made.  Namely, that "belief" is not based upon proof, (therefore, the logical deduction is that since belief does not have a rational basis, it has an irrational one).  I find the phrase "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence" especially telling.  It emphasizes the lack of such proof or evidence quite well and underscores why those adhering to it hide behind it professing no need to 'prove' or provide any evidence for making such claims of "faith" or "belief".  Essentially, this weakens any argument based upon belief and faith by opting out of the debate at that point of contention. 
Speaking of which, you still haven't given a definition for a "true atheist" - which was alluded to in a reply to QoN.

Your comprehension into these definitions is falling short of your ability.  They are not equivalent.  Let us take QoN's definition "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".  This is a finalizing statement that implies proof was fully considered and when none was found it was believed anyways and this sounds more like a definition for 'delusion' than for 'faith'.  How can I imply that the fact of proof was fully considered?  It is quite simple deduction, if we know that there exists no proof of the object then we also know we fully exhausted all avenues to be able to make such a final determination.  This also implies that proof was vital to the point and when not discovered it was ignored.  The alternate definitions I gave do not rate proof as being necessary and yet they still emphasize it was a consideration.  Proof was not a requirement and therefore there was no reason to do an exhaustive search, and in fact, proof could still exists.  Even the most damning one of the alternates, "belief in something that has not been proved or is not capable of being proved" doesn't suggest that no proof exists, only that it is not capable of being demonstrated.  Your assert that since  belief is not based upon proof that the logical deduction is that belief does not have a rational basis and therefore by default it has an irrational one and this is a false dichotomy.  The truth you seem to be dodging is that belief doesn't even require proof as a consideration and therefore cannot ever qualify as irrational since proof is never a variable in the equation.

Yes I realize I haven't explained the true atheist vs the quasi atheist and that is something I would like to do when my time permits.

These posted replies constitute evidence that I was countering your unsubstantiated argument and not attacking you personally, (notice the lack of name-calling and simular personal attacks on my part).  Therefore, your accusation of my using ad hominem is false.

You did no countering of my arguments.  You attacked my character though my arguments and only mentioning my analogy as "analogy" and it was a way to anchor it to me "your" and allow you to expand on a form of a negative association at me (Quote -- "It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry)").  You are attempting to counter my argument by attacking me instead of my argument (if you tell me that the house I built is poorly constructed junk, are you attacking my house or me?).  Ad hominem does not rely on name-calling and in fact name-calling by itself is not ad hominem. 

False.  Specific counter-arguments with a reasoned, logical basis were given which were not attacking the man but, disagreeing with the man's arguments themselves.  Your own penchants notwithstanding, presumably any attack upon a man's arguments could be construed as an attack upon the man however, a man is not his arguments.  The man makes such arguments, on either a rational or irrational basis.  The central theme of this debate is whether or not "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis for choice.  I've contended that they do not and demonstrated rationally how such a conclusion was drawn.  You haven't substantiated your counter-claim during your extensive hair-splittings, (to which I'll admit going along for the ride to an extent for reasons you are free to hypothesize about as wished).

Ad hominem requires proof that the opponent is trying to make a counter by attacking the person instead of the argument.  You gave no specific counter-arguments with a reasoned, logical basis to the point I indicated (not saying you never do, just that time in particular).  I do not qualify "your analogy was poor" or " your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry)" as specific, reasoned, or logical.

In general, such impressions are highly subjective and aren't necessarily representative of any emotions which may or may not have been present during the exchange.  For instance, I'd felt a low level and brief surge of exasperation while attempting to return a discussion to the main bones of contention, rather than spend significant time on tangential arguments).

I love that last sentence you gave there, it is the 'perfect' response and one I respected so much that I waited a long time in responding to see if the thread would continue back on its correct track after my (our) derail.  My thoughts when I read it was "Damn that's one hell of a good reply".  That is definitely a sig worthy keeper and I thought about taking it for myself if I could think of a short way to incorporate it to convey the proper context.  10 out of 10.

[SurveyMack10]

I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.

Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real?  Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)?  That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.

So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.

Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim.  To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real".  That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real.  Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.

My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.

Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists.  Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist.  It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.

So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."

In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"?  These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements.  So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?

