Apparently, you don't know where sentences begin and end.

Under the second sentence, would you say that there's a redundancy if someone says "organized religion"? That seems like an odd way to characterize "the core aspect" of religion.

For example, would someone who believe in karma be areligious? Why or why not? (I'm having trouble understanding how you're separating out religion from non-religion.)

Money?

I'm pretty sure that cults have a bad return--multi-level marketing would be a much better idea.

Anyway, I'm serious here. I suspect that Hector Cerif wants to join a religion, but thinks he can't or shouldn't because he is an atheist. I don't think he should let that stop him.

Aaron, you could easily respond more charitably, but you frequently resort to these petty lines instead. I'm just curious as to why?

Why should I care? I often value your contributions, when you are not being pointlessly belligerent. But perhaps that's just who you are and I shouldn't expect you to be something that you're not.

Well, you can be as patronising as you like, but, what I said stands.

Your 'sentence' presented two assertions seperated by a Discounting term (the word 'but'). I read your sentence like this:
I agree with your first assertion, I think it's funny that you then discounted your own objection since I could have no objection to that and used the word 'but' to emphasize your second assertion and to contrast the two claims, and I do not agree with your second assertion for the reason given.

Now, how would I have read the sentence if you had written it like this:



Yes, quite, doesn't support your position as well written that way does it. So please don't tell me that I don't know where sentences start and finish.

It mostly depends on who I'm talking to. With MB, I find that he's very often just planting himself deep in the sand trying to affirm the rightness of his position to the point of being utterly illogical. I won't link it, but there was a time that he was basically asserting that his speculations (his word) were just as valid as any other idea that's out there. He has told me several times that I'm committing logical errors, but has never been able to actually identify the error (and I don't mean by naming it, I mean that he can't actually FIND where I've made my error -- but he insists that it's there).

In this case, he has a central belief that religion is the most divisive set of beliefs, which is quite clearly questionable and likely false (see most of the conflicts in the 20th centry, where politics/ethnicity have been at the core). We characterize human conflict as primarily being structured around in-group/out-group, which is a characteristic not limited to religious viewpoints.

There is a very real sense in which I ratchet up according to the level of rhetoric or unintelligibility of the individual I'm addressing. If it appears that way to you, feel free to ignore those posts. Nothing of significance is likely to be expressed in those posts, and they are easy to identify.

I think if you took a few sundays visiting churches, you might find one that is not so evil. Maybe not at first glance, but there might be a couple good people in one of them.

This one is not a named fallacy, it's just your standard habit of misrepresenting of someone's position, because what I actually said was "At this point I'm not sure if there is anything more divisive than religion."

Nice dodge on the sentence issue, perhaps you should work on your close analysis.

Classic Aaron. I wonder how close you are to spending ages digging up old quotes to try and prove your point right now. I'd actually like to see where I 'insisted' that you committed a fallacy that I couldn't name, the way you put it it even sounds ridiculous to me that I would do that, but I think all you'll prove is how prone you are to exaggeration and ad hominen attacks when my post says something like 'I think you're committing a fallacy but I don't know what it's called'. Bit of a stretch from that to 'insist'. Hey, maybe I will know now because I'm learning all the time .

Now, no more off topic posts from me.

lol@ the post below this one though.

There's this thing called a "Search Function." It took less than a minute.

Here's the thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...truth-1297473/

The conversation runs from Post #49 to Post #55 (but see also Post #37 for "Fallacy fallacy").

Post #50 is where you make the accusation:

Post #54, you reiterate the accusation:

Post #55, my response:

I'll let anyone who cares to read pass whatever judgment they determine is appropriate.

Ask and ye shall receive.

I was hoping the Fallacy fallacy would mean "fallacy of arguing from allusion to an unspecified fallacy" and then I was hoping there was some way of massaging that a bit so I could accuse you of the "Fallacy fallacy" fallacy

Where is Lewis Carrol when you need him?

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

I still haven't figured that one out yet.

Ah but if an unspecified fallacy was actually being alluded to then you'd be guilty of the fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy. I think. I'd ask for help but I've made that mistake before. Plus the word fallacy has lost what little meaning it had for me anyway.