I
ICXCNIKA
Guest
Catholics and Atheists.
- Status
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Joseph Bilodeau:
Ever since then I’ve been on a rant and brought it up umpteen times till I finally figured out why I was so mad.
I’m sorry if my generalized rant sounded like it applied to you. I did not intend to imply that you personally used the “s” word. I was careless in letting that be ambiguous but I hope I am calmer now, and I’m sorry you felt unfairly accused because it would have been unfair and my wording certainly could have given that impression.
Alan
As far as I know you have not used the “s” word. Michael Paul first used it in post #33, and not only said it was a stupid question, but specifically stated that he didn’t “mean” to be rude by stating so.
Ever since then I’ve been on a rant and brought it up umpteen times till I finally figured out why I was so mad.
I’m sorry if my generalized rant sounded like it applied to you. I did not intend to imply that you personally used the “s” word. I was careless in letting that be ambiguous but I hope I am calmer now, and I’m sorry you felt unfairly accused because it would have been unfair and my wording certainly could have given that impression.
Alan
L
LSK
Guest
Not lucky, Alan…blessed!
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Since you don’t seem to be able to let this go, I’ll give you another dose. That is not a bad thing, as I appreciate people continue to look for clarification rather than miss out on a good point.
You say you were making a point about the question. I’m making a point about the point about the question.
A person says 2+2 cannot be anything except 4, as an attempt at making some point about the absolutism of the Catholic Church. That is like building your argument on sand. Why not just say the Church is the absolute truth rather than backing it up with mathematical statements that have no truth in “real life?”
Maybe I can make this simple for you. A person says, “‘how are you feeling’ can never have more than one true answer, and that is ‘fine.’” In a similar way, there cannot be two true Churches." It makes no sense.
Due to my expertise in math and science, using a limited vision statement that is within my realm of expertise, and anybody who uses 2+2=4 as an absolute statement (what about base 3? Then 2+2 = 11) shows me right away that this person will make “absolute” statements that are not really absolute. They involve presumptions that may or may not be correct under the circumstances.
If you think my argument against the 2+2 thing is a tangent and irrelevant, than you must think it’s perfectly valid to use false statements to try to make points for the Church. Since most people may not know they are false, then they must be fair game because they “make the point” to the unwashed masses.
When you attack a question claiming it has faulty reasoning, by throwing more faulty reasoning at it, I’m not sure whether that is part of the solution or part of the problem. :whacky:
Assumes an implication isn’t present? This is one of the problems people have with using their brains instead of their emotions when asked a difficult or even seemingly impossible question. They read conditions into them that aren’t there.
Summary: “assuming” an implication is present when it is not is BAD logic. Knowing exactly what the question did and did not imply, and being able to answer it accurately even though the person asking the question wasn’t expecting and “out of the box” answer, is GOOD logic. Problem is many people seem to bristly at demonstrations of GOOD logic because it is rarely enough witnessed they don’t realize that’s what they’ve seen.
I believe that. You don’t believe “thinking outside the box” is a valid response to something that appears obvious, within the limits or your experience, perception, and analytical capabilities. That is to be expected. As a human being, you have no perception outside of what seems to be the Whole Universe based on physical sensory perception.
Maybe you’re right, but it gives me the willies to assume I have so much detailed information about how God thinks in these very esoteric contexts. It’s fascinating to discuss, but I wouldn’t suppose to “know” anything or else I “don’t know as I ought to know” as Paul warns in 1 Cor 8:2.
If I understand you right, you are claiming the answer was incorrect because of the unfair use of “true” to mean they “truly” do worship satan, rather than “true” (or “right” or “correct” as the OP stated) to mean the teachings and practices themselves were true.
If that’s your point, I think you have a very strong argument. From the way you are stating it, I can buy your assertion that the “devil worship” answer was not really “correct” based on a fair reading of the question.
Summary:
I think we saw some good creative thinking.
You think we heard some wrong answers to a question which doesn’t even have a right answer.
As far as I’m concerned, we both won. Score: 1-1
Alan
M
michaelgazin
Guest
Are we talking about theology here or mathematics? Ok, my intention was to create an analogy and with that understanding, you know exactly what is meant by 2+2. If you are going to respond to my analogy, do so with the implied definitions of the phrases I used.
