[Kazan]

you can thank karajorma for the following concession:

I will conceed that calling someone delusional can be considered rude, even if it's true.

[08:52] karajorma: On pretty much ever point since the first one. Right from the comment that calling someone delusional is rude
[08:52] lordkazan: something that is true cannot be rude
[08:52] karajorma: Yes it can
[08:52] lordkazan: oh bullocks
[08:52] karajorma: If I point to a fat person in the street and shout "You're fat" is that not rude?
[08:53] lordkazan: [08:52] karajorma: If I point to a fat person in the street and shout "You're fat" is that not rude? <=== it's an unpleasant truth, i guess it could be considered rude, i'll conceed that point

[aldo_14]

[q]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)[/q]

you just don't get it, do you?  The concept of God is one which is beyond observation, i.e. proof, i.e. disproof, i.e. any form of conclusion.   That should be quite incredibly obvious to anyone with the merest idea what the idea a superme diety or dieties represents.

i'm not sure how many times I can try to restate this.  Religion is based upon a foundation of believing in something that is fundamentally unknowable.  aka 'faith'.

I'm sorry.  It seems to simple to me, but perhaps you can't see beyond your own little biases.  To call someone delusional, you have to disprove their faith.  Faith is expressly designed and valued to accept and effectively ignore the lack of evidence to support it.  you cannot disprove it, because you've shown several times the only way to do so is to selectively define the meaning of God to be within this universe, and to assume that if so he/she/it must be acting in a manner currently observable.

Now, you can throw around latin phrases, use bold text, triple post, call for the admins to close the thread, whatever.  But ultimately all your actually acting is towards supporting your faith in your own correctness for something which you have said has no way in which it can be proven.  You can throw around allegations of delusion towards people, but ultimately you can't throw any more hard evidence down on the table than, say, Goober can.  When you insult people, then you have a burden of proof in order to ensure you're not just being prejudiced or a bigot, that you have a right to judge.  You've not provided that proof that you are any more competent to say who is and who is not right than me, Ford, Strat, Goober, anyone, and for all the linguistic mishy-mashing you've only been able to provide your personal definitions and purport them as global.

[Kazan]

The concept of God is one which is beyond observation, i.e. proof, i.e. disproof, i.e. any form of conclusion.   That should be quite incredibly obvious to anyone with the merest idea what the idea a superme diety or dieties represents.

understanding such and ACCEPTING such is two different things

I fundamentally reject the notion that something can be both existant and inobservable

i find it contradictory.

To call someone delusional, you have to disprove their faith.

No you don't - the dictionary disagrees with you, and I side with the dictionary.


---

I have NO faith in anything and i consider you saying that I do as a personal insult.  I do not have FAITH that I am correct about the dictionary definition of delusional - i simply cited the authoritative source.  If you wish to debate the dictionary definition of the word take it up with Oxford's English Dictionary, Websters and American Heritage - i'm done with that argument.  The dictionary definition agrees with me whether you like it or not.


I am not the person asserting something exists, I do not hold the burdeon of proof.  They fit the dictionary definition of delusional whether you like it or not.


I'm done with you - you insult me, you refuse to debate honestly, you cherrypick definitions then have the chutzpah to accuse me of doing so when i'm simply quoting the dictionary to you, repeatedly.

i'm done with you, completely.

[aldo_14]

[q]understanding such and ACCEPTING such is two different things

I fundamentally reject the notion that something can be both existant and inobservable

i find it contradictory.[/q]

I'm perfectly aware you do.  But what has that got to do with anything beyond your personal mindset and perhaps an inability (perfectly natural) to be willing to understand other points of view?

[q]
No you don't - the dictionary disagrees with you, and I side with the dictionary.[/q]

Uh, Kaz?  Dictionaries don't talk to people.  I'd see someone about that if I were you.

