[IceFire]

I reported it - i reported aldo's argumentum ad hominem

You do realize that immediately after the supposedly offending post (which I don't see as very offending although you did correctly tag it as a basic ad hominem) you launch a...shall we say...strongly worded attack back at Aldo?

Listen, try and play nice with the folks here ok?  They are all basically taking you for a ride here...you get riled up and they play on that energy very easily.

[StratComm]

There's about three posts in there that could be considered basic ad hominem by both parties, so I'm curious which one Kazan reported.  If it's the "Master Debater" post, then I suppose there's a tinge of a point in there (somewhat nullified by Kazan's refusal to read replies cicera the post above).  If it's the one ending with

Stop taking the huff.  What are you, 12?  I thought you did debating at school - did you run away and hide in a corner (shouting along the way, PRESUMABLY) every time you were challenged?

Then Kazan's being misleading.  His tirade following that post was split from a post above (how else could aldo have quoted it without the "edited by" flag showing up) for "emphesis" and so chronologically actually comes first in the argument.

[Kazan]

I'm not going to bother arguing with aldo anymore - he's not listening, he's posting attacks that are off target in semantically subtle ways and abusing the definition of "foundation"

however

goober

Athiests assert that God does not exist.

FALSE

atheism
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

that is the definition I, and most other atheists I know follow.


Now I assert that it is IRRATIONAL to believe in god UNTIL there is evidence.

Often I will state simply "there is no god" but if you challenge it i will say "i was simplifying and I will not defend that  unqualified statement" and I will qualify the statement "you cannot rational believe in god since there is no evidence to support the existance of such so if you believe in one you are irrational"

[Kazan]

please tell me what part of

[q]NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AFTER YOU INTIALLY POSTED IT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND


This argument is completely over

i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument

(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)
[/q]


constitues an argumentum ad hominem

Yelled yes, but i did not attack him with a personal insult

[IceFire]

please tell me what part of

[q]NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AFTER YOU INTIALLY POSTED IT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND


This argument is completely over

i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument

(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)
[/q]


constitues an argumentum ad hominem

Yelled yes, but i did not attack him with a personal insult

I didn't say it was a argumentum ad hominem although I am aware of the definition.  I said it was a strongly worded attack.  You told him he doesn't understand (swearing while were at it), you told him he needs to "balls up" which I take to be somehow insulting his manhood, and so forth.  Lets try and not have any double standards...adlo has about as much right to report your little comeback as you do his post.  That is to say...not a whole lot.  This is the last I'm going to say on this subject.

Try and not get caught up in arguments that get to the point where it requires you or someone else to report it.  Save that to the posts that actually do need some more serious moderation. Savvy?

[Bobboau]

ok, Kaz is right, but as usual his argumentation style and inability to shift position to essentaly say the same thing but in a way that people might be willing to accept bites him in the ass.

I beleive the current argument is weather or not religion has a foundation?

yes it does, but that foundation is in the happy-go-lucky world of beleife, things in this magical land of wonder may correlate with the world of logic, or they might... not. so I think if we Just shift things a bit, religion is logicly unfounded. and therefor anything based, soly, on religion cannot be consitered logicaly valid.

now, onto the implecations of this.
I don't think delusional would be the right word to use, as it has implecations of wide reaching major insanity, I supose 'irrational' would probly be a better choice. while technicaly delusional may be right, however most religious people are more than capable of functioning in society, it is only when you corner them into one of the political traps that no one ever realy thinks about, and they feel threatened is when this irrationality becomes a problem.

however this sticking point becomes irrelevent when we return to the highest level of the argument, should religious people be respected, well yes, if for no more than the same reason you respect a 250 pound rottweiler, religion is powerfull, and if you make yourself a thorn in there side they will wipe you off like dog **** on a sidewalk. but asside from this machiavelion reasoning, most people are rational most of the time, you can respect religious people without respecting the reasoning upon wich some minor aspect of there understanding of the universe is founded.

[Kazan]

thanks bob

my point was they technically meet the definition of the word delusional, not that we shouldn't respect them [well... we shouldn't, but for entirely different reasons like their penchant for wanting to hold guns to other peoples heads and saying "BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE"]

[Ford Prefect]

I just like to disagree by default with whatever Kazan says.

Is it just me?

[aldo_14]

I'm not going to bother arguing with aldo anymore - he's not listening, he's posting attacks that are off target in semantically subtle ways and abusing the definition of "foundation"

So you are taking your ball home and refusing to play?

