thehomer:

And of what relevance is Socrates to this discussion?*1


Can you tell me what Person B believes?
And is this belief different from not believing that fire will harm him?*2


Critical thinking is different from free-thinking.*3


That was not an explanation. That was a claim please read what you posted again. My request was for your evidence backing up that claim. Do you have any?*4

*1 >>> his status as the symbol of critical thinking and my consequent satire directed against your stance that atheism is the conclusion of free-thinking

*2 >>> you appear to circumlocute here >>> I have said b4 Person B believes that fire does not harm; and that this is what he explicates 

>>> This is of course apparently different from not believing that fire harms (a redundant position I must add)

*3 >>> I agree >>> but I want to see you define both critical and free-thinking

* 4 >>> I made a mistake in that post >>> I meant comment #112 point 3 >>> here it is (my explanation)

*3 >>> the Wiki article you posted concerns propositions, truth values, or semantic values >>> beliefs whilst related to them is more_shall i say_ insidious

for example, beliefs can violate the basic logical law of non-contradiction, a person can believe 2 mutually opposing views * consider 'double think',  'cognitive dissonance', 'schizophrenia' e.t.c* >>> like faith, it is tricky to define belief >>> this doesn't apply as such to propositions, truth values, or semantic values all of which can be rigidly defined and explicated

thehomer:

I never said it equated to free-thinking. Free-thinking is the application of reason to basically any opinion. I already pointed out that someone who chooses not to apply reason to their religious beliefs or other superstitious beliefs is not thinking freely on such topics but relying on dogma, poor evidence etc.
*1

No they are not good examples or analogies because the law still works the same way. Those are models based on reality. Not fantasy, not imagination but reality. So it would not work differently simply because you do not understand it*2


Imaginative genius does not warrant a person choosing to escape to fantasy when interactions of real objects are being considered.*3


No. Truth is not relative to what you know, what you know as true is dependent on what the truth actually is. Or do you wish to state what truth is relative to and what you actually mean by that turn of phrase?*4


I see no reason why I should because it does not have anyone surviving such an impact. You also need to take note of the mortality rates after certain heights.*5


Are you serious? You actually want me to scour the web looking for a machine that you made up in your fantasy? Get real. If you know of such a machine prior to 2011, please present it or you can also admit that this fantasy machine of yours is simply that. A fantasy.*6


It is based on the truth that A = A. For you to properly disagree, you will need to demonstrate that A = ~A.*7


I have given you several reasons. You simply need to do something more than bringing fantasy mechanics and machines to discussions on this universe. If you have noticed anything wrong with my stance or presentation, you're free to raise it.*8


I don't see how that discussion ended inconclusively.*9

*1 >>> on the contrary, this is what I extrapolated from your statement in comment #8 

I think Atheism is the final conclusion of critical thinking

>>> does this apply to superstitious atheists ? >>> what is the definition of the term, reason, in this instance ? >>> What of contexts (especially in science) when dogma or poor evidence is applied ?  >>> is free-thinking violated ?

*2 >>> there appears to be an error here: the aforementioned laws work the same way yet we can explain them 
in ways that differ from actuality >>> how is such possible ? 

and why will someone understand such a law in a way different from what is factual ?

*3 >>> this couldn't be more invidious >>> and with what do we view such 'real' objects ? >>> and aside from what is based in reality, upon what is fantasy discovered ? 

Imaginative genius also involves escaping to fantasy >>> and this is a picturesque  part the vista of free-thinking and what mankind has accrued from it 

*consider how much we learn from fictional stories and metaphysical claims and consider scientific theories/technological feats previously framed unworkable*

*4 >>> let us consider your statement 

what you know as true is dependent on what the truth actually is.

this is, in part, why i conclude truth and knowledge are relatively absolute (i.e certain/absolute wrt to what we do not know about truth itself) and absolutely relative (i.e certainly/absolutely bounded by the fact that we can never fully know the truth)

we are like the 7 blind men reckoning (using thought and all its constituents) an elephant (which symbolizes our reality, this reality_there might be another reality different or similar to ours)

* 5 >>> then evaluate the peculiar case of Alan Magee >>> so what of those mortality rates ! it simply is not definitive when I consider the exceptions that can, and have occurred 

* 6 >>> I simply considered otherwise >>> you should be pleased - I am questioning a phenomena (in this case, death by decapitation) >>> this can lead to the discovery of yet another truth which would remain hidden had I not effected free-thinking

now type the words survive, and beheading, in Google and see how real,  real is 

*7 >>> so you affect to shift grounds ! >>> what does an identity statement have with the subject of truth ! >>> clarify what you want me to demonstrate yet again 

Note that you said I should consider the statement : A=A is true (a truth statement) 

This is takes on the appearance of the petitio principii fallacy >>> I surmise this because you say that the statement A=A is true is based on the truth that A=A 

*8 >>> several reasons that weren't good enough >>> your talk of fantasy is much inconclusive, for all we know such mechanics might be available- or at least possible

*9 >>> ehn ! enlighten me with the conclusion you saw

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> his status as the symbol of critical thinking and my consequent satire directed against your stance that atheism is the conclusion of free-thinking

After you've made this statement, why do you still not see that this is a fallacy? Please read these links.
Fallacy of Irrelevant conclusion
Genetic fallacy

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> you appear to circumlocute here >>> I have said b4 Person B believes that fire does not harm; and that this is what he explicates 

>>> This is of course apparently different from not believing that fire harms (a redundant position I must add)

What is the difference? If it is redundant, this would imply that the two positions are the same. This is yet another contradiction in your position.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> I agree >>> but I want to see you define both critical and free-thinking

I have shown what I mean by free-thinking. It is right there in my quote in your last post on the first line.
For critical thinking, see here Critical thinking

Uyi Iredia:

* 4 >>> I made a mistake in that post >>> I meant comment #112 point 3 >>> here it is (my explanation)

That is still not evidence demonstrating a confusion on my part between belief and truth.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> on the contrary, this is what I extrapolated from your statement in comment #8

One leads to the other does not mean that one is equal to another.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> does this apply to superstitious atheists ? >>> what is the definition of the term, reason, in this instance ? >>> What of contexts (especially in science) when dogma or poor evidence is applied ?  >>> is free-thinking violated ?

Yes it does because they simply choose to place some phenomena beyond rational thinking. By reason, I mean logical thinking.
Can you give examples in science where this occurs?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> there appears to be an error here: the aforementioned laws work the same way yet we can explain them 
in ways that differ from actuality >>> how is such possible ? 

and why will someone understand such a law in a way different from what is factual ?

Do you have examples of such laws?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> this couldn't be more invidious >>> and with what do we view such 'real' objects ? >>> and aside from what is based in reality, upon what is fantasy discovered ?

By real there, I meant physical objects since that was what the discussion was on.

Uyi Iredia:

Imaginative genius also involves escaping to fantasy >>> and this is a picturesque  part the vista of free-thinking and what mankind has accrued from it 
*consider how much we learn from fictional stories and metaphysical claims and consider scientific theories/technological feats previously framed unworkable*

This is irrelevant because we are discussing actual demonstrated physical objects not fantasy objects in a fantasy universe.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> let us consider your statement 

what you know as true is dependent on what the truth actually is.
this is, in part, why i conclude truth and knowledge are relatively absolute (i.e certain/absolute wrt to what we do not know about truth itself) and absolutely relative (i.e certainly/absolutely bounded by the fact that we can never fully know the truth)
we are like the 7 blind men reckoning (using thought and all its constituents) an elephant (which symbolizes our reality, this reality_there might be another reality different or similar to ours)

This is again false. Truth is not relative. Knowledge is relative. So separate truth from knowledge. Whether or not you know the truth, whatever it turns out to be, it is not relative.

Uyi Iredia:

* 5 >>> then evaluate the peculiar case of Alan Magee >>> so what of those mortality rates ! it simply is not definitive when I consider the exceptions that can, and have occurred

Alan Magee did not hit the ground. Please read the articles on him again. You have not actually presented exceptions.

Uyi Iredia:

* 6 >>> I simply considered otherwise >>> you should be pleased - I am questioning a phenomena (in this case, death by decapitation) >>> this can lead to the discovery of yet another truth which would remain hidden had I not effected free-thinking

now type the words survive, and beheading, in Google and see how real,  real is 

Do you have a machine that would enable a person survive for a year and a day after this decapitation? If you do, please post a link to it. I won't waste my time searching for something whose existence is just another fantasy of yours. Keep in mind that there is a time limit.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> so you affect to shift grounds ! >>> what does an identity statement have with the subject of truth ! >>> clarify what you want me to demonstrate yet again 
Note that you said I should consider the statement : A=A is true (a truth statement) 
This is takes on the appearance of the petitio principii fallacy >>> I surmise this because you say that the statement A=A is true is based on the truth that A=A 

It has everything to do with the subject of truth. That is not a fallacy unless you wish to say that mathematics is simply a fallacy. Consider these:
1 = 1 = (2 - 1) = (3 - 2). Are they fallacies? Are they true?

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> several reasons that weren't good enough >>> your talk of fantasy is much inconclusive, for all we know such mechanics might be available- or at least possible

You still wish to retain your fantasies. If these mechanics are available or possible, then can you please demonstrate this? Do you even understand the implications of what you're saying?

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> ehn ! enlighten me with the conclusion you saw

The conclusion was that atheism is not a religion. If you disagree, you know what to do.

thehomer:

One leads to the other does not mean that one is equal to another.


Yes it does because they simply choose to place some phenomena beyond rational thinking. By reason, I mean logical thinking.
Can you give examples in science where this occurs?*1


Do you have examples of such laws?*2


By real there, I meant physical objects since that was what the discussion was on.*3


This is irrelevant because we are discussing actual demonstrated physical objects not fantasy objects in a fantasy universe*4


This is again false. Truth is not relative. Knowledge is relative. So separate truth from knowledge. Whether or not you know the truth, whatever it turns out to be, it is not relative.*5


Alan Magee did not hit the ground. Please read the articles on him again. You have not actually presented exceptions.*6


Do you have a machine that would enable a person survive for a year and a day after this decapitation? If you do, please post a link to it. I won't waste my time searching for something whose existence is just another fantasy of yours. Keep in mind that there is a time limit.*7


It has everything to do with the subject of truth. That is not a fallacy unless you wish to say that mathematics is simply a fallacy. Consider these:
1 = 1 = (2 - 1) = (3 - 2). Are they fallacies? Are they true?*8


You still wish to retain your fantasies. If these mechanics are available or possible, then can you please demonstrate this? Do you even understand the implications of what you're saying?*9


The conclusion was that atheism is not a religion. If you disagree, you know what to do.*10

*1 >>> okay, so what does it mean ?

You have said that (you think) Atheism is the final conclusion of free-thinking (comment # >>> are there other conclusions of free-thinking aside from Atheism ? >>> if not, your statement effectively means that free-thinking must always lead one to Atheism

>>> since there are superstitious atheists who do not apply free-thinking and rational thinking (as you demonstrated in comment #127) >>> why do you still say Atheism is the final conclusion of free-thinking ?  

>>> I do not need to bring examples in science (it is quite irrelevant, my next point backs this up) >>> simply consider that in science there is the need to verify theories (with proper evidence), without the use of dogma, b4 they are accepted >>> is a violation of this by scientists opposed to free-thinking as you understand it ?

by dogma, i mean a doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.

If you want me to give examples, please state the relevance

*2 >>> again I do not need to give examples you impose >>> We are referring to the law of gravity and the cosmological models earlier mentioned >>> you assert in (comment #127) that my examples are not apropos

No they are not good examples or analogies because the law still works the same way. Those are models based on reality. Not fantasy, not imagination but reality. So it would not work differently simply because you do not understand it.

so I ask again (with an addition)

the aforementioned laws work the same way yet we can explain them in ways that differ from actuality >>> how is such possible ? >>> you say a law does not work differently because we do not understand it, so I ask, what does an exception to a law (based on our understanding) imply ? 

>>> if the models you refer to are based on reality >>> and why will someone understand such law(s) in a way different from what it is in reality ?

*3 >>> you did not answer my question >>> you merely clarified what you meant by real >>> I repeat your comment to you 

By real there, I meant physical objects since that was what the discussion was on.

now that I understand what you mean by real >>> I implore you to answer the question >>> this is it

and with what do we view such 'real' objects ? >>> and aside from what is based in reality, upon what is fantasy discovered ?

or does your definition of real invalidate my question ?

*4 >>> that is why I asked upon what is fantasy discovered ? >>> lemme 'double-phrase' it so that my meaning is clear >>> does a fantasy incorporate that which is factual ? are elements of reality in a fantasy ? 

a simple yes or no with reasons would be appreciated

*5 >>> let me go back to the root and trace the cause of our disagreement >>> I made this statement in comment #14 (paragraph 3) - note my posit in italic

>>> i used to be averse to Kierkegaard's notion >>> but of recent i realize that he was right in positing that truth is subjective >>> we ultimately measure the kind of truth we subscribe to >>> in light of this I decided that : Truth is absolutely relative and relatively absolute

in comment #15 you dump the notion of "truth is relative" on me 

Truth is relative? Do you really want to factually go down this route?

I think you impose this "truth is relative" posit on me because of my response in comment #17 (point 3) >>> where I unwittingly opened Pandora's box 

*3 >>> i already have >>> if you demur >>> give your grounds

>>> let me modify that by saying that I took 'going down this route' to connote my posit that: Truth is absolutely relative and relatively absolute

I repeat that this is my posit >>> check them for inconsistencies >>> I have not modified any of them

Please do revise what I wrote in comment #17 (point 4) 

howbeit >>> the fact that what (the knowledge) we don't know could abnegate what we know >>> i dub our present knowledge (or 'truth') a relative absolute >>>  it is a certainty that is (relatively) open to uncertainty because of other certainties we don't know of >>> put in another way: Our 'knowledge' is always open (with respect) to uncertainties >>> i hope this concludes it

>>> because I bolded the words "relative absolute" you replied by asking me what I meant by truth is relative (in comment #17)

What do you actually mean when you say truth is relative?

>>> I did not say it is relative >>> I said it is a relative absolute (the word 'relative' qualifies absolute) 

>>> to cut it short >>> my evaluation of our discussion up to this point reveals that we are arguing over a part of my posit (that I bolded in comment #17) >>> let me repeat it yet again that

Truth/Knowledge is absolutely relative and relatively absolute

and this is my explication of my posit from comment #14 (with additions)

Knowledge/Truth is an infinite attribute >>> this is proven by the fact that there is always new knowledge/truth to gain about the simplest of concepts/postulates/questions e.g man, 1+1=2, what is evil  ? 

>>> it is relatively absolute because inspite of the fact that there will always be knowledge/truth we don't know >>> we are certain of knowledge/truth we have >>> truth and knowledge are relatively absolute wrt to what we do not know about truth itself

it is absolutely relative because there is always knowledge/truth we do not know (and are consequently not certain of) despite the knowledge we have >>> absolutely relative because knowledge and truth are certainly/absolutely bounded by the fact that we can never fully know the truth

Now since you assert that knowledge is relative >>> affirm or deny my poser to you: Is knowledge absolute ?

*6 >>> He did unless I'm mistaken

On 3 January 1943 Magee's B-17 was on a daylight bombing run over Saint-Nazaire, France when German fighters shot off a section of the right wing, causing the aircraft to enter a deadly spin. This was Magee's seventh mission.

Magee was wounded in the attack but managed to escape from the ball turret. Unfortunately, his parachute had been damaged and rendered useless by the attack, so having no choice, he leapt from the plane without a parachute, rapidly losing consciousness due to the altitude.

