With God on our side

[Abdulhalim]

Haha I think your loosing it now, so you admit its not an appeal to authority now?

I doubted your understanding, and you did n't dissappoint. LOL..!

so you admit its not an appeal to authority now?

??--What piece a guy. My argument was based on open fallacy thats why I said this:

Argumentum ad verecundiam

Which I doubt if it clicks into your head: Look a vivid example of such an error from Wiki:

"If Aristotle said it was so, it is so."

This is the type of error you are forcing it here, (as it seems you are not aware-of)

So a completely competent person can not comment on anything unless he is an authority on the subject?

Yes HE CAN but his comments are trivial as of any gullible zombie who know nothing about the context.

Are you an authority on Obamas competence?

whacky & idiotic ..! I can se now you are going for Ad hominem tu quoque

Should we tell you to go to hell with you opinions too? Lol!

YES YOU CAN..

 

[Natty Bongoman]

With God On Our Side?

President Obama acknowledged nonreligious Americans in his Inaugural Address. Will his administration re-separate church and state?

Paul Waldman | January 27, 2009 | web only



We know that Barack Obama is all about inclusion. Still, it was a little surprising to hear him give a nod in his Inaugural Address to a group that has been one of America's most disdained, particularly when it comes to politics. "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers," he said, no doubt bringing a smile to millions of faces around the country, and a scowl to millions more.

It may be that this is the last we'll hear from President Obama on the topic, or it may be that he'll actually take steps to dial back the efforts some have made over the last few years to make the federal government as Christian as possible. Either way, the inclusion of nonbelievers didn't represent all that much of a political risk. But it was noteworthy nonetheless, particularly coming at the conclusion of what was in some ways the most sectarian administration in our history. George W. Bush not only talked frequently about his Christianity (much more often than our first born-again president, Jimmy Carter), he also funneled millions of tax dollars to groups that used social services as a tool for evangelizing. Recall that David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, wrote in his book The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush that the first words he heard on his first day in the Bush White House were "Missed you at bible study" (though the reproach was actually directed at fellow speechwriter Michael Gerson, not Frum).

He might be more serious than just that utterance ... he is already sending convoy to Arab Muslim leading nations. It remains to be seen. He has also acknowledged openly, that he has Muslims relatives. It is a tall order to expect him to eradicate 'extreme Islam element', which though loud, are minorities within Islam. He will need to build trust and confidence within Islam nations for they are the one who can really eradicate 'extreme Islam elements'.

 

[Natty Bongoman]

Obama is a Christian, that is the bottom line. Muslims still don't have a chance in the US of A elite Gov, due to their radical, debauched, and immoral acts and behavior around the world.

It is hard if not impossible to trust these people. They aspired that life, fair and good enough, they got it, 100 %. Now they are lamenting like kids.

I agree with SMATTA's reply ... this is stereotyping masses based on minorities' actions. I hate 'stereotyping' because We Afrikans and blacks world-wide have lived and still are living under many stereotypes... of all the people, we should be more sensitive...

I will add the following though:
1. Many of good Muslims have been complacent, and at times, helpful (directly or indirectly) to these 'extreme Islam groups'... case in point, the hiding of taliban and Osama. Majority of good Muslims haven't been loudly outraged by these 'extreme elements' within their religion. It is likely that in this framework, many are lumped in.

2. We should never forget that Christianity, the religion I was born into, also has extremisms... and it is recognised by the Muslim world. We can all be realistic, rather than being hypocrites - hypocrisy doesn't solve, but creates hate and empowers 'extremism'.

 

[Natty Bongoman]

"I'm a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith. That doesn't make faith any less important than science. It just means they're two different things. And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry." - Obama

... what a classic contradiction! Or else, an 'appeasing' statement...

* It is one or the other... it is nonsensical to believe in Almighty's creation AND evolution. What does that mean? Some humans evolved and some were created? ...this gives an opening to the 'wicked' minds - nuff said.

* Personally, I don't believe in Evolution ... it is my opinion that either Darwin was drunk or he mislabelled 'acclimatisation'. I don't know how long it takes for apes to evolve into humans, but I sure haven't seen nor heard any 'inkling'... did the process stop? why?

Weeell ... I think Darwin presented an 'Ad verecundiam', but hey some might say it is InI

 

[MaxShimba]

I agree with SMATTA's reply ... this is stereotyping masses based on minorities' actions. I hate 'stereotyping' because We Afrikans and blacks world-wide have lived and still are living under many stereotypes... of all the people, we should be more sensitive...

