Prayer in schools? Aww, crap...

[Darth Wong]

Some of Raoul Duke's (aka Visionrazor's) posts on this thread should really be added to my Daniel Rodgers hate mail page. It's hilarious! He doesn't even understand why circular logic is always illogical!

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Give us an example?

[Master of Ossus]

Give us an example?

Give who an example of what? Why circular logic, by definition, is not logical?

[Darth Wong]

Give us an example?

OK:

So I ask: is circular logic never logical?

I reiterate: dumber than a box of hammers.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

And yet you still didn't answer the question. Never mind.

[Darth Wong]

And yet you still didn't answer the question. Never mind.

It's such a stupid question that no one around here can believe you're seriously asking it! Of COURSE circular logic is never logical! It's the FORMAL NAME OF A LOGIC FALLACY, you idiot! You can't use your conclusion as a premise!

[Master of Ossus]

And yet you still didn't answer the question. Never mind.

Answer to WHAT QUESTION? You came here, I explained that circular logic is by definition not logical, and then you asked for an example. WTF?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

And yet you still didn't answer the question. Never mind.

It's such a stupid question that no one around here can believe you're seriously asking it! Of COURSE circular logic is never logical! It's the FORMAL NAME OF A LOGIC FALLACY, you idiot! You can't use your conclusion as a premise!

Isn't that what you've done regarding the existence of a god?

[Darth Wong]

It's such a stupid question that no one around here can believe you're seriously asking it! Of COURSE circular logic is never logical! It's the FORMAL NAME OF A LOGIC FALLACY, you idiot! You can't use your conclusion as a premise!

Isn't that what you've done regarding the existence of a god?

No, dumb-ass. There is no God because there is no evidence for a God. The premise is that there is no evidence. The conclusion is that there is no God. There is no circularity. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

[Master of Ossus]

Isn't that what you've done regarding the existence of a god?

NO! Jesus F***ing Christ. His dismissal of the existence of God is based upon the fact that we have no evidence of God, and that to assume he exists despite the lack of evidence is a logical fallacy. That is not using the conclusion as a premise, which you have done in assuming that God exists.

Incidentally, what part of my first two posts on circular logic did you not understand?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

It's such a stupid question that no one around here can believe you're seriously asking it! Of COURSE circular logic is never logical! It's the FORMAL NAME OF A LOGIC FALLACY, you idiot! You can't use your conclusion as a premise!

Isn't that what you've done regarding the existence of a god?

No, dumb-ass. There is no God because there is no evidence for a God. The premise is that there is no evidence. The conclusion is that there is no God. There is no circularity. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

And what of the items religionists point to as evidence? Why are those not applicable?

[Master of Ossus]

And what of the items religionists point to as evidence? Why are those not applicable?

Because their "evidence" is always faulty in some manner, as yours was. Name a piece of evidence and we will explain to you why it is not applicable.

[Darth Wong]

And what of the items religionists point to as evidence? Why are those not applicable?

They are invariably "appeal to ignorance" fallacies.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

And what of the items religionists point to as evidence? Why are those not applicable?

They are invariably "appeal to ignorance" fallacies.

I'm unfamiliar with that term. What is an "appeal to ignorance" fallacy?

[Master of Ossus]

Courtesy of:

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/ignorant.html

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Okay, got it. Thanks for the information. By the way, unlike some people in this board's history, you have to admit, I am among the most polite (until pushed -- my policy is similar to Mr. Wong's in that respect). You may not agree with me, you may think I'm a 72WPM cauliflower, but you have to admit, I've been civil about it.

[Master of Ossus]

You have been civil, I will readily admit to that. Unfortunately, you seem to be promoting yet another logical fallacy. You appear to be trying to get us to subscribe to the "Style over Substance" fallacy. Your civility does not make your arguments any better than the next guy's.

[Master of Ossus]

Wait a minute, you haven't even been civil. Here's what you just wrote on the other thread:

Now what the hell is your problem? Were you bottle-fed or something?

That's hardly what I call being civil. But I digress, the point is a red herring.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Wait a minute, you haven't even been civil. Here's what you just wrote on the other thread:

Now what the hell is your problem? Were you bottle-fed or something?

That's hardly what I call being civil. But I digress, the point is a red herring.

Come on, now, MoO, be fair; did you read what I was responding to?

[White Cat]

This thread has gone completely off-topic, but anyway...

Strowbridge, does that mean that if a religion doesn't teach hate and intolerance, it should be allowed on school grounds?

If so, please make a list of which religions would and wouldn't be allowed on school grounds under the above criteria.

Humanism. A humanist can be a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or an atheist. Name one other belief system which freely includes members of other religions as members.

But humanism isn't a religion, is it?

BTW, would anyone object to the use of the term "belief system" as an answer to my earlier quesiton about a good term for "all the religions, plus atheism?"

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You have been civil, I will readily admit to that. Unfortunately, you seem to be promoting yet another logical fallacy. You appear to be trying to get us to subscribe to the "Style over Substance" fallacy. Your civility does not make your arguments any better than the next guy's.

Maybe, maybe not. But you have to admit that style affects how open people generally are to receiving the substance. For example, how many people would take me seriously now, even if my arguments would otherwise be perfectly acceptable, while I'm branded a "village idiot"? Hmm? If no one judges a book by its cover, why aren't book covers blank?

[Master of Ossus]

Of course I did, but I won't let you claim the moral high-ground after you flamed someone. Note that this means I will almost never take the moral high-ground myself, as I flame people constantly. You, for example. In any case, I find the whole matter utterly ridiculous because I do not believe that the moral high-ground has any relevency in debates (with the possible exception of ethical debates).

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I'm not attempting to take it. I don't mind crying, "Mea culpa," -- when I actually am -- but I also don't like being misrepresented as the aggressor and all I've done is defend myself.

[Wicked Pilot]

but I also don't like being misrepresented as the aggressor and all I've done is defend myself.

We don't think you're the aggressor. You're just a fucking idiot.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

but I also don't like being misrepresented as the aggressor and all I've done is defend myself.

We don't think you're the aggressor. You're just a fucking idiot.

And what, in your esteemed opinion, makes me an idiot?