Magee fell over four miles before crashing through the glass roof of the St. Nazaire railroad station. Somehow the glass roof mitigated Magee's impact and rescuers found him still alive on the floor of the station.

your talk of mortality rates remain impertinent to my line of reasoning >>> that the exceptions of Alan Magee and Vesna Vulovic (albeit in a plane during her free-fall) occurred should give enough chance for the belief that one can escape a 'certain' death from your talked-of 8000m freefall >>> you should seriously brood over my original posit (in comment #32 point 5)

a truth loses its essence when not believed in

>>> note that it is the human mind that conceives of a truth (unless there are other intelligent beings in other planets)


* 7 >>> did I say that there was a machine ! please show me where >>> you were the one who first talked about a machine   (comment #117) >>> I asked (in comment #116 point 6) about inventing  a means to avoiding a certain death after beheading (this is feasible since we know that cockroaches do not die after beheading) >>> this machine is clearly a wrong interjection (of yours) on my original statement (in comment#116 point 6)

Now, if the means of avoiding death by beheading is invented  (e.g your machine) would the truth (that someone dies after beheading) still be absolutely valid ? >>> another question ? is death by beheading (irrespective of organisms considered) an absolute truth ? (yes or no) >>> note that cockroaches do not die by beheading >>> again recall this statement (in comment #122 point 6)

*6 >>> because free-thinking and physical thinking considers other factors and possibilities which cause that person's death >>> that is how science can make technological advancements >>> every fact/system/law/theory has loopholes per se >>> a scientist could investigate the death of the man of your example and find out that such a man can be resusciated even after decapacitation (directly implying that such a person is not dead)

*8 >>> *for the purpose of passing my point across* my answer is No >>> are the listed numbers concrete real-life objects I can see and touch ? or are they human constructs ?

*9 >>> and what stands as a fantasy is relative to future knowledge/truths /possibilities to be discovered >>> answer me on this question: do you surmise that commoners of antiquity assumed technologies such as space travel, flight, matter transmutation as practical and not just fancies ? >>> where have those fancies brought mankind today ? >>> I do not WISH to retain my fantasy >>> I INDULGE in fantasies >>> note that animals (apes, sponges etc) don't fantasize (or do you demur ?) >>> fantasies are a crucial part to free-thinking >>> do not constrict free-thinking, set her free !

"The only way of finding limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible"

- Arthur C. Clarke

*10 >>> that was your conclusion >>> recall that the thread meandered over the odds and evens of science and religion; b4 I could pit my reply to your last post, the thread got locked >>> and as a matter of fact I had even started up a sequel to the topic as I had said click on this

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> okay, so what does it mean ?

You have said that (you think) Atheism is the final conclusion of free-thinking (comment # >>> are there other conclusions of free-thinking aside from Atheism ? >>> if not, your statement effectively means that free-thinking must always lead one to Atheism

>>> since there are superstitious atheists who do not apply free-thinking and rational thinking (as you demonstrated in comment #127) >>> why do you still say Atheism is the final conclusion of free-thinking ?

I already pointed out that these superstitious people have refused to subject their particular superstition to rational thought. Atheism is a concept about the existence of Gods. Superstition is a larger set of beliefs so a person can be an atheist and still be superstitious.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> I do not need to bring examples in science (it is quite irrelevant, my next point backs this up) >>> simply consider that in science there is the need to verify theories (with proper evidence), without the use of dogma, b4 they are accepted >>> is a violation of this by scientists opposed to free-thinking as you understand it ?
by dogma, i mean a doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.
If you want me to give examples, please state the relevance

Yes you need examples because you made a claim that science also uses dogma. This was your quote.

Uyi Iredia:
What of contexts (especially in science) when dogma or poor evidence is applied ?  >>> is free-thinking violated ?

When you make such a bold statement, you need to back it up with some evidence.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> again I do not need to give examples you impose >>> We are referring to the law of gravity and the cosmological models earlier mentioned >>> you assert in (comment #127) that my examples are not apropos

so I ask again (with an addition)

Here again, you made a claim about the way some laws work. You need to back it up with evidence. It is a bad tactic to attempt to shift the burden of proof when you are the one making such outrageous claims. Please read what you wrote.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> you did not answer my question >>> you merely clarified what you meant by real >>> I repeat your comment to you 
now that I understand what you mean by real >>> I implore you to answer the question >>> this is it
or does your definition of real invalidate my question ?

We perceive these objects by various means and tools like sight, reason and telescopes among others.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> that is why I asked upon what is fantasy discovered ? >>> lemme 'double-phrase' it so that my meaning is clear >>> does a fantasy incorporate that which is factual ? are elements of reality in a fantasy ? 

a simple yes or no with reasons would be appreciated

The fact that some elements of a fantasy are physical does not make it less of a fantasy. Consider that leprechauns are based on small people, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow also has lots of physical objects this still does not make it less of a fantasy. So I would advise you to steer clear of fantasy when actual phenomena are being discussed because that way madness lies.
In fact, some fantasies can be based on other fantasies so the way to determine is by properly evaluating each claim.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> let me go back to the root and trace the cause of our disagreement >>> I made this statement in comment #14 (paragraph 3) - note my posit in italic

in comment #15 you dump the notion of "truth is relative" on me 
I think you impose this "truth is relative" posit on me because of my response in comment #17 (point 3) >>> where I unwittingly opened Pandora's box 
>>> let me modify that by saying that I took 'going down this route' to connote my posit that: Truth is absolutely relative and relatively absolute
I repeat that this is my posit >>> check them for inconsistencies >>> I have not modified any of them
Please do revise what I wrote in comment #17 (point 4) 
>>> because I bolded the words "relative absolute" you replied by asking me what I meant by truth is relative (in comment #17)
>>> I did not say it is relative >>> I said it is a relative absolute (the word 'relative' qualifies absolute) 
>>> to cut it short >>> my evaluation of our discussion up to this point reveals that we are arguing over a part of my posit (that I bolded in comment #17) >>> let me repeat it yet again that
Truth/Knowledge is absolutely relative and relatively absolute
and this is my explication of my posit from comment #14 (with additions)
Now since you assert that knowledge is relative >>> affirm or deny my poser to you: Is knowledge absolute ?

All this handwaving is even worse than I thought. I hope you realize that the term relatively absolute is an oxymoron which in this case makes little to no sense because truth is not relative to anything. It is knowledge that is relative. This is why I asked you to separate them since knowledge was not part of the original statement. So, truth is absolute, knowledge is relative. Stringing together an oxymoron and expecting me to explain it to you is bad form.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> He did unless I'm mistaken

You are mistaken. I hope you noticed that he hit glass first. Glass as a collapsing structure would absorb some of the impact. It was right there in your quote. Read the entire last sentence of the quote.

Uyi Iredia:

your talk of mortality rates remain impertinent to my line of reasoning >>> that the exceptions of Alan Magee and Vesna Vulovic (albeit in a plane during her free-fall) occurred should give enough chance for the belief that one can escape a 'certain' death from your talked-of 8000m freefall >>> you should seriously brood over my original posit (in comment #32 point 5)

They are not exceptions. Neither of them met the requirements. Being in a plane is quite different and hitting glass first is quite different from one's first contact being the unyielding ground.
That is no point at all. People die of AIDS whether or not they believe it, people die from falls whether or not they believe it so that statement is simply false.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> note that it is the human mind that conceives of a truth (unless there are other intelligent beings in other planets)

So what? Keep in mind that even in the absence of a human mind, the truth is still true.

Uyi Iredia:

* 7 >>> did I say that there was a machine ! please show me where >>> you were the one who first talked about a machine   (comment #117) >>> I asked (in comment #116 point 6) about inventing  a means to avoiding a certain death after beheading (this is feasible since we know that cockroaches do not die after beheading) >>> this machine is clearly a wrong interjection (of yours) on my original statement (in comment#116 point 6)

This is yet another dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof. This time by playing with words. Please read this quote and explain to me what you meant by the word "means" here.

Uyi Iredia:
*6 >>> and what if the person's belief leads him/her to invent a means to avoiding a certain death when a guillotine is applied ?

You really shouldn't stoop to such attempts.

Uyi Iredia:

Now, if the means of avoiding death by beheading is invented  (e.g your machine) would the truth (that someone dies after beheading) still be absolutely valid ? >>> another question ? is death by beheading (irrespective of organisms considered) an absolute truth ? (yes or no) >>> note that cockroaches do not die by beheading >>> again recall this statement (in comment #122 point 6)

You now wish to introduce cockroaches into a discussion that we are having about human features. Maybe I'll just skip ahead to superman and how he can shift Mars out of its orbit. Get real and stick to the discussion without introducing irrelevant side shows. What do you think was the reason for that example? Keep in mind that we are discussing physical mechanisms here. And the fact that whether or not you believe something, it can still kill you.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> *for the purpose of passing my point across* my answer is No >>> are the listed numbers concrete real-life objects I can see and touch ? or are they human constructs ?

Do you deliberately miss the point of my posts? Keep in mind that that part of the discussion was on truths where you attempted to bring up a fallacy. Truth is not simply about physical objects. It goes beyond them.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> and what stands as a fantasy is relative to future knowledge/truths /possibilities to be discovered >>> answer me on this question: do you surmise that commoners of antiquity assumed technologies such as space travel, flight, matter transmutation as practical and not just fancies ? >>> where have those fancies brought mankind today ? >>> I do not WISH to retain my fantasy >>> I INDULGE in fantasies >>> note that animals (apes, sponges etc) don't fantasize (or do you demur ?) >>> fantasies are a crucial part to free-thinking >>> do not constrict free-thinking, set her free !

"The only way of finding limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible"

- Arthur C. Clarke

Why oh why are you again trying to change the scope of the discussion? To bring you back, we were discussing about the size of the sun and the moon. Do you understand the implications of your statements?

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> that was your conclusion >>> recall that the thread meandered over the odds and evens of science and religion; b4 I could pit my reply to your last post, the thread got locked >>> and as a matter of fact I had even started up a sequel to the topic as I had said click on this

I don't think the thread is still locked.

thehomer:

I already pointed out that these superstitious people have refused to subject their particular superstition to rational thought. Atheism is a concept about the existence of Gods. Superstition is a larger set of beliefs so a person can be an atheist and still be superstitious

*1

Yes you need examples because you made a claim that science also uses dogma. This was your quote.

When you make such a bold statement, you need to back it up with some evidence

*2

Here again, you made a claim about the way some laws work. You need to back it up with evidence. It is a bad tactic to attempt to shift the burden of proof when you are the one making such outrageous claims. Please read what you wrote.

*3

We perceive these objects by various means and tools like sight, reason and telescopes among others.

*4

The fact that some elements of a fantasy are physical does not make it less of a fantasy. Consider that leprechauns are based on small people, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow also has lots of physical objects this still does not make it less of a fantasy. So I would advise you to steer clear of fantasy when actual phenomena are being discussed because that way madness lies.
In fact, some fantasies can be based on other fantasies so the way to determine is by properly evaluating each claim

*5

All this handwaving is even worse than I thought. I hope you realize that the term relatively absolute is an oxymoron which in this case makes little to no sense because truth is not relative to anything. It is knowledge that is relative. This is why I asked you to separate them since knowledge was not part of the original statement. So, truth is absolute, knowledge is relative. Stringing together an oxymoron and expecting me to explain it to you is bad form.

*6

You are mistaken. I hope you noticed that he hit glass first. Glass as a collapsing structure would absorb some of the impact. It was right there in your quote. Read the entire last sentence of the quote.

*7

They are not exceptions. Neither of them met the requirements. Being in a plane is quite different and hitting glass first is quite different from one's first contact being the unyielding ground.
That is no point at all. People die of AIDS whether or not they believe it, people die from falls whether or not they believe it so that statement is simply false.

*8

So what? Keep in mind that even in the absence of a human mind, the truth is still true.

*9

This is yet another dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof. This time by playing with words. Please read this quote and explain to me what you meant by the word "means" here.


You really shouldn't stoop to such attempts.


You now wish to introduce cockroaches into a discussion that we are having about human features. Maybe I'll just skip ahead to superman and how he can shift Mars out of its orbit. Get real and stick to the discussion without introducing irrelevant side shows. What do you think was the reason for that example? Keep in mind that we are discussing physical mechanisms here. And the fact that whether or not you believe something, it can still kill you

*10

Do you deliberately miss the point of my posts? Keep in mind that that part of the discussion was on truths where you attempted to bring up a fallacy. Truth is not simply about physical objects. It goes beyond them.

*11

Why oh why are you again trying to change the scope of the discussion? To bring you back, we were discussing about the size of the sun and the moon. Do you understand the implications of your statements?

*12

I don't think the thread is still locked.

*13

*1 >>> you did not answer any question
>>> you only pretend to give one by talking about superstition in a way that deceptively implies that free-thinking is employed by atheists notwithstanding their superstition >>> however note that you have defined Atheism (do not forget this) 

>>> please answer the bolded questions below (with yet more questions based on your latest reply

*1 >>> okay, so what does it (your statement in comment #131 point 1) mean ?

You have said that (you think) Atheism is the final conclusion of free-thinking (comment # >>> are there other conclusions of free-thinking aside from Atheism ? >>> if not, your statement effectively means that free-thinking must always lead one to Atheism

>>> since there are superstitious atheists who do not apply free-thinking and rational thinking (as you demonstrated in comment #127) >>> why do you still say Atheism is the final conclusion of free-thinking ?

You define freethinking as the application of reason to any opinion >>> can you demonstrate how "the application of reason to any opinion" finally concludes with "a concept about the existence of Gods"

*2 >>> this is another chicanery on your part >>> you ignored the fact that I mentioned 'poor evidence' >>> now read my previous reply to what is a repeat performance (your talk of my claim to dogma) >>> to assist your comprehension this means that you should forget about the examples you treasure and consider whether a violation, in science, of the need for proper evidence, violates free-thinking

>>> I do not need to bring examples in science (it is quite irrelevant, my next point backs this up) >>> simply consider that in science there is the need to verify theories (with proper evidence), without the use of dogma, b4 they are accepted

>>> now answer my bolded question below >>> and quit with asking for trifles >>> keep the answer simple and precise for clarity

>>> is a violation of this by scientists opposed to free-thinking as you understand it ?
by dogma, i mean a doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.
If you want me to give examples, please state the relevance

 

*3 >>> this is a cheap statement >>> you are the one who has been shifting the burden of proof right from the start (consider my defense wrt death by decapitation, death by high-altitude freefalls and now cosmological models)

>>> you have a clear burden to show why my talk of gravity and cosmological model does not evince that a physical law can work otherwise (asking for evidence for those laws is simply senile, a simple high school course in Physics will help) >>> you don't just discount it (in away that'll make Walmart blush) and ask me to present examples 

now to redeem yourself you have to give a good answer to the questions iterated below

the aforementioned laws work the same way yet we can explain them in ways that differ from actuality >>> how is such possible ? >>> you say a law does not work differently because we do not understand it, so I ask, what does an exception to a law (based on our understanding) imply ? 

>>> if the models you refer to are based on reality >>> and why will someone understand such law(s) in a way different from what it is in reality ?

*4 >>> you mentioned 3 things - amongst others >>> they are sight, reason and telescopes >>> I ask whether all these particular items listed are human constructs >>> yes or no with explanations

*5 >>> I said that you should answer yes or no with reasons 

>>> and you start by saying "The fact that some elements of a fantasy are physical does not make it less of a fantasy."

until you answer as I required I am not going to grace your fair speech >>> and don't you dare play the "you don't have a cogent point" card

*6 >>> give a step-by-step answer to my explication on my original posit that "Truth/Knowledge is absolutely relative and relatively absolute" in comment #132 (I have added to that post

*7 >>> then he fell to the ground

*8 >>> your arguments here come out sloppy >>> since both Alan Magee and Vesna survived a 'certain' death >>> BTW people are living with AIDS 

*9 >>> what is the evidence for this claim ?

