Flawed arguments

[ambush80]

I recently heard Sarah Haider say "I want to know if my argument is flawed" on this podcast with Kmele Foster. Sarah is a Muslim apostate who started the organization Ex-Muslims of North America. Listening to her raised two questions in my mind that I'd like believers to address.

First, do you think that the A/A's here make good, sound arguments from a humanistic perspective?

And second, do you think that her work in trying to encourage apostasy from Islam is good?

http://wethefifth.com/episodes/2018...sts-glnfc-p77pw-mwa47-hb2fy-85b74-zfahl-33xbx

 

[Israel]

The first question appears to me as unanswerable to the extent that (to me) almost all contention I see is over the very matter of what it means to be human...or man.
(here you might see that inclusive in that, then, is the greatest assumption of all...that man means something, which I am not either seeking to confirm or deny presently...just wondering if there be that common assumption both you and I either share...or at the very least, might recognize)

I speak not infrequently of the "wash of things" coming to an equality in opposition (if opposition be found), yet also no less a wash...if all agreement be made. For, if man has meaning...then any and every individual man has no less meaning in himself...and it matters not at all if all the world agree with him, or all the world disagree...his meaning is neither increased, nor diminished by it. For all the world is simply a sum of one+one+one...to any number considered either "large" or "small". Just...ones...added. (and here...time/history is moot, unless one wants to contend "I am 'more man' in truest sense, standing here in epitome of time...than all others")

So there would appear (if to me only, OK) in the question an attempt to this surmising:

"Who (do any?) makes an acceptable response in being what is called "man"?

So whatever wanders farthest (in any appearance...but to whom?) from that base of being "true to what man is" is least acceptable (to whatever judges that)...and will likely get picked off, (we do that...don't we? or at least...try to)
while the one staying closest to that "base" is actually in some way..."safest".

But that's the great conundrum...for a thing is only most rightly observed to its totality...by some sterile "remove". Even so called science...or better scientists of that stripe which I realize sounds derogatory, might agree...that any singular electron found in the speck of any dust in the pocket of my Levi's...is effecting to some measure...the whole of the farthest star yet able to be "seen". (and vice versa)

So here is found both contention and conundrum..."who gets to reasonably step 'outside the system' to adjudge what is taking place inside it...to any accuracy?" If mind/consciousness is "condemned" to always operate from within it...then the man feeding fairies marshmallows on his back porch is no less legitimate than man thinking he can, or has put his own mind far enough to the "outside" to any firm conclusion. Both are in imagination.



But here's the thing I think we (even as believers...when found "contending" with one another, at times) or with what may be called "unbeliever" or A/A (and I am finding the labels less and less to any utility) find the contention is over; where is the light originating to the judging? (We could discuss for hours things like bias and what "tinging" of "our own light" is found there...wait! I think we already have...but more like years and years!)

What's got the "right light?" if there be any. And I think that contention is all the contention we see, if we see any. But if "we see"...where comes the light...for, and of...seeing?


Addendum: (and of particularly personal nature)

Ambush, you often ask "what is it like? how does it sound...with what voice...?" It is like an invasion...from "elsewhere"...but inside. The knowing/conviction of a consciousness touching in overwhelming manner of a lesser consciousness...only made to be seen as "the lesser" by such invasion. Till then the appearing "more normal" (Oh! what a lousy choice of word) continues as though it is all.

It's a thing of light...(yet often and I cannot say "always") akin to bomb flash... every corner/wall illuminated making plain at once...the limit of the room (previously asserted to the self as "all") but no less simultaneously the "no limit" of that light. It pierces even...the wall. The "flash/bang" may come with words...it may at times...not. Yet...words appear inevitably produced.

"It" makes very plain...limit of my habitation. Yes...a consciousness (lesser) touched by another...consciousness. And I cannot deny...sometimes violently. Nor would I care to...for no matter how the light comes (in perception by me)...the issue of the how it enters is made so plain to be so far "out of my hands" that even discussing what I think I might prefer...is just so laughable. Shaken to core takes place...no matter.

Perhaps a wiser man may say to me..."it only appears violent because of your great devotion to your own structure". And, "Its appearance as violent is only in direct measure to, and for, the disclosure of your own clinging to what is 'of you'." Yeah...I do believe a wiser man would say that to me.

If one wants to "contend" that one cannot ever touch or rather be touched by such a greater consciousness, I must abandon him to logical fallacy, by his lie made manifest in even his speaking. I needn't hate him, nor try to do "anything about him".

He has his own assertions with which to contend. I must leave him to struggle with the logical fallacy of "there is no greater consciousness that one may be touched by".