[vyper]

@Ford Prefect: No. Frankly I liked these threads better when he was a monkey; I got to read interesting intellectual debate instead of this egocentric nonsense.

[Kazan]

I'm not going to bother arguing with aldo anymore - he's not listening, he's posting attacks that are off target in semantically subtle ways and abusing the definition of "foundation"

So you are taking your ball home and refusing to play?

why debate with a person who refuses to debate in good faith and simply ignores the evidence against them?

I presented logic, and referenced evidence (examples) to prove my point, while instead you abused the definition of "foundation" to try and say religion is not unfounded when "unfounded" is specifically a reference to "found" in a manner which implies "founded upon evidence"

[Kazan]

@Ford Prefect: No. Frankly I liked these threads better when he was a monkey; I got to read interesting intellectual debate instead of this egocentric nonsense.

oh yes because a debate on semantics and logic is "egocentric"

yup

totally

 

[aldo_14]

I'm not going to bother arguing with aldo anymore - he's not listening, he's posting attacks that are off target in semantically subtle ways and abusing the definition of "foundation"

So you are taking your ball home and refusing to play?

why debate with a person who refuses to debate in good faith and simply ignores the evidence against them?

I presented logic, and referenced evidence (examples) to prove my point, while instead you abused the definition of "foundation" to try and say religion is not unfounded when "unfounded" is specifically a reference to "found" in a manner which implies "founded upon evidence"

I debate both the existence and definition of this 'evidence', as well as your definition of founded and unfounded, especially as the definition you provide of unfounded is not a converse to the definition of founded.

But the egocentrism I believe vyper is referring to is the assumption of certain base abstract concepts to be true or false, when it's patently obvious those same concepts have been left unresolved and unresolvable by 2500 years of philosophical discussion.  Now,frankly, if you want to take the huff because I have the audacity to disagree with you, then it's your problem.  But I note seemingly no-one has jumped to your (positions) defense here, so at the very least perhaps you should examine your oratory skills to see why.

[Kazan]

i was "in a huff" because you were ingoring basic evidence

The reason your usage of "foundation" is not the conserve of unfounded is because "foundation" has more than one meaning, but only one that unfounded is specifically the antinym to - the meaning YOU are [ab]using is NOT the antinym of unfounded which is what completely invalidates your semantic argument

foun·da·tion   Audio pronunciation of "foundation" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (foun-dshn)
n.

   1. The act of founding, especially the establishment of an institution with provisions for future maintenance.
   2. The basis on which a thing stands, is founded, or is supported. See Synonyms at base1.
   3.
         1. Funds for the perpetual support of an institution; an endowment.
         2. An institution founded and supported by an endowment.
   4. A foundation garment.
   5. A cosmetic base.

see

found1   Audio pronunciation of "founded" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (found)
tr.v. found·ed, found·ing, founds

   1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872.
   2. To establish the foundation or basis of; base: found a theory on firm evidence.

reference

un·found·ed   Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-foundd)
adj.

   1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
   2. Not yet established.

the repeated appeals to "2500 years of blah blah blah" is a mix of argumentum ad verecundium and argumentum ad Populum - just because "blah blah" hasn't been able to decided what constitutes existing/non-existing doesn't mean I haven't a definition. 

I don't care if they haven't been able to reach a stable definition as a whole - I have stated my postulates, you can argue against them, but that is a seperate argument.  continued "2500 years blah blah blah" does nothing for you

[aldo_14]

so you are in a huff?  Thought so.

Y'know, i'm not arguing against your belief in your postulated evidence.  Really, I'm not - that was kind of the point.  I'm just pointing out that your postulation for establishing unfounded-ness is based on your own selective definitions and evidence that is based on what you think is required, based upon your own belief.

Now, you may with to go 'atheism isn't a belief', which in a sense is fair, but in a sense is also incorrect as you can't prove that position is correct.  You can't prove it is wrong either, of course.  I believe it's right, but I'm not going to declare myself as being better informed than anyone else who has a dissenting view because I recognise - and it's really very simple - that a belief system like religion is founded upon something which is not only unknown, but never knowable.

I'm not sure how many times I can restate that concept.  I know it's alien from an aetheistic point of view, and I personally don't hold it, but it's not exactly complex either to understand the foundation of it is quite simply faith.

y'see, I'm not debating your definition of 'blah blah'.  i'm debating you stating it is correct for every human being in the world ever and cannot be challenged, which is effectively what you're doing.  Certainly in my eyes.

[Martinus]

Kazan if you continue to add snide, petulant remarks into your arguments you will be stopped from arguing.

