vortexring

From what you've written, it seems pretty obvious that you are saying that in the event of no evidence, D would be justified in falling in behind A, B and C because they are deemed to be "trustworthy". That is argumentum ad populum by definition and your continual denial wont change that. Utter shite! It should seem pretty obvious that what I'm saying is 'D' shouldn't be justified in falling in behind A,B & C because they're trustworthy. No way. But you know that - guess you went for the: " Would you bleat out 'argumentum ad populum!!!' then do a runner?" option. The easy option. What a surprise. Exactly the same. If you want me to believe something, you will have to convince me that it is true. If you cannot do that, then your opinion is worthless no matter who you are. You don't get it! Nobodies asking you to believe fuck all, alright? It's a simple scenario which could lead to an individual questioning what he believes. Not to change his beliefs. Just to question them. To arouse interest. To maybe dig into the matter a bit deeper. Like I said earlier; nobodies asked you to believe A,B & C's experiences. I've only mentioned they're stable and trustworthy so that it would be unlikely for them to make the scenario up. So, now that that's been established, do you deny the scenario wouldn't arouse interest? Do you sincerely claim you would disregard their beliefs, saying you'll continue to do so until they provide cold, rational evidence? You'd want to know exactly WTF these claims were all about. 'You'd be desperate to know the truth behind it all, wouldn't you? It'd be fascinating! The last question is; how far would you go to learn the truth?' Obviously not very far in your case. How incredibly dull! '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.'

It could also be seen as another means of selection for demanding military jobs. And perhaps more effective than certain existing methods. So in sense, I'd see it being more for the common good than bad. MOS? Medical Outcomes Study? Military Occupation Skill?Member of the Opposite Sex??? '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.'

It might be worth realising 'Big Brother' can and will access your hard drive whenever you're online, if he so wishes. So I wouldn't worry about your e-mails. . . '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.'

Argumentum ad populum in never logical. Ever. Agreed. Why do you keep going on about argumentum ad populum when you know that's not where my point lies? You seem to want to, when it suits. Why else would you be giving me such a hard time over it? No I don't. Every point I make your automatic answer predominantly consists of argumentum ad populum! And we're right back to argumentum ad populum. What D should do is think the problem through and see if the others have got it right or not. Any opinion is worth absolutely fuck all unless you can explain why you hold that opinion and back it up with fact. Simply buying whatever you're fed just because a couple of people say so is stupid and lazy. You're completely missing the point. (And we're not back to argumentum ad populum either.) Do you really think I believe 'D' should agree with or share A,B, & C's beliefs!!? (Almost everyday I see 'people' who'd love nothing better than to kill me - and themselves in the process if necessary, so as to go off to heaven and meet all the virgins they've been pulling their heads off to. A lot of 'people' believe in this Jack. I'm very fucking far from convinced. But I can't completely rule the possibility out either.) Back to the point. You say: 'What D should do is think the problem through and see if the others have got it right or not'. I agree. How will he know if A,B, & C have got it 'right' though? He can't can he? They can't back it up with evidence. Imagine A,B, & C are people you completely trust, people you know to be stable, rational and intelligent. People just like you perhaps. And apart from their strange experience they've explained to you, they're still the same old stable, rational and intelligent people. What would your reaction to all this be now? Would you bleat out 'argumentum ad populum!!!' then do a runner? Or state that their beliefs are not something you can logically explain because they are not logical? Or would you disregard their beliefs, saying you'll continue to do so until they provide cold, rational evidence? It is mate. I'm not trying to score points or 'win' what's obviously a discussion that can't be won. I'm just interested in hearing your answers to the questions I've put to you. Perhaps your final answer to the scenario I've described would be to disregard their beliefs, saying you'll continue to do so until they provide cold, rational evidence. . . Or is it? You'd be desperate to know the truth behind it all, wouldn't you? It'd be fascinating! The last question is; how far would you go to learn the truth? '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.'

That's not the reason. It bloody is! '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.'

How would that spoil my experiment, or are you attempting humor? Isn't it obvious how it'd spoil your experiment? Earlier you said: "And you did say in Mark 11:24 “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. “ Well, like I told you, my mate prayed to God, and asked Him to turn Himself into a steak and kidney pie, which God, through the power of my friends prayer, had no choice but to do so. My friend then scoffed the pie. So perhaps you should have tried your experiment earlier, before my friend done his? '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.'

