Argument are like chess games.

1. 0

   Chasukposted 11 years ago

   When a "fact" used by your opponent is proven wrong, he or she should have the intellectual integrity to surrender that piece from the board, never presenting it again. Of course, this integrity should work both ways.
   
   Does anyone agree or disagree?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      mrnasirposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely agree but  some people don't surrender even if they are wrong.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It's nice to find some agreement. Probably the majority of my opponents in argument have no intellectual integrity at all. :-)

         replyreport
         1. 57

            mrnasirposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Same here.I also face the same situation.
            People in majority aren't intellectual but they think they're.
            So what we have to do...

            replyreport
   2. 60

      recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      absolutely agree, then there would be no religious threads.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         And no atheist ones either!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            There are no atheist threads except those put up by argumentative religious types - why would there be, there is nothing to argue about by definition.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Um, not true.

               replyreport
   3. 0

      Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, but the refusal to accept that, where religion is concerned, facts are fuzzy contributes a great deal.
      
      Fact. Someone feels they have strong evidence of the existence of the supernatural. That fact is indisputable to that person whether we like it or not.
      
      Religious texts are the same. Did Moses part the Red Sea? Did Mohammed split the moon with his finger? Was Jesus God incarnate? Fact or fiction depends on how much faith you put into the authenticity of those books.
      
      If you want to force people to accept facts proven in our physical world, a religious forum is the wrong place to be.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         If a "fact" isn't objectively transmissible,  then it is intellectually dishonest to present it in an argument. That's why I don't think of religious "arguments" as arguments at all, but masturbatory "Show and tell."
         
         I have no objection to the intellectual discussion of religion, but I don't confuse it with legitimate argument.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I would think arguing this point is 'masterbatory' in it's own right.
            
            Religion is, by definition, concerned with understanding the spiritual. They can only relate their understanding of what their observations mean. Which cannot be confirmed with group observable facts. By your rules, they would have to all shut up and relinquish the floor permanently.
            
            I consider the insistence that they are intellectually dishonest unfair, since many arguments against them also fall into the category of not being objectively transmissable.
            
            Let's be brutally honest. What is religion and philosophy but thoughts and opinions?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Why should they "shut up?" They have as much right to discuss as anyone else. Read again: I neither stated nor implied that they should "shut up."
               
               However, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something _by providing evidence_. If my evidence is not objectively transmissible, it obviously doesn't qualify as evidence.
               
               For example, suppose that you and I are arguing. You say, "I know that X is true because the Holy Spirit revealed to me that it is," and I respond, "But I know that X is false because the Holy Spirit revealed to me that it is."  Because neither of us have presented transmissible evidence, no "argument" has occurred. We have both presented a subjective belief. A subjective belief is otherwise known as an opinion.
               
               Speaking for myself, I don't argue _anything_ that is not objectively transmissible, even if only theoretically transmissible.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What is truth (fact)?
                  
                  Is the biblical story of Noah true?  Well, photographs taken from miles away on Mt. Arrarat show a dark blob (transmissible).  The bible (transmissible) tells us that it is within several hundred miles of where Noah landed.  It is therefore obviously wood left from his ark and therefore proves the biblical story to be true.  The evidence (dark blob, bible story) is not objective, is transmissible, and only your own pig-headedness prevents you from understanding it.
                  
                  The point is that what is objective to one person is subjective to another.  What is perfectly logical to one is pure gigo to another.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Is the story of Noah's ark true? Maybe. However, that question hasn't been answered definitely, yet, and possibly never will be. Still, the existence of Noah's ark isn't a matter of opinion. It either exists, or it doesn't. It is something that can properly be argued.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Aficionadaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        In speaking of facts, can't we make an honest distinction between those "facts" that have been discovered or verified and those that have not been?
                        
                        In this Noah's Ark example, the ark could technically exist without having been discovered or identified or verified. Just like the many new species of life that are announced from time to time - few of them are technically new. Instead, they are newly discovered or identified. New information can come to light for a variety of reasons: new technology; new research; a willingness to venture into new territory; new ways of viewing the world around us.
                        