I guess I will repeat myself again. Regardless of what I believe, i did NOT come onto this thread and claim that something is true or real. I PURPOSELY did not do that. YOU, on the other hand, did come onto this thread and claim that God does not exist. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM. I cannot make what I am saying anymore clear. If you are going to respond with the exact same response as you have the last few times, then do not waste your time because it is clear that you refuse to support YOUR claim that God is not real.

Also, do not say again "you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs'that God exists." Because I purposely made sure to come on this thread and NOT claim that God's existence is a fact so that you all could not hide behind the "it's your claim you prove it" defense. Now that I have done that, you STILL refuse to prove YOUR claim that God is not real.

Also, I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of saying that I believe in something that isn't real- as it is obvious that what I said is so far from that. Attacking someone's faith is SO petty, especially all the while ignoring everything else that was said, as I am sure you will in response to this post.

[SurveyMack10]

It isn't 'knowing' God wants, it is 'faith' and they do not co-exist (well unless the second precedes the first I suppose).  According to the bible, knowing cannot save you but faith can.  While that has no value to someone who doesn't believe it is comforting to those that do.

Faith...ugh.  That's a dirty word.  You don't rely on "faith" for ANYTHING of importance in your real life...and yet you allow this compartmentalized area for irrationality when it comes to dealing with your mortality.

Actually, many people rely on faith for MANY important events in life.

[falcon9]

Quote from: Abrupt on September 10, 2011, 05:23:34 pm:

I never challenged you on your use of the objected definition (quote -- "Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance")) because I was possibly being too kind and wanted to make it clear to you that what you saw in one way was seen by another in an entirely different way  -- but if you understood it as I intended then I will have to confess that I am entirely unsure of your objection and meaning).

I suspect the real 'excuse', (not "reason"), for the failure to challenge that point was far more likely due to having to take the position that "belief" & "faith" form a rational basis, (since this would be the diametrically opposing stance).  Unfortunately, this is the tacit position you've chosen to adopt and continue failing to substantiate.

The evidence of omission is presented by the thread itself in which a perusal will show what was stated and what was omitted.  I'm not going to repost the existing thread.  Any snipping which was done was either deliberate or, as a result of an irrational choice you made.  Your continued alledging of "sinister" motives is disregarded as a red herring.

The only evidence of omission here is the evidence of your omission to show the evidence of omission. (too much of an attempt to use cute language by me?). 

Apparently, you somehow expect that by being, (or feigning to be), obstuse that it won't be noticed that you do indeed snip context in replies.  In this reply, I've snipped my own previous responses without sacrificing context -- this is in directly-observable contrast to the prior snipping you've done.  Regardless, this constitutes another tangent whose only discernable purpose is to provide substantiation for your 'debate' tactics.

Since I never choose to be irrational we must assume you are implying that 'this' snipping was deliberate. 

"We" must assume no such thing since your unsupported claim as to choosing to be irrational is inconclusive.  Further, if you are now implicitly indicating that your choice was not deliberate, please elaborate briefly on how it could have been accidental.

While the word "sinister" is of my choosing it is done as intentional exaggeration to alert the reader that you have accused me of 'snipping' in order to lead the reader to a conclusion.  If my reason is not nefarious then why make an unfounded and empty accusation.  If I don't challenge you strongly on this point the reader may have stuck in their mind "Abrupt was snipping Falcon9's quotes -- that *bleep*", without ever realizing that no evidence was presented and even now you seem to contend that even if I had that I may not have done it for any foul reasons.

I'd be speculating upon any 'excuses', (not "reasons", as that word directly implies reasoning), for your snipping and instead, referred back to the unsnipped posted replies upthread.  Surely I could have restored everything that you snipped out, however those responses are not deleted upthread and are available in threaded sequence.  These clearly show not only omissions downthread but, what was contextually-omitted.  The emphasis upon this point is that the omitted context tactic is a fairly well-known one and easily countered.


Oh, I see; you presumed we were playing 'poker' instead of debating with words here.  The analogy holds no water since you followed that implication with a 'word-gamed' counter-attack of "previous denial on calling anyone rational or irrational".  Nevertheless, I am not playing poker, Trivia Pursuit, chess or any other types of 'games', (unless disabusing another of sophistry is now considered a "game").