I will add the following though:
1. Many of good Muslims have been complacent, and at times, helpful (directly or indirectly) to these 'extreme Islam groups'... case in point, the hiding of taliban and Osama. Majority of good Muslims haven't been loudly outraged by these 'extreme elements' within their religion. It is likely that in this framework, many are lumped in.

2. We should never forget that Christianity, the religion I was born into, also has extremisms... and it is recognised by the Muslim world. We can all be realistic, rather than being hypocrites - hypocrisy doesn't solve, but creates hate and empowers 'extremism'.

Who told you that I am an African? You need some mental slavery deliverance.

What you wrote is defacto, unethical, and lacks tangible merits, inter-alia, your reply is more inferior than informative, et al, ad infinitum.

Your malicious endorsement to smatta is absurd.

Your nunc pro tunc knowledge made you ipso facto in thinking and reasoning.

 

[Natty Bongoman]

Who told you that I am an African? You need some mental slavery deliverance.

I applaud your openness. I apologise for assuming that in this site we only have Afrikans or people of Afrikans origins. What are you? a kaburu inna here to instigate or impose...?

What you wrote is defacto, unethical, and lacks tangible merits, inter-alia, your reply is more inferior than informative, et al, ad infinitum.

Thank you, what I wrote is in reality and does concern facts (i.e. de facto).
Anyway, writing in latin doesn't impress me. I speak more languages than you de facto. What will be meaningful is for you to elaborate how "unethical", and the rest of your blah-blah list as opposed to what I wrote. That would also be the intelligent approach. By the way, your response in writing and tone, suggest that you are the inferior even though you are convinced that your reply is superior... talk about warped ego!

Your malicious endorsement to smatta is absurd.

Your nunc pro tunc knowledge made you ipso facto in thinking and reasoning.

malicious??? are you for real? explain the malice.

I don't think you have mastered latin... my knowledge is current and applicable today. You are an example... Furthermore, in my thinking and reasoning, I do try my best to be relevant to facts. Based on your reply, today, I can't say the same of you or else, you have convinced yourself of 'kaburu' facts.

*By the way, did I hit a nerve? otherwise, what made you mad to a point of rambling nonsensical accusations rather than refuting with facts? This approach really diminish your intelligence in this particular approach.

One more thing, I don't get rattled... it will pointless if you keep attacking me with nastiness and asinine accusations.

PEACE OUT.

 

[MaxShimba]

It is easy to notice someone who is kushumpeng'. You have continued to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are inferior by saying you speak many languages. Who asked you that? Who cares? That is inferiority complex.

There is nothing ethical you wrote, inter-alia, your reply is more puerilis and lacks promeritum.

It is hard if not impossible for someone like you to speak facts while you are infirmus mentally. What you wrote is full of quisquiliarum. Your blah blah and puerilis does make you ipso facto mental enfermo and full of demencia.

You are still a pickney bwoy. Your nunc pro tunc reasons does not ipso facto you from been a mentales y esclavo zombi.

You are below par to wit.

 

[Kang]

I doubted your understanding, and you did n't dissappoint. LOL..!

There was no fallacy, I simply quoted what the man said, after all the first post was about Obamas views on religion vs state wasn't it?
You are the one who started jumping all over yourself and claiming I was giving his words special truthfulness.

??--What piece a guy. My argument was based on open fallacy thats why I said this:


Which I doubt if it clicks into your head: Look a vivid example of such an error from Wiki:

This is the type of error you are forcing it here, (as it seems you are not aware-of)

-Again I never said it is true because Obama said it! Not an appeal to authority! It seems you don't know what an Argumentum ad verecundiam actually is! It would be an appeal to authority if I said that because he is the president therefore his words are more true, I never said that, did I?

Yes HE CAN but his comments are trivial as of any gullible zombie who know nothing about the context.

-How are his comments trivial? He is the president, and his thoughts shape US policy.
Especially compared to Bush who was an avid supporter of the religious right, it is a marked departure from his predecessor.

whacky & idiotic ..! I can se now you are going for Ad hominem tu quoque

-Ohh so you are an authority on Obamas competence, well Ok then, please tell us where you obtained this authority.
It seems like there is one set of rules for Obama and another for you! Its sad when people cant live by their own principles.

YES YOU CAN..

Well I guess you know what to do then!

 

[Kang]

... what a classic contradiction! Or else, an 'appeasing' statement...

* It is one or the other... it is nonsensical to believe in Almighty's creation AND evolution. What does that mean? Some humans evolved and some were created? ...this gives an opening to the 'wicked' minds - nuff said.