                        In discussions, it can be helpful to make distinctions between information that is accepted and generally acknowledged to be factual; information that is assumed, but not proven, to be factual; and information that one desires to be factual . Other distinctions exist too, but I think these are the most important ones. Sometimes discussions can get hung up on a lack of agreement about the degree of precision that is acceptable to all parties.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Absolutely. I do make such distinctions; I find it not merely useful, but necessary.
                           
                           I'm more concerned with claims -- with questions of fact -- than I am about the facts themselves. I borrow from the courtroom, in which the truth of falsity of a claim must be proven by evidence or strong inference.
                           
                           In the case of Noah's ark, I accept that it might exist. Truthfully, I'd be delighted if it did. However,  a dark blob in photographs taken from miles away doesn't allow for strong inference, and there is no physical evidence. The question of the ark's existence hasn't been resolved, yet.
                           
                           Thank you for your eloquent contribution.

                           replyreport
         2. 77

            Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Wow. That shed a whole new light on things.
            
            
            Quite a phrase, that.

            replyreport
   4. 58

      WD Curry 111posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.
      
      

      replyreport
   5. 61

      kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The one who do not know Truth to be singular...
      And do not see facts as subject to change,
      are already in an intellectually dishonest position.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I would disagree that "Truth" is singular, but agree absolutely that facts are subject to change.

         replyreport
      2. 74

         jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hello Kester, long time...
         
         And yes, I attempted to explain this {in another thread} to Chasuk {and the readers} that Logic is irresistible to itself; has no parameters of right-wrong; good-bad; up-down etc. When man Reasons he splices Logic, causing those things to come about. Reason creates division; the Ego {Self} divides; tries to replicate Logic, but it cannot.
         
         Any claims made within the constructs of Reason, are simply garbled/skewed/scrambled bits of Logic. How many are those claims? One need only count sand on the beach to answer it. How many bits of light come from an exploding star, a perfect sphere of irresistible light? How many denominations of Theos {science and sensation} exist, all trying to prove themselves factual {replicate or mimic Logic}.
         Therefore, all parameters of Reason are intellectually dishonest, and certainly do take the fun out of Logic.
         
         James

         replyreport
         1. 60

            recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            and of course even logic is flawed in that we pick up a loose end and make a perfectly logical progression to another end of our pre-choosing.  works fine for chemistry and basic physics but is over-used otherwise

            replyreport
            1. 58

               WD Curry 111posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Straight from the "horse's mouth".

               replyreport
         2. 0

            Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You ascribe qualities to logic that make it sound like an entity, instead of a technique for separating valid from fallacious reasoning. Being a technique, it can't be irresistible to itself, although it is arguably irresistible to philosophers and scientists.
            
            Obviously, logic has no parameters for right-wrong, good-bad, etc., nor have I implied that it did. Reason is the capacity of the mind to solve problems using logic. "Theos" is a concept we invented before we became better at reasoning.
            
            I understand that logic can't prove or justify itself, but I don't trust it because it can be proved/justified. I trust it for pragmatic reasons. Logic is the bedrock of natural science, which _has_ proven itself -- so far -- as the most reliable and effective worldview of human history.
            
            Of course, I would abandon my faith in logic if something demonstrably superior came along, for those same pragmatic reasons.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               What can be greater? It is itself perfect, looking always at itself, as in a mirror. Ever changing yet ever constant. Again, the immovable meeting the unstoppable. Logic {Philos} is its masculine and Love is its feminine. It is not an entity, it is totality, the Irresistible.
               
               Again, that Irresistible does not need to prove/disprove itself.
               But I do find it interesting -whether metaphoric or literal- your statement of faith in logic. Because when you {plural} abandon faith in the Irresistible, you {plural} begin Theos {Duality, Reason}. x-thousands years of humanity provides sufficient evidence.
               
               James.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You manage to be opaque, oblique, and enigmatic at the same time. I don't know whether this is because you honestly don't realize that you are virtually unintelligible, or whether is is because you are striving for guru-hood and hope that the faux-profundity helps. I suspect the latter. Either way, I have no interest in continuing this dialogue until you make an obvious attempt at lucidity.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     WD Curry 111posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     There is a lot of that going around.

                     replyreport
                  2. 74

                     jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Likewise. lol.
                     
