Originally posted by thesonofsaul Here is it, past lunch time here and I am still waiting for my chance to not use a strawman in an argument. Ho-hum.
Well, to fill in the time, perhaps one of you dear lurkers can help me clarify the strawman concept for myself. It seems that at least by the wikipedia definition that the strawman can only be used to assist in negating an opponents a ...[text shortened]... f a strawman, or is it something else? If not, is there another term for this erroneous tactic?
That seems clearly not to be the Strawman Fallacy, but I can't find what it is. It does seem like it should be a fallacy.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul Excellent point. Clarity first. I will leave it to Bosse de Nage to choose a definition though, as he chose the path of argument.
JESUS, can you guys get on with it already?🙂
You spent the last three pages just getting READY to argue!
Its interesting anyway.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul The most general sense of the word then. Spirituality: of the spirit. Spirit: 1) an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms, 2) the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person. I think that covers the relevant definitions.
I think the barebones definition here is insufficient. No description of spirituality is complete without looking into the question that all spiritual traditions attempt to answer - "Why does the Universe exist? Why am/are I/we here?"
Some spiritual traditions offer a straight answer - as with Christianity, Islam, Advaitha etc. Some simply show the path to obtain the answer - as with Zen. Nevertheless, in both cases, the Question remains the core of spirituality.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage OK. I'll kick off.
1) "Spirit" is simply an outdated concept from times when people believed that some superior being had literally breathed life into them. Life begins at fertilisation and its development is programmed by DNA.
2) A person does not have an immaterial intelligent or sentient part.
Allow me to retort.
*ahem*
1) F*** you.
2) Therefore, spirituality is meaningful.
Originally posted by sonhouse A booby prize? I think, believe it or not, they are trying to have
a serious debate here, so being flippant is not in the theme of
this thread.
I think he was going for Straw Man; but ended with an abusive ad hominem instead.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I've made a belated discovery: I don't know what I'm talking about. Please, continue this thread amongst yourselves.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Is that a new fallacy I don't know about?
😀
No, it seems strange though... I think it's a new animal ... it's ... I don't believe it ... it couldn't be ... it is! ... it's a statement completely without fallacy! Ladies and Gents we are presented with the truth!
Originally posted by thesonofsaul No, it seems strange though... I think it's a new animal ... it's ... I don't believe it ... it couldn't be ... it is! ... it's a statement completely without fallacy! Ladies and Gents we are presented with the truth!
Wow! Me too! I don't know what I'm talking about either. What a relief to finally know the Truth!
Originally posted by sonhouse A booby prize? I think, believe it or not, they are trying to have
a serious debate here, so being flippant is not in the theme of
this thread.
Yeah, actually my perception of the thread was a lighthearted one. I'd think my argumentum ad metasmugness was taken with a grain of salt.