*10 >>> I showed with the proof that you first introduced machines into my talk of means >>> then you ask me to post links on your assumed machines >>> note that my talk of means was a supposition (I did not say anywhere that there is a machine that helps omeone avoid death by beheading) >>> 'means' - the method whereby some act (in this case, escaping death by beheading) is accomplished

>>> please answer my previous questions step-by-step

Now, if the means of avoiding death by beheading is invented  (e.g your machine) would the truth (that someone dies after beheading) still be absolutely valid ? 
>>> another question, is death by beheading (irrespective of organisms considered) an absolute truth ? (yes or no) >>> note that cockroaches do not die by beheading

*11 >>> I gave you the answer you needed >>> why didn't you answer my questions ? >>> read them

are the listed numbers concrete real-life objects I can see and touch ? or are they human constructs ?

*12 >>> this is a diversion >>> we have moved on from sun and moon >>> all you make are claims without explanation

*13 >>> this doesn't stop you from addressing issues raised in the thread I posted

thehomer:

After you've made this statement, why do you still not see that this is a fallacy? Please read these links.

*1
Fallacy of Irrelevant conclusion
Genetic fallacy

What is the difference? If it is redundant, this would imply that the two positions are the same. This is yet another contradiction in your position

*2

I have shown what I mean by free-thinking. It is right there in my quote in your last post on the first line.
For critical thinking, see here

*3Critical thinking

That is still not evidence demonstrating a confusion on my part between belief and truth.

*4

* 1 >>> because it was a satire (a skit that rounds off my position on what you said) those fallacies do not apply to what I forwarded as "a skit to put my thoughts in focus" 

>>> since you love fallacies I have one for you : secundum quid >>> you obnoxiously apply a fallacy to what is a satire (your use of fallacy does not apply to my satire) >>> note tha,t since you forward the said fallacies as an argument >>> my accusation that you have made a fallacy has reason 

>>> I obliged your request by reading the articles - again

*2 >>> the difference is that one is actively explicated; the other (as I have said) is passive and redundant >>> consider the paraphrase of the quote in contention: you do not explicate an argument/notion/concept/truth that is not accepted 

all you have explicated, really are beliefs >>> your counter-argument sounds like telling me "Hey ! Uyi, darkness can shine forth" - that's absurd

*3 >>> if this debate was in a purely scholastic circle >>> your definition of free-thinking will be applauded >>> I do not fully agree with your definition (in comment #127) because of the ambiguity of the term "application of reason" >>> my skeptical
side asks: what is reason ? how,when and to what should it apply? >>> My own conception of free-thinking (note that I did not use the word 'definition') is that >>>  it is the means of viewing reality on the springboard of critical observation 

>>> I have no qualms with the link on critical thinking >>> which I opine tends a person towards irreligion (which isn't solely atheist)

*4 >>> how so ? >>> back up this claim >>> while doing so consider this poser: are truth, truth statements, semantic values and beliefs the same thing in mutual or varied contexts? >>> make sure you answer my questions and my poser

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> you did not answer any question
>>> you only pretend to give one by talking about superstition in a way that deceptively implies that free-thinking is employed by atheists notwithstanding their superstition >>> however note that you have defined Atheism (do not forget this) 

>>> please answer the bolded questions below (with yet more questions based on your latest reply

I still do not understand why you're repeating questions that I've already answered. I won't bother repeating myself. Read what I wrote on atheism and on superstition here #133.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> this is another chicanery on your part >>> you ignored the fact that I mentioned 'poor evidence' >>> now read my previous reply to what is a repeat performance (your talk of my claim to dogma) >>> to assist your comprehension this means that you should forget about the examples you treasure and consider whether a violation, in science, of the need for proper evidence, violates free-thinking

>>> now answer my bolded question below >>> and quit with asking for trifles >>> keep the answer simple and precise for clarity

Your dishonest attempt to again shift the burden of proof is very sad. Please re-read what you posted. I've put in bold for you.

Uyi Iredia:
What of contexts (especially in science) when dogma or poor evidence is applied ?  >>> is free-thinking violated ?

Please give your example to which this applies in science i.e dogma or poor evidence before you proceed to make further claims on whether or not free-thinking was affected.

And, where are you quoting from? When you do this, it presents your tactics as dishonest somehow implying that you've made this statement previously and I did not respond to it.
 

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> this is a cheap statement >>> you are the one who has been shifting the burden of proof right from the start (consider my defense wrt death by decapitation, death by high-altitude freefalls and now cosmological models)

>>> you have a clear burden to show why my talk of gravity and cosmological model does not evince that a physical law can work otherwise (asking for evidence for those laws is simply senile, a simple high school course in Physics will help) >>> you don't just discount it (in away that'll make Walmart blush) and ask me to present examples

What is wrong with you? Do you not know how to read? Or do you not understand what you wrote? It seems that you do not understand that based on the law of gravitation that only one option would work. You were laying claim to some other law that would make other options true. This is the claim you are yet to present evidence for. You may go back to my questions here #31  to understand the ridiculousness of your statements.


Do you have any laws where the other options would be correct? i.e either the moon being bigger than the sun or the sun and the moon being the same size.

Uyi Iredia:
the aforementioned laws work the same way yet we can explain them in ways that differ from actuality >>> how is such possible ? >>> you say a law does not work differently because we do not understand it, so I ask, what does an exception to a law (based on our understanding) imply ?

>>> if the models you refer to are based on reality >>> and why will someone understand such law(s) in a way different from what it is in reality ?

Which law does this refer to? Which law do you have in mind? Are such laws in existence? You really need to do your work. This is why you need to avoid making such outrageous claims. I don't have the time to search around for nonexistent laws.

Uyi Iredia:

now to redeem yourself you have to give a good answer to the questions iterated below

This is rubbish until you can actually indicate that there are such laws. So, present the law you're speaking about.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> you mentioned 3 things - amongst others >>> they are sight, reason and telescopes >>> I ask whether all these particular items listed are human constructs >>> yes or no with explanations

Some of them are human constructs, others are not human constructs.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> I said that you should answer yes or no with reasons 
>>> and you start by saying "The fact that some elements of a fantasy are physical does not make it less of a fantasy."
until you answer as I required I am not going to grace your fair speech >>> and don't you dare play the "you don't have a cogent point" card

What you're doing here is committing a false dichotomy fallacy. The reason is that some fantasies are based on actual physical elements, others are not. And I still wonder what the relevance is to the actual physical objects being discussed.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> give a step-by-step answer to my explication on my original posit that "Truth/Knowledge is absolutely relative and relatively absolute" in comment #132 (I have added to that post

I see no reason why I should. Can a single entity be both relative and absolute? Have you noticed the contradiction yet? If something is relative, this means it is not absolute and vice versa.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> then he fell to the ground

He did not free fall to the ground. The free fall part ends with the point of first contact.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> your arguments here come out sloppy >>> since both Alan Magee and Vesna survived a 'certain' death >>> BTW people are living with AIDS 

Your dishonest tactics after failing to meet the requirements is really sad. Do you not understand that there is a difference between a person's first contact being the ground and the first contact being some other material? Do you also not understand that a free fall outside a plane is different from one within a plane? You really need learn to admit that you were wrong and understand that a person's beliefs will not prevent certain death.
I never said there were no people living with AIDS, I said people still die of it irrespective of their beliefs.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> what is the evidence for this claim ?

This is a simple thought experiment. Even in the absence of a human mind, water would still be water.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> I showed with the proof that you first introduced machines into my talk of means >>> then you ask me to post links on your assumed machines >>> note that my talk of means was a supposition (I did not say anywhere that there is a machine that helps omeone avoid death by beheading) >>> 'means' - the method whereby some act (in this case, escaping death by beheading) is accomplished

What means were you speaking of? This is the context in which you used it. So what proof was it again?

Uyi Iredia:
*6 >>> and what if the person's belief leads him/her to invent a means to avoiding a certain death when a guillotine is applied ?

So after the guillotine, what "means" do you wish to use to avoid certain death?

Uyi Iredia:

>>> please answer my previous questions step-by-step

Your question is still pointless unless you have outlined a way for someone to survive death by guillotine. And I'm not speaking about insects, I'm speaking about humans.

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> I gave you the answer you needed >>> why didn't you answer my questions ? >>> read them

The question is pointless because truths are not limited to physical objects so your attempt to make them fallacies fails. Whether or not you can touch them, what is true is true.

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> this is a diversion >>> we have moved on from sun and moon >>> all you make are claims without explanation

No we haven't. The mechanics of objects in this universe is what is being discussed if you actually think that the sun and the moon could be the same size or that the moon is bigger than the sun. Follow the thread up and read your increasingly ridiculous statements about this universe.

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> this doesn't stop you from addressing issues raised in the thread I posted

Going by your various attempts at shifting the burden of proof on you on this thread and your sad attempts at confabulation, I don't think I'll waste my time on that new thread. I'll advice you to avoid fantasy when real physical objects and mechanics are being discussed.

Uyi Iredia:

* 1 >>> because it was a satire (a skit that rounds off my position on what you said) those fallacies do not apply to what I forwarded as "a skit to put my thoughts in focus" 

>>> since you love fallacies I have one for you : secundum quid >>> you obnoxiously apply a fallacy to what is a satire (your use of fallacy does not apply to my satire) >>> note tha,t since you forward the said fallacies as an argument >>> my accusation that you have made a fallacy has reason 

>>> I obliged your request by reading the articles - again

What is wrong with you? You say Socrates would not agree with me and that this is a satirical statement? What is satirical about this? If you say it is satire, then this implies that you meant the opposite of what you said. So which is it? Try not to confuse yourself. Do you consider Socrates an authority or not?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> the difference is that one is actively explicated; the other (as I have said) is passive and redundant >>> consider the paraphrase of the quote in contention: you do not explicate an argument/notion/concept/truth that is not accepted 

all you have explicated, really are beliefs >>> your counter-argument sounds like telling me "Hey ! Uyi, darkness can shine forth" - that's absurd

And here you proceed with a strawman analogy. Do you not understand that two different people can believe mutually contradictory things?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> if this debate was in a purely scholastic circle >>> your definition of free-thinking will be applauded >>> I do not fully agree with your definition (in comment #127) because of the ambiguity of the term "application of reason" >>> my skeptical
side asks: what is reason ? how,when and to what should it apply? >>> My own conception of free-thinking (note that I did not use the word 'definition') is that >>>  it is the means of viewing reality on the springboard of critical observation 

>>> I have no qualms with the link on critical thinking >>> which I opine tends a person towards irreligion (which isn't solely atheist)

And here you wish to agree with me without saying so. Have you not realized that the set of religion contains all theists and some atheists? If a person is out of that set, that person is an atheist? Or do you know of irreligious theists?

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> how so ? >>> back up this claim >>> while doing so consider this poser: are truth, truth statements, semantic values and beliefs the same thing in mutual or varied contexts? >>> make sure you answer my questions and my poser

You want me to show how you have failed to demonstrate your claim of my confusion? How about you read the preceding statements asking for you to demonstrate this confusion?
No they are not the same.

thehomer:

What is wrong with you? You say Socrates would not agree with me and that this is a satirical statement? What is satirical about this? If you say it is satire, then this implies that you meant the opposite of what you said. So which is it? Try not to confuse yourself. Do you consider Socrates an authority or not?

answer to 1st question >>> nothing, if you disagree state effective reasons
answer to 2nd question >>> no, i said he will "roll over in his grave in mock laughter" sic
answer to 3rd question >>> it is satirical because i presented it as a skit to "put my thoughts [on what you said] in focus" sic
answer to 4th question >>> neither, i meant what i said >>> a satire does not certainly, in all instances, mean that  a person implies otherwise
answer to 5th question >>> yes, he is an an authority >>> his dialectic method is one you apply frequently

keep in mind that my accusation of your mendacity holds till you can refute it

thehomer:

And here you proceed with a strawman analogy. Do you not understand that two different people can believe mutually contradictory things?

your comment is baseless and without proof >>> please back it up with proper explanation and/or links

answer to question >>> I agree to this >>> and this is why i say that truth is of no essence to one who does not believe in it and that "man is the measure of all things"

thehomer:

And here you wish to agree with me without saying so. Have you not realized that the set of religion contains all theists and some atheists? If a person is out of that set, that person is an atheist? Or do you know of irreligious theists?

then let me make it clear that i agree >>> but not fully for the forestated reason that the term "application of reason" is vague *even in legal circles an ambiguous clause usually gives room for much contention*

keep in mind, that you gave no answers to the question (on the 'application of reason') I forwarded >>> so I can safely ignore the trifles you present >>> however your quip about irreligious theist is quite intriguing >>> my reply to it is that cultural christians can fit into this set (they do not hold core theist beliefs but are culturally attracted to it)

thehomer:

You want me to show how you have failed to demonstrate your claim of my confusion? How about you read the preceding statements asking for you to demonstrate this confusion?
No they are not the same.

1st question >>> precisely
2nd question >>> which ones ? there is need to be precise so that our discourse is meaningful

what where you addressing when u said: "No they are not the same." >>> keep in mind that u have evaded my posers - again !

Uyi Iredia:

answer to 1st question >>> nothing, if you disagree state effective reasons
answer to 2nd question >>> no, i said he will "roll over in his grave in mock laughter" sic
answer to 3rd question >>> it is satirical because i presented it as a skit to "put my thoughts [on what you said] in focus" sic
answer to 4th question >>> neither, i meant what i said >>> a satire does not certainly, in all instances, mean that  a person implies otherwise
answer to 5th question >>> yes, he is an an authority >>> his dialectic method is one you apply frequently

Now that you've made it clear with your last statement above, do you still not see your fallacy? I don't think I can spell it out better. Your reference to Socrates as an authority is a fallacy. You may need to re-read those links I gave you about the particular fallacy you're making here.

Uyi Iredia:

keep in mind that my accusation of your mendacity holds till you can refute it

Did you not understand that your fallacy was on your reference to Socrates as an authority. "Rolling over in a grave" is an idiomatic expression not some sort of sarcastic expression. It seems you need further education on the use of common phrases in English Language. See here. And to avoid your confusion, Read my previous posts and try to identify what my statement of fallacy was referring to. Was it to your reference to Socrates or to the idiomatic expression?
Another thing you need to know is that when you indicate that someone commits a fallacy, you need to demonstrate how the fallacy in question holds. You may review the way that I've used to demonstrate your fallacies.

Uyi Iredia:

your comment is baseless and without proof >>> please back it up with proper explanation and/or links

What is this? You agree to my comment then what is this request for proof or explanation? Or are you saying that you do not understand how two people may believe mutually contradictory things? If you cannot understand this, then it seems I'm simply wasting my time.

Uyi Iredia:

answer to question >>> I agree to this >>> and this is why i say that truth is of no essence to one who does not believe in it and that "man is the measure of all things"

This is a false and dangerous statement. This sort of statement was the basis for my examples on the free fall and the decapitation that you still fail to understand and refute.

Uyi Iredia:

then let me make it clear that i agree >>> but not fully for the forestated reason that the term "application of reason" is vague *even in legal circles an ambiguous clause usually gives room for much contention*

keep in mind, that you gave no answers to the question (on the 'application of reason') I forwarded >>> so I can safely ignore the trifles you present >>> however your quip about irreligious theist is quite intriguing >>> my reply to it is that cultural christians can fit into this set (they do not hold core theist beliefs but are culturally attracted to it)

I see you're still trying some more hand-waving. This time with the word reason. You are free to use a dictionary if you feel your education is inadequate to enable you conceive of what is meant by reason here. And, your example of Cultural Christian is simply laughable. Here is a quote from the article you referenced. I hope you read it. Let me know if these people strike you as religious.

Wikipedia:
Evolutionary biologist and well known atheist Richard Dawkins has described himself as a cultural Christian. Likewise, non-believing sex advice columnist Dan Savage has described himself as a cultural Catholic: "I'm Catholic--in a cultural sense, not an eat-the-wafer, say-the-rosary, burn-down-the-women's-health-center sense.

Uyi Iredia:

1st question >>> precisely

Then read my responses asking for you to first demonstrate where you thought I made this confusion. You have been shying away from this. All you need to do is to simply follow the thread up and see where I asked you to demonstrate this supposed confusion.

