tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post5388452517188537963..comments2013-02-19T13:33:12.332-08:00Comments on 為什麼基督教不能說服我?: 上一課批判思考KinGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09341157189700034548noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-55460288060379392822008-12-18T00:40:00.000-08:002008-12-18T00:40:00.000-08:00Jason提到:我覺得由基督徒立場出法係冇謬誤, 對你黎講可能會重作:(不代表本人立場)我覺得1+1...Jason提到:<BR/>我覺得由基督徒立場出法係冇謬誤, 對你黎講可能會<BR/><BR/>重作:(不代表本人立場)<BR/>我覺得1+1=100,由1+1=100信徒的立場出發係無謬誤,對你黎講可能會<BR/><BR/>評:<BR/>謬誤不會因為說話者的立場/身份/智力...etc,而有所改變<BR/><BR/>例如:1+2+1=10(10)<BR/>無論是誰說出來都是有謬誤的<BR/>(PS:為簡易閱讀起見,我們都在用十進制,而不是四進制)<BR/>(在數學上,如果使用四進制,則以上數式是對的)(笑)<BR/><BR/>老實說<BR/>幾句荒謬的話說出來<BR/>然後不斷"堅稱":"在我的立場而言無錯"<BR/>真是...Juriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16451486528567164679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-5066250126401700812008-12-17T23:21:00.000-08:002008-12-17T23:21:00.000-08:00這裡的blog主似乎看過李天命我建議jason也應該看看看完這兒的"討論"真佩服blog主的耐性ja...這裡的blog主似乎看過李天命<BR/>我建議jason也應該看看<BR/><BR/>看完這兒的"討論"<BR/>真佩服blog主的耐性<BR/><BR/>jason呢種狀況表現<BR/>恐怕係被教會長年洗腦而產生的<BR/><BR/>用番李天命的話(我認為blog主有看過)<BR/>最好的方法是對他不予理會<BR/>除非<BR/>1.bolg主想要拿人來玩<BR/>2.借機展示邏輯謬誤<BR/><BR/>PS:這邊留言真不方便<BR/><BR/>在下為高登某膠製cd-rom<BR/>(別想起底,這不是我的慣用id)Juriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16451486528567164679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-12446358749582079582008-11-26T08:24:00.000-08:002008-11-26T08:24:00.000-08:00Louisy﹐我看得 Jason這膠人﹐都佩服你耐性Louisy﹐我看得 Jason這膠人﹐都佩服你耐性大黃傻貓GARFIELDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03076802459043571276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-77917951080485943022008-10-20T09:07:00.000-07:002008-10-20T09:07:00.000-07:00連形容詞/動詞都未出, 攻擊左? 唔拗..連形容詞/動詞都未出, 攻擊左? 唔拗..Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-35497412266155089482008-10-20T03:53:00.000-07:002008-10-20T03:53:00.000-07:00"除非"一詞冇下定論----未攻擊不至xx連yy都....有下定論----攻擊左"除非"一詞冇下定論----未攻擊<BR/>不至xx連yy都....有下定論----攻擊左Louiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346199712265028773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-42172014201724639802008-10-19T13:46:00.000-07:002008-10-19T13:46:00.000-07:00都咩?你話 除非你放棄理性討論...唔通又係人身攻擊緊我冇理性定點?都咩?<BR/>你話 除非你放棄理性討論...唔通又係人身攻擊緊我冇理性定點?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-64207673829826863442008-10-19T08:22:00.000-07:002008-10-19T08:22:00.000-07:00你真係好笑你睇返有114篇回應既post先作人身攻擊的,是你什麼"不至邏輯,數學都...."你真係好笑<BR/>你睇返有114篇回應既post<BR/>先作人身攻擊的,是你<BR/>什麼"不至邏輯,數學都...."Louiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346199712265028773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-70525724577847200792008-10-19T08:01:00.000-07:002008-10-19T08:01:00.000-07:00首先係你對人人身攻擊, 我呢D叫還擊首先係你對人人身攻擊, 我呢D叫還擊Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-86874886484227596042008-10-18T09:51:00.000-07:002008-10-18T09:51:00.000-07:00依個blog度發言要你"allow"?????