If someone says, “I used to be smart,” it would be ridiculous to argue back, “the word ‘use’ can be an action verb such as ‘i used a hammer,’ therefore your sentence needs to be revised.” No, you use the implied definitions.
I didn’t say religions exist for the purpose of confliction. I said that different religions exist because their doctrines conflict with already established doctrines.
Your assessment of my statement being “horribly inaccurate” is unjustified. You follow with a statement completely unrelated to the topic, over which religion was first…something I never addressed, and something that in no way supports your comment. It is in essence, unnecessary and serves no purpose.
I didn’t say all doctrines of other religious systems conflict with Catholicism…only one doctrine has to, to warrant an offshoot/denomination.
Can you show me where the Bible says this? There is no sense in using analogies that cannot be applied to the topic at hand. You show me how two conflicting doctrines can be true with out using scissors, and then we’ll talk.
Hmm, alternate directions. Did Jesus leave us with alternate directions? Where?
I don’t mind with your disagreeing, so long as you justify your belief legitimately, without these erroneous questions, analogies, etc.Hmmm perhaps it is your reasoning that is faulty. The only reason the question appears to be erroneous to you is because you seem to be under the impression that catholicism is not only truth, but the ONLY truth, and that God has revealed the extent of his divine works through it. I respectfully disagree
G
Ghosty
Guest
Alan: With all due respect, I’m not the one making long posts about mathematical principles. You already conceded the point about the terms being used when you said:
If you read the whole passage in 1 Cor 8 you’ll see that it is an appeal to reason, not a limit on it. You’re reversing the entire meaning of the passage when you use it like that. In this case, Paul is refering to people who have “knowledge” but not the full context of the knowledge in faith. That is why just taking single verses is extremely dangerous and can lead to heretical and damaging thoughts about God and the faith.
Fun, perhaps, but not apologetical
Since Wormwood seemed to want some real answers, and has since indicated his bias about “multiple truths” (which makes his question even more erroneous), I think it’s safe to assume that “error for fun” was not the intention of the question.
It’s done, and I’m not going to discuss this any more.
The question was a logical fallacy, a compound question. You can’t answer a compound question correctly, end of story.Summary: “assuming” an implication is present when it is not is BAD logic. Knowing exactly what the question did and did not imply, and being able to answer it accurately even though the person asking the question wasn’t expecting and “out of the box” answer, is GOOD logic. Problem is many people seem to bristly at demonstrations of GOOD logic because it is rarely enough witnessed they don’t realize that’s what they’ve seen.
Thinking outside the box is perfectly valid, but irrationally answering a logical fallacy is insanity, not “thinking outside the box”. Perhaps you can’t grasp the nature of this logical fallacy, or perhaps you are simply being obtuse, but either way you are not making an argument, you are blustering. You can’t dodge the fact that this is a compound question by appealing to the limits of physical sensory perception.
I’m sorry that the use of reason gives you the willies.
If you read the whole passage in 1 Cor 8 you’ll see that it is an appeal to reason, not a limit on it. You’re reversing the entire meaning of the passage when you use it like that. In this case, Paul is refering to people who have “knowledge” but not the full context of the knowledge in faith. That is why just taking single verses is extremely dangerous and can lead to heretical and damaging thoughts about God and the faith.If you’re more concerned with “creative” answers than correct ones, then I suppose we did both “win”. I just don’t see anything particularily creative about inherently erroneous propositions, so I can’t share in your excitement at people proposing wrong answers to a fallicious question. That’s just error heaped on error, and it does not lead to creative, correct answers. Being creatively wrong is still being wrong, and has no place in any kind of apologetics.
Fun, perhaps, but not apologetical
Since Wormwood seemed to want some real answers, and has since indicated his bias about “multiple truths” (which makes his question even more erroneous), I think it’s safe to assume that “error for fun” was not the intention of the question.
M
michaelgazin
Guest
Enough with the 2+2 issue. When someone says 2+2, they are using base 10, not base 3. When they say 2+2, they are assuming identical units of each number. When they say 2+2, they are referring to tangible units, not theoretical existences.
Unless otherwise specified, assume the above conditions and resist overcomplicating issues for no reason. Create a new thread to discuss mathematical theories if necessary.
Unless otherwise specified, assume the above conditions and resist overcomplicating issues for no reason. Create a new thread to discuss mathematical theories if necessary.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
If you say so. I’ll take your word for it.