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I recently heard Sarah Haider say "I want to know if my argument is flawed" on this podcast with Kmele Foster. Sarah is a Muslim apostate who started the organization Ex-Muslims of North America. Listening to her raised two questions in my mind that I'd like believers to address.

First, do you think that the A/A's here make good, sound arguments from a humanistic perspective?

And second, do you think that her work in trying to encourage apostasy from Islam is good?

http://wethefifth.com/episodes/2018...sts-glnfc-p77pw-mwa47-hb2fy-85b74-zfahl-33xbx

1) No.

2

I recently heard Sarah Haider say "I want to know if my argument is flawed" on this podcast with Kmele Foster. Sarah is a Muslim apostate who started the organization Ex-Muslims of North America. Listening to her raised two questions in my mind that I'd like believers to address.

First, do you think that the A/A's here make good, sound arguments from a humanistic perspective?

And second, do you think that her work in trying to encourage apostasy from Islam is good?

http://wethefifth.com/episodes/2018...sts-glnfc-p77pw-mwa47-hb2fy-85b74-zfahl-33xbx

Did not have chance to listen. That given:

1) No
2) Yes

 

[gemcgrew]

First, do you think that the A/A's here make good, sound arguments from a humanistic perspective?

Valid? yes. Sound? no.

And second, do you think that her work in trying to encourage apostasy from Islam is good?

No. I see it to be a lateral movement.

 

[hummerpoo]

I recently heard Sarah Haider say "I want to know if my argument is flawed" on this podcast with Kmele Foster. Sarah is a Muslim apostate who started the organization Ex-Muslims of North America. Listening to her raised two questions in my mind that I'd like believers to address.

First, do you think that the A/A's here make good, sound arguments from a humanistic perspective?

I wrote a much longer response which would likely bore everyone but me. Perhaps the last phrase will suffice: , I am torn between “sometimes” and “rarely” as the best response.

And second, do you think that her work in trying to encourage apostasy from Islam is good?

http://wethefifth.com/episodes/2018...sts-glnfc-p77pw-mwa47-hb2fy-85b74-zfahl-33xbx

Ms. Haider is quite open, even eager, to talk about her work with those former Muslims who have left the Islamic faith; however, she was quite reticent when approached about “encouraging apostasy”. While being careful not to deny that it takes place, she was unwilling to state that it was an objective. Therefore, after a great deal of time spent listening, I don’t think we know what she is doing relative to “encouraging apostasy”, leaving me without a response to your question.

 

[ambush80]

Valid? yes. Sound? no.


No. I see it to be a lateral movement.

Which of the most popular arguments have you heard are unsound and why?

 

[ambush80]

I wrote a much longer response which would likely bore everyone but me. Perhaps the last phrase will suffice: , I am torn between “sometimes” and “rarely” as the best response.



Ms. Haider is quite open, even eager, to talk about her work with those former Muslims who have left the Islamic faith; however, she was quite reticent when approached about “encouraging apostasy”. While being careful not to deny that it takes place, she was unwilling to state that it was an objective. Therefore, after a great deal of time spent listening, I don’t think we know what she is doing relative to “encouraging apostasy”, leaving me without a response to your question.

She is a classic liberal and therefore wants people to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. She is also an atheist and has the same concerns about faith and religion that most atheists have. She would prefer that people be more humanistic and secular. I've listened to her a few times.

 

[hummerpoo]

She is a classic liberal and therefore wants people to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. She is also an atheist and has the same concerns about faith and religion that most atheists have. She would prefer that people be more humanistic and secular. I've listened to her a few times.

I assumed those things from what she did say, but did not respond to my weakly supported assumptions. Are we to blindly assume what she does to "encourage apostacy", on the basis of her reluctant confession that it sometimes happens, and judge its goodness based on those almost baseless assumptions? If so, your second question is better understood as an extension of the first, and I would still be without a response.

 

[gemcgrew]

Which of the most popular arguments have you heard are unsound and why?

Of the ones that come to mind, I would say all of them.

If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore X.

 

[ambush80]

Of the ones that come to mind, I would say all of them.

If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore X.

I recognize the bad logic there, but can you give me an example of something that we reason about in here that's like that?

 

[Brother David]

Couldn't decide which post to reply to so I chose none !

A) First from my study of the Christian Bible and beliefs , I am fully convinced that when we engage in what if discussioons it Saddens God ! So I tread lightly based on my beliefs !

B) Most people who leave Religion , leave due to bad Experiences with people , not due to Dieties ! So they search for shared truths !

