Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/20/2012 12:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identit

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Roger Clough wrote: > Everything that God does by definition is just. > So much for religion giving morality a rock solid foundation, all it means is that God wants it. We should do good and avoid evil for one and only one reason, a loving God will torture us for eternity if we do not. Morali

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 20 Sep 2012, at 18:17, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize th

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/20/2012 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:29:18 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The devil could not write the Bible for it asks us to love God and our neighbor. That's like thinking that if a person does drugs with you they can't be

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

r the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-19, 17:11:45 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. > > > > > On Tuesday, S

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/20/2012 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they woul

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

t would be without God's grace. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 02:01:14 Subject: Re: the "no

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

oody Allen --- - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 18:54:18 Subject: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

ppened with his resurrection. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 17:11:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 05:45:13 Subject: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On 20 Sep 2012, at 08:01, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 10:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Al

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 05:45:13 Subject: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

e end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 05:28:08 Subject: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, th

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 20 Sep 2012, at 08:01, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 10:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they m

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/19/2012 10:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and theref

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be > almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and > therefore they would be torturing themselves. > >

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be > almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and > therefore they would be torturing themselves. > >

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:48:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 9/19/2012 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:54:25 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UT

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. Wh

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/19/2012 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:54:25 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:54:25 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: >> >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, >> only believing in

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, > only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. > > What kind of a sacrifice

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 09:19:54 Subject: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On 18 Sep 2012, at 18:55, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wed, Sep 19, Roger Clough wrote: > OK, genius. So, following impeccable logic, you believe you are John > Clark because from infancy people kept ramming down your thoat that you are > John Clark. > Yes. People told me that my name was "John Clark" and like all young children I believed them,

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 18 Sep 2012, at 18:55, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. And you know that because you were told it over and over again from the v

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

oody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-18, 12:55:58 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Obeying the commandments will not ge

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > there is no indisputable reason to believe in God. > Yes. > > Faith or trust is required In other words stupidity is required. > and that's exactly what God wants > God wants? GOD WANTS??!! The guy's omnipotent, God doesn't want, God has. John

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in > Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. > And you know that because you were told it over and over again from the very moment you learned language, and everything tha

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

g the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 13:40:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >God loved the believers and hated the nonbelievers, at least t

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

- Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 15:19:38 Subject: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On 9/17/2012 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote: Most adults don't believe in Santa Claus even though they once did because they were t

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

on.net >> 9/17/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him >> so that everything could function." >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

llowing content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 13:53:40 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. Jesus said that he likes people to be hot or cold, atheists and theists that keep all the commandments, even ones he added like p

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/17/2012 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote: Most adults don't believe in Santa Claus even though they once did because they were told by their parents when they were still quite young that he didn't exist, if they waited until they were 17 to be informed it would be too late and they wouldn't have

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Jesus said that he likes people to be hot or cold, atheists and theists that keep all the commandments, even ones he added like praying in a closet. The other people are the least in heaven, which BTW implies that we all make to heaven. He especially dislikes those who change or reinterprete his w

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >God loved the believers and hated the nonbelievers, at least that's what > the Bible tells us. > Yes that's what the Bible says, it says that a omnipotent omniscient being is pretending that He does not exist and He hates anyone that He has b

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

l save you. > The Gospel is the fulfillment of the laws. > > You only need to accept that fact for it to be > saved. > > > > o invent him > so that everything could function." > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: every

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. I was waiting for your reply. Alas, Jesus was a Jew and Jews have 613 commandments, not just 10. Insults do not help your argument. On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Another drive-by

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

thing could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-16, 13:41:07 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 , Roger Clough wrote: > God loved the Israelites and hated their enemie

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-15, 12:03:08 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. > > Nonesense > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> He was talking about the 10 com

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

- Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 12:03:08 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. Nonesense On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > He was talking ab

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 , Roger Clough wrote: > God loved the Israelites and hated their enemies. > Well that hardly seems fair, and God hated a hell of a lot more of His creations than he loved. > God did heap down fire and brimstone on the enemies of his people. > I understand that, what I do

