I didn’t ask that question perla. So you still haven’t answered my thought provoking questions as you promised. So much for your promises.

Well books about logic won’t help me come to your system of beliefs, because your not using logic, just religion.

I assume the last paragraphs are terms from the book you are misusing.

Also you do not think in absolutes except when it comes to your religon. The only absolute you’ve shown is only and everything through your interpretation of the bible. Which means everything else falls into question.

Not only that, but the bible verses you do use to make your case, don’t even make your case! Thats one of the problems with using the bible to judge everything, its language is so antiquated, contradictory, and unclear that it can be twisted or otherwise made to say lots of things.

Like how many religious people use to twist the bible to justify slavery.

@nathian
logical fallacies,
The total of his logic has been.. No trueth except from the bible. - Truths don’t contradict themselves. But the bible does.

Perla dismissed the logic I used by asserting something without substance- He asserted that I needed a final authority to make any claim. Avoiding actually replying to any of my arguements.

I understand this broad generalization to mean you need a bible to verify anything.  If I claimed X book had 60 pages, or that cars run on gasoline, I guess I would be in error of this assertion because I need a final authority (IE the bible) to verify this.  The bible has plenty it doesn’t talk about, like globel warming, orange juice and engines. Which means it can’t be used for everthing so the assertion it should be use for everything is wrong because its not possible.

This interpretation is correct because I said so.
Well if you say so.. there is no counter to this arguement. It is a flawed arguement.

As far as all threads in this forum being about logic fallaces.. its easy enough to pick apart the claims of another from a thread link.

I mean if they were all just hypothetical logics, not actual controversial subjects where your impugning the logic of people not even there.

Take this thread, its a strawman arguement from the get go. Spenser spoke for a generalized group opposed to his POV. He put words in their mouth, then went to find flaws in the arguements spenser himself put up.

What is the harm of debate? Isn’t that the best way to practice both using good logic and finding & impugning failed logic?

TruePurple wrote:

I didn’t ask that question perla. So you still haven’t answered my thought provoking questions as you promised. So much for your promises.

Well books about logic won’t help me come to your system of beliefs, because your not using logic, just religion.

This is a false dichotomy.  Logic and ‘religion’ are not necessarily divorced.  Perla may not be thinking through her religious views to their logical conclusions but that doesn’t mean she’s “not using logic, just religion.”

On a semmantic level alone, that you were able to understand enough of what she said to distinguish her religious views from her logic (or lack thereof) means that there is some logic inherent in her writing.

Also you do not think in absolutes except when it comes to your religon. The only absolute you’ve shown is only and everything through your interpretation of the bible. Which means everything else falls into question.

This is a strawman fallacy.  You’ve assumed she does not think in absolutes except about her religion and then proceeded to knock that assumption down.

Thats one of the problems with using the bible to judge everything, its language is so antiquated, contradictory, and unclear that it can be twisted or otherwise made to say lots of things.

Perhaps we should ask Perla if she subscribes to the Antiochene, or Alexandrian schools of interpretation?  Or perhaps Brian or Nathaniel wouldn’t mind parsing the Greek and Hebrew in Perla’s choice of Scripture.  There we’ll find the nuances that aren’t necessarily brought out in English translations.

The total of his logic has been.. No trueth except from the bible. - Truths don’t contradict themselves. But the bible does.

Perla uses Scripture as the first, and final authority in her reasoning, yes.  Would you expect her to do otherwise?  Is it necessary for a believer to step away from the context of their beliefs in order to demonstrate to an unbeliever that they are credible?  What do you want from Perla?

He asserted that I needed a final authority to make any claim.

At some point, you will have to rest on some authority as your final measure: you, Scripture, an accumulation of scientific data, pure logic, etc.  Perla’s not doing any differently.  She just makes it known upfront.

I understand this broad generalization to mean you need a bible to verify anything. If I claimed X book had 60 pages, or that cars run on gasoline, I guess I would be in error of this assertion because I need a final authority (IE the bible) to verify this.  The bible has plenty it doesn’t talk about, like globel warming, orange juice and engines. Which means it can’t be used for everthing so the assertion it should be use for everything is wrong because its not possible.

You’re mocking now.  Assume the best of people instead.  Perhaps adopt a familiar dictum, “All things in the Bible are true, but not everything that is true is in the bible” (Sir Arthur F. Holmes).  And if because you don’t believe Scripture, or Christian testimony, then at least have the decency to not assume negative motivations such as solo scriptura (only the bible and nothing else).