Is “what is it like to ride on a light beam” a question an insane person would set out to answer, since it is obviously impossible to ride on a light beam? Since we cannot, then the statement is based on the premise that one can, in fact, ride on a light beam. Some did think the author of that statement was insane, but he had quite an impact on what quite a few highly educated people who didn’t ask such “silly questions” consider the nature of the universe around him.
How does that not apply? Did you not explain a great deal of information about exactly how God thinks about these things? I suggest they are speculative.I’m sorry that the use of reason gives you the willies.
I might be wrong though, so you can have this point too.
That’s just error heaped on error, and it does not lead to creative, correct answers. Being creatively wrong is still being wrong, and has no place in any kind of apologetics.
Fun, perhaps, but not apologetical
Hard to say. I did notice after a bit Wormwood seemed to be somewhat argumentative, and maybe the motives weren’t innocent, though. Still, my issue wasn’t to stick up for whatever purpose Wormwood may have had, but to stick up for the idea of asking silly questions.
I can’t stand it when one person tells another their question is stupid, unless they are good friends and are accustomed to talking to each other like that. When I was in grade school I made most of my money ($1 per hour lesson) by tutoring other kids, mostly in math, starting in third grade. (It also kept some of the “popular kids” from hassling me for being such a nerd, in exchange for my keeping their “secret” that they actually met with Me, the socially clueless Nerd, outside of school.)
One of the first things I needed to do with most of them is to help them learn how to ask questions. They didn’t ask questions because “stupid questions” were often ridiculed – if not directly by the teachers than by snickers from other students – and when they didn’t understand something, there was no way they were going to ask a question because it hurt less to remain confused than to risk asking a “dumb” question.
There really are no “dumb” questions except those that do not have a voice.
Thank you, and the same to you.
Alan
G
Ghosty
Guest
Alan: Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE “silly questions”. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions that others refuse to ask. My problem is purely with asking questions that are simply fallacious from the get-go.
“What’s it like to ride on a beam of light” is a silly question, from a certain perspective, but it’s not a self-contradictory one. The answer, while requiring one to jump outside of our actual ability and paradigm, does not render the question itself ridiculous. This question, on the other hand, rules out the only rational and reasonable answer, whether in human perspective or not. It amounts to the same as asking “How high above ‘not at all’ could you jump if you couldn’t jump at all”; it’s a self-defeating question regardless of whether or not you ask a paraplegic or an Olypic long-jumper. That’s the basis of my complaint.
“What’s it like to ride on a beam of light” is a silly question, from a certain perspective, but it’s not a self-contradictory one. The answer, while requiring one to jump outside of our actual ability and paradigm, does not render the question itself ridiculous. This question, on the other hand, rules out the only rational and reasonable answer, whether in human perspective or not. It amounts to the same as asking “How high above ‘not at all’ could you jump if you couldn’t jump at all”; it’s a self-defeating question regardless of whether or not you ask a paraplegic or an Olypic long-jumper. That’s the basis of my complaint.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
You say “enough” but continue to make my point for me.
You assume they are using base 10. There is no absolute reason to think so, only popular convention. These “popular conventions” become part of our psyche, and we eventually regard them as absolutes, which they are not.
When I said 2+2=2.77, I was using identical units for each number. Those units were 10^8 m/s. The part about 2 cups sugar and 2 cups water was using different units, which you can say is cheating – and I might even agree with you that it is cheating – but still negates that “2+2=4” is an absolute truth and I thought it might reach a few people who have more experience in cooking than in physics.
When I’m saying 2+2=2.77, I am talking about tangible units, not theoretical existences. The theoretical way to look at it is 2+2=4. The “real world” behavior of many things just isn’t that simple.
Does nobody see how important this point is? We use man-made symbols that neatly combine when divorced from real world issues, and deduce from the simplicity of the symbolic statement that they represent the way the “real world” is.
The reason I can’t let this go, is that this is so critical I am willing to continue to try to explain it. We look at our symbols and how they behave, and infer from them that any underlying truth to which they point behaves the same way. That is not only poor mathematics, that kind of thinking sets the stage for idolatry – we look at an image of something as if it were the “real thing.”
I’m not here to discuss mathematical theories. Anybody who thinks I am has completely missed the point. I do have enough knowledge, though, to point out that the mathematical “theory” that was espoused in this thread is inaccurate, and I thought it was a spiritual act of mercy to try to instruct the ignorant.