[q]
I have NO faith in anything and i consider you saying that I do as a personal insult.  I do not have FAITH that I am correct about the dictionary definition of delusional - i simply cited the authoritative source.  If you wish to debate the dictionary definition of the word take it up with Oxford's English Dictionary, Websters and American Heritage - i'm done with that argument.  The dictionary definition agrees with me whether you like it or not.[/q]

you still are unable to understand religion, then.  foundation is the act of faith.

[q]
I am not the person asserting something exists, I do not hold the burdeon of proof.  They fit the dictionary definition of delusional whether you like it or not.[/q]

you can't dictate absolute truths to me or anyone, sonny jim.

[q]
I'm done with you - you insult me, you refuse to debate honestly, you cherrypick definitions then have the chutzpah to accuse me of doing so when i'm simply quoting the dictionary to you, repeatedly.

i'm done with you, completely.[/q]

Stop moaning -it's not an insult to have your views and interpetations be challenged.  Live with it, or you will end up with bananas for breakfast again.

NB: you quoted certain bits of the dictionary.  For example, a definition of unfounded that contradicted the inverse definition I pointed out for 'founded'.  you also ignored the basic foundation of religious belief - faith - because you disagreed on a personal level, created loaded 'rules' of disproof based on a fundamental mistake (that a diety has to exist within the observable universe, thus contradicting every religious belief of one that I can think of)  derived solely to prove your opinion, and decided to ignore or dismiss the history of 2500 years of philosophical debate because it contradicted you.

Furthermore, I've seen red text, bold text, large text, caps lock, you've called me a "you're a ****ing idiot", tried to get the thread locked because it wasn't going the way you wanted it, repeatedly and false accused me of insulting you because I think you are wrong (how dare!  Eek!), and tried to declare the arguement 'over' and won multiple times because I wouldn't kow tow to you, in a rather obvious contradiction of what a debate is supposed to be.  Kudos.

[Bobboau]

ok, you two are basicly arguing over the definition of a word...

actualy you are arguing over, I supose what you could call the default qualifiers of a word, founded means built upon something, Kaz asserts that by default this something is logic, aldo that there is no default qualifier and so if you can use any qualifier (ie founded on faith/magic/happy thoughts/bull****/ect) then the useage is correct, looking at dictionary.com's definition it seems Kaz is right, however my personal understanding of the word is more in line with Aldo's point. so, Kaz, if you just incert 'logicly' infront of every utterance of the word (un)founded I don't think he'll have anywere to go, as both you and him agree religion is 'founded' on non-logical thinking (ie faith), it is founded, just not on logic, in order to atack religion you must atack it's foundation, faith, wich it'self I think could be said to be unfounded. when you have layers of bull**** you must work one layer at a time.

also, Kaz, it looks to me as you might be being played, calm yourself lest your enemies take advantage of your rage.
lets try to keep from getting anyone banned, or threads closed untill I get home tonight.

[Kazan]

Aldo you yet again engage in argumentum ad hominem.

Bobboau: thank you

[aldo_14]

ok, you two are basicly arguing over the definition of a word...

actualy you are arguing over, I supose what you could call the default qualifiers of a word, founded means built upon something, Kaz asserts that by default this something is logic, aldo that there is no default qualifier and so if you can use any qualifier (ie founded on faith/magic/happy thoughts/bull****/ect) then the useage is correct, looking at dictionary.com's definition it seems Kaz is right, however my personal understanding of the word is more in line with Aldo's point. so, Kaz, if you just incert 'logicly' infront of every utterance of the word (un)founded I don't think he'll have anywere to go, as both you and him agree religion is 'founded' on non-logical thinking (ie faith), it is founded, just not on logic, in order to atack religion you must atack it's foundation, faith, wich it'self I think could be said to be unfounded. when you have layers of bull**** you must work one layer at a time.

also, Kaz, it looks to me as you might be being played, calm yourself lest your enemies take advantage of your rage.
lets try to keep from getting anyone banned, or threads closed untill I get home tonight.