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi John Clark On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: ROGER: >Intelligence ? I don't think the word was available back then (Bible days). JOHN: Welll, they certainly behaved as the didn't know what it meant to be intelligent, but then why is the bible worth reading toda

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

6:28:02 Subject: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >Intelligence ? I don't think the word was available back then (Bible days). Well, they certainly behaved as the didn't know what it meant to be intellige

Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >Intelligence ? I don't think the word was available back then (Bible days). > Well, they certainly behaved as the didn't know what it meant to be intelligent, but then why is the bible worth reading today? Why not read something with a little

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-15, 08:08:22 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. > > Jesus did not do away with any OT laws. > He said so explicitly in the Sermon on the Mount. > > Mat

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 08:08:22 Subject: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing

Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

iz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > - Receiving the following content - > From: John Clark > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-14, 15:32:46 > Subject: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy

Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

eceiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 15:32:46 Subject: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > You're a slow learner. Maybe, but I'm smarter than the people in the Bible. As Bertrand Russell said "So f

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > You're a slow learner. Maybe, but I'm smarter than the people in the Bible. As Bertrand Russell said "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." > Bible stories are generally based on true ha

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 9/14/2012 12:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Every belief system has a core and a set of pseudo logic, which is a mix of pseudo arguments ad authoritas that justify their beliefs. Positivsts have Phisics as its core, defence shield. From this, almost everything else is derived. Because the

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

- Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 03:18:47 Subject: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. Every belief system has a core and a set of pseudo logic, which is a mix of pseudo arguments ad authoritas that justify th

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

r: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 13:03:16 Subject: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Wed, Sep 12, 2012? Roger Clough wrote: > If religion is true I would be surprised if it DIDN'T appear in myths. And if religion is false I would be more than surprised I would be ab

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Every belief system has a core and a set of pseudo logic, which is a mix of pseudo arguments ad authoritas that justify their beliefs. Positivsts have Phisics as its core, defence shield. From this, almost everything else is derived. Because the law of angular momentum is true and is science, th

Re: The "nothing but" fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:36:37 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Roger Clough >wrote: > > > I call this the "nothing but" fallacy >> > > There is indeed a "nothing but" fallacy, such as: > "a computer

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > If religion is true I would be surprised if it DIDN'T appear in myths. > And if religion is false I would be more than surprised I would be absolutely astonished if it DIDN'T appear in myths. The law of conservation of angular momentum is true so there

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 13 Sep 2012, at 15:36, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: I just gave a positivistic argument to convince people that adhere to the positivistic faith. That does not mean that I´m materialist nor positivist. Positivism, whatever el

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Even to believe that what we see exist in a objective, external reality is an act of faith. To believe, and to believe only in the authority of what is called "science" at a certain time in history is another act of faith in the authority of someone that administer some truth ( concrete scientist

Re: The "nothing but" fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > I call this the "nothing but" fallacy > There is indeed a "nothing but" fallacy, such as: "a computer can't be conscious because when you look at it at a close enough level you find "nothing but" a bu

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I just gave a positivistic argument to convince people that adhere to the > positivistic faith. That does not mean that I´m materialist nor positivist. Positivism, whatever else it is, is not "faith". "Faith" is when you believe somet

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

materialist nor positivist. 2012/9/12 Roger Clough > Hi Alberto G. Corona > > You are obviously one of those that believe that religion is > "nothing but" a bunch of myths. Could be, but not necessarily so. > You have fallen for the "nothing but" f

Re: Re: The "nothing but" fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 06:26:07 Sub

the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi Alberto G. Corona You are obviously one of those that believe that religion is "nothing but" a bunch of myths. Could be, but not necessarily so. You have fallen for the "nothing but" fallacy. If religion is true I would be surprised if it DIDN'T appear

Re: The "nothing but" fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)

If something is true, it would be suprising if it did NOT show up as a social phenomenon. Or it did not show up in myth and folk tales. I call this the "nothing but" fallacy. It is the bread and butter of atheists critics of religion. Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the othe

The "nothing but" fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)

did NOT show up as a social phenomenon. Or it did not show up in myth and folk tales. I call this the "nothing but" fallacy. It is the bread and butter of atheists critics of religion. Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the other atheist critics made a good living based on this fallacy.