RE: "Something Within Us"

There is something. But I have yet to see reasonable support for the notion that it is beyond naturalistic explanation.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• bluefish7
• atheism
• atheist
• morality
• instincts
• morals
• christianity

[BLUEFlSH7]

Yes we can agree to disagree, thats why i love you. My recovery went well, thanks man.

Peace always

[notNECESSARILYgod]

All is well with me, by the way, I hope you're feeling well. How did that recovery go?

[notNECESSARILYgod]

I'm not sure I see the fallacy in his method of dismissal, but thats what debating is for, isn't it? We don't agree and we both can't be right. So either one of us is missing something or one of our arguments is illogical due to fallacy.

I personally think its unlikely that any more pertinent information has yet to arise and so I generally believe that one of us is supporting flawed reasoning. You believe youre right and therefore he's fallacious. We believe same of you. Just matter of things

[BLUEFlSH7]

Said person observingly dismisses other positions that disagree with his on the premise of "fallacious arguing" when his own method of dismissal is fallacious. There is nothing wrong with this, but why beat a broken drum?

Hoping all is well with you.

[notNECESSARILYgod]

Well...it would be ad fallaciem if he was trying to make an argument. But he isn't. He's just pointing out a fallacy. I see nothing wrong with this.

In fact, since my argumentative stance is simply that I don't agree with yours...that makes your stance the only substantive stance in question. Finding a fallacy in an argument makes it appear that that argument is logical. Therefore, finding a fallacy in your argument fine and in fact supports our general position.

Would you disagree?

[BLUEFlSH7]

P.S. My comment is to celticking, not you sam.

[BLUEFlSH7]

There is a question before the question you are quoting, which connects to what you call a "presupposition". The name of your logical fallacy in the above comment is, "Argumentum Ad Fallaciem " - the task of pointing out said 'logical fallacies' instead of making an actual argument. Instead of appealing to Aristotle and Newton and their modern posers (dawkins) Lower your pride and stop pretending everyone around you is some kind of intellectual dumbass.

[notNECESSARILYgod]

"The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event."

This is what I keep finding when I google "post hoc fallacy." Could you give me a link to that nikzor place? I couldn't find that.

[Celticking36]

His question was "Where are we going?". This is a loaded question & a post hoc fallacy based upon a presupposition that we are already traveling somewhere. Check out nikzordotorg its got a whole slew of fallacy arguments.

[notNECESSARILYgod]

Agreed. I have read it, its very good. Post hoc eh? I looked that one up and it seemed to be the fallacy concerning causation, not demanding an answer to an unreasonable question.