Uyi Iredia:

2nd question >>> which ones ? there is need to be precise so that our discourse is meaningful

what where you addressing when u said: "No they are not the same." >>> keep in mind that u have evaded my posers - again !

I said they are not all the same. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Try to read and understand my replies.

thehomer:

Now that you've made it clear with your last statement above, do you still not see your fallacy? I don't think I can spell it out better. Your reference to Socrates as an authority is a fallacy. You may need to re-read those links I gave you about the particular fallacy you're making here.

*1

Did you not understand that your fallacy was on your reference to Socrates as an authority. "Rolling over in a grave" is an idiomatic expression not some sort of sarcastic expression. It seems you need further education on the use of common phrases in English Language. See here. And to avoid your confusion, Read my previous posts and try to identify what my statement of fallacy was referring to. Was it to your reference to Socrates or to the idiomatic expression?
Another thing you need to know is that when you indicate that someone commits a fallacy, you need to demonstrate how the fallacy in question holds. You may review the way that I've used to demonstrate your fallacies.

*2

What is this? You agree to my comment then what is this request for proof or explanation? Or are you saying that you do not understand how two people may believe mutually contradictory things? If you cannot understand this, then it seems I'm simply wasting my time.

*3

This is a false and dangerous statement. This sort of statement was the basis for my examples on the free fall and the decapitation that you still fail to understand and refute.

*4

I see you're still trying some more hand-waving. This time with the word reason. You are free to use a dictionary if you feel your education is inadequate to enable you conceive of what is meant by reason here. And, your example of Cultural Christian is simply laughable. Here is a quote from the article you referenced. I hope you read it. Let me know if these people strike you as religious.

*5

Then read my responses asking for you to first demonstrate where you thought I made this confusion. You have been shying away from this. All you need to do is to simply follow the thread up and see where I asked you to demonstrate this supposed confusion.

*6

I said they are not all the same. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Try to read and understand my replies.

*7

*1 >>> answer to your question >>> no

>>> You make a faulty deduction >>> your fallacy fails to apply given the fact that I presented with the intent of satire (not as an argument in a discourse) >>> your use of fallacy is mistaken >>> BTW be rst assured that I read the links again

*2 >>> your reply here holds no weight >>> by mendacity >>> I meant a fraudulent use of the fallacies in contention >>> you merely repeated what you said b4 (with toppings of sundry accusations)

*3 >>> your previous comment on 'strawman analogy' is baseless (it was your talk about strawman that I was referring to)

*4 >>> demonstrate how this is false and dangerous >>> note that what we are reckoning are these 2 claims:

• man is the measure of all things
• truth is of no essence to one who does not believe in it

*5 >>> correction ! I am 'hand-waving' over the term 'application of reason' >>> this is so because I find it needful to call your attention to how vague the term is as I earlier did by asking how, when, and to what, reason should applied.

as for your biting remark >>> note that, it is because such people are irreligious that I say that the term IRRELIGIOUS THEIST can apply to people who describe themselves as cultural Christians >>> an interesting detail to reckon

*6 >>> please post the comment nos you want me to reevaluate

*7 >>> u said "no they are not the same" (in comment #137 point 4) >>> since truths, semantics and truth statements are not the same (in varied or mutual contexts) >>> why do you not see that you erred by telling me to read an article on Logical negation (in a debate about beliefs) ?

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> answer to your question >>> no

>>> You make a faulty deduction >>> your fallacy fails to apply given the fact that I presented with the intent of satire (not as an argument in a discourse) >>> your use of fallacy is mistaken >>> BTW be rst assured that I read the links again

You stated here #138 that you considered Socrates an authority on this topic. This is a fallacy. Note this and study the links to the fallacy you're making.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> your reply here holds no weight >>> by mendacity >>> I meant a fraudulent use of the fallacies in contention >>> you merely repeated what you said b4 (with toppings of sundry accusations)

Of course I had to repeat it. Please read through what I said carefully and note the mistake you're making. You have still failed to demonstrate how my demonstration of your fallacy was inappropriate. You need to know when you're using an idiomatic expression which is different from satire.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> your previous comment on 'strawman analogy' is baseless (it was your talk about strawman that I was referring to)

Do you not realize that this statement in its context was a form of an analogy?

Uyi Iredia:
. . . "Hey ! Uyi, darkness can shine forth" . . .

I really do not have the time to give you lessons in basic English Language while at the same time having this discussion.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> demonstrate how this is false and dangerous >>> note that what we are reckoning are these 2 claims:

• man is the measure of all things
• truth is of no essence to one who does not believe in it

Both statements are false.
For the first, even in the absence of humans, the truth remains the truth. Water will still be water.
In the case of the second, whether or not a person believes they will die when decapitated, they will die if they are decapitated. So whether or not you believe something, it can affect you if true. This statement of yours here#120 (your 6th point) directly contradicts your second statement.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> correction ! I am 'hand-waving' over the term 'application of reason' >>> this is so because I find it needful to call your attention to how vague the term is as I earlier did by asking how, when, and to what, reason should applied.

I hope you have considered the context in which we are speaking.

Uyi Iredia:

as for your biting remark >>> note that, it is because such people are irreligious that I say that the term IRRELIGIOUS THEIST can apply to people who describe themselves as cultural Christians >>> an interesting detail to reckon

Did you read the quote I posted from Wikipedia? So according to you, Dawkins being a self described cultural Christian is an irreligious theist? This is yet another demonstration of your absurd notions.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> please post the comment nos you want me to reevaluate

See here #123 (the last group of statements), here #126 (the last group of statements), here #130, here #137.
Please show how I made the confusion you're claiming.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> u said "no they are not the same" (in comment #137 point 4) >>> since truths, semantics and truth statements are not the same (in varied or mutual contexts) >>> why do you not see that you erred by telling me to read an article on Logical negation (in a debate about beliefs) ?

A belief can be true or not true. It is not both true and not true. If one's belief is true, this means that the person believes that its negation is not true. This is an application of logic to beliefs.

thehomer:

You stated here #138 that you considered Socrates an authority on this topic. This is a fallacy. Note this and study the links to the fallacy you're making.*1


Of course I had to repeat it. Please read through what I said carefully and note the mistake you're making. You have still failed to demonstrate how my demonstration of your fallacy was inappropriate. You need to know when you're using an idiomatic expression which is different from satire.*2


Do you not realize that this statement in its context was a form of an analogy?

I really do not have the time to give you lessons in basic English Language while at the same time having this discussion.*3


Both statements are false.
For the first, even in the absence of humans, the truth remains the truth. Water will still be water.
In the case of the second, whether or not a person believes they will die when decapitated, they will die if they are decapitated. So whether or not you believe something, it can affect you if true. This statement of yours here#120 (your 6th point) directly contradicts your second statement.*4


I hope you have considered the context in which we are speaking.*5


Did you read the quote I posted from Wikipedia? So according to you, Dawkins being a self described cultural Christian is an irreligious theist? This is yet another demonstration of your absurd notions.*6


See here #123 (the last group of statements), here #126 (the last group of statements), here #130, here #137.
Please show how I made the confusion you're claiming.*7


A belief can be true or not true. It is not both true and not true. If one's belief is true, this means that the person believes that its negation is not true. This is an application of logic to beliefs.*8

*1 >>> this is a strawman attack and a farce >>> your fallacy doesn't apply to my original statement which was presented as 'a skit to put my thoughts in focus' (in other words, a satire)

*2 >>> my stance is that your fallacy does not apply to what I intended as satire >>> how is this false ?

*3 >>> this is not a proper answer >>> this is because the meaning of your comment is not clear to me (except for the fact that you bother yourself over my semantics)

*4 >>> my replies are as follows

to your 1st comment >>> this is a strawman attack >>> you simply need to clarify what is meant when I say man is the measure of all things 

>>> my interpretation of this famous posit is that the comprehension (measure) of truth varies by the person >>> allow me to use your talk of water to clarify this >>> water means different things to different people 
to the chemist, H20
to a man dying of thirst, a means of survival
to the seafarer, a means of transport
to the fisherman, the promise of income

to your second comment >>> this again is false when my statement is clarified >>> by essence (in the context of the said posit) I mean inner significance >>> I do not mean that truth will act out according to the caprices of a person >>> I mean that it is of NO AUTHORITY TO THE PERSON who does not believe (accept) it 

>>> to use your example to clarify >>> if one believes that death by decapitation can be survived he can inquire scientifically as to means to avoid death by decapitation 

*5 >>> make your point

*6 >>> this is the fallacy "extending the argument" (you overstate someone's point) >>> I said the term irreligious theist CAN APPLY to cultural Christians 

>>> you were the one who first brought up the 'absurd notion' >>> I did not say word-for-word, or imply, that Dawkins is an irreligious theist

*7 >>> i have treated that below

*8 >>> my definition of belief is THE ACCEPTANCE of a thing (including truth, semantic values and truth statements) >>> IMHO saying that 'the acceptance of a thing' can be true or not true is absurd

Your explication makes sense if you remove belief and put in (truth) statement >>> I put truth in bracket so you realize that a statement is used to capture a truth (a statement is not in itself the truth) >>> see it

A statement can be true or not true. It is not both true and not true. If one's statement is true, this means that the person believes that its negation is not true. This is an application of logic to statement.

note that, one can believe (accept) a logical contradiction

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> this is a strawman attack and a farce >>> your fallacy doesn't apply to my original statement which was presented as 'a skit to put my thoughts in focus' (in other words, a satire)

*2 >>> my stance is that your fallacy does not apply to what I intended as satire >>> how is this false ?

It seems you have sunk to outright lying.
Please answer these with a yes or no. Were you referring to Socrates as an authority?
Is this phrase "to roll over in a grave" an idiomatic expression in the English Language or not?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> this is not a proper answer >>> this is because the meaning of your comment is not clear to me (except for the fact that you bother yourself over my semantics)

Please answer this with a yes or no. Do you think the quote below is an analogy?

Uyi Iredia:
. . . "Hey ! Uyi, darkness can shine forth" . . .

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> my replies are as follows

to your 1st comment >>> this is a strawman attack >>> you simply need to clarify what is meant when I say man is the measure of all things 

Wow. You are again making another accusation without presenting your evidence. Could you please demonstrate the "strawman attack" I made.
You now also want me to clarify your own words? Are you listening to yourself?

Uyi Iredia:

>>> my interpretation of this famous posit is that the comprehension (measure) of truth varies by the person >>> allow me to use your talk of water to clarify this >>> water means different things to different people 
to the chemist, H20
to a man dying of thirst, a means of survival
to the seafarer, a means of transport
to the fisherman, the promise of income

It seems you wish to go with an equivocation fallacy here. When we speak of water, we're referring to a particular compound that is available whether or not there are humans. You on the other hand wish to refer to its chemical properties and its value to people. This is a bad method of evasion. What I'm asking is would water be water whether or not humans were present? (Please answer with a yes or no.)

Uyi Iredia:

to your second comment >>> this again is false when my statement is clarified >>> by essence (in the context of the said posit) I mean inner significance >>> I do not mean that truth will act out according to the caprices of a person >>> I mean that it is of NO AUTHORITY TO THE PERSON who does not believe (accept) it

>>> to use your example to clarify >>> if one believes that death by decapitation can be survived he can inquire scientifically as to means to avoid death by decapitation

Oh? Inner significance? Here, you are again evading while agreeing with me that whether or not the person believes, the person will die therefore, it is of essence just that the person actively chooses to think otherwise whether due to ignorance, deception or anything else.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> make your point

My point is that you agree with me but simply wish to be evasive yet again.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> this is the fallacy "extending the argument" (you overstate someone's point) >>> I said the term irreligious theist CAN APPLY to cultural Christians 

I know cultural Christian can apply to them since Western European and North American Christians are also cultural Christians but, have you not yet realized that this category does not falsify my set demonstrated here #137? A cultural Christian is not an irreligious theist.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> you were the one who first brought up the 'absurd notion' >>> I did not say word-for-word, or imply, that Dawkins is an irreligious theist

Yes you did. Remember that you brought up the term and pointed a link to the Wikipedia article in which he was mentioned. I wonder if you read that article.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> i have treated that below

No you haven't.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> my definition of belief is THE ACCEPTANCE of a thing (including truth, semantic values and truth statements) >>> IMHO saying that 'the acceptance of a thing' can be true or not true is absurd

I never said this. Besides, think again about what you're implying here. Are you saying that a person cannot hold false beliefs?

Uyi Iredia:

Your explication makes sense if you remove belief and put in (truth) statement >>> I put truth in bracket so you realize that a statement is used to capture a truth (a statement is not in itself the truth) >>> see it

Beliefs can be generally presented as truth statements.

Uyi Iredia:

note that, one can believe (accept) a logical contradiction

Yes I know.

thehomer:

It seems you have sunk to outright lying.
Please answer these with a yes or no. Were you referring to Socrates as an authority?
Is this phrase "to roll over in a grave" an idiomatic expression in the English Language or not?


Please answer this with a yes or no. Do you think the quote below is an analogy?*1


Wow. You are again making another accusation without presenting your evidence. Could you please demonstrate the "strawman attack" I made.
You now also want me to clarify your own words? Are you listening to yourself?*2


It seems you wish to go with an equivocation fallacy here. When we speak of water, we're referring to a particular compound that is available whether or not there are humans. You on the other hand wish to refer to its chemical properties and its value to people. This is a bad method of evasion. What I'm asking is would water be water whether or not humans were present? (Please answer with a yes or no.)*3


Oh? Inner significance? Here, you are again evading while agreeing with me that whether or not the person believes, the person will die therefore, it is of essence just that the person actively chooses to think otherwise whether due to ignorance, deception or anything else.*4


My point is that you agree with me but simply wish to be evasive yet again.*5


I know cultural Christian can apply to them since Western European and North American Christians are also cultural Christians but, have you not yet realized that this category does not falsify my set demonstrated here #137? A cultural Christian is not an irreligious theist.


Yes you did. Remember that you brought up the term and pointed a link to the Wikipedia article in which he was mentioned. I wonder if you read that article.*6


No you haven't.*7


I never said this. Besides, think again about what you're implying here. Are you saying that a person cannot hold false beliefs*8


Beliefs can be generally presented as truth statements.*9


Yes I know.

*1 >>> yes (to both your questions) >>> however your claimed fallacies are baseless because I presented a satire

and yes, I think the said quote is a proper analogy

*2 >>> I did that by showing you what I meant when I said man is the measure of all things >>> and I wanted you to clarify what I meant >>> understand my position b4 you counter it

*3 >>> and you equivocate by assuming my posit that man is the measure of all things to mean >>> truth is contigent upon human minds >>> that was is the error u made that I am correcting

*4 >>> yes, inner significance >>> if a person does not beleve in a truth (statement) no matter how real or obvious it is >>> it is of no consequence to the person (whether the truth is true or not)

*5 >>> this is a fallacy of irrelevance (argumentum ad hominem) >>> this is not the reply that is apt to my question

*6 >>> what is your reason for this ? My reason for the term applying to cultural Christians is that they incorporate elements of a theistic religion without being theist or religious theists for that matter >>> I brought that link as a reply to your quip abou irreligious theist on this topic >>> BTW deists are irreligious >>> so there goes your set (into the dustbin)  *make an asinine claim that deists are otherwise and I'll call DeepSight to whoop your butt*

*7 >>> yes I have

*8 >>> your accusation equivocated my definition of belief to mean "the acceptance of a thing as factual" >>> whereas I defined belief as "the acceptance of a thing"

*9 >>> they are presented as (and predicated upon) truth statements but THEY ARE NOT truth statements >>> since a logical contradiction can be believed >>> why do you expect logic to apply to beliefs ? >>> you do that and you equivocate on the meaning of beliefs (refer to point eight )

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> yes (to both your questions) >>> however your claimed fallacies are baseless because I presented a satire

What part of your statement was satire? Please read this link and let me know the part of your statement that was satire.