                     Again, you miss the point and lose still another piece on the board.
                     Why? Because you are not having any fun. And if this how you express fun, meaning that Philosophunculist attitude, I queried to earlier, at some point, in this thread -and all threads- you'll end up playing by yourself...It is inevitable.
                     
                     Pseudo-salad, which is what your response appeared to be has zero nutrition, zero flavour, zero colour.
                     A philologist friend has read your statements and summed it up quite nicely:  bland. [she] also 'whacked' me for engaging it, even in sport.
                     
                     Da. Пока.

                     replyreport
         3. 61

            kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hello James, I am never far away...
            
            The mind constitute the logic...the combination of the yes and the no.
            Logic operates by reason...yes because...no because..
            Reasons are the product of desires...
            Desires comes from identity....I am
            Identity is grounded in  Life or Death...
            
            Life knows all things including itself.
            Death knows every other thing except itself.. thus knows nothing.
            
            Identity is manifested by the will...I am therefore I will
            The Will is metered by the mind...I will.. I will not...
            
            The mind constitute logic... the yes and the no.....
            
            The chain continues indefinitely the perfection of being.......
            
            The breach appear because Identity is not established.
            Thus logic is stuck in the flip flop of... yes no......instead of yes yes and no no
            Reason is now corrupted and desire confused.
            Each desire striving to become the master of the individual.
            Now the confusion over the man is the same as the confusion that rules this world.

            replyreport
   6. 62

      prettydarkhorseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Most have egos and wont concede defeat! It is difficult specially if you have strong belief and then all your other belief emanates from it or you have a close mind and you won't accept any other views!

      replyreport
   7. 59

      michyoungposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      agree. However, there are some who cannot accept their defeat. In a game, there would always be a winner and a loser and you have to accept that.

      replyreport
   8. 77

      Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree but the problem is that it's rarely so black and white. If, for instance, in a religious argument you could simply say, "Verse A means this" and that be that, well great. Jesus wept. There's not a whole lot of interpretive room for that. But so many statements are open to interpretation, and so many arguments sound good. And so many people don't even bother to look up any background on what they say.
      
      I'm not the smartest guy in the forums, but I can see that philosophical arguments rare reduce easily to black and white, like chess pieces.

      replyreport
   9. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Totally agree but many people are ruled by egos.   This ego leads them to present their premise although intellectually and logically, they have been disproven.

      replyreport
   10. 70

       AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I'm not sure that it's quite as clear-cut as it may seem to be. I've seen situations where Person #1 feels they have proven Person #2's idea to be wrong, but Person #2 believes that Person #1 was using a false premise or illogical reasoning in doing so. So both are disagreed that Person #2's point was in fact proven wrong. I think this happens a majority of the time. According to me, I may feel I have proven someone wrong according to my own logical deduction, but they may have an issue with my logic or my premises.
       Granted, there are situations much like the one you described, but I personally think the above situation happens a little more often.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Truthfully, you are probably right. :-)

          replyreport
2. 74

   jacharlessposted 11 years ago

   Philosophunculist much? lol
   
   The problem with the members of Theos {atheist and theist} is neither are having any fun and the whole point of playing chess {the argument} is to have fun.
   
   James.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Philosophunculist? No.
      
      I don't argue for fun, I argue for self-education. If I discovered that I was right, that's OK, if I discovered that I was wrong, that's better. I've learned something new.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         And this is checkmate:
         "Because you do not argue for fun, you have missed the entire sum-substance of logic, reason -and are precisely as intellectually dishonest, as you claim you opponent to be. Again reiterating, atheist and theist are identical."
         
         Now, surrender your piece, please. Thank you.
         See... fun!
         
         PS, self-education is a dangerous thing. Just look at all those people self-empowered who burned the sh!te out of their feet, yesterday.
         
         James

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Right. Because I argue for purposes of self-education, I have missed the entire "sum-substance" of logic and reason, according to Jacharless.
            
