Jews and atheism

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Me too; I call myself an agnostic and am reliably informed that this is tantamount to being a weak atheist which I do not have a problem with whilst retaining the right to call myself an agnostic.

My issue with theists is that they claim that god exists and they are privvy to what he/she wants us to do/not do.

As for the dualism issue I am in two minds.

As for the dualism issue I am in two minds.

That gives me my LOL! For the day! Well played! 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dunno, Lasker was German as was Steintz, Fischer had no father figure, neither did
Kasparov, Tal was Lithuanian, Smylov and Botvinik , Russian

I quickly looked up Kasparov, and it says that only his father was Jewish and:

He first began the serious study of chess after he came across a chess problem set up by his parents and proposed a solution.

presumably while his father was still alive.
By the age of 10 he began training at Mikhail Botvinnik's chess school. Mikhail Botvinnik was also Jewish.
Have you considered the possibility that Jews tend to assist each other and those already in Chess assist other Jews?

Originally posted by googlefudge
"belief based on faith is irrational and immoral"

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Um, what?

Sorry, I didn't get to finish the rest of what you were saying because I couldn't stop laughing at this tidbit."

I have explained it several times before but as you pop in and out you have probably missed it.

Here is the last time I explained it.

bottom of page 6 on this thread

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=146188&page=6

Originally posted by whodey
"All I am saying is that if you believe things that are not true, then your actions will be based upon falsehoods. This then become problematic in terms of the negative consequences for such beliefs when reality smacks you up side the head.

I think we all believe things that are not true, however, when those things involve our foundation, the whole structure will come crashing down at some point."


"I couldn't agree more and have said this (in different ways) many times here.

In fact it is a foundational cornerstone of my position that believing things that are false is
dangerous as it can lead to making harmful decisions.

Intentionally doing so or not taking reasonable precautions to prevent you doing so is thus immoral.



As you evidently agree, If you hold beliefs that are not true then you may make decisions
based on those beliefs that lead to bad consequences, for you and for others.


Thus it must be moral to attempt to make your world view as accurate as possible by believing as many
true things as possible and as few false things as possible and to [within reason] constantly check those
beliefs to ensure that you don't unintentionally hold false beliefs.


Believing things based on faith (ie without or despite the evidence) is inevitably going to lead to believing
things that are not true. As the number of possible beliefs is infinitely bigger than the subset of true beliefs.


And further more if you believe based on faith you have no means of verifying and thus trusting what you
believe to be true is actually true.


You have built your foundations on quicksand (or really empty vacuum).


Thus it must be immoral to believe anything based on faith because that would inevitably lead to false beliefs
and as we established earlier it is moral to make your beliefs as accurate as possible and thus deliberately doing
something that will cause you to have false beliefs must therefore be immoral.




Now of course it's not possible let alone practical for every individual to personally test every belief or idea to see
if it is true.

Which is why we have science, which rigorously tests ideas and independently verifies ideas through peer review
and repeated testing that does the checking for us and makes it's results publicly known so that we can see them.

And when it does make mistakes it has mechanisms to detect and correct those mistakes and thus gets better and better
and closer and closer to 'the truth' over time even if it can never actually claim to have got there.

Science is the reasonable constant testing of ideas to see if they are true that we can use as our solid foundation.

It has proven itself time and time again to be vastly superior to any and all other methods we have thought of or tried.

It IS the way we conquer individual biases and objectively know things."

Originally posted by kevcvs57
"Usual irrelevant BS from you then Robbie."

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
"ahh the now obligatory ad hominem, try making reference to the content rather than the man."

Actually no it was not an ad hominem.

An ad hominem attack would be to say that "you are a terrible person therefore you are wrong".

Which is making the argument that "you are wrong Because you are evil/bad/stupid..."

However what kevcvs57 actually did was state the opinion that what you wrote was BS and that
what you normally write is BS.

Which is not an argument but a statement.

And thus is not and can't be an ad hominem fallacy.


You really do need to go learn these fallacies because you really don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have explained it several times before but as you pop in and out you have probably missed it.

Here is the last time I explained it.

bottom of page 6 on this thread

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=146188&page=6

Originally posted by whodey
[b]"All I am saying is that if you believe things that are not tr ...[text shortened]... d.

It IS the way we conquer individual biases and objectively know things."

My belief is in part do to analyzing the information presented to me
for the truth and error in it. This was the way I overcame my disbelief.
Praise the Lord! HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, I dont need to, i have provided reasons, you are now introducing another ad
hominem, that I am a liar. I can find many references where gogglefudge has called a
belief in a deity, irrational and immoral and i have provided a reason why I think that
atheists oppose belief in God, this does not make a me a liar. Is this really the best you
can do?

Yes I do indeed say that belief in a deity (any deity) based on faith (without evidence, and
there really is no evidence) is by definition irrational and is also immoral.