Mainly, I am here to sound off against the practice of calling each others’ question “stupid” as I’ve mentioned before, and proceed to elevate themselves above others by making statements that are “absolute” but are actually only true when many assumptions are made. The fact is, when 2+2=4 is applied to real life situations and not just symbolic, it is not an absolute truth. God did not invent mathematics, and I doubt the Church teaches infallibly that 2+2 can never be anything except four.
My issue here is being presumptuous, and about careless use of inadequate examples – especially when putting another person down for saying something “stupid” I’d like to think most of us wouldn’t want to be living in a glass house and prove it by retaliating with a statement that is objectively false.
For gosh sakes, if we’re going to insist on using analogies to One-Up each other about God’s mind, then at least use analogies that are accurate.
If you wish to start a thread to convince people that 2+2=4 is an absolute true statement, so much so that it compares with the Truth of the Teachings of the Church, then go ahead. I’ll continue dealing with debunking false arguments used in this thread, and you can talk math theories – and I will join you there because I actually do enjoy talking about math sometimes.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I think I see your point about the distinction you’re trying to make.Alan: Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE “silly questions”. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions that others refuse to ask. My problem is purely with asking questions that are simply fallacious from the get-go.
“What’s it like to ride on a beam of light” is a silly question, from a certain perspective, but it’s not a self-contradictory one. The answer, while requiring one to jump outside of our actual ability and paradigm, does not render the question itself ridiculous. This question, on the other hand, rules out the only rational and reasonable answer, whether in human perspective or not. It amounts to the same as asking “How high above ‘not at all’ could you jump if you couldn’t jump at all”; it’s a self-defeating question regardless of whether or not you ask a paraplegic or an Olypic long-jumper. That’s the basis of my complaint.
I’m not sure that the notion of a person actually riding on a beam of light is any less ridiculous than a second true church; I doubt any human will ever be able to do so, so I’m not quite ready to agree that the initial question was any “stupider” than the Einstein question.
That said, I have no desire to talk you out of believing that it was stupider.
So if we’re over that, I’ll just add one more thought in case you’d like to follow up on it. If the person asking the question doesn’t know how “stupid” it is, due to ignorance or wishful thinking or whatever, then I hardly consider it a good apologetic move to tell them their questions are “stupid.” Further, throwing around 2+2=4 as an apparent attempt to show “gee isn’t it obvious to you that it’s stupid like it is to the rest of us” is also not what I would consider conducive to conversion.
It’s clear to me that you personally are capable of explaining that in a nice way, and that’s fine. If you think the question cannot be answered and is self-contradictory, that’s great. I would never have objected if that’s what had been said. The reason I objected was not to the ideas about the question, but in the manner of impugning the intelligence of the person asking by the reckless use of descriptive terms (i.e. “stupid”) and of mathematic symbols.
Believe it or not, practically everything I post is intended to bring about unity. I think if we use language that is not filled with emotionally loaded words and symbolic cliches, we stand a better chance of getting our ideas across.
Evidently I’m not doing much of a job at getting my ideas across, given the feedback I’ve received.
Oh, and when I suggest not using such language and lame analogies – I do not claim to be free of them myself. I try very hard, and have maybe made some improvement (esp. after getting warnings from the mods
) but I know this kind of language because I’ve used it, and I’ve had it used against me.Come to think of it, maybe my classes would run smoother if I told people who asked stupid questions how stupid they are. Then they’d quit asking questions and I could “cover” the material faster. Maybe I should looking at the advantages instead of fighting it.
Alan
Alan
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Is this another way of asking a question such as:
Hmmm. That gives me an idea for a new thread.
If that’s the question, I would personally answer Greek Orthodox.
Hmmm. That gives me an idea for a new thread.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I never said it was stupid, I said it was fallacious, and I explained what I meant by that. I even gave the benefit of the doubt about the ignorance of Wormwood regarding Catholic dogma on the issue, and took the time to explain why it couldn’t be answered as he’d hoped it could.
But that’s exactly what I’ve said since the beginning. Others may have said the question is stupid, but I certainly didn’t, and you’ve been jumping down my throat on the issue.