* Personally, I don't believe in Evolution ... it is my opinion that either Darwin was drunk or he mislabelled 'acclimatisation'. I don't know how long it takes for apes to evolve into humans, but I sure haven't seen nor heard any 'inkling'... did the process stop? why?

Weeell ... I think Darwin presented an 'Ad verecundiam', but hey some might say it is InI

There is nothing nonsensical about it, his view and that of many other Christians is that the stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally.
E.g God did not actually make man out of clay/soil/whatever it is simply a metaphor for the creation process, i.e evolution could have been Gods tool in creating man.

Please read at least the Wikipedia Article on the theory of Evolution, that question about Apes mind numbing. How can you possibly reject something which you clearly have no idea about?

 

[Abdulhalim]

There was no fallacy, I simply quoted what the man said, after all the first post was about Obamas views on religion vs state wasn't it?
You are the one who started jumping all over yourself and claiming I was giving his words special truthfulness.

If you don't believe in his words to be true, so would you tell us how dare you quoted his speech and highlighted some of the points (which favours your stand). What was that for?

-Again I never said it is true because Obama said it! Not an appeal to authority! It seems you don't know what an Argumentum ad verecundiam actually is! It would be an appeal to authority if I said that because he is the president therefore his words are more true, I never said that, did I?

Then, if it is NOT an appeal to an authority, thats good..thats why I said this;remember?

Therefore he can just go to hell with his opinions

I said this, based on the fact that the guy is not an AUTHORITY, a competent too, to be clear) on matters he commented. Furthermore I said this to you:

.. his comments are trivial as of any gullible zombie who know nothing about the context.

Remember?

Now look at this crap;

He is a highly educated and intelligent man who comes from a diverse cultural and religious background, HE IS MORE THAN COMPETENT.

This is submission to authority..

-How are his comments trivial? He is the president, and his thoughts shape US policy.

Submission to authority..

-Ohh so you are an authority on Obamas competence, well Ok then, please tell us where you obtained this authority.

I never said so, ;

DO you remember your quest for this?

Are you an authority on Obamas competence?

You were so pissed that you couldn't differentiate between COMPETENCE & AUTHORITATIVE COMPETENCE..I never talked about the former but the latter (Check for every of my posts in here ). But your question was another version of Tu Quoque..Ha ha ha..

Well I guess you know what to do then!

About what?

 

[Kang]

If you don't believe in his words to be true, so would you tell us how dare you quoted his speech and highlighted some of the points (which favours your stand). What was that for?




Then, if it is NOT an appeal to an authority, thats good..thats why I said this;remember?



I said this, based on the fact that the guy is not an AUTHORITY, a competent too, to be clear) on matters he commented. Furthermore I said this to you:

Remember?

Now look at this crap;


This is submission to authority..



Submission to authority..



I never said so, ;

DO you remember your quest for this?



You were so pissed that you couldn't differentiate between COMPETENCE & AUTHORITATIVE COMPETENCE..I never talked about the former but the latter (Check for every of my posts in here ). But your question was another version of Tu Quoque..Ha ha ha..



About what?

I'm not a Christian so I don't believe his words to be totally true, I simply believe them to be reasonable and refreshing! But they are SIMPLY REASONABLE they are not reasonable BECAUSE he is President.
And it was a discussion of Obama's views so its not like I randomly put some quote, it was inline with the discussion and explained his position.

OK you said competent authority, but why did you say that at all? You admit that you don't need to be an authority to comment on something so its seems your attacking the messenger instead of the message itself (Argumentum Ad-hominem since you like latin). You still haven't said what is wrong with the actual quote have you?

He is a highly educated and intelligent man who comes from a diverse cultural and religious background, HE IS MORE THAN COMPETENT.

This is a simple fact, there is no submission to authority here. Look at the mans history.

-How are his comments trivial? He is the president, and his thoughts shape US policy

Another fact. Again I did not say being the president makes him more right. But he DOES shape US policy whether you agree with him or not.

 

[Abdulhalim]

I'm not a Christian so I don't believe his words to be totally true, I simply believe them to be reasonable and refreshing! But they are SIMPLY REASONABLE they are not reasonable BECAUSE he is President.
And it was a discussion of Obama's views so its not like I randomly put some quote, it was inline with the discussion and explained his position.

Good..

OK you said competent authority, but why did you say that at all?

I asserted that becoz you were making a big deal out of that 'quote' of yours, it was my duty to show that the guy is NOT A COMPETENT AUTHORITY in matters he tried to put through.

You admit that you don't need to be an authority to comment on something so its seems your attacking the messenger instead of the message itself (Argumentum Ad-hominem since you like latin). You still haven't said what is wrong with the actual quote have you?