You have just attacked an analogy of your own making with the attempts that you can attribute that analogy to me and thus somehow defeat me indirectly by defeating your own analogy  -- it will not work. 

Reducing the above doublespeak down to the essential core in order to respond; I did not attack my own analogy since I didn't present the initial analogy.  Secondly, the denial of playing "games" was yours, (insofar as you denied playing "word games", which turns out to be a poor prevarication given that we are using words and you were playing word games with words).  Lastly, you sophist 'reasoning' above will not work because it is based upon a false premise.

The reason I was so adamant about pointing out your reading 'word games' into my use of games was specifically because of the insulting way you said it (quote -- "Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"?).  Whether or not I lack sufficient reasoning skills is up to the reader to decide.  I think that most readers, whether they agree with me or not, will conceded that I am up to the challenge (not that I am winning or losing but that I am confidently capable of presenting my rationale and thus by reason quite capable of fleshing out the pertinent matters).

"Rationale" does not equate to 'reason', (neither do excuses equate in definition with "reasons" in that excuses need not be reasoned ones but, can and often are, irrational).  While I might concede a certain degree of reasoning skills to nearly anyone, that is something that is better demonstrated than speculated upon.

Firstly, I didn't accuse you of anything.  I presented an example of you committing a "Failure To State". 

As I have shown, the example you presented did not constitute a "failure to state" under the definition of that term.  Therefore, yours was an accusation and one which you failed to substantiate.  Be that as it may, it simply adds evidence to my contention that such are mere attempts to bog down this debate in minutia.

You, on the other hand, have accused me of using faulty premises, lacking sufficient reasoning skills, trying to divert, a propensity to non sequitur, sophistry, prevarication, cherry-picking, using circular reasoning, being condescending, evading, projecting accusations, etc.  If we scattered such claims about I wonder who they would stick to the most? 

I've not only accused you of the above, I've indicated where you've presented evidence supporting those contentions in teh form of your previous replies.  A guess could be hazarded as to whom that evidence would stick to.

Secondly, I honestly believe it is you who is trying to bog the debate down and I will not be so bold and arrogant as to claim that I have won every point but I am quite positive I haven't continuously failed as you assert -- this is something we must leave up to the readers as our judgments will be biased. 

That's an amusing counter; if you're implying that I'm assisting you in bogging down the debate by countering each of your diversions and bringing the discussion back around to the premise contended, (i.e.; whether or not faith and belief are irrational or rational basis).
 

On your third point I must again disagree.  I have supported it indirectly by showing that virtually all aspects of our society and human nature use models that are based on rational choice theory (and there are none that are based on the opposite which would be needed for your position).  This theory is in no way dubious anymore than "relativity" is,  

Indirectly?  Are you also "indirectly" implying that all choices are made on a rational basis?  Are you further implying that using an irrational basis constitutes making rational choices?

This theory is comprised of tested and reliable observations that allow for profiling to a very high degree of accuracy.  Considering the proliferation of its usage into so many aspects of our society, you must do far more to discredit it than calling it dubious (although I do like your use of poetic language with the bucket analogy).  Not to throw your accusations back at you, but I feel my support is much more respectable than yours in your claims. 

It is a dubious theory not because of what it partially accounts for but, because of what it does not - the irrational choices people do make using irrational basis.  My 'theory', (not presented as one but, let's presume it was), is supported by an enormous volume of evidence of examples of people making irrational decisions.  If you are not implicitly contending that those people are making irrational decisions stemming from a rational basis, we can discuss that.  Again, equating excuses with reasoning is a false premise.

As a reminder, your supporting claim was "I've substantiated my counter-assertion nevertheless; if people are making deliberate choices using the irrational basis of "belief" & "faith", and they are, then they are providing the evidence which supports my contention".  The fallacy you demonstrate with this is approach is known as "Begging the Question" and you are using the very point that is to be proven as reasoning for the point being true.

No, I'm using the evidence of people making irrational choices stemming from an irrational basis as substantiation for my assertion.  People first made their irrational choices thus prompting me to form a theory as to why this is occurring.  It is not "begging the question" since were the assertion inverted, (people are not making irrational choices deliberately using an irrational basis), it would be false.