Vortexring, your point is not something I can logically explain because it is not logical. If a thing that you can conceive of is not logical, that's pretty good evidence that it's bollocks. For example, circles cannot simultaneously be squares. Sorry if this sounds smartarse-ish but: 'Consider for now it being something you can't logically explain'. When logic is applicable, yes. Logic is a particularly effective bullshit filter. To ignore logic would leave you open to believing all kinds of baloney. Is that how you live your life? C'mon! Who said ignore logic? But to live ones life ignoring everything that's illogical. . . . This seems to heading back to questions I asked earlier: 'You also mention personal experience being not much use as evidence - to an extent I disagree, as it could be more than enough evidence for an individual - which has been my point all along. If you've an individual with no experience, what's the solution? What have you done to come to your conclusion? Again, what about these people with experience? Doesn't that play merry hell with your conclusion on the subject? Or, is it because they're all wrong and your right? (Even though you've no idea what they may have experienced?)' Basically imagine person 'A' has had several experiences which he believes are evidence of an afterlife. He meets person 'B'. They both discover they've had virtually the same experiences. Funny old thing, so has person 'C'. Then person 'D' joins in the conversation. Poor 'D', he hasn't had anything like the experiences which cause A,B & C to believe in an afterlife. What does 'D' go and do? What should he do? Call them liars? Mistaken? Insane? Or should he state that their beliefs are not something he can logically explain because they are not logical? Then what? '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.'

But you have not said what you think is significant about it. From what I can remember, for the people I've asked in person, it was mostly from having been brought up with the bible and finding the Jesus story persuasive, and thinking that there must be something out there to start the universe going. Standard stuff. I have said what I think is significant about it. See post #130. The standard stuff you mention isn't what I'd call personal evidence, it's more a thought process. Pity. Could've been some interesting points of discussion there. . . '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.'

Addressing your post #137: despite lack of evidence, could they indeed be correct in their divine beliefs then? '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.'

Of course. Yes. What is it you think is significant about there being a lot of people who think they have experienced God, given that you accept it is not evidence for God? I think I answered that already. The area of the discussion you're mentioning was an area I was originally pointing out to you, remember? Seriously now. What was their own personal evidence based on, if you don't mind me asking? And what was your thoughts of this personal evidence? '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.'

That has nothing to do with the point in question. Wrong. Your 'simple logic' that you know all these people to be wrong in their beliefs. Yes, numerous people believing something doesn't make it true, numerous people believing something isn't evidence. But it also doesn't make it untrue. It doesn't provide evidence either that all these people are wrong. I question your 'simple logic' that all these people are mistaken in their beliefs of divinity. How do you know that they're mistaken? What's simple is that you do not know that. So stop saying you do - 'simple logic' my arse.

Out of curiousity; do you personally know somebody who has faith in an afterlife or God of some description? Such as a relative or close friend? Someone you trust. Have you ever asked them what exactly their faith is based on? (I only ask because I know only a couple of atheists, yet know numerous trustworthy people who believe in a life after death, and a God of some description,etc. And the reasons they believe are quite fascinating. You'll have to trust me when I say these are stable and intelligent people. Their examples of their own personal evidence cannot be simply brushed under a carpet. Neither can mine.) I apologise for all the questions I'm firing at 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.'

You're basically asking me a question I politely asked you earlier! I've told you what I think is significant about it, nothing, beyond suggesting that people are prone to attributing certain feelings to divine interaction. I've mentioned this several times already. Now, since you brought it up (and I assume you had a reason for doing so), what do you think is significant about it? What's significant is you making a blind assumption of peoples experiences without having experienced them for yourself. '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.'

The simple mention that other people have experienced what you have is not argumentum ad populum, it's just a statement of fact. However (pay very careful attention to this, it is important) you then questioned my statement that "it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction." This implies that you think it is evidence that the things they experience are divine interventions, which makes it into an argumentum ad populum. There is no way you can take issue with my statement "it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction." without committing argumentum ad populum. This is doubly wierd, because in other statements you have admitted that it is not evidence for god, so why on earth are you still questioning me for saying it is not evidence for God? I'm not. I honestly believe if you go back and read page 5 of this thread you'll be able to answer your own questions with what I've said already. If you look at my post #117 I've 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?' Your corresponding post #122 doesn't fully address these questions - you're responding with questions of your own. You're then making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, then answering points made to JackC, whilst all the time confusing the issue. I said earlier, if you don't wish to answer these questions, that's fine. If you feel an answer such as: 'I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this' is good enough, then we've reached a disagreement. If you are going to answer them, then please do so. At the moment this discussion is turning into a rolling goat-fuck again. And it's your fault! (Oh no it's not!) Oh yes it is! Ad infinitum '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.'

Why the fuck should he be any different to the rest of us guys? Hilarious! '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.'

She'd do for practice -- save ruining a good one ! & ! '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.'

In the Bahamas: http://www.gunpointbahamas.com/ Imagine being stuck on that island with Jennifer Anniston... a bloke in drag? Sorry! '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.'

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? You're basically asking me a question I politely asked you earlier! Nuts! '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.'

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? 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.'

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.'

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.'

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? 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.'

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.'

What about talking repetitively on the internet, chasing your tail, answering only questions you wish, and deliberately misunderstanding somebodies points?

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.'