Search results

I base my beliefs off of what I know. I am willing to state 'X is True' because of some knowledge I have even though I ultimately know I do not have full knowledge. To tell me that 'Just because we can't prove to you X is false doesn't mean it isn't' tells me nothing. I believe X is True because...

But it's not garbage. It often is a fallacious appeal to authority, case in point my argument with this guy.

If you can't give reasons for why I should accept his fallacy then I'm left to presume he was just appealing to the authority of 'fallacies'. You can't do X Why can't I do X? Because it's a fallacy. But... why should I accept that? The fallacy negates my theory of knowledge. Because it's a...

Why should I accept the particular fallacy he mentioned which basically states that just because I don't know something is true doesn't mean it isn't... Therefore I can't state X is False. It might be false, I just don't know. As an example I'm willing to state that there are no leprechauns...

I don't find either acceptable but I have no logical reasoning to. Let's see if I can find something which isn't necessarily logically justifiable (though beastiality etc I do think can be justified as wrong, you just have to suppose things which aren't themselves justified.... but then again we...

Yeah exactly. In the end my point is just I don't think I can just prescribe to people what axioms they should accept... If someone doesn't accept one of my own and it leads them to X conclusion then I can't say they're necessarily wrong, though if I find an inconsistency then I'll explore that.

Well sure if they want to set this up then they can go ahead and do so... In the end I don't think I can prove them wrong, though I can say 'do you accept X? Do you accept Y?' and then attempt to show how they might be wrong granted these other axioms they have. For example what you seem to have...

The logical fallacies work fine if you're writing a computer program but we often have a need to come to knowledge in ways which are perhaps less than perfectly logical. If I were to require the strictest of evidence and adherence to logic then I could be nothing more than a complete agnostic...

Well obviously we do like to impose our beliefs on others, I mean it appears necessary to me that if two people exist in some way this will happen. I'm guessing the main examples you would be against would be where someone is trying to stop someone from doing something which harms no one. Well...

What do you mean? I say "I find anything which harms animals to be completely abhorrent and thus would prefer legislation to limit the harm done to these animals whether their harm is at the hands of a farming corporation or a lonely man who needs to find a girlfriend." I don't think you're...

Yeah certainly that's another limit to the argument. I've tried not to focus on that argument because a) People can get out of it too easy by claiming 'well I love animals' and b) It seems to set the discussion up for people to begin nihilistic arguments, which I might even ultimately hold, but...

Lots of things are fallacies. Saying something is a fallacy therefore it's wrong is an appeal to authority - My point is to show that there is a contradiction in their beliefs, not to claim that I myself can prove that there either is or is not a god. I cannot. All I can do is show that their...

It depends on what your definition of is, is.

Why can't you believe there's a flying spaghetti monster?

for sure, but in the end isn't this often the most you'll usually get to convince someone of your position?

er... it's not like I'm advocating people go around and just start doing things to their animals that the animals clearly don't like.

and most dogs love it when you scratch their bellies, what's your point?

... If you can demonstrate that even most animals while being 'lovingly' played around with are in fear/physical pain then obviously I'd be against it - The point is that you can't.

Nah, it's wrong to sexually abuse the mentally handicapped they are human and as human we give them the dignity and the rights of all other humans.

Evolution doesn't really need to lead to an advantage and it can have in a sense 'misfirings'. There might even be some sort of an explanation..