Socrates Faith in God the Creator in Socrates Own Words

[ima]

Hey Avatar

You are using the words of Joseph Smith and his followers which seems to give credit to an atheistic argument(although I am not the one arguing with you here) that one should not take the testimony of a group of believers as truth.

You may not consider this reasonable, but that is because you are on the "INSIDE". Those on the "OUTSIDE" understand why such testimony becomes unusable.

Okay. Why is it unusable? Because you disagree with it?

Because Jo Smith was a convicted con man and all around imbecile.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey Avatar

You are using the words of Joseph Smith and his followers which seems to give credit to an atheistic argument(although I am not the one arguing with you here) that one should not take the testimony of a group of believers as truth.

You may not consider this reasonable, but that is because you are on the "INSIDE". Those on the "OUTSIDE" understand why such testimony becomes unusable.

Okay. Why is it unusable? Because you disagree with it?

Because Joseph Smith was a fraud and everything he prophesized turned out to be wrong...

Joseph Smith as a Prophet

 

[JimBowie1958]

Non-logical argument? Yeah, you're done.

Lol, dude, there is argument outside of logical rules, such as rhetorical 'arguments' that apeal to emotion and focus on persuasion, and there are arguments that are based on informal logic that many say isnt logic at all, really.

But dont let me nudge you into thinking any, roflmao.

 

[newpolitics]

Non-logical argument? Yeah, you're done.

Lol, dude, there is argument outside of logical rules, such as rhetorical 'arguments' that apeal to emotion and focus on persuasion, and there are arguments that are based on informal logic that many say isnt logic at all, really.

But dont let me nudge you into thinking any, roflmao.

Informal logic doesn't mean that the rules of logic are dismissed, you stupid asshole. Informal logic simply doesn't use symbols to create general forms of arguments. Try to have an idea of what you are talking about. Rhetoric and logic are at odds, because rhetoric often commits logical fallacies in an effort to persuade people towards a proposition. It is rhetorics goal simply to convince, not to be logically valid and sound. That's not a different kind of logic. That's a lack of logic, often. It is therefore in peoples best interest, to understand logic and logical fallacy in order to understand when rhetoric is logically invalid. There is no such thing as a "rhetorical argmenent" that employs some different logic than aristotle put in place. There are arguments that attempt to use rhetoric to convince, on top of whatever logic is in place, valid or invalid. Rhetoric is not bound to logic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Kind of like Jesus. We have all these accounts, some contradict each other, but where's the first hand documentation?

Oh, you mean like the Gospel of John, or Luke, or Matthew?

But they cant be real since that would make plain what a stupid proposition you assert.

Okay.... let's look at that. We can immediately throw out Luke, because Luke never met Jesus.

Actually, no, Luke was likely a disciple and one of the ones that met Jesus in the Book of Acts.

We can throw out Mark for the same reason. But let's not throw out Mark in such a big hurry.

Again, Mark was a contemporary who wrote his account likely prior to the destruction of the Temple, and a likely disciple who at least saw Jesus speak.

The interesting thing about Mark is that Matthew and Luke repeat 90% of Mark in their Gospels, and add some additional stuff. Mostly, they contradict each other, on things like who Jesus's ancestors were and such.

It is not a contradiction. Matthew gave the Jewish ancestry based on who His fathers ancestors were, while Luke gave His mothers ancestry, or vice versa, I dont remember off hand. The point is when the canon of the New Testament was formed, something as egregious as two readically different geneologies being included simultaneously indicates a different reference and not such an easy shot contradiction.

So if Matthew knew Jesus, why would he plagarize the Gospel of someone who never met Jesus. So we can throw out Matthew as well.

Because it was not an issue to engage in plagarism back then and better form to mimic earlier works. Why re-invent the wheel? they might have asked.

Vellum was very expensive and the preference was to minimize copying costs and time, so writers tended to quote things in full and repeat earlier writings wuite a bit.

not that a troll like you really gives a fuck.

Okay, that brings us to the Trippy Gospel of John. Really contradicts the other three. And it was the last one written... (Again, if they were written by someone who knew Jesus, it whould be the first one, shouldn't it?) Contradicts the other three in a lot of places.

No John does not contradict anything. And John wrote for the benefit of his target audience and not some ass hole blathering critic in the 21st century.

Now, what we don't have is actual accounts from NON-Christian authors in Real time.

You know, dumbshit, they didnt exactly have newspapers back then. People did not typically write a history of a person unless they were a head of state or some kind of officer. Religious leaders were largely ignored unless their following grew large enough to warrant such attention and that took the church a couple of decades.

A bunch of Messiahs were identified in histories of the time, and nearly all of them found themselves on the business end of a Roman Cross, but the name that does not show up is Jesus of Nazareth.. which isn't surprising, there's no evidence there was a town of Nazareth in the first century.

Lol, man, you just blow any ole kind of shit out of your fly trap.

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as to Jesus Name not 'showing up', showing up exactly where? You dimiss anything that does mention Him out of hand like some character out of a three stooges skit.

Jesus does show up in the writings of a few non-Christian authors, namely Tacitus and Josephus, but these are almost without a doubt insertation by later Christian Scribes.

No, there may have been some alterations of one of two quotes I have read, but the essential meaning was not changed in the one altered and the secondis there all along. And the disputed version is in all the nonJewish versions of Josehophus' work.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance because you, like any other ignorant fanatic, choose to consider and accept only those things that support your prejudices and hatred.

So, go fuck off. I really dont care what a habitual liar and fraud like you thinks about anything on this planet, fucktard.

 

[Luissa]

Off topic, but I always say Socrates the Bill and Ted way in my head.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Non-logical argument? Yeah, you're done.

