There are no such things as lines in the physical world so on your view they are not real. In order to demonstrate a line you are going to have to find two fixed points. Good luck with finding one.
I can easily plot two fixed points in a given frame of reference, therefore demonstrating a line. As long as the points do not move in the actual frame of reference, that is enough.
Depends on your definition of objects of knowledge and reality. On my view persons are propositions. If a proposition can be logically deduced from some other proposition you think and believe that deduction is consubstantial with your person-hood.
This is incoherent, because you are arbitrarily redefining words when convenient to you in order to make your argument work. And as I said before, the fact that some proposition can be logically deduced from another proposition does not mean that the first proposition follows from the second. To claim otherwise is a logical fallacy. And as for being consubstantial with a person, no. That depends solely on your argument that a person is a proposition, and you cannot logically prove that to anyone who does not already accept it. Therefore, it is a circular fallacy, as you must accept the premise in order to draw the conclusion which allows you to accept the premise.
Hold on. Are you saying that a person can logically connect two propositions but the deduction not be logical? Prima facie it is nonsense. Just because someone was not intending to say something is irrelevant.
If A -> B when x > 1, and A -> C when x <= 1, and x = 2, then it does not matter that the connection from A -> C exists. It is not the logical conclusion unless you redefine the value of x. So, in this example, if Darwin's x-value is 2, and the x-value representing Social Darwinism is 1, it will never be a logical conclusion that Darwin would have espoused Social Darwinism. Note that I did not say the deduction was illogical, I said that it was not the logical conclusion.
This is assumes a certain philosophy of reality. What is it? What is reality and what are your objects of knowledge (That which changes not during qualitative change)?Second, I am not making the argument that Darwin is wrong because of what it turned into, that takes care of the Reductio Ad Absurdum fallacy. What I am saying is that you cannot logically separate Eugenics from darwin's theory. It is the logical conclusion.
To answer the second point first, you are still declaring that eugenics is the logical conclusion of Darwin's theory. Therefore, you are still using the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. There is a difference between something that can logically be concluded from another idea, and declaring that this thing is the only logical conclusion of that idea. There are other conclusions which are just as logical than "Darwin's theory -> eugenics".
If I stated that darwin's theory was wrong because of its consequences that would be a good argument. I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT.
And I never said that your reductio ad absurdum fallacy was because of that strawman argument you just came up with. I said it was because you are declaring that eugenics is the logical conclusion of Darwin's theory, which implies there are no other conclusions worth mentioning. It is a
logical conclusion for people who think a certain way, but that in no way makes it the
You took the argument out of context. You tried to escape taking the responsibility for atheist massacres by an ad hominem argument that atheism can no more be blamed for stalin than religion can be blames for tyranny, I am guessing something like the inquisition. But you missed my point and maybe i can clarify it. WE DID BLAME ROME'S RELIGION FOR THEIR TYRANNY. So i reject your premise that a tyrant's religion cannot be blamed for his tyranny. It can and it should and we did.
Oh, please. That was no ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument would have been if I rejected your argument because of some unrelated belief you had. As I did not, this is invalid.
As for your other point, it is completely incoherent and illogical, especially considering your previous statement about how Catholicism was actually de facto atheism. Furthermore, "we" did not. You did. You do not speak for other Protestants, and I highly doubt most of them would accept your premise about "Rome's tyranny". As for my point, it was rhetorical, because you are blaming an idea for the actions of a person, when in fact the person is responsible for their own actions. The idea does not make the person do things.
It doesn't. Can you provide any?
Wrong. I have this conversation with my atheist father frequently. The pilgrim colonies were all theocracies under the guidance of John Cotton. They came to escape religious persecution, NOT, REPEAT NOT, theocracy.
And a theocracy is a form of tyranny, given that its authority is oppressive and its power is vested in a single person or at best a small group.
I praise them for their actions. They were right and good and their executions (fallible institutions of human government). The laws undergirding their actions were godly laws. The magistrate has obligation to eliminate witches and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers and heretics. Rutherford proves this in Free Disputation. This is not tyranny, this is virtue.
The fact that something is believed virtuous in no way prevents it from being tyrannical. In fact, tyranny based on "virtue" is one of the most horrible things imaginable, because a person who believes their actions are virtuous when they are not can perform truly vile actions and believe them good and just.
You have yet to prove he believed in a god.
And you have yet to prove that immorality and nihilism naturally follow from atheism. That was implied by your statement that he was an atheist - that his philosophies naturally followed from his atheism. They did not. Of course, given your incoherent belief that a person is a proposition, I am not surprised you would think this, but your conclusion requires your premise to make any sense at all.
The ideas of God have been revealed in the Bible and have divine evidence to prove its divinity which I showed here: http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50398.0.html
The Bible was written by humans, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that other humans did not change the Bible after the fact to ensure that the prophecies matched the reality. Therefore, this is no proof at all.
I just did.
And you failed. Your personal view is still incoherent. Citing prophecies that could easily have been altered after they were supposedly written proves nothing.
Luther did attack the jews but that is not proof that he wrote that other book.
But the fact that he attacked the Jews in other tracts makes the likelihood of him writing that tract considerably higher. The only one of Phelps's arguments that was not incoherent and circular was that the views in it did not match his other tracts, yet here we have other tracts which contain the same ideas. Therefore, his conclusion that it was a fraud is suspect.
The same thing that ex-priests who were involved in things crimes and couldn't take it anymore: Our school system, and society in general if you are a fellow american, is dominated by Rome and has been for many years. Study jeremiah crowley. Rome loves secularism, because if you are an atheist you are not a protestant and that's the goal. The Elimination of Protestant Christianity. That is what the counter-reformation was all about.
In other words, you use those things as proof that your beliefs about Catholicism are correct, which is exactly what a conspiracy theorist would do - claim that evidence to the contrary actually is evidence in support. This does not fly. You must prove the things you say with actual evidence. Your word alone does not suffice.