As far as all threads in this forum being about logic fallaces.. its easy enough to pick apart the claims of another from a thread link.

Then do that.  That’s what this forum is about: Logic.  No-one here is intimidated by improvement.

I mean if they were all just hypothetical logics, not actual controversial subjects where your impugning the logic of people not even there.

This sentence doesn’t make sense.  Could you unpack what you’re trying to get at here, please?

Take this thread, its a strawman arguement from the get go. Spenser spoke for a generalized group opposed to his POV. He put words in their mouth, then went to find flaws in the arguements spenser himself put up.

I believe what he did was cite some examples of pro-choice arguments, and asked for people to point out the flaws.  That is not setting up a strawman; it is making a case study.

What is the harm of debate? Isn’t that the best way to practice both using good logic and finding & impugning failed logic?

There’s nothing wrong with debate.  There are a couple of us here that are quite good, even intimidatingly good at it (I don’t include myself here).  And yes, as long as both people agree to the formality of a debate proper there is nothing wrong with it.  It is a fantastic way to parse the logic of the contenders.

Are you desiring a debate on this topic?

“Your logic fails in assuming authority is needed to define this issue. I assume as a irrational way to bring god into it. I asked these thought provoking questions to anyone who wishes to debate the matter. Your answer is for you to decide. (free will and all that)”

If God does not need to be brought into this issue, and we can all decide for ourselves whether or not abortion is murder, what’s stopping me from deciding for myself whether shooting a man on the street is murder or not? Is it alright to take a gun to a severely retarded person because they’re not “sentient?”

No, I am not setting up a straw man by presenting those pro-abortion arguments. Both of them are what I have heard from pro-abortion supporters. They weren’t meant to represent all pro-abortion supporters.

“Well books about logic won’t help me come to your system of beliefs, because your not using logic, just religion.

I assume the last paragraphs are terms from the book you are misusing.

Also you do not think in absolutes except when it comes to your religion. The only absolute you’ve shown is only and everything through your interpretation of the bible. Which means everything else falls into question.

Not only that, but the bible verses you do use to make your case, don’t even make your case! Thats one of the problems with using the bible to judge everything, its language is so antiquated, contradictory, and unclear that it can be twisted or otherwise made to say lots of things.”

And you are also using your humanistic religion, TruePurple, to interpret this issue. No one approaches this issue without their “religion.”

The Bible makes the case against abortion—if the baby in the womb is a living person. Murder is forbidden, of course, and if the baby in the womb is a living person, then it is wrong.

Christopher:
Logic and ‘religion’ are not necessarily divorced.

No they are not, but when someones total arguement boils down to, “because my religion told me so” then there is only religion, not logic.

Me:
Also you do not think in absolutes except when it comes to your religon.

Christopher:
This is a strawman fallacy.  You’ve assumed she does not think in absolutes except about her religion and then proceeded to knock that assumption down.

I guess I over generalized, I can’t speak to what she does elsewhere, but in this conversation shes only spoken in absolutes in referance to religion and treated everything else as insubstansive..

For example, I said

Me:
A brain is a complex bundle ?of nerves.

&

Me:
Without a single nerve, we have no mind

To which, Perla basically said I need a bible to know something like the brain is a complex bundle of nerves. If she needs the bible to verify something like this, then she needs the bible to verify that her car runs on gas and not a magic white bunny given to us by god. Or that the world is round and not flat.

I’m extrapulating out her generalized dismissal of my basic facts based on me not having read it in the bible to its logical conclusion if applied over a broad spectrum of similar things. (that a brain is a complex bunch of nerves is just as established a fact as that a car runs on gasoline or that the world is round)

She also called into question all common scientific knowledge in the same way which is even more reason to assume she would use the same “logic” for everthing.

If she just selectively applies her “well you don’t know that because you didn’t read it in the bible” arguement for when arguing against a POV she doesn’t like, then this is even more flawed.

Hypothetical logics:
The Fallacy of Informal Fallacies & What Fallacy Is This?

Controversial subjects where your impugning the logic of people not even there:
A whole buffet full of fallacies & this thread, except its more of a strawman arguement here.

Christopher:
I believe what he did was cite some examples of pro-choice arguments, and asked for people to point out the flaws.  That is not setting up a strawman; it is making a case study.

Naw, he did not accurately represent prochoice arguement. Yet did speak in a generalized way that implied that, that was the prochoice arguement.

Now if spenser said X specific person said this, then dismantled it. It wouldn’t be strawman. Assuming it wasn’t taken out of context & the person actually said it.