[Speaking of verboscity, we've exceeded the 20,000 character limit here and part II follows with the remainder of the exchange]

[falcon9]

No, you are making a false accusation since "disproof by fallacy" relies upon reaching a conclusion in a fallacious way, which I have not done.  Your empty accusation with substantiation notwithstanding.  To reiterate my contention as a simple syllogism; many people rely upon religious faith/beliefs to form subsequent opinions and conclusions.  This basis, (faith/belief), is an irrational one since it is essentially defined as 'unprovable'. Making choices which rest upon such an irrational basis directly infers a deliberate decision to make irrational choices.

The fallacious way you are reaching the conclusion comes from your "begging the question". 

Since I wasn't begging the question, (merely because you insist that I was, sans reasoning), the your conclusion is fallacious.  Characterizing my syllogism as begging the question, (or, circular reasoning), is dishonest since no aspect of that syllogism was contended except the conclusion.  Since the premise of the syllogism did not contain the conclusion, it does not represent begging the question/circular reasoning.

You are reaching your conclusion based on using the point you are trying to prove as reasoning for the point itself (you are proposing that if people are making deliberate choices using an irrational bases that it proves people are choosing to be deliberately irrational).  You are reaching your conclusion based on a fallacy (begging the question).

As stated above, (unless you snip the context in response), since the premise of the syllogism did not contain the conclusion, it does not represent begging the question/circular reasoning.

"Again, the contentions center upon whether or not "faith" and "belief" form an irrational basis for making decisions.  The percentages you've presented presumably show numbers only and not the "reasons" those people choose to adhere to any particular religion.  Those will vary in 'explanations' for why they adhere, not the "reasons", (which implies reasoning that has not been substantiated).  Belief in a religion is not "almost an inherent trait or tendency", it's a learned one.  While humans invariably have some sort of explanation for their choices, (some apparently do not, however), these are not necessarily based upon 'reason' even if they are called "reasons".  There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make; ranging from "enlightened self-interest" to "because they felt like it".  These are not reasoned 'reasons', they constitute an irrational basis of 'excuse'."

No, no, no, the contentions center upon whether or not a person can choose to be irrational so don't go moving the goalpost now. 

The goalposts are where they have been throughout this debate.  Are you now implicitly suggesting thatpeople who use an irrational basis for making decisions are choosing rationally?  What, they are rationally choosing to be irrational?

Did you just concede that people have "reasons" to adhere to a religion?  If you did then you are crediting them with choosing to be rational.

No, I am contending that evidence indicates those people are using excuses and rationales, (not reasoned reasons), for adhering to religions; namely those of "faith" & "belief".  Using those irrational basis to choose to 'believe' or 'have faith' in such religions is not rational since is does not rely upon reasoning.

And again you state "There are 'rationales' available to explain the irrational choices some people make" -- which side of this argument are you arguing now?

Again, "rationales", "excuses", 'blind faith' etc. are not equivalent to reasoning and therefore, having reasoned reasons.

If someone said "The reason I am religious comes from my fear of mortality and the strain such awareness has upon my psyche.  By my belief in a religion I can satisfy this fear enough to allow me a peaceful existence -- whether it is true or not" would you say that strengthens your argument more or mine?  I hold this as strengthening mine, as the person has rationalized a reason to subscribe to a religion that satisfies the need of self preservation. 

Again, "rationales", "excuses", 'blind faith' etc. are not equivalent to reasoning and therefore, having reasoned reasons.


People rationalize and even make excuses in order to find a reason to make a choice that they otherwise know is foolish.

Slow your roll there, bud.  Those same people may not know their choice is foolish or irrational or, they do and choose it anyway.

Nobody ever chooses to have sex with the ugly person because they find ugly people beautiful, as that would be irrational, they choose for other reasons and sometimes introduce judgement impairing tools to this end (hence phrases such as "she is a 12 packer" to describe the amount of alcohol required to...well you get the idea, "went to bed with a 10 at 2 in the morning woke up with a 2 at ten", etc).  People find a reason strong enough to choose a difficult choice when the reason they want to make is initially, to them, irrational.  People come up with reasons to do something to convince themselves to do it, they don't come up with reasons not to do something to convince themselves to do it.