Lol, dude, there is argument outside of logical rules, such as rhetorical 'arguments' that apeal to emotion and focus on persuasion, and there are arguments that are based on informal logic that many say isnt logic at all, really.

But dont let me nudge you into thinking any, roflmao.

Informal logic doesn't mean that the rules of logic are dismissed, you stupid asshole. Informal logic simply doesn't use symbols to create general forms of arguments. Try to have an idea of what you are talking about. Rhetoric and logic are at odds, because rhetoric often commits logical fallacies in an effort to persuade people towards a proposition. It is rhetorics goal simply to convince, not to be logically valid and sound. That's not a different kind of logic. That's a lack of logic, often.

I never said rhetoric was a different kind of logic, dumbass. I said rhetoric was outside of logical rules and you now support my statement. roflmao

I have read of many who think that outside of formal logic one is not dealing with real logic. Not my assertion, just repeating it for contrast. And on top of that, irrational false arguments are both illogical and still arguments, dumbfuck.

It is therefore in peoples best interest, to understand logic and logical fallacy in order to understand when rhetoric is logically invalid. There is no such thing as a "rhetorical argmenent" that employs some different logic than aristotle put in place. There are arguments that attempt to use rhetoric to convince, on top of whatever logic is in place, valid or invalid. Rhetoric is not bound to logic.

I never said that rhetorical arguments use some different kind of logic, ass wipe.

Shit, it would help you to not look like a fool if you would first READ what the people you are responding to ACTUALLY SAID.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Off topic, but I always say Socrates the Bill and Ted way in my head.

Why do you say that in your head?

Did you mean 'see' that in your head?

 

[Luissa]

Off topic, but I always say Socrates the Bill and Ted way in my head.

Why do you say that in your head?

Did you mean 'see' that in your head?

I see it the right way, I just say it in my head the Bill and Ted way.

 

[Luissa]

You ever seen the movie?

 

[newpolitics]

Lol, dude, there is argument outside of logical rules, such as rhetorical 'arguments' that apeal to emotion and focus on persuasion, and there are arguments that are based on informal logic that many say isnt logic at all, really.

But dont let me nudge you into thinking any, roflmao.

Informal logic doesn't mean that the rules of logic are dismissed, you stupid asshole. Informal logic simply doesn't use symbols to create general forms of arguments. Try to have an idea of what you are talking about. Rhetoric and logic are at odds, because rhetoric often commits logical fallacies in an effort to persuade people towards a proposition. It is rhetorics goal simply to convince, not to be logically valid and sound. That's not a different kind of logic. That's a lack of logic, often.

I never said rhetoric was a different kind of logic, dumbass. I said rhetoric was outside of logical rules and you now support my statement. roflmao

I have read of many who think that outside of formal logic one is not dealing with real logic. Not my assertion, just repeating it for contrast. And on top of that, irrational false arguments are both illogical and still arguments, dumbfuck.

It is therefore in peoples best interest, to understand logic and logical fallacy in order to understand when rhetoric is logically invalid. There is no such thing as a "rhetorical argmenent" that employs some different logic than aristotle put in place. There are arguments that attempt to use rhetoric to convince, on top of whatever logic is in place, valid or invalid. Rhetoric is not bound to logic.

I never said that rhetorical arguments use some different kind of logic, ass wipe.

Shit, it would help you to not look like a fool if you would first READ what the people you are responding to ACTUALLY SAID.

"there is an argument outside of logical rules" is a nonsensical statement. argument employs logic at every turn. Of course a bad argument is still an argument. I never said otherwise, I simply said that rhetoric does not necessarily employ logic, because it is the art of persuasion.

 

[Avatar4321]

Off topic, but I always say Socrates the Bill and Ted way in my head.

"True wisdom comes in knowing that you know nothing. (dumbfounded look). That's us, dude!"

 

[Valerie]

Off topic, but I always say Socrates the Bill and Ted way in my head.

"True wisdom comes in knowing that you know nothing. (dumbfounded look). That's us, dude!"

So-crates!

 

[Valerie]

Off topic, but I always say Socrates the Bill and Ted way in my head.

"True wisdom comes in knowing that you know nothing. (dumbfounded look). That's us, dude!"

So-crates!

 

[JimBowie1958]

You ever seen the movie?

Yeah, a long time ago it seems now.

The first one was pretty good, but the second one seemed a bit flat.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"there is an argument outside of logical rules" is a nonsensical statement. argument employs logic at every turn. Of course a bad argument is still an argument.

Wouldnt you say that an argument based on a logical fallacy is 'outside the rules of logic'?

I would; why do you differ?

Some arguments I have heard from libs dont even rate as logical fallacies; they are just lies repeated until most people think that the lie is true.

Maybe we should invent a new logical falacy of 'repeated unwarranted assertions'? lolol, its not exactly a proof by verbosity, maybe a new one altogether.

I never said otherwise, I simply said that rhetoric does not necessarily employ logic, because it is the art of persuasion.

And I would agree, but since I said it first, I think you are agreeing with me, lol.

 

[Luissa]

You ever seen the movie?

Yeah, a long time ago it seems now.

The first one was pretty good, but the second one seemed a bit flat.

I liked the Grim Reaper in the second one, especially when they play Battleships.

But I will stop hijacking your thread. I just add to that when I read the title.

 

[uscitizen]

So what Socrates did not believe in iPhones did he?

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what Socrates did not believe in iPhones did he?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

You been drinking?

 

[Unkotare]

So what Socrates did not believe in iPhones did he?

Sure he did. In fact, he knew all that can be known about iPhones (even if he might have forgotten some of it).