            As for yesterday's burnt feet...
            
            Six thousand people walked over the coals at this event, and 21 burned themselves. Of course, this has nothing to do with the danger of self-education, and everything to do with 21 people out of six thousand who remained on the coals for too long.

            replyreport
3. 60

   Disappearingheadposted 11 years ago

   It may have been stated earlier in this thread but hey ho.
   
   Things in this material universe contain testable facts. Not everyone will agree on the fact in question and it may only be known to a 99% certainty perhaps. But at least those that do not agree, do generally agree that the fact is testable, though they may not have the resources, wit, widom, or inclination to carrying out the testing.
   
   Religion is somewhat different. It primarily concerns things that are not of the material universe and therefore are unobservable. Normal methoss of testing cannot be applied. Adherents of this fact or that fact have formed subjective opinions by mental routes and processes that the opposition is not party to. So arguments over facts don't really work. At best opponents can wrestle logic, and philosophical ideas. But hey isn't this why this forum is so much more fun that the others?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Speaking for myself -- and as an aside, really -- there is nothing save the material universe. However, whether there is, or whether there isn't, some things are proper candidates for argument, and some things aren't.
      
      An argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something _by providing evidence_. A religious belief, not requiring evidence to be sustained, cannot be argued authentically. I am not saying that it cannot be authentically discussed. However, to _argue_ about a religious belief is like arguing about an opinion (i.e., utterly pointless).

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         There are as many rekigious opinions as there people that have one.
         
         I see a greater need for discussion between people concerning what scriptures actually say.
         I also believe that only those versions which were translated from only the oldest of origional text avaliable.
         
             a version which is translated from a translated version simply to produce a a more reader friendly book  should not be used in debate because most debates are centered around the exact word used in whatever version is the flavor of the day
         
         I used a translation that was translated from the oldest origional greek and Hebrew versions avaliabel in 1950s
            
           You would be supprised how many very pertinate words have been lost in these New KJC and NIV versions which are simply translations of english into more popular english words.                      Words which change the entire meaning of the verses.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I read the Bible in many different versions and translations, courtesy of biblegateway.com. However, fortunately, the question of which translation is better is not exclusively a religious one. In my own case, the Bible has no doctrinal relevance, but I do admire some of its books for their eloquence and occasional wisdom.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I wonder if you might think any differently if the one and only bible that you read was one which is translated from the earliest text avaliable directly into the language you are most accustomed to.
               
                 And not a rewright of a rewright of somebodys translation of another language?
               I'm sure (to myself) that that would be true.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Many of bibles that exist today _are_ translated from the earliest texts available, directly into English (the language you are most accustomed to).

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I am unaware of this fact?    Anyone can take the KJV and modernize the language making it apear to be more reader friendly, Such as the "Living Bible" was.This is what I was led to believe anyway.  Maybe I'm wrong???
                     We just don't know how many important "facts?" were changed especially when we debate over exact words which were changed. This is especially true where prophesy is concerned.
                     Many times to change a word changes the entire message.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Of course any text can be rewritten and or translated to be more reader friendly.  Whether it contains any of the original intention of the writer is another matter.
                        
                        Anyone involved in translation, anyone with two widely seperated languages even, can tell you that translating what some other language is saying is a complex minefield.  A very small instance as example - in Chinese 'thing' is dongshi, which translates directly as 'east-west' but this is generally used with 'soy you' which means 'every'  so producing 'everything'.   
                        
                        When using other ideas of thing different words are used, but none as far as I am aware directly just mean 'thing', but have some relation to the kind of thing that is being talked about.
                        
                        By now it must be possible to see the possible traps for interpretation alone as many other phrases and words are similarly obtuse.  Add to this that many phrases and words come from culturally significant events or stories or myth etc, and how, without that 'lost' part of knowledge, we can only make a best guess at the meaning.  A very simple example would be the smallest unit of Chinese currency in use today which is called the Mao,  after Chairman Mao.
                        