Christopher:
here’s nothing wrong with debate.  There are a couple of us here that are quite good, even intimidatingly good at it (I don’t include myself here).  And yes, as long as both people agree to the formality of a debate proper there is nothing wrong with it.  It is a fantastic way to parse the logic of the contenders.

Are you desiring a debate on this topic?

Sure, why not. I enjoy a good debate. But it sounded like Nathaniel didn’t want any debates. Just debates over debating method.. (which you need a debate to discuss debating method. It can get a bit confusing, discussing a discussion, assuming the layer even stopped there)

I need to go for now, I’ll properly read and reply to Spenser latter.

TruePurple wrote:

No they are not, but when someones total arguement boils down to, “because my religion told me so” then there is only religion, not logic.

Right.  I understand.  But be sure to understand that the sword cuts the other way, too: because my understanding of logic told me so” undercuts the possibility of the other ‘fuzzier’ parts of life (religion, philosophy, psychology) being in any way informative.

I guess I over generalized, I can’t speak to what she does elsewhere, but in this conversation shes only spoken in absolutes in referance to religion and treated everything else as insubstansive.

This may also have to do with a language barrier.  If I understand correctly from Perla’s profile, her first language is not English, but Spanish.  She may just not be proficient enough with the English language to convey the depth of her understanding in a way that satisfies the limits of your critical capabilities.  Do you think that’s a probability?

...Perla basically said I need a bible to know something like the brain is a complex bundle of nerves. If she needs the bible to verify something like this, then she needs the bible to verify that her car runs on gas and not a magic white bunny given to us by god. Or that the world is round and not flat.

I think I understand your contention, and I can appreciate your frustration.  In all this, however, it behooves anyone on this board to use logic as a tool, and to wield it with a hand of humility.  So saying, where you and I can agree that not all valid information is only biblical information, other people may not have arrived at that conviction.  Patience and willingness to teach are good handmaids at this point.

She also called into question all common scientific knowledge in the same way which is even more reason to assume she would use the same “logic” for everthing.

I call into question a lot of scientific knowledge, too.  I don’t know what Perla’s reasons are for doing so, but I can tell you upfront that my reasons are mainly political, and a distrust for corporately-funded information.

Sure, why not. I enjoy a good debate. But it sounded like Nathaniel didn’t want any debates. Just debates over debating method.. (which you need a debate to discuss debating method. It can get a bit confusing, discussing a discussion, assuming the layer even stopped there)

Well, if Nathaniel doesn’t want a debate, then we won’t debate.  I can respect that.  In any case, there is plenty to talk about concerning debating that doesn’t need a debate to talk about.  For example, a discussion on the relevance of semmantics would not necessarily require a debate, but would be informative and flesh out a valid aspect of debating.

Take care,
Christopher

...Perla basically said I need a bible to know something like the brain is a complex bundle of nerves. If she needs the bible to verify something like this, then she needs the bible to verify that her car runs on gas and not a magic white bunny given to us by god. Or that the world is round and not flat.

True Purple:?

I never said and never basically said that I need the Bible to know particular issues as if ?the brain is a complex bundle of nerves or wherever way you call it and the rest things ?you mention.?

You are assuming that because I did not answer your little attack on not important things, ?then I agree with all that, and I don’t.  I just did not answer each of your lines because ?some of then fall in ridiculous examples.?

Look, listen to me, I will tell you what I said:?

I said that abortion (from the very moment of conception) is murder. My definition of ?human life is not based in your “neurological definition of life”. It is based in my System ?of Believes, where the Bible has a principal place as origin and source for True. Tell me ?please; where in my reasoning, my conclusion of abortion being murder is wrong? Where ?is the mistake in my reasoning?.?

Now, I never contradict your statement; I never told you that you are wrong; I asked your ?authority (How do you know that your definition of human life is correct) and the way ?you find your conclusion. ?

You spend many times evading the questions, attacking and falling in silly exaggerations ?but in the middle of the confusion I saw that you based some of your ideas in common knowledge ?and some scientist ideas (not in science as a general but in some particular scientist’s ?ideas. There are doctors and scientists that do not share your opinion about ?human life).?

So, let me tell you some facts about common knowledge:?

The common knowledge in my country is different than the common knowledge in USA ?and in Middle East. The common knowledge of the young people is different from the ?common knowledge of older people, and the common knowledge in this generation is ?different from the common knowledge 200 years ago. The common knowledge is not ?very common.?