Finding a "reason", (in this context, an _excuse_), for doing something irrational is not the same as using logical reasoning to arrive at that same decsion choice as you seem to be implying.

Variations upon the definition presented merely worsen your assertion and provide additional support to the contention QoN and I have made.  Namely, that "belief" is not based upon proof, (therefore, the logical deduction is that since belief does not have a rational basis, it has an irrational one).  I find the phrase "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence" especially telling.  It emphasizes the lack of such proof or evidence quite well and underscores why those adhering to it hide behind it professing no need to 'prove' or provide any evidence for making such claims of "faith" or "belief".  Essentially, this weakens any argument based upon belief and faith by opting out of the debate at that point of contention. 
Speaking of which, you still haven't given a definition for a "true atheist" - which was alluded to in a reply to QoN.

Your comprehension into these definitions is falling short of your ability.  They are not equivalent. 

No, the variations are intended to broaden the basis of defining the meaning of a term. One aspect of the definition does not negate another aspect of it and equivalency doesn't apply.

Let us take QoN's definition "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".  This is a finalizing statement that implies proof was fully considered and when none was found it was believed anyways and this sounds more like a definition for 'delusion' than for 'faith'.

The above is a false interpretation of the definition. It does not imply nor state that proof was fully considered. It directly inplies that no proof was offered to consider.  This is the essence of the definition.  If any proofs are offered, it would change the meaning of the term(s).
[snip Abrupt's begging the question; circular reasoning available in previous post]

Your assert that since  belief is not based upon proof that the logical deduction is that belief does not have a rational basis and therefore by default it has an irrational one and this is a false dichotomy.

If the dichotomy were false, the alternative would be that "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis.  Is this your tacit claim?

The truth you seem to be dodging is that belief doesn't even require proof as a consideration and therefore cannot ever qualify as irrational since proof is never a variable in the equation.

Proof in this context, as in having a logically reasoned basis for faith & belief, remains lacking.  I've not dodged this point throughout this debate, contrary to your prior responses.  The dichotomy becomes 'faith/belief' is a rational basis since it is not an irrational one'.


Yes I realize I haven't explained the true atheist vs the quasi atheist and that is something I would like to do when my time permits.

These posted replies constitute evidence that I was countering your unsubstantiated argument and not attacking you personally, (notice the lack of name-calling and simular personal attacks on my part).  Therefore, your accusation of my using ad hominem is false.

You did no countering of my arguments.

This entire exchange belies your bland denial without supporting your contention.  You may not perceive the counters as counters however, your perception is as subjective as anyone else's.  Either the arguments were countered by my counter-arguments, (as substantiated by reading this thread), or they were not ... as claimed by your opinion?

You attacked my character though my arguments and only mentioning my analogy as "analogy" and it was a way to anchor it to me "your" and allow you to expand on a form of a negative association at me

False.  Specific counter-arguments with a reasoned, logical basis were given which were not attacking the man but, disagreeing with the man's arguments themselves.  Your own penchants notwithstanding, presumably any attack upon a man's arguments could be construed as an attack upon the man however, a man is not his arguments.  The man makes such arguments, on either a rational or irrational basis.

(Quote "It therefore lacked merit and relevancy to the discussion other than to emphasize your circular "reasoning", (which was not so much reasoning, per se, as it was diluted sophistry)").

You are attempting to counter my argument by attacking me instead of my argument (if you tell me that the house I built is poorly constructed junk, are you attacking my house or me?).  Ad hominem does not rely on name-calling and in fact name-calling by itself is not ad hominem.

No, I referenced your use of circular reasoning and sophistry, (as opposed to calling you a 'dirty sophist-circular-reasoner').  This was presented as evidential and not an ad hominem.[/quote]

The central theme of this debate is whether or not "faith" & "belief" form a rational basis for choice.  I've contended that they do not and demonstrated rationally how such a conclusion was drawn.  You haven't substantiated your counter-claim during your extensive hair-splittings, (to which I'll admit going along for the ride to an extent for reasons you are free to hypothesize about as wished).