Uyi Iredia:

and yes, I think the said quote is a proper analogy

Then why did you claim I was committing a fallacy?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> I did that by showing you what I meant when I said man is the measure of all things >>> and I wanted you to clarify what I meant >>> understand my position b4 you counter it

When you make a statement, it is up to you to clarify what you mean. I can only demonstrate what I think you mean.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> and you equivocate by assuming my posit that man is the measure of all things to mean >>> truth is contigent upon human minds >>> that was is the error u made that I am correcting

That is not an equivocation.
Also, that is a reasonable interpretation of what you're saying. And note that you are yet to clarify what you meant while being able to grasp what I understood from your sentence.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> yes, inner significance >>> if a person does not beleve in a truth (statement) no matter how real or obvious it is >>> it is of no consequence to the person (whether the truth is true or not)

When you say something is of "no consequence", what do you mean? If person A were to go out and shoot person B to death, would the gunshot wound to person B be of consequence to person B?

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> this is a fallacy of irrelevance (argumentum ad hominem) >>> this is not the reply that is apt to my question

You are making the same error that I've pointed out to you several times and you have still failed to take correction. When you claim a person has committed a fallacy, you need to show the statement and how it is a fallacy.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> what is your reason for this ? My reason for the term applying to cultural Christians is that they incorporate elements of a theistic religion without being theist or religious theists for that matter >>> I brought that link as a reply to your quip abou irreligious theist on this topic >>> BTW deists are irreligious >>> so there goes your set (into the dustbin)  *make an asinine claim that deists are otherwise and I'll call DeepSight to whoop your butt*

Is it not obvious that cultural Christians may not be theists making that link irrelevant?

You're free to call on whomever you wish.
So the set of people outside of religion may be both theist and atheist.
You may note that even from the origin of this part of the discussion, you already agreed with me you may review it here #137

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> yes I have

Where? This was all you wrote.

Uyi Iredia:
*7 >>> i have treated that below

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> your accusation equivocated my definition of belief to mean "the acceptance of a thing as factual" >>> whereas I defined belief as "the acceptance of a thing"

Again, that was not an equivocation.
Read the meaning of the word on Wiktionary here. You're free to look up its meaning in other dictionaries. You may note that one consistent fact is that the holder thinks that their belief is true.
And I ask you again, are you saying that a person cannot hold false beliefs?

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> they are presented as (and predicated upon) truth statements but THEY ARE NOT truth statements >>> since a logical contradiction can be believed >>> why do you expect logic to apply to beliefs ? >>> you do that and you equivocate on the meaning of beliefs (refer to point eight )

I never said they were truth statements. The reason why I referred you to logic tables is that if they can be presented as truth statements, then the laws of logic can be used in their clarification.

thehomer:

What part of your statement was satire? Please read this link and let me know the part of your statement that was satire.*1


Then why did you claim I was committing a fallacy?*2


When you make a statement, it is up to you to clarify what you mean. I can only demonstrate what I think you mean.*3


That is not an equivocation.
Also, that is a reasonable interpretation of what you're saying. And note that you are yet to clarify what you meant while being able to grasp what I understood from your sentence.*4


When you say something is of "no consequence", what do you mean? If person A were to go out and shoot person B to death, would the gunshot wound to person B be of consequence to person B?*5


You are making the same error that I've pointed out to you several times and you have still failed to take correction. When you claim a person has committed a fallacy, you need to show the statement and how it is a fallacy.*6


Is it not obvious that cultural Christians may not be theists making that link irrelevant?*7

You're free to call on whomever you wish.
So the set of people outside of religion may be both theist and atheist.
You may note that even from the origin of this part of the discussion, you already agreed with me you may review it here #137*8


Where? This was all you wrote.*9


Again, that was not an equivocation.
Read the meaning of the word on Wiktionary here. You're free to look up its meaning in other dictionaries. You may note that one consistent fact is that the holder thinks that their belief is true.
And I ask you again, are you saying that a person cannot hold false beliefs?*10


I never said they were truth statements. The reason why I referred you to logic tables is that if they can be presented as truth statements, then the laws of logic can be used in their clarification.*11

*1 >>> my whole statement was a satire

*2 >>> what does my talk about darkness have to do with my accusation of your fallacy ?

*3 >>> ok

*4 >>> please demonstrate this 

*5 >>> it does not matter to the person in spite of the consequence >>> death from gunshot simply does not make sense to Person B >>> the truth has no effect against the power of Person B's belief or will

"Will and Intellect are one and the same thing"
- Benedicto de Espinoza

*6 >>> this is still another fallacy when u keep in mind your earlier reply to my comment >>> u travelled from vital questions I raised and engaged in unwanton mud-slinging >>> here is my original reply lest we chase shadows once again

*3 >>> if this debate was in a purely scholastic circle >>> your definition of free-thinking will be applauded >>> I do not fully agree with your definition (in comment #127) because of the ambiguity of the term "application of reason" >>> my skeptical
side asks: what is reason ? how,when and to what should it apply? >>> My own conception of free-thinking (note that I did not use the word 'definition') is that >>>  it is the means of viewing reality on the springboard of critical observation

*7 >>> Is it not obvious that we deal with irreligious people inculcating elements of theistic religions ?

*8 >>> I only (partly) agreed with your definition of critical thinking 

*9 >>> I treated it in the #142 point 8

*10 >>> yes >>> my answer is predicated upon my definition of belief (i.e the acceptance of a thing) >>> holding false beliefs applies if you conceive belief as "the acceptance of a thing as factual" 

*11 >>> which means you clarify what a belief is expressed as but not the belief per se >>> put in another way u you are logically clarifying what phenomena the belief is dealing with, not the belief itself which is very abstract >>> sometimes one has no basis for a belief >>> one just believes 

your logical clarification deals with the way YOU conceive beliefs which I have defined as  "the acceptance of a thing as factual" >>> I need not remind you that my notion of belief is different >>> hence your conflation

thehomer:

I still do not understand why you're repeating questions that I've already answered. I won't bother repeating myself. Read what I wrote on atheism and on superstition here #133

*1 >>> I have read it >>> now answer my questions in that post (#134 point 1) step-by-step >>> one of them (of utmost importance to me) is as follows >>> how does "application of reason in any area" generally conclude with "a concept (dubbed a lack of belief) about Gods" ? >>> don't forget to answer properly *saying that superstitious atheists have not subjected their superstition to rational thought clearly shows that the do not apply free-thinking as you defined it 1 if they did they would not be superstitious*

thehomer:

Your dishonest attempt to again shift the burden of proof is very sad. Please re-read what you posted. I've put in bold for you.

Please give your example to which this applies in science i.e dogma or poor evidence before you proceed to make further claims on whether or not free-thinking was affected.

And, where are you quoting from? When you do this, it presents your tactics as dishonest somehow implying that you've made this statement previously and I did not respond to it.

*2 >>> I do not need to give examples in what is an assumption >>> again my question (do not evade it)

>>> I do not need to bring examples in science (it is quite irrelevant, my next point backs this up) >>> simply consider that in science there is the need to verify theories (with proper evidence), without the use of dogma, b4 they are accepted

>>> now answer my bolded question below >>> and quit with asking for trifles >>> keep the answer simple and precise for clarity

>>> is a violation of this by scientists opposed to free-thinking as you understand it ?
by dogma, i mean a doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.
If you want me to give examples, please state the relevance

 

thehomer:
What is wrong with you? Do you not know how to read? Or do you not understand what you wrote? It seems that you do not understand that based on the law of gravitation that only one option would work. You were laying claim to some other law that would make other options true. This is the claim you are yet to present evidence for. You may go back to my questions here #31  to understand the ridiculousness of your statements.


Do you have any laws where the other options would be correct? i.e either the moon being bigger than the sun or the sun and the moon being the same size.

*3 >>> we are now talking about gravity and cosmological models

thehomer link=topic=556936.msg7707888#msg7707888 date=1297373707Which law does this refer to? Which law do you have in mind? Are such laws in existence? You really need to do your work. This is why you need to avoid making such outrageous claims. I don't have the time to search around for nonexistent laws.

[/quote]

*4 >>> same here

thehomer:
This is rubbish until you can actually indicate that there are such laws. So, present the law you're speaking about.

*5 >>> gravity and cosmological models (by Ptolemy and Copernicus)

[quote author=thehomer link=topic=556936.msg7707888#msg7707888 date=1297373707:
Some of them are human constructs, others are not human constructs.

*6 >>> be specific >>> which ones are and which ones aren't (i am going somewhere)

thehomer:
What you're doing here is committing a false dichotomy fallacy. The reason is that some fantasies are based on actual physical elements, others are not. And I still wonder what the relevance is to the actual physical objects being discussed.

*7 >>> give an example of a fantasy not based on factual elements ? (as far as I know there can be none) >>> i ask because your earlier talk of fantasies based on fantasies (which contain and are a based on factual elements) certainly puts a dent on your stance that, some fantasies are not based on factual elements

thehomer:
ThisI see no reason why I should. Can a single entity be both relative and absolute? Have you noticed the contradiction yet? If something is relative, this means it is not absolute and vice versa.

*8 >>> this is precisely why I say truth is relatively absolute and absolutely relative >>> I wonder how truth can be absolute when it is not self-evident to all people, at all times, in all places >>> I wonder how it can be absolute when it can be rendered ineffectual by another truth >>> now answer my explication on truth/knowledge (in #132 point 5 - the one in quote) step-by-step and answer my poser in the manner directed (your reason for not replying is flimsy)

thehomer:
He did not free fall to the ground. The free fall part ends with the point of first contact.

*9 >>> ok >>> Alan Magee fell on and was found on the glass, right ? 

thehomer link=topic=556936.msg7707888#msg7707888 date=1297373707Your dishonest tactics after failing to meet the requirements is really sad. Do you not understand that there is a difference between a person's first contact being the ground and the first contact being some other material? Do you also not understand that a free fall outside a plane is different from one within a plane? You really need learn to admit that you were wrong and understand that a person's beliefs will not prevent certain death.
I never said there were no people living with AIDS, I said people still die of it irrespective of their beliefs.

*10 >>> actually beliefs can (have the CAPABILITY to) prevent a certain death >>> what killed someone centuries ago would not be fatal now

[quote author=thehomer:
This is a simple thought experiment. Even in the absence of a human mind, water would still be water.

*11 >>> clap for yourself >>> because i was talking about THE CONCEPTION OF a truth (#132 point 6) >>> by conception I meant understanding >>> you clearly take my statement to mean that truth is conceived (birthed) by the human mind (you take it out of context)
 
let this be clear >>> a truth (as u rightly say) exists outside of the human mind BUT it is the human mind only that exercises will to believe (accept) a truth, apprehends a truth and expresses it via truth statements, semantic values and logical propositions 

As far as I know there are no other extra-terrestrial beings capable of abstracting truths the way man does * in this regard, robots (and AI) hold promise* 

[quote author=thehomer link=topic=556936.msg7707888#msg7707888 date=1297373707]What means were you speaking of? This is the context in which you used it. So what proof was it again?

So after the guillotine, what "means" do you wish to use to avoid certain death?

*12 >>> allow me to assist your comprehension of my reply
>>> in that post, I clearly told you (with post nos to back it up) that you were the first to bring up the term 'machine', when I was considering a means to avoid death by beheading

now I simply need you to assume_forget what is possible presently_a situation whereby a means is invented, such that if a person's head is cut of, such a person will still be alive ?

Will your said truth (that one dies after beheading) remain valid ? 

don't run away from my question or start crying 'handwaving' >>> calm down, assume, think and answer my question >>> I beg you !

thehomer:
Your question is still pointless unless you have outlined a way for someone to survive death by guillotine. And I'm not speaking about insects, I'm speaking about humans.

*13 >>> you cow away from a question by whimsically asking for evidence >>> no problem ! Give me the empirical evidence that absolutely proves, beyond all doubt that avoiding death by beheading is impossible ? >>> how did your cake taste ? 

thehomer:
The question is pointless because truths are not limited to physical objects so your attempt to make them fallacies fails. Whether or not you can touch them, what is true is true.

 *14 >>> *my first response on reading this was to give a wry smile; the ironic thing, is how you will more likely than not, ask for an empirical-based justification of God who is understood to metaphysical* your answer is pointless because I asked whether numbers are human constructs

>>> who conceived (birthed) the truth statement that 1 + 1 = 2 ? >>> what truth does it try to express ?  *keep in mind that there are varied number systems that express that equation in a different form >>> if you assume 1 + 1 = 2 to be a truth (and not a truth statement) that is absolute why isn't it self evident to everybody that 1 + 1 = 2 ? 

your talk of truth not having to be physical is funny because that's part why I said that it is based on contingencies >>> so what other form does truth take ? spiritual ?

since u claim that truth is not physical please back this up (prove it) and do not use the example of physical water >>> how do you expect a non-physical truth not to be contingent on human reasoning ?

You have every need to prove your claim that truth is not limited to physical objects and while doing so consider my riddle >>> does truth exist outside of reality or because of reality ?

thehomer:
No we haven't. The mechanics of objects in this universe is what is being discussed if you actually think that the sun and the moon could be the same size or that the moon is bigger than the sun. Follow the thread up and read your increasingly ridiculous statements about this universe.

*15 >>> okay >>> please explain what are we talking about ? >>> maybe I goofed somewhere post the comment now where you say I got off-point and I'll surely check them >>> BTW, such ridiculous statements were once held to be 'truths' >>> which is why I can say with conviction that truth is absolutely relative and relatively absolute

thehomer:
Going by your various attempts at shifting the burden of proof on you on this thread and your sad attempts at confabulation, I don't think I'll waste my time on that new thread. I'll advice you to avoid fantasy when real physical objects and mechanics are being discussed

*16 >>> you are lazy >>> this is the same nonsense that made me censure DeepSight in the former topic (talking of "Atheism Is A Religion) >>> IF I shift burden and confabulate, you should be willing to put in the prerequisite effort to get me back on track  *maybe your answer is a pretense to knowledge when you have NO COGENT POINT to make

>>> besides we are talking about a different topic >>> so do not play the toddler >>> at least, for the sake of the goodwill we have between us (never mind the scuffle that is certain to plague any debate) >>> i pray you to read the topic and tell me if my arguments were better polished

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> my whole statement was a satire

Then you're either lying here #138 or you were lying when you said this.

thehomer:
. . . Do you consider Socrates an authority or not?

Uyi Iredia]
answer to 5th question >>> yes, he is an an authority >>> his dialectic method is one you apply frequently

[/quote]

So, which is it? Are you lying now or were you lying then because if one of them is true, then the other will not be true.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> what does my talk about darkness have to do with my accusation of your fallacy ?

Have you forgotten what you wrote? Here's #135 a link to it.

thehomer:
What is the difference? If it is redundant, this would imply that the two positions are the same. This is yet another contradiction in your position

Uyi Iredia:

. . . all you have explicated, really are beliefs >>> your counter-argument sounds like telling me "Hey ! Uyi, darkness can shine forth" - that's absurd

You were presenting a strawman in form of an analogy without being aware of it.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> ok

*4 >>> please demonstrate this 

What should I demonstrate? That it was not an equivocation or that you are yet to clarify what you mean?
You also need to note the number of times you have claimed that I committed fallacies without your being able to demonstrate them.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> it does not matter to the person in spite of the consequence >>> death from gunshot simply does not make sense to Person B >>> the truth has no effect against the power of Person B's belief or will

"Will and Intellect are one and the same thing"
- Benedicto de Espinoza

So his death does not matter to him? Is this another example of your satire? A person's death is really of no consequence to him? Wow.
You have still not clarified what you mean here by something being of no consequence.
And, your quote is irrelevant because the things under discussion are beliefs and truth not will and intellect. (Red herring).