However as kevcvs57 said we/I don't 'oppose the existence' of god.
I/we oppose belief without sufficient evidence.

Those are not the same thing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes I do indeed say that belief in a deity (any deity) based on faith (without evidence, and
there really is no evidence) is by definition irrational and is also immoral.



However as kevcvs57 said we/I don't 'oppose the existence' of god.
I/we oppose belief without sufficient evidence.

Those are not the same thing.

You ignore all the evidence. You will not even attempt to honestly
analyze it. I guess this is getting old from the fact that Dasa
always says it, but I think you are being dishonest.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually no it was not an ad hominem.

An ad hominem attack would be to say that "you are a terrible person therefore you are wrong".

Which is making the argument that "you are wrong [b]Because you are evil/bad/stupid..."

However what kevcvs57 actually did was state the opinion that what you wrote was BS and that
what you normally write is need to go learn these fallacies because you really don't know what you are talking about.[/b]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"😉, short for argumentum ad
hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative
characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is
normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]

shall we look at what was attempted, lets see,

Usual irrelevant BS from you then Robbie.

a derogatory and negative statement made in an attempt to negate the truth of a
claim that i made, its an ad hominem and to compound the propensity for such
fallacies he then terms me a liar in the very next post. You dont have a leg to stand
upon, its like an atheistic factory of fallacies this forum, you really cant help
yourselves , can you. It really seems to be the best you can do.

I suggest you do some research before you type or you will be made to look silly
time and again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"😉, short for argumentum ad
hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative
characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is
normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]

shall we look at what was attempted, lets see, ...[text shortened]... est you do some research before you type or you will be made to look silly
time and again.

Yes, it is the best he can do, for he has no proof. HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by Ullr
"1.) Oppose the existence of God."

Do Atheists really oppose the existance of God? Or are they just agnostic about it because to them the existence of God has not been proven sufficiently? Skepticism is not the same as opposition.

And this is my main problem with many Christians. They setup this false dichotomy of: either you are with us or against us.

Not all do. Hitchens, I think, is an example of a scortched earth, exterminate faith in God, opposer.

Dawkins, obviously is an opposer. These are the darlings of the New Atheism.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes I do indeed say that belief in a deity (any deity) based on faith (without evidence, and
there really is no evidence) is by definition irrational and is also immoral.



However as kevcvs57 said we/I don't 'oppose the existence' of god.
I/we oppose belief without sufficient evidence.

Those are not the same thing.

and i have provided reasoning which seems to me to prove that you do oppose belief in
God, for you are willing to give credence to events that you have not observed but
state that because of lack of evidence (where in fact there is plenty of evidence) you
dont believe in God, why? well its possible that you dont want to or oppose the idea of a divine and intelligent creator.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"😉, short for argumentum ad
hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative
characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is
normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]

shall we look at what was attempted, lets see, ...[text shortened]... est you do some research before you type or you will be made to look silly
time and again.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

EDIT:
Actually I am correct and know what I am talking about.

You don't.

Which is why you do all the looking silly around here.


A formal logical fallacy like ad hominem applies only to logical arguments.

A statement that is not an argument can't be a logical fallacy.

In this case saying that "you typically talk BS and have done so again" or similar is not a logical argument and
nor is it fallacious. Even if it were wrong.

It's an opinion, an analysis of your posts, not an argument.

It is also as it happens true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You ignore all the evidence. You will not even attempt to honestly
analyze it. I guess this is getting old from the fact that Dasa
always says it, but I think you are being dishonest.

Not true.

You [nor anyone else] have never provided any evidence at all for your claims of god and the supernatural.

Show me some evidence and I will evaluate it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, ce the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

FAIL it wasn't sarcasm, it was a derogatory statement intended to negate any validity to
the content of my post by terming it BS and on my character by stating that i usually
post BS. Indeed i was even arguing in the general forum the other day about the
differences between an ad hominem fallacy and an argumentum ad hominem, which
may be relevant, in this instance, you can claim nothing of the sort, its not part of an
ad hominem argument and is a purely abusive fallacy, in fact, its relevant to nothing
making it illogical.

You might want to read this, who knows you might actually learn something for a
change,



http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/adhominemissa.htm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
FAIL it wasn't sarcasm, it was a derogatory statement intended to negate any validity to
the content of my post by terming it BS and on my character by stating that i usually
post BS. Indeed i was even arguing in the general forum the other day about the
differences between an ad hominem fallacy and an argumentum ad hominem, which
may be rel ...[text shortened]... something for a
change,



http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/adhominemissa.htm

Robbie you DO spout a load of BS on a regular basis and what you posted that elicited this
series of exchanges was also a load of BS and that BS was typical of the kind of BS you
usually spout.

Stating so is not a formal logical fallacy nor is it an informal fallacy of any kind.

It's pretty insulting, but insults do not a fallacy make.

It's also true, and getting more so with every post you make.