My definition, actually, is that foundation in this context (and by the emboldended definition a few pages back) is simply an abstract basis.  For something to be unfounded, i.e. delusional, you need to be able to disprove that basis, otherwise it is just a 'I'm right and you're wrong' type insult.  When that basis is explicitly faith, and faith in something determined to be supernatural, i.e. beyond observation, you cannot prove that basis is wrong (it is unproveable either way) and ergo it is unfair to declare someone delusional when you cannot claim to have the answers or proof yourself (at least, not unless you try to redefine the issue to suit yourself and injure their position).

[Kazan]

For something to be unfounded, i.e. delusional, you need to be able to disprove that basis, otherwise it is just a 'I'm right and you're wrong' type insult.

and here is your error - you're committing a Shifting of the Burdeon of Proof Fallacy

unfounded specifically means unfounded logically, lacking evidence.  The burdeon of proof is the person asserting something, until they have evidence their position meets the dictionary definition of unfounded.  It doesn't matter what their reason for believing it is, it doesn't matter if they consider it "founded on faith" - it isn't founded

the clearest way to demonstrate this is in a court of law "I have faith in X" doesn't make assertion X founded in a court of law, it's "unfounded" - there is no definition of "unfounded" that allows for faith to be considered as a valid basis.

[Ford Prefect]

also, Kaz, it looks to me as you might be being played, calm yourself lest your enemies take advantage of your rage.

Why would anyone do that? That would just be deriving cheap, immature entertainment from another person's excitability. Come on guys, that's terrible. Cut it out.

[Kazan]

also, Kaz, it looks to me as you might be being played, calm yourself lest your enemies take advantage of your rage.

Why would anyone do that? That would just be deriving cheap, immature entertainment from another person's excitability. Come on guys, that's terrible. Cut it out.

 

[aldo_14]

If you look at a few definitions of 'founded', you'll find there is no evidencial quantifier.

Although google gives unfounded as
baseless: without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy"

Note; reason or fact.  now, I've already stated - and I think it is fair to say this is really a given - that religion is founded, upon the faith in something whose existence is factually unknowable.

A quick glance at reason gives
# a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"
# an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon; "the reason a steady state was never reached was that the back pressure built up too slowly"
# the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination; "we are told that man is endowed with reason and capable of distinguishing good from evil"
# rationality: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions"
# decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion; "We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house"
# cause: a justification for something existing or happening; "he had no cause to complain"; "they had good reason to rejoice"
# argue: present reasons and arguments
# a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion; "there is reason to believe he is lying"
# think logically; "The children must learn to reason"

you'll note it does not explicitly require a fact, although that is a definition, but - for this context - some form of justification or, er, reasoning.

no doubt you want to quibble over 'rational'.

# consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"
# intellectual: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
# capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers; "rational numbers"
# rational number: an integer or a fraction
# having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational analysis"

Again, not dependent upon factual evidence.

now, going back to delusion
# (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
# the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas

Well, one is out.  No evidence to the contrary, rather obvious given the problem domain.  Three is also out, because you need to prove that idea is illusory.  Otherwise it's just an idea.

So we get back to two.  Which leads us back up to founded/unfounded, and the lack of a definition in that chain that requires actual factual evidence.  So your main thrust has to be rationality, which is intellectual and hence subjective.

Now, you've also asserted you are right in regarding religion as 'wrong', I believe.   So by your statement, you have a burden of proof to prove that statement true in the same universal sense as you assert that religious peeps are delusional.  But you can't, because god is impossible to prove or disprove, owing to its nature as, dependent upon personal philosophy, a construct to explain the inexplicable. 

i.e. you can explain your own personal philosphy, but applying it to judge others necessitates a stronger basis than simply self-justifying.  Certainly I can't see it as anything beyond hypocritical if you're berating people for a position with no less evidence than your own.

I think, I've said this lot already, though.

[Kazan]

Which leads us back up to founded/unfounded, and the lack of a definition in that chain that requires actual factual evidence.

this is incorrect, you admitted so much yourself, and I have already posted the definition proving such multiple times

Although google gives unfounded as
baseless: without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy"

"rational/reason" does require logic btw because rationality/reasoning is the application of logic as very CLEARLY implied by all definitions of both words

[aldo_14]

this is incorrect, you admitted so much yourself, and I have already posted the definition proving such multiple times

I believe the correct term is a definition proving....etc.