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> this is still another fallacy when u keep in mind your earlier reply to my comment >>> u travelled from vital questions I raised and engaged in unwanton mud-slinging >>> here is my original reply lest we chase shadows once again

How was my response a fallacy? The fact that you agree with me but you simply wish to be evasive is a fallacy? I keep noticing that you regularly fail to demonstrate fallacies that you accuse me of. Please review my posts and note my responses each time I detect fallacies that you make. Note that I clearly explain how you commit these fallacies.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> Is it not obvious that we deal with irreligious people inculcating elements of theistic religions ?

No. What we are dealing with are people who freely apply critical thinking.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> I only (partly) agreed with your definition of critical thinking

What part do you disagree with? Since you failed to include it in that post?

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> I treated it in the #142 point 8

No you didn't. You still did not show how I confused truth with semantic values and the other things you put there. It seems I'll have to add this to your growing list of baseless accusations.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> yes >>> my answer is predicated upon my definition of belief (i.e the acceptance of a thing) >>> holding false beliefs applies if you conceive belief as "the acceptance of a thing as factual" 

This is a meaningless definition if one cannot decide whether or not a belief is true. So I ask you again, based on this definition of yours, can a person hold a false belief?
This tactic is a very terrible one because it effectively allows one to use words with particular connotations in ways that are unfamiliar or meaningless.

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> which means you clarify what a belief is expressed as but not the belief per se >>> put in another way u you are logically clarifying what phenomena the belief is dealing with, not the belief itself which is very abstract >>> sometimes one has no basis for a belief >>> one just believes 

your logical clarification deals with the way YOU conceive beliefs which I have defined as  "the acceptance of a thing as factual" >>> I need not remind you that my notion of belief is different >>> hence your conflation

This is either just you making up stuff again or you really do not understand what belief as generally used in English Language means. Here are some links and definitions to help you out.

Wiktionary:
1. Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
source

[quote author=Dictionary.com:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
source

Oxforddictionary.com:

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:
2. something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion:
source

You really need to avoid trying to make up English Language as we go along. That is one of the very important tools we are using to communicate.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> I have read it >>> now answer my questions in that post (#134 point 1) step-by-step >>> one of them (of utmost importance to me) is as follows >>> how does "application of reason in any area" generally conclude with "a concept (dubbed a lack of belief) about Gods" ? >>> don't forget to answer properly *saying that superstitious atheists have not subjected their superstition to rational thought clearly shows that the do not apply free-thinking as you defined it 1 if they did they would not be superstitious*

What part of my statement do you not understand? Do you not understand that atheists are not a homologous group and neither are theists? Note that I said free and critical thinking tends towards atheism not that atheism tends towards free and critical thinking. Please try to understand these types of relationships.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> I do not need to give examples in what is an assumption >>> again my question (do not evade it)

Yes you do. I have not made the assumption with you.
Let me get something clear. Are you retracting this statement that you made or not?

Uyi Iredia:
What of contexts (especially in science) when dogma or poor evidence is applied ?  >>> is free-thinking violated ?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> we are now talking about gravity and cosmological models

Yes. Do you have laws that would make the other descriptions true in this universe of ours? If you do, please state them.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> gravity and cosmological models (by Ptolemy and Copernicus)

You have still not stated the relevant laws. Are you evading again? What I'm asking for are laws that would make the other options true in this universe.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> be specific >>> which ones are and which ones aren't (i am going somewhere)

Sight and telescopes are not human constructs while reason is a human construct.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> give an example of a fantasy not based on factual elements ? (as far as I know there can be none) >>> i ask because your earlier talk of fantasies based on fantasies (which contain and are a based on factual elements) certainly puts a dent on your stance that, some fantasies are not based on factual elements

I'll do better than that. I'll give you three examples.

Harry Potter book 3: Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling,
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King by J.R.R Tolkien,
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S.Lewis.

All books based on fantasies. Including fantastical creatures, abilities etc.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> this is precisely why I say truth is relatively absolute and absolutely relative >>> I wonder how truth can be absolute when it is not self-evident to all people, at all times, in all places >>> I wonder how it can be absolute when it can be rendered ineffectual by another truth >>> now answer my explication on truth/knowledge (in #132 point 5 - the one in quote) step-by-step and answer my poser in the manner directed (your reason for not replying is flimsy)

And here you clearly demonstrate your usual confusion of truth with knowledge.
Humans knowledge is limited. This does not also mean that truth is limited.

[size=14pt]So, repeat after me, knowledge is different from truth.[/size]

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> ok >>> Alan Magee fell on and was found on the glass, right ?

Go back and read up on free-fall to the ground. A free-fall from the sky ends with the first surface of contact.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> actually beliefs can (have the CAPABILITY to) prevent a certain death >>> what killed someone centuries ago would not be fatal now

This must be another one of your trademark sarcasms.
So the fact that we have tools with which we can use to prevent some deaths now that were not available in the past means that beliefs can prevent a certain death?
Talk about a non-sequitur.

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> clap for yourself >>> because i was talking about THE CONCEPTION OF a truth (#132 point 6) >>> by conception I meant understanding >>> you clearly take my statement to mean that truth is conceived (birthed) by the human mind (you take it out of context)
 
let this be clear >>> a truth (as u rightly say) exists outside of the human mind BUT it is the human mind only that exercises will to believe (accept) a truth, apprehends a truth and expresses it via truth statements, semantic values and logical propositions 

As far as I know there are no other extra-terrestrial beings capable of abstracting truths the way man does * in this regard, robots (and AI) hold promise*

If you agree with me on this, then why make absurd statements like

thehomer:
Ok. I say the sun is larger than the moon. Another person says the moon is larger than the sun. Are both of these statements true?*3

Uyi Iredia]
*3 >>> yes, the were *i'm thinking Ptolemy and Copernicus, and the famed lady, Hypatia, who advanced Ptolemic models of the universe* >>> before the space age settled things of course

[/quote]


[quote author=Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> allow me to assist your comprehension of my reply
>>> in that post, I clearly told you (with post nos to back it up) that you were the first to bring up the term 'machine', when I was considering a means to avoid death by beheading

You're still obfuscating. You wish to avoid the use of the word "machine" so, what did you actually mean when you used the word "means" in that context? Don't run away?

Uyi Iredia:

now I simply need you to assume_forget what is possible presently_a situation whereby a means is invented, such that if a person's head is cut of, such a person will still be alive ?

What do you mean when you use "means" here?

Uyi Iredia:

Will your said truth (that one dies after beheading) remain valid ? 
don't run away from my question or start crying 'handwaving' >>> calm down, assume, think and answer my question >>> I beg you !

I think you need to clarify your question by answering the above questions. Also, this #119 was the question being asked which you already answered satisfactorily.

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> you cow away from a question by whimsically asking for evidence >>> no problem ! Give me the empirical evidence that absolutely proves, beyond all doubt that avoiding death by beheading is impossible ? >>> how did your cake taste ?

Are you serious? Or is this another satire? Do you really think that people do not die after being decapitated?

Uyi Iredia:

 *14 >>> *my first response on reading this was to give a wry smile; the ironic thing, is how you will more likely than not, ask for an empirical-based justification of God who is understood to metaphysical* your answer is pointless because I asked whether numbers are human constructs

Your God is metaphysical? Interesting. Who died on the cross?

Uyi Iredia:

>>> who conceived (birthed) the truth statement that 1 + 1 = 2 ? >>> what truth does it try to express ?  *keep in mind that there are varied number systems that express that equation in a different form >>> if you assume 1 + 1 = 2 to be a truth (and not a truth statement) that is absolute why isn't it self evident to everybody that 1 + 1 = 2 ?

Again, repeat after me, [size=16pt]knowledge is different from truth[/size].
The fact that not everyone knows something does not make it untrue.

Uyi Iredia:

your talk of truth not having to be physical is funny because that's part why I said that it is based on contingencies >>> so what other form does truth take ? spiritual ?

I don't see what's funny about truth not being limited to the physical.

Uyi Iredia:

since u claim that truth is not physical please back this up (prove it) and do not use the example of physical water >>> how do you expect a non-physical truth not to be contingent on human reasoning ?

A=A is true. 1+2 = 3 is true.

Uyi Iredia:

You have every need to prove your claim that truth is not limited to physical objects and while doing so consider my riddle >>> does truth exist outside of reality or because of reality ?

I have done so above.
I see no reason why your so called riddle is important in this discussion.

Uyi Iredia:

*15 >>> okay >>> please explain what are we talking about ? >>> maybe I goofed somewhere post the comment now where you say I got off-point and I'll surely check them >>> BTW, such ridiculous statements were once held to be 'truths' >>> which is why I can say with conviction that truth is absolutely relative and relatively absolute

This was the beginning of the relevant cosmology. Only one of them was true. You were trying to make excuses that would seem to make beliefs true.

Again, repeat after me [size=18pt]truth is different from knowledge[/size].

Uyi Iredia:

*16 >>> you are lazy >>> this is the same nonsense that made me censure DeepSight in the former topic (talking of "Atheism Is A Religion) >>> IF I shift burden and confabulate, you should be willing to put in the prerequisite effort to get me back on track  *maybe your answer is a pretense to knowledge when you have NO COGENT POINT to make

>>> besides we are talking about a different topic >>> so do not play the toddler >>> at least, for the sake of the goodwill we have between us (never mind the scuffle that is certain to plague any debate) >>> i pray you to read the topic and tell me if my arguments were better polished

It seems you find it very difficult to pay attention and understand English. Go back and review my posts. Take note of the times I pointed out that some of your responses were irrelevant. Note your deviations to fantasy.

I really hope you're going to demonstrate how I'm being lazy because you can run a search and note where I pointed out that you were trying to shift the burden of proof.
Do yourself a favour and read through my posts properly.

thehomer:

What part of my statement do you not understand? Do you not understand that atheists are not a homologous group and neither are theists? Note that I said free and critical thinking tends towards atheism not that atheism tends towards free and critical thinking. Please try to understand these types of relationships.

answer the questions in post #134 point 1 and stop this unnecessary evasions by replying with irrelevant answers >>> i repeat that the most pertinent question you should answer is this: how does "application of reason in any area" generally conclude with "a concept (dubbed a lack of belief) about Gods" ?

thehomer:

Yes you do. I have not made the assumption with you.
Let me get something clear. Are you retracting this statement that you made or not?

i have modified what I that statement to clarify what i meant >>> now assume with me and answer my questions >>> here they are


>>> I do not need to bring examples in science (it is quite irrelevant, my next point backs this up) >>> simply consider that in science there is the need to verify theories (with proper evidence), without the use of dogma, b4 they are accepted

>>> now answer my bolded question below >>> and quit with asking for trifles >>> keep the answer simple and precise for clarity

>>> is a violation of this by scientists opposed to free-thinking as you understand it ?
by dogma, i mean a doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.
If you want me to give examples, please state the relevance

thehomer:

Yes. Do you have laws that would make the other descriptions true in this universe of ours? If you do, please state them.

i do not need to that >>> i will merely repeat what I have said in #125 point 2 >>> this is it

*2 >>> consider the following: that we now understand gravity to be a bend in the space-time continuum and not a force (as emphasized in Newtonian physics) >>> also consider that we now view the universe with Copernican lenses (or some other new cosmological model I do not know) as against the former revered Ptolemaic models

These are good examples/analogies to evince what I meant when I said physical laws can work otherwise

Furthermore chimeras have a role to play in the vast concept of free-thinking >>> what we say is tenable is really limited to knowledge which is simply not absolute >>> on a slightly different note, lemme add that imaginative genius (in felicity with reality) plays a crucial role in free-thinking

thehomer:

You have still not stated the relevant laws. Are you evading again? What I'm asking for are laws that would make the other options true in this universe.

what are the relevant laws

thehomer:

Sight and telescopes are not human constructs while reason is a human construct.

what validates a human construct (for example, reason) as a means of comprehending a truth?

thehomer:

I'll do better than that. I'll give you three examples.

Harry Potter book 3: Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling,
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King by J.R.R Tolkien,
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S.Lewis.

All books based on fantasies. Including fantastical creatures, abilities etc.

are prisoners, kings, rings, lion and wardrobes fantasies ? i ask because you say that the said titles are fantasies built on fantasies

thehomer:

And here you clearly demonstrate your usual confusion of truth with knowledge.
Humans knowledge is limited. This does not also mean that truth is limited.

your knowledge is obviously absolute >>> since you can declare, absolutely, that truth is not limited >>> please answer my questions and stop hand-waving >>> here are the comments you should review with the poser you should answer >>> stop running away from them

[b]Truth/Knowledge is absolutely relative and relatively absolute

and this is my explication of my posit from comment #14 (with additions)

Knowledge/Truth is an infinite attribute >>> this is proven by the fact that there is always new knowledge/truth to gain about the simplest of concepts/postulates/questions e.g man, 1+1=2, what is evil  ?

>>> it is relatively absolute because inspite of the fact that there will always be knowledge/truth we don't know >>> we are certain of knowledge/truth we have >>> truth and knowledge are relatively absolute wrt to what we do not know about truth itself

it is absolutely relative because there is always knowledge/truth we do not know (and are consequently not certain of) despite the knowledge we have >>> absolutely relative because knowledge and truth are certainly/absolutely bounded by the fact that we can never fully know the truth

Now since you assert that knowledge is relative >>> affirm or deny my poser to you: Is knowledge absolute ?[/b]

thehomer:
[size=14pt]So, repeat after me, knowledge is different from truth.[/size]

"Empty Barrels make the loudest noise"
- Unknown

thehomer:

Go back and read up on free-fall to the ground. A free-fall from the sky ends with the first surface of contact.

i will but this does not change my stance

thehomer:

This must be another one of your trademark sarcasms.
So the fact that we have tools with which we can use to prevent some deaths now that were not available in the past means that beliefs can prevent a certain death?
Talk about a non-sequitur.

precisely >>> such beliefs are the core of scientific and technological advancements >>> you are close-minded

thehomer:

If you agree with me on this, then why make absurd statements like

do you agree with the other parts of my comment that you are replying ?

thehomer:

You're still obfuscating. You wish to avoid the use of the word "machine" so, what did you actually mean when you used the word "means" in that context? Don't run away?


What do you mean when you use "means" here?

this is my definition of means in the context of that statement >>> look at the noun >>> the 1st part (mean³)

thehomer:

I think you need to clarify your question by answering the above questions. Also, this #119 was the question being asked which you already answered satisfactorily.

answer the question and quit red-taping

thehomer:

Are you serious? Or is this another satire? Do you really think that people do not die after being decapitated?

can you give me empirical evidence that ABSOLUTELY PROVES beyond all doubt that death occurs through beheading ?

thehomer:

Your God is metaphysical? Interesting. Who died on the cross?

i put that comment in italic (as usual) to highlight the fact that it was of secondary importance >>> your reply here is a glaring red herring *you are free to eat it* >>> now answer my original statement (and question) here

your answer is pointless because I asked whether numbers are human constructs

thehomer:

Again, repeat after me, [size=16pt]knowledge is different from truth[/size].
The fact that not everyone knows something does not make it untrue.

since you are fond of dogmatically asserting that knowledge is different from truth *a position that is falsifiable*>>> prove to me that knowledge is not the same as truth >>> my 1st poser to your assertion is this: define both truth and knowledge ? >>> don't run away from my question

thehomer:

I don't see what's funny about truth not being limited to the physical.

*then cry over it* >>> since truth is not limited to that which is physical then it can be rightly DEDUCED that NOT ALL truths need to be demonstrated physically to be accepted (believed)

thehomer:

A=A is true. 1+2 = 3 is true.

1 + 2 = 3 is true >>> A=B is true >>> you repeat what your fixated mind has digested without question >>> what is 1 ? what is 2 ?

thehomer:

I have done so above.
I see no reason why your so called riddle is important in this discussion.

you haven't not everyone uses that method of counting *Eastern methods are more efficient, so i theorize from documentaries i've chanced* >>> now do not run away from that riddle >>> u brush it off by claiming it is not part of this discussion >>> do not forget that are arguments are on the broad topics of truth (and by default knowledge and reality comes in) >>> my riddle is important >>> please, answer it

thehomer:

This was the beginning of the relevant cosmology. Only one of them was true. You were trying to make excuses that would seem to make beliefs true.

please post the comment no and the paragraph no. >>> the link is faulty

thehomer:

Again, repeat after me [size=18pt]truth is different from knowledge[/size].