                        When we get to meaning there are huge traps, not least if what is being said appears to go too far in the opinion of the rewriter, or is just beyond the rewriters knowledge and/or imagination.  This simple problem of holes appearing in the rewritten text is infinately compounded when we think of how many valid analyses of a text there are, and in translation re-writing these are a huge issue.
                        
                        Of course the texts that people read today are not representative of what was originally said, of course the best bits are missing when they did not agree with the dogma of the day on which they were made - how else could a representative of christ be a fat greedy wealthy overlord with slaves - at the historical moment of the most famous and widely used construction of random bits of old texts ?
                        
                        My advice would be to take only the most simple idea of what the christ figure might have been (whether he was a real person or not) and live by that - and be aware that every other thing that is attributed to that figure has been changed by degrees to reflect the thinking of the scribes and masters along the way -  and ignore it all.

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't know whether you are unaware of this fact. Was that a rhetorical question?

                        replyreport
4. 79

   Shadesbreathposted 11 years ago

   Aristotle completely and totally covered all of this. He did it so well that over 2000 years later, his writing is still mandatory reading in most law schools and in those English writing programs that still value a genuine argument over PC emptiness and cultural platitudes.
   
   I already know, even before posting this, that nobody will click on the link, and even less than nobody will buy it and spend the time it takes to read it, which is a lot because it's not easy like learning how to play a video game, but, everything everyone is bitching about was already covered two thousand years ago. All of it. Literally all of it. All the crap you whine about every day but only actually sort of understand, he got completely and dissected perfectly. If you don't read it, I just want you to know you deserve your misery.
   
   http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Dover-Th … s+rhetoric

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'll look at it tomorrow      (promice)   good night.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Save me the effort of swimming through another book in the middle of all the books I am swimming in  -  if it is clear I am sure you can put it into a couple of sentences in relation to this thread question ??

      replyreport
5. 58

   Jeramiposted 11 years ago

   Great answer..   
   I tried to write a coherent reply but am unable to do so. i woke up an hour ago after a couple of hrs. of sleep  (couldn't  go back to sleep) and it 's   now 3:00AM   
     to come to the point, I think that these mis translated words and especially any interpretation of words in prophesy are the most dangerous.
   
      Started to explain some more and couldn't keem my mind straight.    Maybe, can do better tomorrow

   replyreport
6. 74

   jacharlessposted 11 years ago

   Mr Chasuk,
   So you {and the readers} are thoroughly aware, I have asked Hub Pages to remove your last post to me because it was not even remotely relevant to the conversation and specifically noted to them that I do not wish to see you banned for a personal attack.
   
   While I ought to be flattered by individuals noticing my successes/setbacks, equally respect another human beings right to privacy. It is beyond childish -immature- the lengths another will go to achieve ---what exactly? Am not really sure. Possibly suggesting I write a memoir? As a supposed sophist you might consider... eh, never mind. No need for me to rant. The point is made, right?
   
   James.
   
   9:48 Edit: Furthermore, I did not authorize you -or anyone- to publish my private Facebook profile image {via google or otherwise} nor my legal name here, on this domain. It is a violation of Internet Privacy. Neither of those items appear anywhere on HubPages. There is a certain level of anonymity that should be respected. Hence, the sole reason for reporting.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Point made? No. I googled you, looking for other examples of your writing. I was surprised/pleased that I'd eaten in your restaurant, and sent you a friendly post conveying that sentiment.
      
      As far as "privacy" goes, you lose any claim to that as soon as you post about yourself on the Internet, as you have done prolifically.
      
      Get over yourself.

      replyreport
7. 60

   recommend1posted 11 years ago

   Jacharless and Chasuk - stop bickering over BS - I enjoy the various posts and find the occasional ramblings off into the realms of slightly-out-of-your-tree quite funny.
   
   We have lost most of the interesting people on these forums - and the other interesting people clearly can't be bothered with the generally low quality of the postings.
   
   Raise you're games and knock it off.
   
   Best wishes
   Chris

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think you have implied that my contributions to Hubpages' forums are at least interesting; thank you. :-)
      
      However, you are right about bickering. It lowers the quality of the experience for everyone. For my part, point taken. I can promise to behave.
      
      Best wishes,
      Chas

      replyreport