Spirituality
28 Nov 11
03 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdDasa will not be able to provide us with an objective and conventional definition of "ignorance" that makes his assertions "true" for anyone who does not share his belief system. The fact that he chooses to believe that people who eat meat are "ignorant" is totally irrelevant to people who do not recognize the Vedas as a spiritual authority. His 'argument' is simply an assertion based on two assertions that he asserts constitute "truth".
Nevertheless, unless a link can be demonstrated between meat-eating and ignorance, the argument still seems unsound (false), even if valid.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdCircular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:
"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."
Such an argument is fall ut trying to prove what is "not self-evident" by means of itself is clearer.
Perhaps just a nit-picking point, but is circular reasoning strictly speaking a formal logical fallacy? Circular reasoning basically occurs when someone asserts P, therefore P. This is not a fallacy at all but a basic axiom of formal logic. It is obviously not a formal logical fallacy because in fact it is trivially true.
"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."
Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.
No. This is an inductive fallacy, an informal logical fallacy: Politicians run for office and are untrustworthy; therefore, anyone who runs for any public office is untrustworthy. This is not circular reasoning at all.
The wikipedia article is seriously flawed.
If premise (1) were “all y are x”, then I think the inference would be fallacious (affirming the consequent). As it stands, I think [b]Dasa’s argument is valid (though unsound).
Yes, spot on in my opinion.
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by Conrau KI didn’t think circular reasoning is the same as a tautology. An example, I think, is: “Why do you think the Bible is true?” “Because it’s the word of God.” “How do you know it’s the word of God?” “Because it says so.” …
[b]Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
Perhaps just a nit-picking point, but is circular reasoning strictly speaking a formal logical fallacy? Circular reasoning basically occurs when so ...[text shortened]... ds, I think Dasa’s argument is valid (though unsound).
Yes, spot on in my opinion.[/b]
But maybe I’m confusing things now.
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFTake in the essence of the post and stop playing mind games - and wasting everyone's time.
The "essence of the post" you made was a textbook circular argument. Do you know what a circular argument is, Dasa? Yes or no?
There are important points in my post that can be discussed further and expanded upon by sincere enquiry.
Talking about circular arguments is just side tracking - and is meant to avoid true discussion of my comments by cleverly moving the focus off the topic and into fmf,s mind game realm.
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaThat's really too bad, because that's all you get. Telling your brothers you need more than one life to love God just keeps them from God. Congrats. I guess your mission is accomplished.
It is almost impossible for someone taking to the Vedic teachings to achieve love of God in one life time.
On the other hand, Christians get there immediately.
What does this tell you about your false religion?
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaNo.
Talking about circular arguments is just side tracking - and is meant to avoid true discussion of my comments by cleverly moving the focus off the topic and into fmf,s mind game realm.
The "mind game realm" was entered when you started posting here.
You reap what you sow. Bummer, huh?
03 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneReincarnation allows the person to become pure.
That's really too bad, because that's all you get. Telling your brothers you need more than one life to love God just keeps them from God. Congrats. I guess your mission is accomplished.
On the other hand, Christians get there immediately.
What does this tell you about your false religion?
No one can become pure in one life time.
When the person is pure and not before -they may enter into the Kingdom of God.
Meat eaters will not enter the Kingdom of God.
When they give up the killing and become pure they may be with God.
Animal killing is evidence of ignorance and impurity.
An honest child can understand this.
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaMay God have mercy on your ignorance.
Reincarnation allows the person to become pure.
No one can become pure in one life time.
When the person is pure and not before -they may enter into the Kingdom of God.
Meat eaters will not enter the Kingdom of God.
When they give up the killing and become pure they may be with God.
Animal killing is evidence of ignorance and impurity.
An honest child can understand this.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by vistesdCircular reasoning is a kind of tautology. The example you just described would be an example of circular reasoning.
I didn’t think circular reasoning is the same as a tautology. An example, I think, is: “Why do you think the Bible is true?” “Because it’s the word of God.” “How do you know it’s the word of God?” “Because it says so.” …
But maybe I’m confusing things now.
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by rwingettBrilliant post rwingett. If you know what I mean!
It's not the Christians I'm worried about. They're just as stupid as they've always been. The problem is the atheists. The caliber of the atheist posters has plummeted in recent years. With a few exceptions, they're sounding almost as stupid as the Christians these days.
03 Dec 11
Originally posted by vistesdI think from this you are saying that Dasa's logic doesn't fall under any
Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:
"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."
Such an argument is fall ...[text shortened]... ut trying to prove what is "not self-evident" by means of itself is clearer.
type of logic whatsoever. If that is the correct understanding I will go
along with that.
04 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaCan you provide us with an objective and conventional definition of "ignorance" that makes your assertions about meat eating "true" for anyone who does not share your belief system?
There are important points in my post that can be discussed further and expanded upon by sincere enquiry.
How is the fact that you choose to believe that people who eat meat are "ignorant" relevant in any way whatsoever to people who do not recognize the Vedas as a spiritual authority?
04 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaWhat evidence do you have that "honest" children agree with - or even understand - your non-conventional definitions of "ignorance" and "impurity"?
[...] Animal killing is evidence of ignorance and impurity. An honest child can understand this.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaDo you want to convince anyone other than you that your position is correct?
Take in the essence of the post and stop playing mind games - and wasting everyone's time.
There are important points in my post that can be discussed further and expanded upon by sincere enquiry.
Talking about circular arguments is just side tracking - and is meant to avoid true discussion of my comments by cleverly moving the focus off the topic and into fmf,s mind game realm.