To me, the 'TRUTH' is important. Unique though, but need to be from a competent authority. Does this combine now? BHO said he believe in both, Christianity and Evolution, he went further ahead and said ;

I believe there's a difference between science and faith

His position is simply fallacious and awkward..I don't blame him from this because he is another gullible in the line ..You got me now?

This is a simple fact, there is no submission to authority here. Look at the mans history.

Of course there is submission..Being 'educated, raised from different backgrounds', is not related to being a competent authority on matters of evolution & Christianity. The guy is not trained in both, and has never demonstrated any tangible contribution on the same.

By the way,being intelligent is subjective, time-& event based, this reduce this trait of 'intelligence' into 'an opinion' rather than a fact..

Another fact. Again I did not say being the president makes him more right. But he DOES shape US policy whether you agree with him or not.

His opinions are trivial to the disciplines, thats for sure. In matters of politique, that is significant because he wants to impress everyone..Look here from post 1,

We know that Barack Obama is all about inclusion

So people who can't indulge into deeper thinking are HIS TRADE..

I'm out..

 

[Kang]

Good..



I asserted that becoz you were making a big deal out of that 'quote' of yours, it was my duty to show that the guy is NOT A COMPETENT AUTHORITY in matters he tried to put through.



To me, the 'TRUTH' is important. Unique though, but need to be from a competent authority. Does this combine now? BHO said he believe in both, Christianity and Evolution, he went further ahead and said ;



His position is simply fallacious and awkward..I don't blame him from this because he is another gullible in the line ..You got me now?



Of course there is submission..Being 'educated, raised from different backgrounds', is not related to being a competent authority on matters of evolution & Christianity. The guy is not trained in both, and has never demonstrated any tangible contribution on the same.

By the way,being intelligent is subjective, time-& event based, this reduce this trait of 'intelligence' into 'an opinion' rather than a fact..




His opinions are trivial to the disciplines, thats for sure. In matters of politique, that is significant because he wants to impress everyone..Look here from post 1,



So people who can't indulge into deeper thinking are HIS TRADE..

I'm out..

I think we are basically in agreement, I think you simply took the quote out of context. The thread was about Obamas views therefore the quote is important and comes from a competent authority on Obama's views (Obama himself).

I said he is competent because he is educated and from a diverse background I never said it made him an authority.

So you seriously believe there is no difference btwn faith and science? That's rather strange. Plus you still haven't explained what your problem with the quote actually is! Ad-hominem continues.

And since you seem to be all about logic and fallacies its rather strange that you can decide who is gullible and who is incompetent without giving any reason whatsoever.

Izzoout.

 

[Abdulhalim]

I think we are basically in agreement..

Not quiet ..

I said he is competent because he is educated and from a diverse background I never said it made him an authority.

I told you already that I'm NOT talking about competece but authoritative competence..

So you seriously believe there is no difference btwn faith and science?

This is whole new topic, and YES they are parallel to me.

That's rather strange. Plus you still haven't explained what your problem with the quote actually is! Ad-hominem continues.

It is not ad hominem, I was actually canoeing against ad hominem & ad verecundiam in this thread. I've already gave you the glimpse of my position. The guy said he believes in both Christianity & Evolution which is impossible unless he doesn't understand what is talking about.

And since you seem to be all about logic and fallacies its rather strange that you can decide who is gullible and who is incompetent without giving any reason whatsoever.

It is sad that you are grasping nothing from this discussion..I summarize for you what I've been working-on here;

1. BHO is not a competent authority on matters as per post #4.
2. From 1) his opinion as per post #4 are of little importance.
3. Intrinsically, post #4 is illogical (as discussed above)
4. Intrinsically & extrinsically speaking, the quote is of no merit for further discussion( at least , as per my participation)..


CIAO..

 

[MaxShimba]

Not quiet ..



I told you already that I'm NOT talking about competece but authoritative competence..



This is whole new topic, and YES they are parallel to me.



It is not ad hominem, I was actually canoeing against ad hominem & ad verecundiam in this thread. I've already gave you the glimpse of my position. The guy said he believes in both Christianity & Evolution which is impossible unless he doesn't understand what is talking about.



It is sad that you are grasping nothing from this discussion..I summarize for you what I've been working-on here;

1. BHO is not a competent authority on matters as per post #4.
2. From 1) his opinion as per post #4 are of little importance.
3. Intrinsically, post #4 is illogical (as discussed above)
4. Intrinsically & extrinsically speaking, the quote is of no merit for further discussion( at least , as per my participation)..


CIAO..

Thanks for the summary. It covers everything you said.

Be blessed Sir.