billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Well let's clear it up then, before it all turns into a rolling goat-fuck shall we?
Yes, earlier I did indeed make a statement alluding to agumentum ad populum, although that wasn't my intention. My point was more: 'If you've experienced something, and discover that many others have experienced what you've experienced, this is not argumentum ad populum!' or even more simply:'For goodness sake, whose appealing to the majority? Shared experiences are not Argumentum ad Populum as I explained earlier.'
Does that clear it up? Also, I'm not claiming in the slightest that these shared experiences provide evidence of God. I'm only asking you to consider this factor of the argument, and perhaps give your explanation of it. It's only a discussion, right?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Yes, earlier I did indeed make a statement alluding to agumentum ad populum, although that wasn't my intention. My point was more: 'If you've experienced something, and discover that many others have experienced what you've experienced, this is not argumentum ad populum!' or even more simply:'For goodness sake, whose appealing to the majority? Shared experiences are not Argumentum ad Populum as I explained earlier.'
Does that clear it up? Also, I'm not claiming in the slightest that these shared experiences provide evidence of God. I'm only asking you to consider this factor of the argument, and perhaps give your explanation of it. It's only a discussion, right?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
JackC 0
QuoteMy point was more: 'If you've experienced something, and discover that many others have experienced what you've experienced, this is not argumentum ad populum!'
It is if you think that because other people believe what you do then it is more likely to be true. Other than that, all you've got is a red herring.
What about talking repetitively on the internet, chasing your tail, answering only questions you wish, and deliberately misunderstanding somebodies points?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jakee 1,596
QuoteAgreed, but how would you know this? What would you know of these peoples experiences?
(Please explain to me how you know this. Did you once have a similiar experience and then later realise you were mistaken to think there was any divinity involved?)
It's very basic logic. Lots of people having a similar experience means only that lots of people have had a similar experience. The fact that lots of people have had similar experiences does not provide evidence that the experience is divine in origin.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,596
QuoteDoes that clear it up? Also, I'm not claiming in the slightest that these shared experiences provide evidence of God. I'm only asking you to consider this factor of the argument, and perhaps give your explanation of it. It's only a discussion, right?
So what was your point, and why, in your responses to me, are you still objecting to me saying it is not evidence for God, if you admit it is not evidence for God?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuoteMy point was more: 'If you've experienced something, and discover that many others have experienced what you've experienced, this is not argumentum ad populum!'
It is if you think that because other people believe what you do then it is more likely to be true. Other than that, all you've got is a red herring.
This is like pushing a frog up a hill with a sharp stick!
In this particular case, it's nothing to do with argumentum ad populum, alright?
It isn't a red herring. It's something you can't logically explain, so you're therefore dismissing it, aren't you?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteQuoteDoes that clear it up? Also, I'm not claiming in the slightest that these shared experiences provide evidence of God. I'm only asking you to consider this factor of the argument, and perhaps give your explanation of it. It's only a discussion, right?
So what was your point
I'm only asking you to consider this factor of the argument, and perhaps give your explanation of it. It's only a discussion, right?
Quoteand why, in your responses to me, are you still objecting to me saying it is not evidence for God, if you admit it is not evidence for God?
I only asked you: 'Please explain to me how you know this. Did you once have a similiar experience and then later realise you were mistaken to think there was any divinity involved?'
And: 'Agreed, but how would you know this? What would you know of these peoples experiences?'
If you'd rather not answer these questions, that's absolutely fine.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
JackC 0
QuoteIt's something you can't logically explain, so you're therefore dismissing it, aren't you?
Finally! It took you long enough to figure it out. Your argument is not logical, that is why everyone who understands logic will dismiss it.
maadmax 0
QuoteQuoteHow about the experience of those who are set free from emotionally debilitating sin patterns by connecting with the power God has to give. They could care less if they can give an accurate description of what happened. All they know is that they have found the Truth and the Truth has set them free.
--Yawn.Quote
I know the feeling. Just because you can parrot back a persons description of a life changing experience, it does not invalidate their experience or the possible conclusion they draw from it. Just as being able to explain evolution does not prove God was uninvolved. It just provides a better understanding of how God works. Some people don't wish to waste their lives waiting for God to play by their rules. They take God as He has revealed Himself and live a much richer life because of it.