原來依度你話事ga???????personal at...依個blog度發言要你"allow"?????<BR/>原來依度你話事ga???????<BR/><BR/>personal attack依d野你一路都有ga la?<BR/>咩批評力由1變0<BR/>你真係好笑<BR/>只許州官放火????????Louiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346199712265028773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-47970247239434138752008-10-18T08:24:00.000-07:002008-10-18T08:24:00.000-07:00you are allowed to leave comments about the post, ...you are allowed to leave comments about the post, but you may personal attack any debaters. sorry my assJasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-83994460178473834332008-10-17T21:57:00.000-07:002008-10-17T21:57:00.000-07:00jason, are u really that stupid????If this is a fo...jason, are u really that stupid????<BR/>If this is a formal debate that audience should not talk, then your rubbish argument should make you lost for long time ago<BR/>And, this is an open platform, you want to shut me up, you are not respecting my right, i don't think you will make any apologize, as you are simply a looser.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16391582355650642098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-20000253671135597872008-10-17T09:52:00.000-07:002008-10-17T09:52:00.000-07:00所有野我以家會喺最新既POST回應所有野我以家會喺最新既POST回應Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-69319516750440165412008-10-17T09:51:00.000-07:002008-10-17T09:51:00.000-07:00simon, as you are watching a debate. i dont think ...simon, as you are watching a debate. i dont think any audience would come down from the stage and talk.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-52558097688984033762008-10-17T04:35:00.000-07:002008-10-17T04:35:00.000-07:00Jason, why want to shut me up??????becoz i am not ...Jason, why want to shut me up??????<BR/>becoz i am not at your side????<BR/>actually, illogical people should shut up first, and jason, you are that illogical peopleSimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16391582355650642098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-24480219401573089002008-10-17T03:10:00.000-07:002008-10-17T03:10:00.000-07:00喺prove人錯時要先prove自己啱.一睇依句就知你去到咩level基督徒要prove進化論係錯都...喺prove人錯時要先prove自己啱.<BR/>一睇依句就知你去到咩level<BR/>基督徒要prove進化論係錯都唔一定先要prove 聖經係岩Louiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346199712265028773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-85487958412260351082008-10-17T02:57:00.000-07:002008-10-17T02:57:00.000-07:00Jason我冇"need"佢既reinforcement有人幫我你就叫人shut up?????你估...Jason<BR/>我冇"need"佢既reinforcement<BR/>有人幫我你就叫人shut up?????