Mr homer, you sound like a catechist

thehomer:

It seems you find it very difficult to pay attention and understand English. Go back and review my posts. Take note of the times I pointed out that some of your responses were irrelevant. Note your deviations to fantasy.

another fallacy of irrelevance argumentum ad hominem

thehomer:

I really hope you're going to demonstrate how I'm being lazy because you can run a search and note where I pointed out that you were trying to shift the burden of proof.
Do yourself a favour and read through my posts properly.

*i hope you will demonstrate how i had no cogent point to make in the topic "Obama's Unbiblical Declaration"* >>> don't be naughty >>> deal with that topic instead of evincing poor reasoning >>> if I confabulate here, that does not mean that I'll do so in that topic (it is a fallacy of hasty generalization, an atrocious inference) >>> go and treat that topic >>> if you simply do not wish to do so now, admit it >>> if you are willing, quit sulking and deal with the topic


*meanwhile I have no scruples in paying you back in like manner* >>> you have no cogent point to make on my topic "Atheism Is A Religion (Part 2)"

thehomer:

Then you're either lying here #138 or you were lying when you said this.


So, which is it? Are you lying now or were you lying then because if one of them is true, then the other will not be true.
*1

Have you forgotten what you wrote? Here's #135 a link to it.

You were presenting a strawman in form of an analogy without being aware of it.
*2

What should I demonstrate? That it was not an equivocation or that you are yet to clarify what you mean?
You also need to note the number of times you have claimed that I committed fallacies without your being able to demonstrate them.*3


So his death does not matter to him? Is this another example of your satire? A person's death is really of no consequence to him? Wow.
You have still not clarified what you mean here by something being of no consequence.
And, your quote is irrelevant because the things under discussion are beliefs and truth not will and intellect. (Red herring).*4


How was my response a fallacy? The fact that you agree with me but you simply wish to be evasive is a fallacy? I keep noticing that you regularly fail to demonstrate fallacies that you accuse me of. Please review my posts and note my responses each time I detect fallacies that you make. Note that I clearly explain how you commit these fallacies.
*5

No. What we are dealing with are people who freely apply critical thinking.*6


What part do you disagree with? Since you failed to include it in that post?*7


No you didn't. You still did not show how I confused truth with semantic values and the other things you put there. It seems I'll have to add this to your growing list of baseless accusations.*7


This is a meaningless definition if one cannot decide whether or not a belief is true. So I ask you again, based on this definition of yours, can a person hold a false belief?
This tactic is a very terrible one because it effectively allows one to use words with particular connotations in ways that are unfamiliar or meaningless.
*8

This is either just you making up stuff again or you really do not understand what belief as generally used in English Language means. Here are some links and definitions to help you out*9

You really need to avoid trying to make up English Language as we go along. That is one of the very important tools we are using to communicate.*10

*1 >>> how was i lying ?

*2 >>> i am talking of my accusation that you commit the fallacy of secundum quid and you are talking about some analogy i made 

*3 >>> demonstrate how the following is/is not a fallacy

*2 >>> the difference is that one is actively explicated; the other (as I have said) is passive and redundant >>> consider the paraphrase of the quote in contention: you do not explicate an argument/notion/concept/truth that is not accepted

*3 >>> and you equivocate by assuming my posit that man is the measure of all things to mean >>> truth is contigent upon human minds >>> that was is the error u made that I am correcting

*4 >>> person B's death will not change his belief that people do not die by stabbing >>> he dies but his belief does not die

when we believe or do not believe we exert our will >>> it is with intellect we comprehend truth >>> this demonstrates the bearing of will and intellect to the topic

*5 >>> i'll repeat my earlier replies

*6 >>> this is still another fallacy when u keep in mind your earlier reply to my comment >>> u travelled from vital questions I raised and engaged in unwanton mud-slinging >>> here is my original reply lest we chase shadows once again

*3 >>> if this debate was in a purely scholastic circle >>> your definition of free-thinking will be applauded >>> I do not fully agree with your definition (in comment #127) because of the ambiguity of the term "application of reason" >>> my skeptical
side asks: what is reason ? how,when and to what should it apply? >>> My own conception of free-thinking (note that I did not use the word 'definition') is that >>>  it is the means of viewing reality on the springboard of critical observation

*6 >>> you are wrong >>> this is because >>> a cultural christian is anyone who ascribes to elements of a the christian religion (especially cultural elements) without holding core beliefs of that religion >>> this is synonymous with my talk of irreligious people imbibing elements of a theistic religion
(christianity)  >>> superstitious atheists do not apply critical thinking *the term itself is a paradox of sorts*

*7 >>> i included it check comment #135 point 3 >>> here it is (note the bolded part)

*3 >>> if this debate was in a purely scholastic circle >>> your definition of free-thinking will be applauded >>> I do not fully agree with your definition (in comment #127) because of the ambiguity of the term "application of reason" >>> my skeptical
side asks: what is reason ? how,when and to what should it apply? >>> My own conception of free-thinking (note that I did not use the word 'definition') is that >>>  it is the means of viewing reality on the springboard of critical observation

*8 >>> this only shows the fact that you equivocate on my own conception of beliefs >>> you repeat a question I have already answered (only in a different way)

10 >>> yes >>> my answer is predicated upon my definition of belief (i.e the acceptance of a thing) >>> holding false beliefs applies if you conceive belief as "the acceptance of a thing as factual"

a belief is not false >>> only what it comprehends or it is expressed as can be falsified >>> why do you suppose some people hold prejudices in the face of 'common sense'

*9 >>> you have not said anything worthwhile

*10 >>> more ad hominems here

Uyi Iredia:

answer the questions in post #134 point 1 and stop this unnecessary evasions by replying with irrelevant answers >>> i repeat that the most pertinent question you should answer is this: how does "application of reason in any area" generally conclude with "a concept (dubbed a lack of belief) about Gods" ?

I already answered this. This was why you called on Socrates and commenced your descent to your genetic fallacy. See my response and yours here #82

Uyi Iredia:

i have modified what I that statement to clarify what i meant >>> now assume with me and answer my questions >>> here they are

>>> I do not need to bring examples in science (it is quite irrelevant, my next point backs this up) >>> simply consider that in science there is the need to verify theories (with proper evidence), without the use of dogma, b4 they are accepted
>>> now answer my bolded question below >>> and quit with asking for trifles >>> keep the answer simple and precise for clarity
>>> is a violation of this by scientists opposed to free-thinking as you understand it ?
by dogma, i mean a doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.
If you want me to give examples, please state the relevance

Read what you've posted above. You are claiming that scientists are violating scientific principles. You have to demonstrate this. This is yet another example of you making a claim without backing it up. Please show how scientists violate the need to verify theories (with proper evidence), without the use of dogma.

Uyi Iredia:

i do not need to that >>> i will merely repeat what I have said in #125 point 2 >>> this is it

*2 >>> consider the following: that we now understand gravity to be a bend in the space-time continuum and not a force (as emphasized in Newtonian physics) >>> also consider that we now view the universe with Copernican lenses (or some other new cosmological model I do not know) as against the former revered Ptolemaic models
These are good examples/analogies to evince what I meant when I said physical laws can work otherwise
Furthermore chimeras have a role to play in the vast concept of free-thinking >>> what we say is tenable is really limited to knowledge which is simply not absolute >>> on a slightly different note, lemme add that imaginative genius (in felicity with reality) plays a crucial role in free-thinking

Ptolemy was wrong. The fact that he was wrong does not mean that the laws worked the way he described them. The laws work the same way now as they did 10,000 years ago. This is why you need examples to back up the outrageous claims you regularly make.

Uyi Iredia:

what are the relevant laws

That is my question to you. You need to present laws showing how we can be in this universe in a solar system where the sun and the moon are the same size.

Uyi Iredia:

what validates a human construct (for example, reason) as a means of comprehending a truth?

I'll answer but I really do not see the relevance. Reason is validated because it works.

Uyi Iredia:

are prisoners, kings, rings, lion and wardrobes fantasies ? i ask because you say that the said titles are fantasies built on fantasies

prisoners who are wizards in a magical prison, kings that have access to magical tools who also have very long lives in a magical universe, rings with magical powers in a magical universe, talking lions with the ability to resurrect, wardrobes that lead to alternate magical universes with magical creatures. Yes they are fantasies built on more fantasies.

Uyi Iredia:

your knowledge is obviously absolute >>> since you can declare, absolutely, that truth is not limited >>> please answer my questions and stop hand-waving >>> here are the comments you should review with the poser you should answer >>> stop running away from them

What is truth limited by?

Uyi Iredia:

"Empty Barrels make the loudest noise"
- Unknown

I notice you as usual quoting yourself asking questions that have already been answered. Simply go back to my response to your quote. See this link here #133 7th response clearly demonstrating to you the core problem of using an oxymoron as a main point of your argument.

Uyi Iredia:

i will but this does not change my stance

Why not? This is the problem with this sort of religious or faith based thinking. Evidence really does not matter to you. Especially when it shows that you're making a poor assumption.

Uyi Iredia:

precisely >>> such beliefs are the core of scientific and technological advancements >>> you are close-minded

Here we go from a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29]non-sequitur[/url] to a shift of scope fallacy. Very bad. You go from beliefs can prevent certain death to based on current knowledge; scientific advancement can now prevent certain death. Note that I did not simply accuse you of committing a fallacy but I also explained to you how you make the fallacy.

Uyi Iredia:

do you agree with the other parts of my comment that you are replying ?

No I do not. The human mind does not birth truth, it comes to realize some truths. These realized truths are what we call knowledge in this context.

Uyi Iredia:

this is my definition of means in the context of that statement >>> look at the noun >>> the 1st part (mean³)

Really? This is what you're saying?

Dictionary.reference.com]
Usually, means. (used with a singular or plural verb) an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end: The telephone is a means of communication. There are several means of solving the problem.
[/quote]


I hope you realize that instrument there can also be machine as is demonstrated in the example about the telephone which is a machine.

So let's be clear, this means, is it an agency, and instrument/machine or a method?


[quote author=Uyi Iredia:

answer the question and quit red-taping

I'll answer when your "means" is clarified.

Uyi Iredia:

can you give me empirical evidence that ABSOLUTELY PROVES beyond all doubt that death occurs through beheading ?

This depends on whether this is a view you actually hold. So do you believe that decapitation does not cause death?

Uyi Iredia:

i put that comment in italic (as usual) to highlight the fact that it was of secondary importance >>> your reply here is a glaring red herring *you are free to eat it* >>> now answer my original statement (and question) here

It was of secondary importance so I responded. Does this bother you? If you did not want a response, then you should have said so or not made that statement.

Uyi Iredia:

your answer is pointless because I asked whether numbers are human constructs

What is the relevance of this? Whether or not it is a human construct, the conclusion of those expressions if accurate is true. i.e if it is a human construct, its conclusion is true. If if is not a human construct, its conclusion is still true. So I ask again, what is the relevance?

Uyi Iredia:

since you are fond of dogmatically asserting that knowledge is different from truth *a position that is falsifiable*>>> prove to me that knowledge is not the same as truth >>> my 1st poser to your assertion is this: define both truth and knowledge ? >>> don't run away from my question

I already answered this. See here #136 response 9 it shows a major difference between truth and knowledge.
Remember that you already agreed with me that truth and knowledge were quite different yet it seems that just for the sake of argument, you wish to take another position. See your statement here #125 asterisked response 3

Uyi Iredia:

*then cry over it* >>> since truth is not limited to that which is physical then it can be rightly DEDUCED that NOT ALL truths need to be demonstrated physically to be accepted (believed)

Yes so? I have given examples of some truths that are physical and non-physical.

Uyi Iredia:

1 + 2 = 3 is true >>> A=B is true >>> you repeat what your fixated mind has digested without question >>> what is 1 ? what is 2 ?

I never said A=B is true.
Whatever it is does not make the statement false.

Uyi Iredia:

you haven't not everyone uses that method of counting *Eastern methods are more efficient, so i theorize from documentaries i've chanced* >>> now do not run away from that riddle >>> u brush it off by claiming it is not part of this discussion >>> do not forget that are arguments are on the broad topics of truth (and by default knowledge and reality comes in) >>> my riddle is important >>> please, answer it

If you're so interested, you're free to open up another thread on that. I've given more than enough leeway in this discussion.

Uyi Iredia:

please post the comment no and the paragraph no. >>> the link is faulty

No the link is not faulty. You may need to check your browser because I've checked it with three different browsers. If you have made any modifications to its usual operation then you may need to adjust it. Anyway, here it is again. see the mini quiz #31

Uyi Iredia:

Mr homer, you sound like a catechist

I'm simply making a statement of fact that you already agreed with so please keep separate concepts distinct.

Uyi Iredia:

another fallacy of irrelevance argumentum ad hominem

Do you not learn? How was my statement a fallacy? Please stop making claims of fallacies without demonstrating how this fallacy was made.

Uyi Iredia:

*i hope you will demonstrate how i had no cogent point to make in the topic "Obama's Unbiblical Declaration"* >>> don't be naughty >>> deal with that topic instead of evincing poor reasoning >>> if I confabulate here, that does not mean that I'll do so in that topic (it is a fallacy of hasty generalization, an atrocious inference) >>> go and treat that topic >>> if you simply do not wish to do so now, admit it >>> if you are willing, quit sulking and deal with the topic

Already did. Go back and read it.
If you confabulate here several times and still fail to take correction, this is a good sign that you'll probably simply repeat that somewhere else. This is why you need to learn to take correction. This is why it is not a fallacy in thinking that you'll probably repeat the same elsewhere.
I'll address that topic if I feel like it but of course, the signs you're showing do not look good.

Uyi Iredia:

*meanwhile I have no scruples in paying you back in like manner* >>> you have no cogent point to make on my topic "Atheism Is A Religion (Part 2)"

Maybe I do maybe I don't. But I did address Part 1. You can go through my posts there again if you're up to it.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> how was i lying ?

I see that you've either seen your lie or you wish to blame your teachers for not teaching you properly. I'll indulge you and explain.

You have said you consider Socrates an authority. And at the same time, you said that statement was a joke thereby implying that you do not really think Socrates is an authority.
So I ask you again, do you consider Socrates an authority? If you say yes, then you're lying when you say the statement is a joke. If you say Socrates is not an authority, then you agree with me and this means that you were lying when you said you considered Socrates an authority.
So, choose your poison. (Which demonstrates the lie you're most comfortable with).

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> i am talking of my accusation that you commit the fallacy of secundum quid and you are talking about some analogy i made 

This is why I am reluctant to discuss with you on some other thread you're inviting me to. You simply fail to take correction. Could you please demonstrate how I made this fallacy you're accusing me of?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> demonstrate how the following is/is not a fallacy

Yet again, you run from your responsibility. i.e you run from your burden of proof yet again. You [/b]accused [b]me of committing a fallacy you are yet to demonstrate this. You then rip up a snippet of your post and present it to me as a non-sequitur? What does that post of yours have to do with you demonstrating the fallacy you claim I've committed or with [b]you [/b]clarifying [b]your [/b]position?

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> person B's death will not change his belief that people do not die by stabbing >>> he dies but his belief does not die

when we believe or do not believe we exert our will >>> it is with intellect we comprehend truth >>> this demonstrates the bearing of will and intellect to the topic

A person's beliefs do not continue after their death. Or do you think people have beliefs after they are dead?
Another evasion. The question is this. Is the death of person B of consequence to him?

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> i'll repeat my earlier replies

Please carry out your correction and clearly point out the fallacy. How can you keep making this same mistake after the number of pointers I've given you on how to demonstrate that a person has actually committed the fallacy they are being accused of?