Science, well, right now the “science” tells you that there is not brain activity in the first ?days of gestation. Are you 100% sure that in 1, 2 or 10 years the definition of brain ?activity and the advance of methods to measure such brain activity will be the same?  Can ?you answer yes or not to this question?? Do you think is wise to based a decision (o promote it) of destroy a “bunches of cells” in such changeable ?knowledge?? I don’t.But this is my oppinion, I am not asking you to follow my oppinion, I just whan to show you how wick is the the place where you are building your reasoning in this matter.

Just for your information:

I do not use the Bible as source of the information for everything (you exaggerate), but I ?do use the Bible as source of All True. The concept of life is basic, and ?only the Creator of life can tell me for sure when there is human life or not.?

If we are talking about transportation, orange juice or bunny rabbits probable I will not mention the Bible, but we are not talking about this things. Do we?

I never said and never basically said that I need the Bible to know particular issues as if ?the brain is a complex bundle of nerves or wherever way you call it and the rest things ?you mention.

Yes you did. I made no assumptions there. By saying none of those statements are substansive without biblical reference (or having god speak down from the heavens) you said we need the bible to know such things.

With your extreme generalization of my whole argument and call for authority thats exactly what you did.

I just did not answer each of your lines because ?some of then fall in ridiculous examples.

You judging X to be absurd is no excuse for completely ignoring everything point I made.

Basically, I made a arguement. You ignored it all and said “any of that in the bible?

Maybe you should have spoken to my points instead if you want to actually converse with me (rather then talk at me like you have been doing) Would you like it if I just called everything you said ridiculous and left it at that? Maybe if you actually talked with me you’d have seen the points I was making. If you don’t understand something I said, you could ask me.

I did not answer your little attack on not important things, ?then I agree with all that, and I don’t.

Sorry, the poor grammer in this coupled with extreme vagueness makes this too incomprehensible. 

Tell me ?please; where in my reasoning, my conclusion of abortion being murder is wrong?

Faith does not equal reason. Nor is it a equal substitute.

Fallacy, over generalizing:
Even if you deemed “some of it to be absurd” you could have responded to at least a few of my points/questions. Instead you extremely generalized my whole argument, striping it down to the point where I might have not made any points at all and the conversation could have been exactly the same.

Fallacy, not using any logic:
Your total case has been a few biblical quotes that don’t even make your case on a faith bases.

Your “attack” on on the semantics of “common scientific knowledge” just justifies my belief that you would be glad to believe the earth is flat and cars run on magic bunnies given by god without the bible saying otherwise. Which makes any debate with you useless since debate requires logic.

There are some things that are simply known. Thats what I call “common scientific knowledge” Stating that some people live in ignorancy of things like the earth being round does not demonstrate that there is no such thing as common scientific knowledge.

Are you 100% sure that in 1, 2 or 10 years the definition of brain ?activity and the advance of methods to measure such brain activity will be the same?

I can be as sure as I can be about anything that no time in the future will science disover brain activity without a brain or even a nervous system(or even a single nerve) As sure as I can be of them not finding brain activity in apples. 

If we are talking about transportation, orange juice or bunny rabbits probable I will not mention the Bible, but we are not talking about this things. Do we?

You once again avoid my points. Avoiding/sidestepping a argument is not the same as disputing it.

Maybe Christopher is right,(paraphrasing and extrapulating here) that your english isn’t good enough for us to have this conversation.

Maybe Christopher is right,(paraphrasing and extrapulating here) that your english isn’t good enough for us to have this conversation.

Hello:?

Sorry my English is not good enough for you “level of wisdom”.?

Bye bye ?

Actually, your english might not be good enough for basic listening, but then that just might be a lack of effort exerted.

TruePurple wrote:

Maybe Christopher is right,(paraphrasing and extrapulating here) that your english isn’t good enough for us to have this conversation.

TruePurple, it behooves you to make a more concerted effort to understand a person whose first language is not English.  I’m sure Perla would be more gracious about your use of Spanish were you to try to write to her in her first language.

That being said, a language barrier should not be an object of scorn, nor should it provide anyone with the excuse to condescend.  The only reason I pointed out to you, TruePurple, that Perla’s English might not be communicating efficiently to you is because I wanted you to take a more merciful view of her communication.  I certainly never expected you, or thought you would use it as a means of brushing Perla off.

I’m sorry Perla that TruePurple misconstrued my intention in pointing out your English skills.  I was hoping that by doing so, he would make a better effort to understand you, and help your efforts along.