<BR/>你估依度係你地頭????<BR/>你咁醒你咪自己make幾個分身出來lor<BR/>就好似你屈simon係我分身咁之ma<BR/><BR/>你唔知返犯左咩謬誤<BR/>我可以話比你聽<BR/>a既謬誤係循環論證<BR/>唔該自己search循環論證既定義係咩<BR/><BR/>b同c:低機會/難唔得如一定做唔到<BR/>因為peter太細力,佢好大機會唔多人打<BR/>所以佢一定唔夠人打<BR/>依個說法既謊謬就好似b同c個例子咁<BR/><BR/>邏輯謬誤有犯同冇犯<BR/>唔會因為一個人立場轉變而冇犯<BR/>even依個人唔用logic諗野Louiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346199712265028773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-91637742095728393302008-10-16T19:45:00.000-07:002008-10-16T19:45:00.000-07:00simon, if i were you...i ll just shut up...if what...simon, if i were you...i ll just shut up...if what louisey is saying is so true...he doesnt even needs your reinforcements.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-55224713176315514842008-10-16T19:42:00.000-07:002008-10-16T19:42:00.000-07:00a.因為聖經說......所以......因為某一聖經concept(e.g.原罪)......所以...a.因為聖經說......所以......<BR/>因為某一聖經concept(e.g.原罪)......所以......<BR/>基督徒以聖經為前提, 聖經係佢地既reference同立場之一, 基督徒唔跟隨聖經同食肉和尚一樣荒謬(更不合邏輯), 但亦反映唔出基督徒錯謬之處.<BR/><BR/>b.因為某些現象(e.g.人腦結構的複雜度),某某理論難以解釋(e.g.進化論),所以該理論必然為錯;聖經"解釋"得到,所以聖經中的上帝必然存在/聖經必然為真<BR/><BR/>呢句只係唔夠牙力, 但亦無犯錯. 首先對佢黎講聖經係真. 但係呢一句只係唔會被承認. 唔係網主講既歪理<BR/><BR/>c.宇宙很複雜,由一場大爆炸/慢慢演變出來的或然率很低,所以一定會有一個創造主,故此聖經必定為真<BR/><BR/>同上一句一樣. 只係冇說服力, 亦都唔係歪理.<BR/><BR/>基於立場黎睇, 基督徒係有義務咁解釋, 同我以上解釋一樣, 如果一個基督徒同人講道時唔帶出聖經乃係冇可能. 你所講既謬誤是否1+1=2 but 2唔一定要1+1? 但起碼係1+1起碼唔係錯. 除非網主有甚麼聖經上矛盾可以有效指出聖經完全係錯. 呢個先係我黎呢度既目的. 喺prove人錯時要先prove自己啱. 你係有心討論的話就開類似地獄同罪與罰既post. 你攻擊基督徒言行只係你不了解基督徒立場. 呢個亦係你井底蛙既原因Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-39040653235582175212008-10-16T13:15:00.000-07:002008-10-16T13:15:00.000-07:00What contradictions did he point out? Can God make...What contradictions did he point out? Can God make a rock that he cannot lift? i ll explain it in another postJasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-79582850657070945222008-10-16T09:52:00.000-07:002008-10-16T09:52:00.000-07:00jason, the contradiction Louisey has pointed out i...jason, the contradiction Louisey has pointed out is already an evidence<BR/><BR/>btw<BR/>even if a god appear, it is not necessarily the god in the bible<BR/><BR/>honestly, u don't make a point in your "example"<BR/>your level is a lot lower than louisey, that is the comment i will give after watch such meaningless debate for three daysSimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16391582355650642098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-40956468482904675012008-10-16T09:10:00.000-07:002008-10-16T09:10:00.000-07:00我呢個例子唔係講inductive定deductive....我只係講緊一日未打都未分勝負, 我係講...我呢個例子唔係講inductive定deductive....我只係講緊一日未打都未分勝負, 我係講緊基督徒表面上解釋較牽強(甚至你講既illogcal)當果場交開始打前, 基督徒似為理虧一方...我都列明大家身心狀況打交技巧都一樣, 只係身型上既不同...咁B方就可以靠B既體格(physics/bio科學亦即係邏輯related)作出評估去認為B會嬴.<BR/>咁人對聖經真偽同神既存在都係一個評估...