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> you are wrong >>> this is because >>> a cultural christian is anyone who ascribes to elements of a the christian religion (especially cultural elements) without holding core beliefs of that religion >>> this is synonymous with my talk of irreligious people imbibing elements of a theistic religion
(christianity)  >>> superstitious atheists do not apply critical thinking *the term itself is a paradox of sorts*

How was I wrong?
Would you say Catholics are cultural Jews? i.e people who culturally observe Judaism?
How is the term superstitious atheist a paradox?

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> i included it check comment #135 point 3 >>> here it is (note the bolded part)

What is this? Did you not read my post before responding?
You have not shown your disagreement you simply say you do not fully agree due to your perceived ambiguity with your lead off to some other tangent.
And with the same number, you still do not show how I confused truth with semantic values. Just another one of your unverified accusations.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> this only shows the fact that you equivocate on my own conception of beliefs >>> you repeat a question I have already answered (only in a different way)

a belief is not false >>> only what it comprehends or it is expressed as can be falsified >>> why do you suppose some people hold prejudices in the face of 'common sense'

I'm not equivocating. I'm stating that the concept of belief you presented was meaningless if it does not evaluate to true. Or if it cannot be expressed as a true or false statement. What is a belief that is not expressible? Does it make sense to you? I asked if a belief can be false.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> you have not said anything worthwhile

*10 >>> more ad hominems here

For the sake of your God, please try and take corrections and stop throwing away formally defined fallacies about if you do not understand what they mean.
I presented to you various definitions of belief as used in the English Language. If you wish to communicate using English, then you need to use words properly.

The most intelligent people in the world are free thinkers.
I do not allow born-again Christians in my home.
I prefer Muslims actually.
But give me a free thinker any day any time.

You can still believe in "God" and be a free thinker.
You only choose what you want to believe and trash the rest.
Best news? You do not have to deal with hypocrites and parasites of pastors and 'believers'.

Yup. . . we are all God's children too. Depending on the kind of God you choose to serve.
I serve mine. . . in my own image and likeness.

!Get Yours!

thehomer:

I see that you've either seen your lie or you wish to blame your teachers for not teaching you properly. I'll indulge you and explain.

You have said you consider Socrates an authority. And at the same time, you said that statement was a joke thereby implying that you do not really think Socrates is an authority.
So I ask you again, do you consider Socrates an authority? If you say yes, then you're lying when you say the statement is a joke. If you say Socrates is not an authority, then you agree with me and this means that you were lying when you said you considered Socrates an authority.
So, choose your poison. (Which demonstrates the lie you're most comfortable with).

*1 >>> this is the all or nothing fallacy >>> you claim that my talk of Socrates as an authority; certainly makes my talk of satire being a lie >>> as well as the argumentum ad hominem fallacy >>> you make a spiteful reference to my teachers *keep in mind the fact that u have little/no information about my educational background - your talk about teaching is a non-sequitur*

thehomer:

This is why I am reluctant to discuss with you on some other thread you're inviting me to. You simply fail to take correction. Could you please demonstrate how I made this fallacy you're accusing me of?

*2 >>> cut to the chase >>> please explain how I made a strawman analogy in #135 point 2

thehomer:

Yet again, you run from your responsibility. i.e you run from your burden of proof yet again. You [/b]accused [b]me of committing a fallacy you are yet to demonstrate this. You then rip up a snippet of your post and present it to me as a non-sequitur? What does that post of yours have to do with you demonstrating the fallacy you claim I've committed or with [b]you [/b]clarifying [b]your [/b]position?

*3 >>> please demonstrate my errancy in this post (#135 point 2) *I have spared you the trouble of searching for it*

*2 >>> the difference is that one is actively explicated; the other (as I have said) is passive and redundant >>> consider the paraphrase of the quote in contention: you do not explicate an argument/notion/concept/truth that is not accepted 

*3 >>> and you equivocate by assuming my posit that man is the measure of all things to mean >>> truth is contigent upon human minds >>> that was is the error u made that I am correcting

thehomer:

A person's beliefs do not continue after their death. Or do you think people have beliefs after they are dead?
Another evasion. The question is this. Is the death of person B of consequence to him?

*4 >>> I am not answering your question because >>> your question clearly shows you misinterpreted my comment >>> I said that a person's death does not change that person's belief >>> and I (literally) said that a person dies but his belief does not die - they persist through mediums like books, speech or people's acceptance of such beliefs (I did not say a person keeps his beliefs after death - that is different)

>>> as long as (the understanding of) truth is contingent on the the human intellect >>> truth naturally remains subjective

thehomer:

Please carry out your correction and clearly point out the fallacy. How can you keep making this same mistake after the number of pointers I've given you on how to demonstrate that a person has actually committed the fallacy they are being accused of?

*5 >>> you are not serious >>> this is not a proper reply 

thehomer:

How was I wrong?
Would you say Catholics are cultural Jews? i.e people who culturally observe Judaism?
How is the term superstitious atheist NOT a paradox?

*6 >>> same here - no seriousness >>> you ask how u are wrong when a reason has been given >>> you also introduce non- sequiturs in the form of questions >>> as for your poor question on superstitious atheists * I already gave the answer in that post* 

>>> my answer is that superstitious atheists do not apply critical thinking and free-thinking >>> the same critical thinking they supposedly cherish  * keep in mind the fact that u define free-thinking as the application of reason in any area; a definition superstitious atheists run foul of

thehomer:

What is this? Did you not read my post before responding?
You have not shown your disagreement you simply say you do not fully agree due to your perceived ambiguity with your lead off to some other tangent.
And with the same number, you still do not show how I confused truth with semantic values. Just another one of your unverified accusations.

*7 >>> I await a proper answer to my reply >>> why the mud-slinging ? *or do you want to follow the path of Mudley ?* ad hominems from you at this stage will not help us progress

thehomer:

I'm not equivocating. I'm stating that the concept of belief you presented was meaningless if it does not evaluate to true. Or if it cannot be expressed as a true or false statement. What is a belief that is not expressible? Does it make sense to you? I asked if a belief can be false.

*8 >>> you explicitly equivocate >>> you will have to perfectly show how my definition of belief is meaningless >>> and I stand by my reply that a belief cannot be false (all other statements I've made also hold)

thehomer:

For the sake of your God, please try and take corrections and stop throwing away formally defined fallacies about if you do not understand what they mean.
I presented to you various definitions of belief as used in the English Language. If you wish to communicate using English, then you need to use words properly.

*9 >>> a most pitiful reply >>> I therefore find it proper to revert to the earlier statement made #146 point 11 >>> this statement are more reasons I present to prove you conflate beliefs and truth statements (note the bolded parts)

*11 >>> which means you clarify what a belief is expressed as but not the belief per se >>> put in another way u you are logically clarifying what phenomena the belief is dealing with, not the belief itself which is very abstract >>> sometimes one has no basis for a belief >>> one just believes 

your logical clarification deals with the way YOU conceive beliefs which I have defined as  "the acceptance of a thing as factual" >>> I need not remind you that my notion of belief is different >>> hence your conflation

thehomer:

Really? This is what you're saying?


I hope you realize that instrument there can also be machine as is demonstrated in the example about the telephone which is a machine.

So let's be clear, this means, is it an agency, and instrument/machine or a method?*1


I'll answer when your "means" is clarified.*1


This depends on whether this is a view you actually hold. So do you believe that decapitation does not cause death?*2


It was of secondary importance so I responded. Does this bother you? If you did not want a response, then you should have said so or not made that statement.


What is the relevance of this? Whether or not it is a human construct, the conclusion of those expressions if accurate is true. i.e if it is a human construct, its conclusion is true. If if is not a human construct, its conclusion is still true. So I ask again, what is the relevance?*3

I already answered this. See here #136 response 9 it shows a major difference between truth and knowledge.
Remember that you already agreed with me that truth and knowledge were quite different yet it seems that just for the sake of argument, you wish to take another position. See your statement here #125 asterisked response 3*4


Yes so? I have given examples of some truths that are physical and non-physical.*5


I never said A=B is true.
Whatever it is does not make the statement false.*6


If you're so interested, you're free to open up another thread on that. I've given more than enough leeway in this discussion.


No the link is not faulty. You may need to check your browser because I've checked it with three different browsers. If you have made any modifications to its usual operation then you may need to adjust it. Anyway, here it is again. see the mini quiz #31*7


I'm simply making a statement of fact that you already agreed with so please keep separate concepts distinct.*8


Do you not learn? How was my statement a fallacy? Please stop making claims of fallacies without demonstrating how this fallacy was made.*9


Already did. Go back and read it.
If you confabulate here several times and still fail to take correction, this is a good sign that you'll probably simply repeat that somewhere else. This is why you need to learn to take correction. This is why it is not a fallacy in thinking that you'll probably repeat the same elsewhere.
I'll address that topic if I feel like it but of course, the signs you're showing do not look good.


Maybe I do maybe I don't. But I did address Part 1. You can go through my posts there again if you're up to it.*10

*1 >>> any one of them - preferably an agency or a method
>>> now answer the question >>> please ! do not run away from it

*2 >>> answer to your question: I do not believe it - however I believe it is possible (it might just be that it does not) >>> now answer my question (prove ABSOLUTELY that beheading kills)

*3 >>> this is a redundant question >>> I already (preempted and) answered this question in #148 point 14 

>>> who conceived (birthed) the truth statement that 1 + 1 = 2 ? >>> what truth does it try to express ?  *keep in mind that there are varied number systems that express that equation in a different form >>> if you assume 1 + 1 = 2 to be a truth (and not a truth statement) that is absolute why isn't it self evident to everybody that 1 + 1 = 2 ? 

your talk of truth not having to be physical is funny because that's part why I said that it is based on contingencies >>> so what other form does truth take ? spiritual ? 

since u claim that truth is not physical please back this up (prove it) and do not use the example of physical water >>> how do you expect a non-physical truth not to be contingent on human reasoning ?

You have every need to prove your claim that truth is not limited to physical objects and while doing so consider my riddle >>> does truth exist outside of reality or because of reality ?

>>> now answer my question on numbers being human constructs >>> recall that the root of this part of our debate starts from these assertions (check #125 point 6 to confirm - NOTE THE BOLDED PARTS)

when i accused you of conflating truth and truth statements, this was my mentation >>> a truth statement is a statement (words) that we use to define what we observe in reality >>> it does not and can not fully do this (the limitation of language) >>> the person does not believe in your statement but the truth your statement tries to capture (which he might define in his own way) >>> this truth does not necessarily work the same way in various instances (it might, it might not) >>> truths are based on contingencies 

*6 >>> this is what I just did >>> and I am serious about truth based on contingencies >>> this is one of the founding reasons why I said that physical laws could act otherwise >>> contingencies (that consist of our perception of such laws and the dynamics of the laws themselves)  apply to them_as well as truth and knowledge >>> your talk of A=A is a simply a truth statement >>> not the truth

*4 >>> again you are not serious >>> highlighting differences_which is what you did_is separate from presenting definitions >>> define truth and knowledge or simply refuse to answer my question >>> otherwise I will assume that u cannot defend your posit that truth differs from knowledge

*5 >>> please show me where you have demonstrated 
truths ? >>> if some truths do not need to be demonstrated physically to be accepted, what are the other means through which they are demonstrated ?


*6 >>> demonstrate how A=A is true and how 1+1=2 is true >>> all you did was to make a statement (which you assume I would take as true)

*7 >>> you are evading my question (riddles) yet again >>> this time by requesting that I open another thread

*8 >>> all you mention are truth statements 

*9 >>> now I challenge u to prove what we both agree on >>> honor my request that u define knowledge and truth *after all free-thinking involves asking questions to gain knowledge*

*10 >>> you are still being naughty and you continue with the fallacy of hasty generalization >>> embellishing your fallacy by saying 

". . . is a good sign that you'll PROBABLY simply repeat that somewhere else. "

The term 'probably' equivocates to 'definitely' by your atrocious inference >>> I still await you on that topic though;  and I hope that you grace the topic (I do not post trifles on weighty matters)

I will go back and treat it >>> I was indeed mistaken to have assumed it locked

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> this is the all or nothing fallacy >>> you claim that my talk of Socrates as an authority; certainly makes my talk of satire being a lie >>> as well as the argumentum ad hominem fallacy >>> you make a spiteful reference to my teachers *keep in mind the fact that u have little/no information about my educational background - your talk about teaching is a non-sequitur*

Wow just wow. Is this how you wish to go? So you take Socrates as an authority and not an authority? This of course fails the law of non-contradiction in logic. In this same discussion, you consider Socrates to both be an authority and not an authority. And here ladies and gentlemen is Schrodinger's Socrates.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> cut to the chase >>> please explain how I made a strawman analogy in #135 point 2

So this is the new tactic you wish to use to evade being called out on your accusations of fallacy. Simply read my response. I point out to you that two people can believe mutually exclusive things (which of course means they can't both be right) and you present a different analogy i.e your "Hey ! Uyi, darkness can shine forth" and attack that instead.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> please demonstrate my errancy in this post (#135 point 2) *I have spared you the trouble of searching for it*

See above. Now please demonstrate how I committed the fallacies you claimed.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> I am not answering your question because >>> your question clearly shows you misinterpreted my comment >>> I said that a person's death does not change that person's belief >>> and I (literally) said that a person dies but his belief does not die - they persist through mediums like books, speech or people's acceptance of such beliefs (I did not say a person keeps his beliefs after death - that is different)

Again, you wish to shift and evade. This is getting tiresome. I'll drag you back. Recall what you said here #145. That part of the discussion was on whether or not his death mattered to him. I hope you also notice the sort of shift you're making. You're shifting from a person's belief which can change to that which is written in a retrieval medium.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> as long as (the understanding of) truth is contingent on the the human intellect >>> truth naturally remains subjective

And here you still go ahead to present your wrong idea again by as usual modifying your argument on the fly in this case by inserting "the understanding of". This of course is why I keep repeating to you that [size=14pt]Knowledge is different from truth[/size]. Your knowledge depends on the truth not the other way around.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> you are not serious >>> this is not a proper reply 

Oh but it is. Please clearly demonstrate how I committed the fallacy you accused me of. You've done this several times and you're yet to clearly demonstrate a single one.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> same here - no seriousness >>> you ask how u are wrong when a reason has been given >>> you also introduce non- sequiturs in the form of questions >>> as for your poor question on superstitious atheists * I already gave the answer in that post* 

>>> my answer is that superstitious atheists do not apply critical thinking and free-thinking >>> the same critical thinking they supposedly cherish  * keep in mind the fact that u define free-thinking as the application of reason in any area; a definition superstitious atheists run foul of

Did you simply alter my statement and still attribute it to me? If you did, it is very bad of you. How could you insert that "NOT" in my statement without notification and still try to go ahead and respond to it as though that was what I said?
On the other hand, superstitious atheists do not apply critical thinking so what? It seems you're still confused about what atheism is.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> I await a proper answer to my reply >>> why the mud-slinging ? *or do you want to follow the path of Mudley ?* ad hominems from you at this stage will not help us progress

What part did you disagree with? Not fully agreeing does not show the part you disagree with.
And here is your usual cop-out when asked to demonstrate your unverified accusations.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> you explicitly equivocate >>> you will have to perfectly show how my definition of belief is meaningless >>> and I stand by my reply that a belief cannot be false (all other statements I've made also hold)

Your reply is meaningless because that is not what a belief is in the English Language which we are using to communicate. Simply look up the meaning of belief in three English dictionaries and point out the one that shows what you're saying otherwise, you're simply misusing words and defining them as you go along.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> a most pitiful reply >>> I therefore find it proper to revert to the earlier statement made #146 point 11 >>> this statement are more reasons I present to prove you conflate beliefs and truth statements (note the bolded parts)

And here you further manifest your confusion. When you accept something as factual, that means a statement framing it evaluates to true in your thoughts. If you accept something as true, that means it can be false. Yet you go ahead and say a belief cannot be false. This is yet another logical contradiction in your statement.