Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male
atheist
Joined: 30 January 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2467
|
Posted: 16 February 2008 at 2:27pm |
straw man fallacy
One of the characteristics of a cogent refutation of an argument is that the argument one is refuting be represented fairly and accurately. To distort or misrepresent an argument one is trying to refute is called the straw man fallacy. It doesn't matter whether the misrepresentation or distortion is accidental and due to misunderstanding the argument or is intentional and aimed at making it easier to refute. Either way, one commits the straw man fallacy.
In other words, the attacker of a straw man argument is refuting a position of his own creation, not the position of someone else. The refutation may appear to be a good one to someone unfamiliar with the original argument.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson9.html |
|
|
Andalus
Moderator Group
Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
|
Posted: 16 February 2008 at 3:30pm |
Ron Webb wrote:
straw man fallacy
One of the characteristics of a cogent refutation of an argument is that the argument one is refuting be represented fairly and accurately. To distort or misrepresent an argument one is trying to refute is called the straw man fallacy. It doesn't matter whether the misrepresentation or distortion is accidental and due to misunderstanding the argument or is intentional and aimed at making it easier to refute. Either way, one commits the straw man fallacy.
In other words, the attacker of a straw man argument is refuting a position of his own creation, not the position of someone else. The refutation may appear to be a good one to someone unfamiliar with the original argument.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson9.html |
|
Perhaps you are showing signs of being slightly illiterate, or else you are trying to deflect from actually making a point about a topic you have not actually read. That was his position. There is no "strawman". Israfil also noted this dubious attempt at discourse from the author. If you are unable to see it, or find it, or comprehend it from the material, then it is not a matter of a fallacy on my part, but a matter of a comprehension problem on yours.
Regards
|
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
|
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male
atheist
Joined: 30 January 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2467
|
Posted: 16 February 2008 at 11:22pm |
Andalus, if Diagoras actually claimed that a universal negative statement could not be proven, you could easily prove it by quoting him.
|
|
Andalus
Moderator Group
Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
|
Posted: 16 February 2008 at 11:57pm |
Ron Webb wrote:
Andalus, if Diagoras actually claimed that a universal negative statement could not be proven, you could easily prove it by quoting him. |
I am tired of running in circles with both the author, and now you. Read the stinking thread, all of it. That would be easier than trying to play games with you. This has been a corner stone of the authors charade. If you cannot see it, then I have no more to add. Really.
|
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
|
|
Diagoras
Senior Member
Joined: 06 November 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 115
|
Posted: 17 February 2008 at 10:35pm |
minuteman
I'd like really any evidence. A reproducible experiment which would reveal God would be preferable.
Ron Webb
Thanks for holding down the fort while I was away, but don't try talking to Andalus. I'm boycotting him until he learns to speak politely. He is, for lack of a better word, a troll.
Anyone Else
If I missed your comments, please repost them.
|
|
|
minuteman
Senior Member
Joined: 25 March 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1642
|
Posted: 18 February 2008 at 2:09am |
Diagoras wrote:
minuteman
I'd like really any evidence. A reproducible experiment which would reveal God would be preferable.
Ron Webb
Thanks for holding down the fort while I was away, but don't try talking to Andalus. I'm boycotting him until he learns to speak politely. He is, for lack of a better word, a troll.
Anyone Else
If I missed your comments, please repost them.
|
Dear Diagoras. That is a vague statement and no reply after a weeks delay. Why don't you tell what will satisfy you? People are giving you some proofs but you seem not to agree. Now I had asked you about what will make you believe that there is a God. Some one interjected the word "Evidence".
Again the same question would arise "what type of evidence?" I had further asked about your feelings or sensations or abstract things or soul etc. What do you say about all those things. Also about pain and love etc. Please reply for each of them whether you believe in those are not. Then we will insha Allah look into your weak belief in the God Almighty. Thanks. I hope I do not have to request you again.
(p.s. I am a frogetful person. Please read all my recent previous posts in this thread and see what i asked from you.)
Edited by minuteman
|
|
poga
Senior Member
Joined: 03 January 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 322
|
Posted: 18 February 2008 at 2:40am |
Andalus wrote:
Ron Webb wrote:
Andalus wrote:
Ron Webb wrote:
There is no water composed of carbon dioxide, by definition. It doesn't require evidence. |
by "definition" because it is based upon the "attributes", or essential elememts of water and carbon dioxide. It is a universal negative statement. By "definition" does not make not a universal negative statement. |
No, but it makes it a false analogy. Obviously one can prove some negative statements, but the point here is that one cannot prove a statement that says something does not exist.
|
Not a false analogy. We are talking about arguing for a universal negative statement. The claim was that it could not be proven.
Fortunately it is not necessary to prove that "carbon-dioxide water" does not exist, because we already know that it cannot exist, by definition.
|
tangent. What was being discussued was the issue of a universal negative statement, and the idea of shirking all responsibility for having to make an argument for supporting a claim.
No one is suggesting that God cannot exist (i.e., it is possible to imagine such a Being), only that He does not.
|
agreed. This is not the topic.
What good reason would someone necessarily believe that unicorns or any of the other rediculous aburdities must be true. |
Well, none really, except that lots of other people believe in them (or did at one time). What good reason would someone believe that God exists?
|
I am quite ready to give my arguments. Not until the author of the thread provide their reasons why athiesm is necessarily true, which is the context of the thread.
Faithful Foundation Say's oh baseless blind Iman Your followers are all non scientific illogical irrational mumbling Be Iman Your blind believers are atheist agnostic superstitious idiots Your blind believers are all bumbling bigots If they are truly rational and can understand the logic Then they will surely say Mona lisa smile is piece of creators art it did not came through by chance magic But why not it too can come by random throwing down of colour But they will again say the Science Say's yes may be once not what is happening every where regular If something happens in same Patten in same fashion in same manner Then they all must have one singular creator originator The creator who created the first design and replaced it many subject If that is so then tell us oh blind atheist and agnostic believers what is the name of that single and most abundant object The diagram of golden ratio in the nature How they all have the same diagram of the heavenly sephiroth and earthy sandal character The octagonal diagram of the atomic design to the pentagram of water Lilly's Why almost everything in the nature follows the design of holy KAABA and HOLY of HOLLIES If every thing follows the same design then there must be one designer Faithful Foundation Say's oh baseless blind believer accept ISLAM now and reject KUFFAR
from SWEETSWORDS 78 [ Great Traitors ]
|
|
|
Andalus
Moderator Group
Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
|
Posted: 18 February 2008 at 5:40am |
Diagoras wrote:
minuteman
I'd like really any evidence. A reproducible experiment which would reveal God would be preferable.
Ron Webb
Thanks for holding down the fort while I was away, but don't try talking to Andalus. I'm boycotting him until he learns to speak politely. He is, for lack of a better word, a troll.
Anyone Else
If I missed your comments, please repost them.
|
I am still waiting for you to provide an argument why athiesm is necessarily true.
After I have clearly shown tht a universal negative statement can be argued, you are still hiding behind self invented formalities. Your position is intellectually bankrupt.
|
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
|
|