I love that last sentence you gave there, it is the 'perfect' response and one I respected so much that I waited a long time in responding to see if the thread would continue back on its correct track after my (our) derail.  My thoughts when I read it was "Damn that's one hell of a good reply".  That is definitely a sig worthy keeper and I thought about taking it for myself if I could think of a short way to incorporate it to convey the proper context.  10 out of 10.

I intentionally snipped the context to which you were replying to emphasize a prior point.  Summarily, the gist of our debate rests upon the opposing contentions that:
'religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are a rational basis for choice' -- Abrupt
'religious adherents rely upon faith/belief which are an irrational basis for choice' - falcon9

[falcon9]

I will say this AGAIN. My beliefs aside, I did NOT come onto this thread and say "GOD IS REAL". Saying I believe something is not claiming it as fact.

Are you now directly implying that you believe in something that isn't real?  Further, that stating a belief is not making a claim, (whether or not such a claim is factual or, false)?  That would be astounding, were it not a typical dodge.

So, if you claim that you did not state "God is not real", this whoever did state that can be the one to prove that claim.

Were you to go back through this thread topic, you'd also be able to confirm that I made no such claim.  To reiterate your claim, (and phrasing that claim as a "belief" does not alter the accurate meaning of a 'claim' just because you use a synonym), that was a "belief that god is real".  That claim was made _prior_ to any subsequent claims that god is not real.  Therefore, as the initial claim was yours, (again, the a priori assumption that you were not conversely alluding that your belief was in something that doesn't exist), the burden of substantiating your initial claim falls upon you before any other claims get a turn.

My point is, I am not the one making a claim, those of you stating that God is not real are the ones making the claim. So since when a Christian claims God is real they are told to prove it, then claiming he is not real should warrant the same response- prove it.

Once again, you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that god exists.  Obviously, you remain unable to substantiate your claim and continue insisting that others "prove" their derivative claims that god doesn't exist.  It is a logical fallacy to require proof of a negative.

So no, these are not diversionary counter-attacks, this is me simply explaining what I have been saying the entire time and you have been ignoring and repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that I believe in God, I am just saying that I am not claiming that his existence is a fact as you are with his nonexistence. So, prove your "fact."

In summation then, you are directly implying that your belief is in something which does not exist, since you are not claiming such an existance as "fact"?  These are not 'words put into your mouth', they are the logical conclusions stemming directly from your vague statements.  So, which is it; a statement of belief claiming the existance of god or, a statement of belief in a nonexistent god?

I guess I will repeat myself again. Regardless of what I believe, i did NOT come onto this thread and claim that something is true or real.

So, you are instead claiming to believe in something that is false or unreal?

[/quote]
I PURPOSELY did not do that. YOU, on the other hand, did come onto this thread and claim that God does not exist. YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM.[/quote]

Please quote the portion of this thread where I made such a claim, in my own words.  Thank you in advance.


[/quote]
Also, do not say again "you and others made the initial claim stating your 'beliefs' that God exists."[/quote]

Again, are you now implying that your belief are in something which is nonexistent?

[/quote]
Because I purposely made sure to come on this thread and NOT claim that God's existence is a fact so that you all could not hide behind the "it's your claim you prove it" defense. Now that I have done that, you STILL refuse to prove YOUR claim that God is not real.

Since I never made such a claim, perhaps it's a bit like your not claiming something factually exists.

Also, I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of saying that I believe in something that isn't real- as it is obvious that what I said is so far from that. Attacking someone's faith is SO petty, especially all the while ignoring everything else that was said, as I am sure you will in response to this post.[/quote]

Then you've contradicted yourself within this post alone.  Either what you say you believe in is real or, it isn't.  If it is, then you are making the initial claim of believing that it is real.  If it is not, then you are the one making the tacit claim to believe in something that isn't real.  I merely asked you to clarify your somewhat contradictory position in this regard.  I won't however, be holding my breath waiting.

[BrittaJo14]

Haha As soon as I read this topic, I knew it would be one that would really get everyone on here going. I love topics like these, to see everyone debate and discuss. It's like we can all give out our opinions and our opinions about other peoples opinions and no one really cares. That's just what we do on here, and I actually think it's great. (Except sometimes) Some of you take it way out of hand.