In fact, if you look at my posts, I specifically said that the term stupid couldn’t be applied at all given the circumstances. I even said:
Poorly formed questions do not equal stupid questions. Honestly, I don’t even know what a stupid question really is. I don’t think it’s an insult at all to point out that a question, as formulated, can’t be answered, and I cetainly don’t think it’s an implication against anyone’s intelligence to say so. In fact, pointing out the fallacy of a question implies a high regard for the intelligence of the asker, IMO, because it it requires a lot more intelligence to understand such an explaination than it does to make it
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
You see I have this problem with details. I don’t know who said what because I forget. Once I get on a rant, I just decide “are you agin’ me” and if the answer is “yes” then I freely associate any Bad Things I’ve ever seen anybody else against me say.But that’s exactly what I’ve said since the beginning. Others may have said the question is stupid, but I certainly didn’t, and you’ve been jumping down my throat on the issue.
Actually I thought it was you and others who were jumping down my throat for defending against the “stupid” calls, and I was getting defensive. Same thing I guess. Once I figure you are one of THEM then you are all the same and you share guilt.
Oh, well, now you’re asking quite a bit. How am I supposed to read anything when I’m so busy typing?
Hey I like that. Can I use it? There is this one thread about “tough questions” or something that I think could benefit from such a statement!, I specifically said that the term stupid couldn’t be applied at all given the circumstances. I even said:
Poorly formed questions do not equal stupid questions. Honestly, I don’t even know what a stupid question really is. I don’t think it’s an insult at all to point out that a question, as formulated, can’t be answered, and I cetainly don’t think it’s an implication against anyone’s intelligence to say so. In fact, pointing out the fallacy of a question implies a high regard for the intelligence of the asker, IMO, because it it requires a lot more intelligence to understand such an explaination than it does to make it
Alan
G
Ghosty
Guest
By all means you can use any of my words, though I’m not sure why a dedicated Shiite Muslim would have any use for my reasoned defense of the Catholic faith.
What was that about details?
At least this accounts for this comment by you:
What was that about details?
At least this accounts for this comment by you:
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I’ve always been bad with names. It’s terrible at in-law parties because they all remember me and I hardly remember seeing them, much less their names.
My wife is good with them, so she tries to help me out, except in situations I am beyond help.Also, with this alleged spiritual growth I’ve been experiencing plus all the pressure to “not take things so seriously” from my shrink and others, it’s gotten to seem like the whole world is just a big wonderful place, and practically everything other than that is just details. That is, until it comes to math or engineering, when I can wannabe just as anal-retentive as the best of them.
It’s starting to hurt a bit, though. Last night I was up late with unit #2 helping with Calculus, and it was driving me nuts though. Worse than that was the day before when unit #1 asked for help in some elementary circuit analysis, and on what I thought should be a trivial problem, I got stuck.
I’m obsolete. I’ll never get another engineering job. :crying:
Oh, wait. I forgot that’s just a detail.
Alan
R
Ruh
Guest
I’m rather new to the apologetics arena, nonetheless I would like to weigh in. I would argue that Catholicism and Judaism would be the two ‘Right’ religions. It was God who made the covenant with the Jewish people and I have to believe (and do believe) that God would not break his covenant with his people even to this day. So Jesus comes along and fulfills this covenant and establishes the ‘Catholic’ Church. I would argue that it is the Catholic Church that represents the ‘fullness’ of the Truth we are looking for in the case of religions
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Very poor choice for a handle “Wormwood”. You failed, remember.
C.S. Lewis “The Screwtape Letters”
C.S. Lewis “The Screwtape Letters”
H
hilde_the_dog
Guest
WOORWOOD , or rather Artemsia vulgaris, you clump forming rhizomatous perennial, ie chrysanthemum weed or absinthe , which do you you prefer. So as a weed you are in the Garden of Good and Evil. As such try to do your will… There is no answer except that which comes from the Lord our God. Jugde not lest you be judged…
Artemsia vulgaris (wormwood), by the way I hate the weed mugwort which is a form woorwood also, (get a new handle), please no discussions on hort. I really don’t think I can say… believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I will disagree with my calvinist parents…but at the end of the day WE have alot in common.
Artemsia vulgaris (wormwood), by the way I hate the weed mugwort which is a form woorwood also, (get a new handle), please no discussions on hort. I really don’t think I can say… believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I will disagree with my calvinist parents…but at the end of the day WE have alot in common.
- Status