Consel for Lucifer

[The Yosemite Bear]

yup that's right, rather then getting pissed off, I am playing Devil's Advocate......

Here's one for dealing with Jon Boyd's stance: (I personally find the arguement that we deserve death appaling, however from a different point of view)
1. We all are going to die (Sorry for those who are investing in Crysostasis), there is no immortaliy. Thus since the moment of conception, the only thing we are garunteed, and the only thing as a form of life that we desirve is death, it's in evitable, you can't beat the reaper (Unless your a Great Old One)

2. Now since almost every religion and Moral contract says be considerate to your fellow humans, and just about every group of humans ignores this, what do we have. A broken set of values. Siddhartha (Budda), the grail knights, and many others attempted the impossible, to search for the answers. No one has ever found the answers, but as the Athiest Dostoyesky once wrote it is in the process of questioning our selves, and all of our beliefs that we find oir morality.

3. Since Neither side on a religious debate can prove a negative, your average arguement is so full of falacies on both side that it really does take someone to see this.

Colin Witz, Attorney for Lucifer Signing off

[Darth Wong]

yup that's right, rather then getting pissed off, I am playing Devil's Advocate......

Here's one for dealing with Jon Boyd's stance: (I personally find the arguement that we deserve death appaling, however from a different point of view)
1. We all are going to die (Sorry for those who are investing in Crysostasis), there is no immortaliy. Thus since the moment of conception, the only thing we are garunteed, and the only thing as a form of life that we desirve is death, it's in evitable, you can't beat the reaper (Unless your a Great Old One)

The inevitability of death does not change the fact that it should be feared, or the fact that all creatures on this Earth try to put it off for as long as possible.

2. Now since almost every religion and Moral contract says be considerate to your fellow humans, and just about every group of humans ignores this, what do we have. A broken set of values.

Black/white fallacy. The fact that we fail to achieve moral perfection does not mean that we should discard the entire concept of morality and decide that it's OK to commit mass murder.

Siddhartha (Budda), the grail knights, and many others attempted the impossible, to search for the answers. No one has ever found the answers, but as the Athiest Dostoyesky once wrote it is in the process of questioning our selves, and all of our beliefs that we find oir morality.

Answers for spiritual questions are irrelevant and unnecessary. Simple empathy for your fellow man is all that you truly need for a system of morality.

3. Since Neither side on a religious debate can prove a negative, your average arguement is so full of falacies on both side that it really does take someone to see this.

Bullshit. The religious side is attempting to prove a positive, and failing miserably. The atheist side is pointing out that it is impossible to prove a negative, and that it is illogical to presume a positive without positive evidence.

Furthermore, you do not explicitly describe these "fallacies" to which you refer. You simply mumble vaguely about both sides committing fallacies without giving any examples of reasoning to support your case. Classic case of fallacious Golden Mean thinking.

Colin Witz, Attorney for Lucifer Signing off

Lucifer isn't such a bad guy. He's not the mass-murderer of the Bible. He fought for freedom of thought and freedom of knowledge.

[data_link]

What fallacies would you be referring to? DW's lack of patience with this idiot? Last time I checked, that wasn't a fallacy.

Your arguments:

1. The fact that barring a bloody miracle death is inevitable, does NOT mean all life forms deserve death. Leaps of Logic - 1

2. No human obeys his moral code perfectly. Therefore, you conclude - nothing. You still haven't justified your assumption that people deserve death. Your premise is flawed - a completely amoral person WILL obey his moral code perfectly. You write that no one knows all the answers - black/white fallacy - it is still possible for you to know some of the answers if you don't know all of them. Finally, you write that we must question ourselves and all our beliefs to find morality. I'll say it once: questioning does not forbid coming to a conclusion. So let's see: Irrelevant arguments - 2 Leaps of logic - 1 Flawed Premises - 1 Black/white fallacies - 1 Golden mean - 1

3. You argue that arguments on both sides are full of fallacies without supporting that argument with evidence. You also argue that it is impossible for either side to prove a negative, when in fact we are not asking anyone to prove a negative. You also argue that it is impossible for either side to see its own errors, which is simply untrue. So: Flawed Premises - 2 Lies - 1 Appeal to emotion - 1

Your total: Leaps of logic - 2, Irrelevant arguments - 2, Flawed premises -3, Black/white fallacies - 1, Golden mean - 1, Lies - 1, Appeal to emotion - 1. Try again, this time using logic.