LogicalFallacy

★ Gold Patron ★
  • Content count

    3,993
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83

LogicalFallacy last won the day on June 15

LogicalFallacy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,796 Holy Cow!

7 Followers

About LogicalFallacy

  • Rank
    Free Thinker

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Zealand
  • Interests
    Fishing, camping, gardening, politics, social dynamics, science, philosophy, astronomy. A special interest in mythology and ancient history (Both ancient humans and ancient earth)
  • More About Me
    You can find out more by chatting on our discord channel. Link below
    http://new.exchristian.net/p/chat.html

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    A transcendent, immaterial, invisible Pink Unicorn

Recent Profile Visitors

4,995 profile views
  1. What about atheism? Christians likes to say atheism is a religion. So now can atheists refuse service to all religious people? Christians don't stop and think where actions will end up. They think they are protecting their own little worldview without considering that they live in a dynamic community and if everyone can refuse stuff based on their beliefs then society could stop functioning and right quick!
  2. LogicalFallacy

    How do Christians view God?

    Yes, I think what is interesting is that (And I haven't checked this out) but if you got NDE's from say Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, and Buddhist followers the NDE's would all relate to their religions. That would be my hypothesis. Which it would then indicate that NDE is a function of the brain/consciousness not of any external experience. In other words I'd posit there is no supernatural or classic spiritual experience going on.
  3. LogicalFallacy

    How do Christians view God?

    Of course you've completely missed my point. I was referring to Genesis where God said "Let us make man in our image" and I was pointing out that is actually man making Gods in their image. God is simply in peoples minds. Ask two people from the same Church what god is and you'll get three answers. "God is love" "God is the firey judge" Whatever the person happens to fixate on that's God to them. Meanwhile no sufficient evidence is provided of an actual God. I was not, as you seem to think, criticizing the 2nd commandment.
  4. LogicalFallacy

    This professor says demons are real. I’m scared

    People say all sorts of things are real, believe in all sorts of magical and supernatural woowoo. When asked for actual evidence of these entities all you will get is personal experience and anecdotes of people interpreting what they see as "demons". You can put the word "wonkydonks" in there instead of demon and it has as much validity. [Edit - as I rad the comment section of the article I am once more convinced that long term humanity is f'ked. All the advance in science, the gaining of knowledge and understanding of our world and these people are believing nonsense ancient people did. At least the ancients had some justification to believing such in that they had far less understanding of their real world and how it operated. ]
  5. LogicalFallacy

    Article on hell/gehenna

    Thanks Orbit. I working on a series on hell to help de converts so this will be handy.
  6. LogicalFallacy

    Hello :)

    Oh I doubt any feathers got ruffled. A person talking Christian stuff walks into the Lions den... you are bound to hear a few growls Do you believe there is an "ultimate" truth - i.e. a truth that transcends the universe? So you seem to want something more? But don't you want that more to be based in reality, to be true, and not fantasy. For example I'd love a fantasy world with dragons in it. But I don't find this world unsatisfying because I'd also like a fantasy world to be true. I'm able to separate the two and realise one is real and the other is just fantasy. Sorry to hear of this. I agree with TRP's point about Christianity being at least partly responsible for this.
  7. LogicalFallacy

    Hello :)

    Annnnd here we go again friends. And we are off and racing, as per usual the Christian is off to a flying start.... by jumping off the building of unsupported assertions and appeal to personal experience. Welcome Ruby. Most, if not all of us here have sought it for many years, some through great personal struggles, tears, pleading, study and so on. We are here because we did seek the truth, and what we found lead us here. You might first want to establish that there was an actual Jesus as written about, that he actually was the son of Yahweh, and that he actually did die and rise again. Wait.... maybe you should establish Yahweh's existence first since Yahweh having a son hinges on Yahweh actually existing.
  8. LogicalFallacy

    Peer review at work

    https://www.livescience.com/62832-stanford-prison-experiment-flawed.html?utm_source=notification Some may point to the above article and say ah ha, see science doesn't work. But I'd posit, that though it took some decades, this is science working. Discovering what is true and what isn't Certainly it means we should be skeptical, and never hold onto a position absolutely, but it doesn't mean we should or need to be cynical. That's my random musings right now.
  9. LogicalFallacy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Thanks for your input Dude. I was hoping you'd contribute. I don't have any problem with anyone holding any particular view and defending it. I think the issue arises when people are not so much defending a view or highlighting what they see as a problem, but rather posting flame content, or content so poorly worded that its reasonably foreseeable that people are going to misunderstand what is being said. I think its been mentioned several times, and you hit on it - discuss and disagree sure, but lets not be arseholes. Remember with freedom of speech should come some responsibility to not abuse that free speech. Sadly some here have gone too far, hence this thread.
  10. LogicalFallacy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Exactly. Right on point here TABA. Ultimately this brings me back to the point; by censoring speech you are creating a rod for your own back.
  11. LogicalFallacy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Right I've been inspired, after some private conversations, to write a post elucidating why I hold the views I've expressed thus far. I was thinking of starting another thread about why do you have the view you do, but thought it still fits nicely into this thread. Hopefully what I cover here will answer much of @wellnamed posted, even if not directly. I will put my head out on a block and say, without having done any research, that much of what we do, say, and think stems from core values. I've discussed a bit about how some of our differing core values may lead us to reach a different conclusion on the question this thread poses. So at the core of my core values are something that the US constitution would call unalienable rights. (And not I don't think these come from God.) I think these should apply because this is the surest foundation on which to build a free and fair society. These being: Right of autonomy Right of freedom of speech and expression I think these two are fundamental to a well-functioning and healthy society. Other values I hold tend to be subordinate to these two which is why the freedom of someone to speak their mind, distasteful as I or anyone else may find it, is placed ahead of the consideration of the feelings of others. So why do I think that these things should be placed ahead of the consideration of feelings? Well we need only look to many of our own situations to see why it’s so important. Too many people are held subject to the fear of their families and friends’ feelings when thinking about ‘coming out’ as an atheist. Time and again people talk about the hurt they may cause those closest to them. Some to the point where they are willing to deny their own right to freedom of expression and autonomy in order to save the feelings of their family. But what is the result? It’s a lie, a lie unspoken to placate the feelings of a group that doesn’t want to be criticised. Thus it is important to ensure above all that people are free to express themselves. As previously mentioned this right to freedom of expression ends at inciting violence. And I don’t mean speech that some deranged person goes an interprets as saying something that was never said. I mean speech that calls for actual violence. Thus if you are worried that I might suggest Hitler (His name pops up a lot) should be given a platform then never fear. That horrible person called for the slaughter of multiple groups of people. No way does he come close to passing the threshold for tolerated speech. Curtailing speech has been used as a control for centuries. It’s used as a control today. There are laws, in our ‘free’ western countries today in which you can be locked up for criticism of particular groups. Not actually inciting violence – there are already laws for that. Apparently, and I haven’t found proof of this yet, but apparently the UN is drafting a bill in which criticism of Islam will be considered a violation of human rights. If it’s true, if it passes, Christianity may well try for the same thing, and where does that leave us with our at times visceral attitudes towards Christianity? There is another important factor to consider. When you advocate the censoring of speech or expression you make a rod for your own back. Sure today you might be with the majority or those who have power to censor, but tomorrow the same censoring you advocated could be used against you. The argument that certain speech should be banned because it may hurt the feelings of some group I find is a poor argument. It does not persuade me at all. Lets face it, if you were truly concerned about the hurt feelings of millions of conservatives you wouldn’t tell them LGBT people should have the same rights as them. This deeply offends and hurts these conservatives. Yet we really don’t care that they are hurt. We think LGBT should have the same rights as any human and we tell them (Conservatives) that. The idea that speech should be censored because it might be considered offensive is to me distasteful. Anyone can take offense at anything. I had to catch myself regarding Ann's post (several up) talking about thinkers possibly having personality disorders. I actually become briefly offended that she might think that about me. But then I thought why am I offended? What if it's true? I'm not sure if Ann considered the many thinkers among us and thought about whether we might take offense, but she certainly shouldn't have to. It's her right to ask the question even if it causes offense. If you aren't going to ask the questions or discuss the topics that might offend people then society cannot move forward. Now the caveat on this would be if you are going out of your way to cause offense - i.e. intentional offense causing. Wellnamed hit on this when he talked about trolling and baiting, and I agree that this behavior is a detriment to the functioning of this forum, and it also makes the argument for free speech harder to support. However, I'm very reluctant to give support to those in power (whichever power - forum Mods, Government, Media etc) for them to make that judgement about what is a genuine point of discussion and what is trolling/baiting. What should be censored and what shouldn't which is why I support the all free speech position. Where I am persuaded slightly in this discussion as it relates directly to this forum is the feelings of our Ex-C members who are LGBT or have family members who are LGBT. I think it’s a valid point that some of them may not feel welcome upon reading some of the content posted here. However they can also read the well expressed defenses of LGBT people as well. Not a single post goes unchallenged, provided members don’t get too emotional and do a cyber storm out. Not only that I weigh up the entire forum, its purpose, compared to the perceived harm the ToT may do, versus my core values, and the fact that I think the ToT is not a one way street. It really does help some people, myself included, discuss some important issues and enable personal growth. Weighing up all these various factors is why I come out ever so slightly on the no moderation of topics in the ToT (Outside the very odd moderation that goes on), and why I fight for the right for any member to post whatever they like. I also think any member should be free to challenge anything a member posts. Do I agree with some of the content? The answer should be self-explanatory. Do I think some positions could be better put and thus prevent the baiting/trolling or the appearance of bating/trolling? Yes, certainly. As an end note here is a series of speeches at Oxford University whose views I largely agree with. Not entirely, though Shami I feel hits the good middle ground of free speech.
  12. LogicalFallacy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    It would be a denial of reality to say that it isn't the many hot topics you post (And BO) that isn't the driver for these conversations. This topic has been bubbling for a while, it's popped up before with the same players involved.
  13. LogicalFallacy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Haha, yeah you are probably right there. I did think of that. You make for a great real life example. Now don't go and get a big ego!
  14. LogicalFallacy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    That example actually doesn't have anything to do with you. When I mention something to do with you I actually use your name. Joe Bloggs is something I've adopted as a mascot for giving examples for situations. Some of them obviously coincide with things that pertain to you, some don't. I find it easier to follow a conversation that says "for example lets say Joe Bloggs or Suzy loo" rather than my old "If X says, then Z says". You ain't THAT important to this conversation little mouse - I'm more concerned about the wider impact here of just what not tolerating intolerance means. I used that example because there is research one can use either way to back up the question, hence the question why is it ok for some topics not for others? I can edit my post to specifically say it doesn't pertain to you if you wish.
  15. LogicalFallacy

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Just throwing out a curve ball for people to think about. Why is it perfectly ok for Ann, or anyone else, to ask or suggest, claim even, that thinkers might be more prone to personality disorders, but its not ok for Joe Bloggs (Our mysterious non member here) to ask, suggest, or claim that homosexuals are more prone to molesting children, (Or whatever criticism Joe might bring up about any group which is generally considered to be oppressed) (PS to clarify I have no issue with Ann asking the question.) And is the fact I am sitting here wondering if I should actually post this question worrisome? I am sitting here slightly worried about the verbal bashing I may get for what is a genuine question. There seems to be tolerance for some things that could be considered hurtful or offensive, but not others. This second question is free - the first one I'd actually like a bit of nuance around.