Is it attacking a person to question their beliefs?

I love it!

*jumps on mf's bandwagon*

One little edit though

But that doesn't equate that non-thinking things don't (or do) exist. They very well could, but you can't prove that they exist (by this method).
Click to expand...

<--- A little bummed the debate ended though.
 
Last edited:
Moxie said:
Ok. I thought about it. I still disagree, but I want to understand your point of view better.

So, you are saying:

1. I think therefore I exist.
2. Anything that thinks, exists.

Which to me... would logically translate to:

3. Anything that does not think, does not exist.

And you are also saying.

1. I thought about the sentence, I think therefore I am.
2. Therefore, I must exist, because I thought about it.

But you are not conceding that thinking and existing are two separate things.

And that thinking about something only means that I think I am thinking--not that I am really thinking, and not that I am really existing.
Click to expand...

This is a very well known fallacy. It is called "denying the antecedent." Look it up on wiki.

Let me explain why this is.

"If it is an apple, then it is a fruit."
You can turn this into an algebraic expression:
"If x, then y"
It has the same form as the first sentence and "If it thinks, then it exists.

By what you said (if it thinks, then it exists implies if it does not think then it does not exist) then the form becomes:
If x, then y implies if not x then not y.

So "If it is an apple, then it is a fruit" has the form "if x then y." Using your logic, it would imply "if it is not an apple, then it is not a fruit" (if not x then not y). But this is not true. An orange is not an apple (not x), but it is indeed a fruit.

See, it doesn't work.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Satya said:
Yeah, its called a brain. It evolved over the course of billions of years. There is a fossil record that demonstrates the intricate step by step process of natural selection that lead to its evolution.

Or were you talking about the invisible deity in that book that was written 1,700 years ago that also indicates the world in only 6,000 years old?
Click to expand...

Why the angry tone?
 
I think therefore I am, is true only to me. When you say it, it is meaningless because you cannot prove that you are thinking to me. Plus you could just be a fragment of my imagination. I think therefore I am is only proof to myself (or to yourself, if you think you think).
 
Duty said:
This is a very well known fallacy. It is called "denying the antecedent." Look it up on wiki.

Let me explain why this is.

"If it is an apple, then it is a fruit."
You can turn this into an algebraic expression:
"If x, then y"
It has the same form as the first sentence and "If it thinks, then it exists.

By what you said (if it thinks, then it exists implies if it does not think then it does not exist) then the form becomes:
If x, then y implies if not x then not y.

So "If it is an apple, then it is a fruit" has the form "if x then y." Using your logic, it would imply "if it is not an apple, then it is not a fruit" (if not x then not y). But this is not true. An orange is not an apple (not x), but it is indeed a fruit.

See, it doesn't work.
Posted via Mobile Device
Click to expand...
Good morning. This above.
Also,
If it is a square, then it is a rectangle < - true by definition
If it is not a square, then it is not a rectangle < - not true by definition

EDIT: Cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am) isn't proof of any thinking being's existence. It is proof to the thinker (you) that the thinker exists and is not just a part of some evil demon's imagination. It is the only thing that by default cannot be doubted in methodological skepticism.
 
Last edited:
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Well, you know how a joke doesn't work when people don't get it? Kind of the same way.
Click to expand...

maybe sarcasm when it is written has more power to it because when sarcasm is spoken then a playful tone can be picked up from the persons voice or a cheeky smile, or a playful nudge and it is more likely to be seen as friendly banter? In writing it can just seem like an attack (note to self....don't use sarcasm!!).

Or i might be talking rubbish
 
Wyst said:
It also doesn't work when it's meant to hurt instead of communicate irony. Then, it's just meanness.
Click to expand...

From my point of view, what I said could not possibly have been hurtful because you hold your views to be infallible and inerrant.
 
Satya said:
From my point of view, what I said could not possibly have been hurtful because you hold your views to be infallible and inerrant.
Click to expand...

Sorry Satya - I was more thinking about myself and how I know I sometimes use sarcasm. My thoughts have been spread out over the past few posts.
 
Wyst said:
Sorry Satya - I was more thinking about myself and how I know I sometimes use sarcasm. My thoughts have been spread out over the past few posts.
Click to expand...

Okey dokey. Just wanted to make sure you weren't calling me mean.
 
Satya said:
Okey dokey. Just wanted to make sure you weren't calling me mean.
Click to expand...

Christians are supposed to call people mean. :m131:

Besides - even if/when they do, I know a lot of mean Christians - so it doesn't mean much aside from communicating hypocracy IMO.
 
muir said:
maybe sarcasm when it is written has more power to it because when sarcasm is spoken then a playful tone can be picked up from the persons voice or a cheeky smile, or a playful nudge and it is more likely to be seen as friendly banter? In writing it can just seem like an attack (note to self....don't use sarcasm!!).

Or i might be talking rubbish
Click to expand...

Exactly. I appreciate wit that's clever and classy and medium certainly makes a difference. Sarcasm is a subtle art; it needs an accompanying ironic tone or expression, otherwise it's just boorish.

Side note: Of course, Satya, I hope you don't think we're springing this commentary as an attack on you. Your comment was just a point of departure in the discussion of sarcasm. :)
 
Last edited:
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Well, you know how a joke doesn't work when people don't get it? Kind of the same way.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm can be hard to detect online indeed if that's what you're saying, but most of the time it isn't.

However I'll claim that sarcasm is being overused on this forum and most other forums I've visited, sarcasm is a form of humor intended to mock and redicule the subject, which is fine and even funny every now and then, but I also think the overuse of such humor is immature and very repetitive and mundane.

Sarcasm may have been fun and witty when we were 16, but once we enter adulthood I think it's appropriate to tune it down and use more constructive forms of communication.

While any humor does indeed make fun of someone or something, sarcasm isn't used very often just for the sake of amusement, but to downplay and make fun of someones opinion, statements or actions to boost your own ego.

On a side note, it really isn't too bad on this forum
 
Last edited:
Sithious said:
Sarcasm can be hard to detect online indeed if that's what you're saying, but most of the time it isn't.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to detect in a serious discussion, methinks. Especially when the 'tone' of the text doesn't differ all that much from the usual 'tone' of the poster. To be executed properly, I think it needs some strong contrast.

However I'll claim that sarcasm is being overused on this forum and most other forums I've visited, sarcasm is a form of humor intended to mock and redicule the subject, which is fine and even funny every now and then, but I also think the overuse of such humor is immature and very repetitive and mundane.

Sarcasm may have been fun and witty when we were 16, but once we enter adulthood I think it's appropriate to tune it down and use more constructive forms of communication.

While any humor does indeed make fun of someone or something, sarcasm isn't used very often just for the sake of amusement, but to downplay and make fun of someones opinion, statements or actions to boost your own ego.
Click to expand...

Now we're somewhat in agreement... although adults can enjoy sarcasm from time to time, overuse is definitely annoying. Ever had that co-worker that was perpetually rolling his eyes and saying "...Yeah, and I'm the bonny Queen of England"? Sets the teeth on edge, it does.

But execution in any sort of communication is most definitely key, online or offline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top