...
jakee 1,596
QuoteIn this particular case, it's nothing to do with argumentum ad populum, alright?
Then what point were you trying to make? Lots of people believe in God, therefore... ?
QuoteIt's something you can't logically explain, so you're therefore dismissing it, aren't you?
What's to logically explain? People have a propensity to attribute certain feelings to divine interaction. And?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
No. Consider for now it being something you can't logically explain. Therefore you're dismissing it. It's something that you don't understand, nor want to understand. It's gone straight into your 'bunkum' drawer, hasn't it?
Is that how you live, dismissing everything that doesn't present itself to you as logical!? C'mon!
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
Is that how you live, dismissing everything that doesn't present itself to you as logical!? C'mon!
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jakee 1,596
QuoteI'm only asking you to consider this factor of the argument, and perhaps give your explanation of it. It's only a discussion, right?
What do you want us to consider? If you now don't think that shared experiences are evidence of God, what is it about them do you think is significant?
At the moment you're like Brian in the market place going "Consider the lillies..." What about the lillies?
QuoteI only asked you: 'Please explain to me how you know this. Did you once have a similiar experience and then later realise you were mistaken to think there was any divinity involved?'
What you were responding to was me saying that lots of people experiencing something is not evidence that the thing they are experiencing is real. I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this, it is simple basic logic, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. You've written that you accept this, yet you are still questioning me about it. Why?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuoteIn this particular case, it's nothing to do with argumentum ad populum, alright?
Then what point were you trying to make? Lots of people believe in God, therefore... ?
Yawn. Look at some of my previous posts above.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jakee 1,596
QuoteQuoteQuoteIn this particular case, it's nothing to do with argumentum ad populum, alright?
Then what point were you trying to make? Lots of people believe in God, therefore... ?
Yawn. Look at some of my previous posts above.
You've not made any point in your posts above. You've backed away from saying that it is evidence for god, but you've not said what you now think is significant about it.
What do you think is significant about the fact that lots of people believe they have experienced god?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuoteI'm only asking you to consider this factor of the argument, and perhaps give your explanation of it. It's only a discussion, right?
What do you want us to consider? If you now don't think that shared experiences are evidence of God, what is it about them do you think is significant?
At the moment you're like Brian in the market place going "Consider the lillies..." What about the lillies?QuoteI only asked you: 'Please explain to me how you know this. Did you once have a similiar experience and then later realise you were mistaken to think there was any divinity involved?'
What you were responding to was me saying that lots of people experiencing something is not evidence that the thing they are experiencing is real. I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this, it is simple basic logic, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. You've written that you accept this, yet you are still questioning me about it. Why?
Jakee, from this entire post you are misunderstanding many areas. As it has taken you so long for you to address these points put to you earlier, I can only put the blame for this on yourself.
Whether you've done this deliberately or not is anybodies guess. Perhaps you've become a little confused by picking up on similiar points I've also put to JackC. In future, it might be better for you to address the points put to you first. And then address similiar points put to others if you think it's suitable.
It's also of interest to observe your slight twisting of earlier points towards your line of argument too. It's ever so sly. Such as this statement: 'I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this, it is simple basic logic, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. You've written that you accept this, yet you are still questioning me about it. Why?'
Where have I once questioned you on anything to do with argumentum ad populum? You've even said this:
Me: 'If you've experienced something, and discover that many others have experienced what you've experienced, this is not argumentum ad populum!'
You: 'You're absolutely right, it is evidence.
It's evidence that people are prone to experiencing feelings they interpret as divine interaction. But, it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction.'
So! For you to then later say: 'I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this, it is simple basic logic, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. You've written that you accept this, yet you are still questioning me about it. Why?'
Well, what am I to make of it? Have you gotten yourself confused, or are you trying to be a funny fucker again? Hopefully the former, rather than the latter. I enjoy these discussions when they're open. If you're trying to bring in a bit of snideyness and what have you, count me out.
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
I agree! And if prayer helps you get there, great. If meditation helps you get there, great. If playing Halo 2 helps you get there, that's great also.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites