What about Bob?
December 20, 2006 · By Marsilio Facino
Commenter “Bob”, while attempting some paltry logical analysis, drops this howler in the comments:
However the whole thing rests on IP1. If that’s not true, nothing else follows.
Not so. An argument’s form establishes validity. Its material content determines whether its true or not. To say it does not follow implies that one of the steps in the argument must be true for the argument to be valid.
Its much easier to take someone’s attempts at logical refutation seriously if they understand how material implication works and the difference between truth and validity. Ah well. At least Bob spelt backwards is still Bob.
Pagan update: Commenter Scott from Winnipeg unfortunately is a little rusty on Charles Norris Cochrane’s Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of Thought and Jaroslav Pelikan’s Action from Augustus to Augustine and Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (Gifford Lectures Series)
Charles Norris Cochrane was little appreciated in Canada, though the late W.H. Auden (whose proclivities will go unmentioned for now) said of his book: “Since the appearance of the first edition in 1940, I have read this book many times, and my conviction of its importance to the understanding not only of the epoch with which it is concerned, but also of our own, has increased with each rereading.”
Meh. He was arguing in circles anyway.
Wow, you must be scared of me. Giving me a whole story to call me dumb cause I you think I picked the wrong word for an argument!
Having a cat cures HIV.
Bob has a cat.
Bob had HIV.
Bob’s HIV was cured.
The argument is valid sure. But who gives a crap since the first statement is highly suspect.
I posted this once and it didn’t show up. If I post again without modification it says I already posted it. You’ve got a software bug.
Wow, you must be scared of me. Giving me a whole story to call me dumb cause I you think I picked the wrong word for an argument!
Having a cat cures HIV.
Bob has a cat.
Bob had HIV.
Bob’s HIV was cured.
The argument is valid sure. But who gives a crap since the first statement is highly suspect.
Can’t post?
You believe the literal scripture of a fictional God (at least the parts of your choosing) derived from pagan ritual; while rejecting science that manifests inherent, natural homosexuality and climate change amongst, one would imagine, many other reality-based truths.
“Meh” indeed.
You evangelicals are pips. You duly recorded my dibs on your property, post-second coming, I trust?
I’m honored that I made the body of your blog post.
I haven’t read it, but it does look interesting.
Look into Tom Harpur, and his palatable and compelling thesis that explodes the literalistic belief structure. A read of his references highlights Higgins, Masey, and others. The bibliography supporting his work is some 8 pages, referencing some of the most noted works on Christianity from the 1700’s through modern-day. So you know, he’s a Christian, a deeply religious former priest and Rhode’s scholar that teaches religious study at the UofT. Not a pagan, I think is what I’m trying to convey here.
Literal evangelicalism (in any religion) spawns exclusion, derision, inequality, hate and fear. All from something as wonderful as faith. Without faith, people would surely be lost, would they not?
Mr. Harpur’s message is one of hope, and renewed faith. A deeply personal, tolerant and esoteric faith (don’t throw pearls before swine, if that’s how literalism’s minions insist on viewing the “unsaved”). Exoterism is the rub, by the way, since you asked in your original post. Whether it’s non-fundamentalist Christian, agnostic, atheist, pagan (or otherwise non-Christian) - whether it’s political, cultural or societal (keep your Jesus off my Penis), that’s the rub. You might be interested to know that the parallel to Christian exoterism is Muslim “shariah”. Pretty neat, eh? Ya, us mainstream folk don’t really think so either!
Finally, you might want to get a handle on allegory. Nuance, after all, is everything (a little difficult for the linear -read: top-box-score conservatives). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory
If you can get a grasp on that, perhaps the kids will be able to rent Harry Potter DVD’s without going to h-e-double hockey sticks… hooray!!
More importantly, you’ll be able to look at scripture in a whole new, fascinating and wonderful light. You’ll find the messages are mostly centered around what most people would consider “inherent goodness”. It’s terrific.
And don’t leave me hanging with respect to your material, earthly possessions once you get zapped, OK? Dibs is dibs. Thanks in advance!
Couldn’t post yesterday. Is it working today?
Woot!
A whole news article devoted to me misusing a word. You must be desperate for news.
Regardless of what you call it, and argument involving God and religion is quite silly since it also assumes the unproven, ill supported assumption that God exists and, moreover, we know what he is thinking.
It’s as silly as arguments about invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters. Assuming either exists and assigning them plenty of powers allows one to prove many things. Completely useless proofs in the real world since it’s unlikely that the unicorn exists.
What the heck is wrong with this thing?
Woot!
A whole news article devoted to me misusing a word. You must be desperate for news.
Regardless of what you call it, and argument involving God and religion is quite silly since it also assumes the unproven, ill supported assumption that God exists and, moreover, we know what he is thinking.
It’s as silly as arguments about invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters. Assuming either exists and assigning them plenty of powers allows one to prove many things. Completely useless proofs in the real world since it’s unlikely that the unicorn exists.
Ok, there’s just some posting weirdness going on. A bug somewhere.
“More importantly, you’ll be able to look at scripture in a whole new, fascinating and wonderful light. You’ll find the messages are mostly centered around what most people would consider “inherent goodness”. It’s terrific.”
I unilaterally rejected the Bible because it didn’t make me feel terrific and embraced Deepak Chopra as the word of God. It makes me feel so good. I can’t tell you how happy I am to no longer have my faith frowning on my sins. Yay!
Perhaps your postings got caught in our spam filter - I will double check and get back to you.
Also, were you trying to comment on a computer you normally do?
Thanks!
I usually post from one of two computers. It’s iffy today if it works. Seems many of my attempts from yesterday have now shown up.
Merci.
IP1 - God exists.
Highly suspect eh? Maybe to you. To most of the world this is not a suspect statement, this is fact. Atheists represent what… 10% of people worldwide? But hey. You can pretend that your head doesn’t exist if you want. After all, you can’t see it either… (well except maybe your nose and your lips when you stick them out really far…) It’s up to you.
Scott’s statement about literal evangelicalism shows how incredibly ignorant he really is. If he knew what that meant in the context of Christianity, he would be able to grasp the difference between a faith system founded on love and a faith system founded on hate.
And yes, I do let my kids watch Harry Potter. Just because some crackpots believe that living in a box will protect you from evil, doesn’t mean that informs the sum.
We use a couple of different methods of catching spam, Akismet and Bad Behaviour, and sometimes it grabs (or restricts) legitamate comments. If this happens in the future, please contact me and I’ll restore your comments.
Thanks!
“Maybe to you. To most of the world this is not a suspect statement, this is fact.”
Appealing to mob rule….that’s also a good argument.
sorry…end sarcasm;
Right Shane. It would appear you’ve answered your own question then.
People find you intolerant and a hater, not because literal exoterism conveys you that way, it’s because we’re ignorant.
Radical Christian evangelicals like yourself are simply poor, misunderstood children of the lord!
Glad I could help clear that up for you.
Oye.