General

Re: God, schmod!

Torsten — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:24:32 GMT

xSFx:
Is there anything the Real Mises Institute can do about it?

What should they do? ....Ask Ceaucescu to arrest them for being politically incorrect?

Re: God, schmod!

Voievod — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:42:55 GMT

The "Ludwig Mises Institute" Romania promotes, alongside with Austrian Economics ideas, a virulent strain of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

In their official blog, they posted an artiche which calles ecumenism disease, amongst other things.

Ttheir goal of promoting the teachings of the "Holy Fathers" is in the mission statement and the descriptions of many A.E. books are interpreted in the light of their religious texts.

Is there anything the Real Mises Institute can do about it?

Re: God, schmod!

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:26:48 GMT

Are you still trying to grow a pair?

Re: God, schmod!

JCFolsom — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:21:56 GMT

Are you still trying to argue? How intriguingly pathological of you!

You smell.

Re: God, schmod!

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:17:03 GMT

JCFolsom:
He's hurting my heart. Make him stop! Waaah! RAPE!!!

Interestingly enough, that's the same cry the statist makes when you tell the statist that governments are coercive monopolies.

As has been pointed out before: the pathology of the theist apologist and the statist apologist are incredibly alike.

Re: God, schmod!

JCFolsom — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:11:25 GMT

He's hurting my heart. Make him stop! Waaah! RAPE!!!

Re: God, schmod!

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:02:54 GMT

That's nice, but you're still blaming me for your ignorance. Try not to act like the statists, ok. All your whining accomplishes one thing, though: it makes me laugh at you.

Re: God, schmod!

JCFolsom — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:40:50 GMT

Actually, I'm opaque, but I'm pretty sure I could get a good view of things looking through one of your ears and out the other.

Re: God, schmod!

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:33:34 GMT

Go cry, emokid. Just because you're not as prepared as you thought you were in no way reflects upon me. Please do not blame me for your lack of preparation and your lack of knowledge. Those are things you and you alone must rectify.

Are we clear?

Re: God, schmod!

JCFolsom — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:14:01 GMT

Hey, Kunigit, you and Econophysicyst should get together. Your temperament and powers of logic are so similar, I'd almost think you were the same person.

Re: God, schmod!

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Yes, he did. If he merely set everything in motion and let it fly, that means that god doesn't know everything.

Stolz2525:
Non sequitur.

Dial-a-fallacy fallacy.

Knight_of_BAAWA:
I do not. He said that he does not believe that god will help him survive. Clearly, that is incompatible with the idea that "with god, all things are possible".

Stolz2525:
This also doesn't follow.

But it does.

Stolz2525:
If you are about to fall off a ledge I can have the ability to catch you and choose not to do so.

Right, but what's that got to do with anything here? Did you really want to use a false analogy, given that you weren't the one who created me and you don't know everything? If you're going to use an analogy, do it correctly. Otherwise: don't do it at all.

Now please: make the logical links and please think through the logical consequences of your argument. If you cannot, then I suggest that you don't respond.

Re: God, schmod!

Stolz2525 — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:52:21 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Yes, he did. If he merely set everything in motion and let it fly, that means that god doesn't know everything.

Non sequitur.

Knight_of_BAAWA:
I do not. He said that he does not believe that god will help him survive. Clearly, that is incompatible with the idea that "with god, all things are possible".

This also doesn't follow. If you are about to fall off a ledge I can have the ability to catch you and choose not to do so. That doesn't mean I wasn't capable of doing it. Likewise, just because God can do something doesn't mean he must just because I want it.

Knight_of_BAAWA:
You refuse to think through the logical consequences of the argument.

And you refuse to make a link to your "logical" consequences.

Re: God, schmod!

Knight_of_BAAWA — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:38:19 GMT

JCFolsom:
Such an angry blowhard can only be arguing to convince himself. Those least secure in their convictions get the most vociferous about them.

Wonderful projection.

Re: God, schmod!

Knight_of_BAAWA — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:37:43 GMT

Niccolò:
How does it follow that God did not merely set everything in motion and then let it fly?

Knight_of_BAAWA:
I called it! You just denied that god knows everything.

Stolz2525:
No he didn't.

Yes, he did. If he merely set everything in motion and let it fly, that means that god doesn't know everything.

You're arguing like a child. You refuse to logically think through the argument. You desire to supplant your wishes for reality.

Knight of BAAWA:
Then jump off a tall building and see if you can fly. And do NOT cop-out with "I won't tempt god". If you do, you admit that you lack the courage of your convictions.

Niccolò:
I don't believe that is necessary, nor do I believe that God will help me survive.

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Then you admit that with god, not everything is possible. You lack the courage of your convictions.

Stolz2525:
Again, here, you make a false statement.

Again, I do not. He said that he does not believe that god will help him survive. Clearly, that is incompatible with the idea that "with god, all things are possible". And that, of course, is a notion from the very book he holds as holy.

You argue like a child. You refuse to think through the logical consequences of the argument.

Re: God, schmod!

Michael S Costello — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:10:18 GMT

Taken from wikipedia's article on the "Argument from Ignorance" logical fallacy:

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

But don't blame me for having a dog in this hunt, I'm a sometimes Deist, sometimes Gnostic, sometimes Pratchettist, and thus, the humor in the fact that ineffable-ness is likely to me to be a characteristic of an immortal omni-creator sort of being often wells in me. Additionally, I don't have much faith in Man getting the question on presence or absence of such a thing 100% correct pro or con. In short, It's up to you what to believe, the individual. I have friends that characterize Christianity as a fairy tale, and friends who deeply and firmly believe in god through a dogmatic creed that is Christian in nature. I tend to find that we can all get along on economics and rational thought quite well, considering.

I really do dislike Athiest bigots on an equal level to Christian bigots, so go figure.