C) If you listen closely to her , you can hear the pain and her search for belonging . No matter what side you choose , it is born into us to belong ( that's why we question loners ) ,God recognized it wasn't good for man to be alone !

D) Had a hard time deciding if this was off or on target with the thread , forgive me if it's a ramble !

 

[gemcgrew]

A) First from my study of the Christian Bible and beliefs , I am fully convinced that when we engage in what if discussioons it Saddens God ! So I tread lightly based on my beliefs !

Are you engaging in a "what if" discussion?

 

[Brother David]

Are you engaging in a "what if" discussion?

Nope

 

[gemcgrew]

Nope

Good. I thought that I might have missed something in this thread.

D) Had a hard time deciding if this was off or on target with the thread , forgive me if it's a ramble !

I forgive you.

 

[ambush80]

Of the ones that come to mind, I would say all of them.

If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore X.

Is this what you mean?

If X is a set of conditions that leads to Y, it doesn't necessarily mean that if Y exists that it was caused by X.

Can you give an example of when we reason like this?

 

[Israel]

Perception of evidence that lead to conviction of having consciousness of being?

"I think, therefore I am?"

 

[ambush80]

Of the ones that come to mind, I would say all of them.

If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore X.

Is this what you mean?

If X is a set of conditions that leads to Y, it doesn't necessarily mean that if Y exists that it was caused by X.

Can you give an example of when we reason like this?

Perception of evidence that lead to conviction of having consciousness of being?

"I think, therefore I am?"

Explain.

I think (X), then I am (Y).
I am (Y).
Therefore I think (X).

It doesn't seem to work with that.

 

[Israel]

I was suggesting the flaw in "I think, therefore I am".

 

[ambush80]

I was suggesting the flaw in "I think, therefore I am".

Where do you think you exist? As a brain in a vat? As a computer simulation? Both of those are pretty well defended possibilities.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Israel]

Where do you think you exist? As a brain in a vat? As a computer simulation? Both of those are pretty well defended possibilities.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thank you for the vid. It brings up and entertains several notions that would take too lengthy a response that would (with thanks to Hummer!) probably bore everyone but me.

With having no intention to "take on" Descartes, knowing little of him beyond his probably best known proposition (although I vaguely remember making a post/thread once when I believe I learned that proposition was a preface to an exposition on his faith) I responded. But I was ignorant, wasn't I? For when you question a man's reasoning, you take on the whole of the man in every sense.

So, what I (in ignorance) used merely as possible example was not wrongly inferred to mean I was perhaps prepared to answer in the arena to which you have also "tossed" two possibilities. But I think the "how man is" (observable of his expression, as more the "verb" kinda connotation) can never be considered apart from "what man is" (more like a noun thing) in much the same way "reasoning" (as the verb) cannot be considered apart from "reason" (as the noun thing).

If one does not believe "reason" exists to itself as a "real" or true thing (with the same assignment being made to truth being self existent [noun thing] so that what is "true" expressed may be known as the verb thing) then reasoning (as the verb thing) has no foundation for either appeal nor recognition. Let alone any (possibly valid) comparisons.

Which I am inclined to believe caused me to question (in another place) why a discussion of rights, if and what they are, should precede any assumptions about their assignments.

As someone I have inferred to be involved in some way with the building trades (whether architect/contractor/subcontractor, or other) and maybe all to my complete error, I do not think this proposition (even if I be all wet in regards to your occupation) is lost on you. Anywhere along the way compensations can be made for a foundation slightly off, but only the architect and engineer know at what point things must surrender to total revision. And re-excavation. Clever man, who through his experience has learned "tricks of the trade" may say "I know how to account for that". And happy (er) is the "finish subcontractor" who has found these accounted for before he is called in. Likewise the sheetrock man is much happier if the framer took care of it. And door hanger. And floor guy. But nothing is better than the surest foundation.

...suppose the architect/engineer...were to be responsible for its pouring? Or seen such? Why would (one might ask) such an important one submit to getting "his hands dirty"? I suppose he'd have to have a very grave interest in the building. A fundamental one. Like...he himself wanted to live in it. (Is that a "bridge too far" for some? I think not.)

It appears sometimes (to me at least) we are doing patchwork along the way.
We may present our "reasoning" long before we have even settled to ourselves whether reason as a thing exists. But even in that I know I have no dominion.
If there be found "a reason" to and for reasoning, then I am inclined to see it's reasonable to "have at it". But if (to any) it is not found "reason is", then might we consider who (or perhaps better...what) is logically excluded from conversation/communion?