照你咁講人對神既推論(正與反)亦都係謬誤一種<BR/><BR/><BR/>你嬴既可能係現實邏輯層面...<BR/>但係你以家係用緊你既證據去斷定一樣野實與虛, 咁你同你提既基督徒都唔係好大分別.<BR/><BR/>如果神無啦啦由天以降, 你既真像嬴仲算嬴? 你既嬴只係喺神出現前叫做嬴住先<BR/><BR/>你既證據又係乜? 呢個blog咁耐我都未見過Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-74196256750189983772008-10-16T05:11:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:11:00.000-07:00基督徒的確係不停先俾個答案人再去搵證據(有或未有, 但係喺未有答案前你已經否定左佢既答案因為有證據去...基督徒的確係不停先俾個答案人再去搵證據(有或未有, 但係喺未有答案前你已經否定左佢既答案<BR/><BR/>因為有證據去否定佢地既答案。Louiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346199712265028773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-11929102511727760242008-10-16T05:10:00.000-07:002008-10-16T05:10:00.000-07:00兩個人健康狀況同打交技巧一樣, 基督徒不停解釋點解A會嬴, 但係A體形係較弱, 睇落打嬴B根本冇可能...兩個人健康狀況同打交技巧一樣, 基督徒不停解釋點解A會嬴, 但係A體形係較弱, 睇落打嬴B根本冇可能, 支持B就當然就會話因為B大隻D嬴既機會會大D啦(邏輯推理). 最後A嬴左, 咁代唔代表不停支持A既人係犯緊邏輯謬誤?? 代唔代表支持B既講野(盡管幾理性去分析場賽事)就算有證據但到最後都輸?<BR/><BR/>你講緊既又係一個inductive既例子<BR/>inductive既例子<BR/>就算錯左都唔imply一定有邏輯謬誤<BR/>deductive先會imply一定有邏輯謬誤<BR/>連induction同deduction都未識分<BR/>唔該你check下先<BR/><BR/>一場辯論唔只係睇邊個有LOGIC就嬴(但我亦都同時有理性同你傾), 而係在場聽既人buy邊方多, 如果你認你嬴左基督教, 大多可以一夜就推翻基督教丫<BR/><BR/>咁真係唔好意思<BR/>我知你有用理性<BR/>不過就冇用正確既邏輯lor<BR/>辯論輸贏有兩個層面<BR/>你所講既只係表象上既贏<BR/>我所指的是真象上的贏<BR/>依d哲學terms唔明既就自己去查<BR/>唔想係依度浪費時間同你慢慢解釋<BR/>suppose依度既討論唔應該停留係解釋terminology既levelLouiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346199712265028773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-34465103193891377902008-10-16T04:35:00.000-07:002008-10-16T04:35:00.000-07:00我講緊既神聖經既神/.\基督徒講既野全部要基於邏輯因素先去傳教係冇可能, 咁唔洗傳都得基督徒的確係不...我講緊既神聖經既神/.\<BR/><BR/>基督徒講既野全部要基於邏輯因素先去傳教係冇可能, 咁唔洗傳都得<BR/><BR/>基督徒的確係不停先俾個答案人再去搵證據(有或未有, 但係喺未有答案前你已經否定左佢既答案<BR/><BR/>有兩個人就開始打交 A同B<BR/>基督徒就係A果面<BR/>你就係B果面<BR/><BR/>兩個人健康狀況同打交技巧一樣, 基督徒不停解釋點解A會嬴, 但係A體形係較弱, 睇落打嬴B根本冇可能, 支持B就當然就會話因為B大隻D嬴既機會會大D啦(邏輯推理). 最後A嬴左, 咁代唔代表不停支持A既人係犯緊邏輯謬誤?? 代唔代表支持B既講野(盡管幾理性去分析場賽事)就算有證據但到最後都輸?<BR/><BR/>一場辯論唔只係睇邊個有LOGIC就嬴(但我亦都同時有理性同你傾), 而係在場聽既人buy邊方多, 如果你認你嬴左基督教, 大多可以一夜就推翻基督教丫Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01185858271810722809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4956329072757332529.post-27932981477962644282008-10-16T03:49:00.000-07:002008-10-16T03:49:00.000-07:00基督徒就好似不停向SIMS入面既人講呢個世界外有另一個世界呀, 以SIMS既人就話, 依SIMS世界...基督徒就好似不停向SIMS入面既人講呢個世界外有另一個世界呀, 以SIMS既人就話, 依SIMS世界既邏輯, 冇可能有以外既世界. 太自我同認為自己所知既一小部份就係世界同呢個宇宙既全部...井底之蛙? 你既思想模式根本唔會/從未進步. 你係未真係低都咁? 我下次要畫到出腸你先會明 /.\<BR/><BR/>jason,你又何必句句都撩交嗌呢?<BR/><BR/>首先<BR/>我沒有打算從邏輯的層面否定神<BR/>我再一次說明<BR/>我是不可知論者(唔該你真係search下係咩,唔好成日老屈我既立場)<BR/>我是在說base on logic,基督徒的某某<BR/>理論是歪論<BR/>當然,你可以話base on一條out of logic既rules佢地既理論唔係歪論<BR/>但係,依家依個辯論必需要base on logic<BR/>因為邏輯是人類理性的最終依歸<BR/>除非你不打算理性的和我辯論<BR/>這樣你就可以不跟從logicLouiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346199712265028773noreply@blogger.com