You don't debate, you dictate. Your phrasing and self righteous tone make your own 'arguments' look narrow minded and incapable of accounting properly for other's arguments. Everyone can see this except for yourself. You're fast coming to a point where people will make an opposing point to yours simply to see how quickly and in what fashion you make yourself look silly.

No more needless capitalisation, or use of italics. No more repeating phrases verbatim unless it is to clarify your meaning and most importantly, you will keep a civil tone in your posts.

[Kazan]

Kazan if you continue to add snide, petulant remarks into your arguments you will be stopped from arguing.

how about some even handedness? Aldo has put more petulent snarkiness into his posts then i have, and he has engaged in argumentum ad hominem when i have not.  He's in more serious violation of the rules than I am

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the post - I am not going to consider your opinion fair and unbiased when you attack the person who has not violated the rules instead of the person who has, simply because of who they are.

[Bobboau]

what happened to my "logicaly unfounded". you must clarify this stuff because something that is founded on a dream you had can still be defined as haveing a foundation. 'founded in fanticy' would also work, but is a bit more likely to provoke anger.

[Kazan]

so you are in a huff?  Thought so.

Y'know, i'm not arguing against your belief in your postulated evidence.  Really, I'm not - that was kind of the point.  I'm just pointing out that your postulation for establishing unfounded-ness is based on your own selective definitions and evidence that is based on what you think is required, based upon your own belief.

they're not my own selective definitions! they're the accepted meanings of the word - look specifically at the definition of unfounded.  Furthermore you posted the original definition of delusional which I used to make my entire argument of.  How is it my own "selective" definition of something when A) you posted the definition and B) i've described examples of when TWO of the different definitions of "delusional" were met.

Now, you may with to go 'atheism isn't a belief', which in a sense is fair, but in a sense is also incorrect as you can't prove that position is correct.

atheism isn't a belief, and it doesn't hold a burdeon of proof either.  Atheism is the lack of belief.  In debate it's called "the negative assertion" (only the positive assertion holds BOP)

the negative assertion fundamentally has the advantage because it isn't "I assert X" it's "I don't assert X, I do not find your logic and evidence for X compelling"

We're all atheists to so many dieties - for example take christians, they believe in only one god while they do not believe in every other god in existance.  Do we term their lack of belief for Zeus as "a belief"? no because that would be absurd.  Atheists just go one god further than christians.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof.

You can't prove it is wrong either, of course.

Yes you can, you can prove atheism incorrect by proving the existance of a deity.  Atheism is falsifiable. 

(Wait a second, didn't you say religion ("beliefs") fundamentally rested upon being both unfalsifiable and untprovable? that makes your definition of either religion/beliefs and atheism internally inconsistent, however this isn't a valid argument to falsify your statment - it is an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque - however it is interesting to note in light of my above falsification)

I believe it's right, but I'm not going to declare myself as being better informed than anyone else who has a dissenting view because I recognise - and it's really very simple - that a belief system like religion is founded upon something which is not only unknown, but never knowable.

being "founded" semantically doesn't mean it's founded with evidence and logic.  The term "unfounded" is specifically a reference to logic and evidence and to claim otherwise is to be doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing: cherry picking definitions.

I'm not sure how many times I can restate that concept.  I know it's alien from an aetheistic point of view, and I personally don't hold it, but it's not exactly complex either to understand the foundation of it is quite simply faith.

No, i understand what you're saying completely - but i'm not finding it a valid and compelling argument against my fundamental assertion.  You are making a fallacy in your usage as founded - you're using a version that is not an antinym of unfounded and then trying to equate it to such.

y'see, I'm not debating your definition of 'blah blah'.  i'm debating you stating it is correct for every human being in the world ever and cannot be challenged, which is effectively what you're doing.  Certainly in my eyes.

Well i'm not the one who wrote the definition of the word unfounded which is clearly a reference to not being based upon evidence and logic.

[Kazan]

what happened to my "logicaly unfounded". you must clarify this stuff because something that is founded on a dream you had can still be defined as haveing a foundation. 'founded in fanticy' would also work, but is a bit more likely to provoke anger.

the definition of unfounded is clearly a reference to what you stated "logically unfounded"

Aldo's abuse of "founded" doesn't pass the fundamental smell test: I've never heard anyone use it that way to defend against a claim of something being unfounded.  Every single defense against that claim i've ever seen (personally, on TV, in a debate hall, in an english class) has been based upon evidence and logic


----------

ok people i'm at work - i'll arguel ater