Life in general
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The person that I was talking about in my previous blog has the entire conversation on his blog site, please visit it to read it all. I would have put it all on but I am not that competent on a computer (old school). To have a fair discussion you have to have ground rules. Be civil, be competent in your sources (Wikipedia and your own publishing are not allowed) These would and are not allowed in most educational settings as well as Universities. For personal reference I can only be competent in the protestant faith, so generalities won't work.( I can't explain why some people kill in the name of God, nor can I explain Madalyn Murry Ohair and her death) As I said in our discussion, we both live in the same town and I would enjoy talking in person. Anyone else that wants to chime in, please do. I ask that you speak for yourself as I want this to be a learning experience for everyone, not a war. If you want to quote the bible, please state what version and what language you are interpreting from. At the time I have posted this entry there were 5 responses from my previous article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In the sixth comment I explained why trying to exclude my own reasoning and Wikipedia as a reference in our discussion etc is an invalid argument on your part.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32946220&postID=7475039206299408336
I suggest people read that to understand the fallacious nature of trying to denigrate my credibility rather than addressing the logic and facts I presented... or trying to exclude Wikipedia, in spite of it being a perfectly acceptable and even preferable source in this informal debate as a quick source of easily understandable information with plenty of references etc.
In short you can't just say "you can't quote something else you yourself wrote", if I'm just citing another debate just like this one where I laid out valid arguments with cited bible verses, sourced references to scientific explanations etc... you have to actually demonstrate why the facts I presented are false, why the reasoning is invalid... you know, like I did to essentially every comment in our prior discussion.
And just to clarify it here, I'll copy the relevant part of that other comment as a comment here after this one.
The reason why Wikipedia is generally not allowed as a source in college papers etc is because they expect you to do PRIMARY SOURCE citations. And the reason we don't do that here is because given that you can't even understand the facts when put into laymen's terms, citing the actual scientific journals etc would be so VASTLY beyond the scope of our discussion as to be both incomprehensible to you, and would have lengthened the discussion many times over. (And the Wikipedia articles themselves are, as I've said, generally heavily cited themselves and you can thusly follow those links to the original sources yourself if you so choose.)
Seems pretty simple to understand to me. And with that said, on to the next comment where I quote what I said in the other comment thread in relation to why you trying to find ways to get people to ignore my reasoning and logic and presented information etc is invalid.
(quoted from the other comment thread: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32946220&postID=7475039206299408336 )
----------------
Now in relation to what you've said, you're still not addressing the validity of the information I quoted. Wikipedia has been tested and found to be roughly as accurate, informative, and reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica etc.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
It contains easy to understand articles that are well cited with references etc.
Whether or not I was presenting things I'd learned elsewhere or not, I provided numerous links to support my statements, and a number of bible verses as well.
The onus is therefor on you my friend to illustrate why, with your own credible facts and references why the information itself that I presented is wrong rather than simply trying to attack myself, or Wikipedia, or our credibility etc. (something I covered at length in our discussion as well, in the section about the invalidity of ad hominem abusive type arguments; part of which states; "This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.")
And to clarify what a fallacy is; "In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose."
Which should explain why I went to such lengths to point out the fallacies as you committed them, with links for further reading for both you and the other readers to better understand why your arguments were invalid.
I suppose we should actually link here the full debate from my blog that you mentioned. :P
Your par for course debate with Christians on Facebook.
Rather than make people search for it.
you can use Wikipedia for opinion, not facts for the same reason Universities exclude it. It is opinion based and subject to change.(The nature of the beast) I did not will not denegrate your credibility, but I may question it's application. As far as what you or I have written, that is old new. I want to be fresh and to test each other in fresh debate rather then stale outdate retoric. I don't like to even quote what I wrote because it is not fresh. If I want the athiest line, the internet and library is full of these, but I want your opinion and reasoning since you seem to be knowledgable. I like the discussion, the knowledge learned by using my mind and what I learn by trying to understand your opinion. I enjoy when someone points out to me what may be wrong with my research and it make me study in more depth. I am first in line when it is said that the bible a s written is outdated. How can a bible address the internet, it can't. The bible continues to grow as does my faith. If I judged the Jewish race on the bible i would be wrong just the same as I can't blame you for slavery because you are white.
I'm not ignoring your logic and intellect. If you and I want to start at the beginning and take apart the bible verse by verse we can, but it's been done and I assume most people don't want to revisit old information. My frustration is the lack of fresh information, and fresh input. I had a proffessor yell at me, Tell me what you think, not what you know. I already know what you know and that is why I am teaching this class. Give me something new. That is the meat that I enjoy. This is why I want to start over, fresh pallet. Tell me what you think, not what everyone else has said and I promise not to quote Televangalist selling healing crosses or blessed earth from the holy land.
Post a Comment