Although google gives unfounded as
baseless: without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy"

"rational/reason" does require logic btw because rationality/reasoning is the application of logic as very CLEARLY implied by all definitions of both words

Logic
# the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference
# reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic"
# the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
# a system of reasoning
# the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations [/q]

Hmm.  Philosophy... nope.   Reasonable... subjective opinion.

don't see it, sorry.

[Kazan]

this is incorrect, you admitted so much yourself, and I have already posted the definition proving such multiple times

I believe the correct term is a definition proving....etc.

no - THE definition. there is not significant disagreement between variosu dictionaries on the definition, and all definitions of the word agree with my assertion.

Although google gives unfounded as
baseless: without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"; "unwarranted jealousy"

"rational/reason" does require logic btw because rationality/reasoning is the application of logic as very CLEARLY implied by all definitions of both words

Logic
[q]# the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference
# reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic"
# the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
# a system of reasoning
# the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations [/q]

Hmm.  Philosophy... nope.   Reasonable... subjective opinion.

don't see it, sorry.

  

that definition still fails to allow for faith to be considered a basis

it remains unfounded

PS: reasonable is not subjective opinion since we've established rules called "Logic" for determining whether it's reasonable or not

[aldo_14]

[q]
no - THE definition. there is not significant disagreement between variosu dictionaries on the definition, and all definitions of the word agree with my assertion.[/q]

I already provided a differing definition.  Therefore, not 'the' in any permutation of capitals, bold, red, italics, supersize.......at least one definition thus disagrees with your personal assertion.

[q]that definition still fails to allow for faith to be considered a basis

it remains unfounded[/q]

Explain why faith is not covered.

[q]
PS: reasonable is not subjective opinion since we've established rules called "Logic" for determining whether it's reasonable or not[/q]

No, you've personally defined the rules that you wish to use.  Both those rules and the application are subject to your personal opinion; logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy.

[Ford Prefect]

On the subject of faith and logic: Has anyone ever read St. Anselm's inductive argument for the existence of god? Obviously it's not airtight, but it's actually really scary how close he gets to proving god through logic.

[Ford Prefect]

logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy.

Oh, and that's really very true. Kazan, in all seriousness, I would highly advise not contending that point.

[Kazan]

[q]
no - THE definition. there is not significant disagreement between variosu dictionaries on the definition, and all definitions of the word agree with my assertion.[/q]

I already provided a differing definition.  Therefore, not 'the' in any permutation of capitals, bold, red, italics, supersize.......at least one definition thus disagrees with your personal assertion.

no, you quoted one that while worded differently did not differ in meaning from the one i posted

[q]that definition still fails to allow for faith to be considered a basis

it remains unfounded[/q]

Explain why faith is not covered.

it doesn't qualify as any definition of: "fact",  "evidence" or "establishment"

[q]
PS: reasonable is not subjective opinion since we've established rules called "Logic" for determining whether it's reasonable or not[/q]

No, you've personally defined the rules that you wish to use.  Both those rules and the application are subject to your personal opinion; logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy.

strange that i've personally defined it and yet i follow the formal established rules and even use the named fallacies from the established rules.

Logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy - but the fundamentals are no longer debated so far as I've ever seen, we haven't gone beyond the fundamentals.

[Kazan]

logic itself is a concept much debated under philosophy.

Oh, and that's really very true. Kazan, in all seriousness, I would highly advise not contending that point.

as posted above - I don't contest that logic itself isn't subject of debate, i contend that the parts we're using aren't

more importantly I contest the RELEVANCE of the statement. 

[Martinus]

In an attempt to be as uniform in my meaning as possible I will re-state that not only is Kazan's behaviour under scruitiny but anyone who does not argue in a civil manner. If you can't make a point in this thread without undertones, character attacks, etc. etc. then the only outcome will be a locked thread.