This is an ad hominem, Wynn. Try to refrain from arguments that rely solely on the character or feelings of others. While they may or may not be valid, they do not having bearing on the real philosophical issue, other than perhaps motive (which is a fallacy as well).
That's ad-hominem, Wynn. You know that.
Your eagerness to expose and critique other people's imagined psychological weaknesses is a little hypocritical while you are doing everything that you can to avoid revealing anything about yourself. You've never told us what your own beliefs and motivations are.
But that stuff seems to me to be largely irrelevant. Launching into imaginative attacks on other people's personalities won't defeat their philosophical points. To do that, people need to make even better philosophical points.
But that stuff seems to me to be largely irrelevant. Launching into imaginative attacks on other people's personalities won't defeat their philosophical points. To do that, people need to make even better philosophical points.
Wouldn't that point be even more applicable to theists? They are the ones who are claiming that God exists. Presumably they think that the word means something.
Atheism is kind of dependent on theism, in the sense that atheists aren't inventing concepts of God all on their own. They are just expressing their disbelief in the concepts that theists advance.
It's equally applicable to anyone advocating a for/against policy.
IOW for as long as people are towing a party line for hard atheism (IOW advocating principles based on god not existing) they are also held to the same criteria
Can you think of any issue/event/object involving for/against issues where it isn't?
It's not a fallacious ad hom, though.
As long as we maintain that epistemology has to do with how one knows one knows, epistemology is personal.
It's always a particular person who knows, knows they know, or knows they don't know.
Knowing doesn't take place is some abstract, impersonal, depersonalized space.
So, fortunately or unfortunately, epistemological issues are linked with personal qualities, like humility, pride, envy, courage etc. etc.
This applies regardless whether we're talking about knowledge of mathematics, cooking, or "God."
Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists...
Atheism is rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism; i.e. the rejection of belief that there is even one deity. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
Do you reject the definition of atheism in that same link?
You also seem to be employing the no true Scotsman fallacy when defining theists, as well as seeming to have missed all the types of theism listed in your link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism#Types And I have provided a definition of god several times:
God is often conceived as the Supreme Being ... Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes ... Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
So did you have a point about how many theists there are? Seems more an argument for theism.
I expect you to cite a credible reference on how "humility, pride, envy, courage etc." are central to epistemology, if you wish to use that argument. That way the debate can focus on a reference rather than the personalities of specific people, or groups, here. Regardless of whether the inference is valid, ad hominems are not an acceptable argument.
Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
LOL! I made my point. My scope on theism includes the vast majority of theists, not some minority sliver of the population that can't even define what they mean by God. And no, sheer numbers of believers is no an argument for the truth of a belief. That fallacy is known as argument ad populum.God is often conceived as the Supreme Being ... Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes ... Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
I have refuted your nonsense about how all theists believe in angels and demons,
Like I said, my reference to theists refers to the vast majority of them, not to some tiny irrelevant band of metaphysicalizing eggheads. So you stand refuted.
Not to sure whether you are simply pretending to be stupid (and being very good at it) or if you really don't know the answer to this questionChildren are naïve, gullible, submissive, impulsive, and prone to fantasies. Why would anyone idealize them as role models?
Not all ad hominems are fallacious. There are areas of knowledge where a person's personal qualifications make all the difference in what they can know or not know and whether they can be trusted or not. Religion and spirituality are notable examples of such areas of knowledge.
I recall we agreed on this at least once.
That personal qualities play a role in how one goes about knowing things seems self-evident to me.
The special attributes of children which he would recommend are humility, unworldliness, simplicity, teachableness, - the direct contraries of self-seeking, worldliness, distrust, conceit.
well when you read MR's interpretation of the idea of "being like children", can you clearly discern whether he is purposely pretending to be stupid (ie answering a question in an obvious incorrect manner to troll a discussion) or if he really thinks that is the purport of the verse?Not to sure whether you are simply pretending to be stupid (and being very good at it) or if you really don't know the answer to this question
The special attributes of children which he would recommend are humility, unworldliness, simplicity, teachableness, - the direct contraries of self-seeking, worldliness, distrust, conceit.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-3.htm
[Warning: Ad hominems will not be tolerated.]
I take it you've never seen a kid in a candy store or watched an older sibling plot the torment of a younger sibling.
I don't read about it in the newspapers everyday, if that's what you meanI take it you've never seen a kid in a candy store
the fact that you usually have to wait till they reach adulthood before such an event generally becomes newsworthy would seem to suggest you are again grasping at strawsor watched an older sibling plot the torment of a younger sibling.
well when you read MR's interpretation of the idea of "being like children", can you clearly discern whether he is purposely pretending to be stupid (ie answering a question in an obvious incorrect manner to troll a discussion) or if he really thinks that is the purport of the verse?
There is no accounting for the limitations of a person's own experience, but a solely negative experience with children does not imply stupidity, pretense or not. One might also suppose that those, whose lifestyles do not lend themselves to procreation, may lack a natural affinity for children as well.
It would seem to reflect more on one's attitude towards children than the verse.