Axeman

Critical thinker/Christian/minimal personal politics* with 'toolbox' method for analysis: Skeptic/Nominalist/(Epi+)Phenomenalist/Analytics.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

Almost all rational discussions could be helped by the old-fashioned distinction between *necessary* and *sufficient* "causes".

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@GordonGChang The ancient Greeks used to throw shackles into a river.

Same effect.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@UsaAztGrl @JeffTaylor1964 @ThomasSowell Slippery Slope as a fallacy does not deny that there are developments that conform to a pattern that after the fact could be described as a "slippery slope", or perhaps a "snowball effect". Fallacies are about _proof_ relationships.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

Slippery Slope is a fallacy because progression to point P is not _proof_ of progression to point P+Δ. However the proposition of open-ended "tolerance" is a demand that P+Δ be cannot be treated as different from P.

An exact denial of how "Slippery Slope" qualifies as an overgeneralization.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

Slippery Slope is a fallacy because progression to point P is not _proof_ of progression to point P+Δ. However the proposition of open-ended "tolerance" is a demand that P+Δ be cannot be treated as different from P.

An exact denial of how "Slippery Slope" qualifies as an overgeneralization.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@ThomasSowell Is it really that people have become less tolerant, or that "true belief" has fallen off, and people are more reserved about the "advances" that came from what they bundled as the "LGBT community".

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@TemplarKni17953 @TheAliceSmith It would be easier to take from people were it not for the refrain "The personal is political!"

Such a bifurcation just shows ideologists out over their skis.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@TheAliceSmith That transition is standard in gaslighting governance these days.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@apvivek @renabaddie_ Convincing minimal set!

[tedfrank @tedfrank]

TTW San Francisco ended a sixty-year patriotic tradition because it didn’t want to undermine a baseless attack on Mrs. Alito.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@TheistLess @darwintojesus Bro, how could he have done otherwise if there is nothing like "free will"? Your explanation is pretty pointless, then.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

The classic Skeptics really weren't skeptics, in that sense. They pursued ataraxia, which they believed would be brought by suspension of judgment (which again, they believed in). Which was probably an impressive showing, when compared with contemporaries feeding their egos.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

1 John 4:1: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God...

But, if we doubt how we assign "virtue", we start playing Agrippa's game. (It's just his target was not Skepticism.)

Doubt is a tool I keep in my toolbox.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@FL_Kiwi_CA_gal @thevivafrei @hicasamadim Actually, it just takes advantage of the exhibited pattern that there is really only one answer when the "inputs are equal", in which case, it can be be simplified to the case of only one input. It doesn't "ignore" such a case.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@_Aria_2210 If the relationship is f(x) = 30x - 112, the answer is 8, if it's f(x) = 2x^2, it's 32.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@thevivafrei @hicasamadim Any function that goes through (2,8) and (5,50), so a sub-quadratic function could be: y = 14x - 20, thus f(6) = 64.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@DrBoecker @its_The_Dr Ill-liberals

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@DougTenNapel Why aren't more Christians practicing the conflict resolution given to us directly by our Lord, Savior, Shepard and Servant Leader? *HELP* your brother remove the speck.

And if we're arguing for prominence as the pagans do, what about repentence from that?

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

If you find it more likely that demons are aliens, that's already a level of disbelief that's already a mini-rebellion you're ready for. It's just not been triggered.

That's not Heiser, who believed that UFOs were demons, doing that to you.

Jesus gave us a principle about specks in eyes and walking in people's shoes. Perhaps we need to make sure we know what someone taught before blaming a possible--even if foretold--apostasy on the strangeness of the party of their teaching that became the most popular or controversial.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

@servantofyh @willspencer @HerefordBrimley It's amazing how many Christians are not concerned that much that they might be misrepresenting another person who claims the faith. They also don't seem to be that concerned about quarreling, which comes, as Paul said, from the flesh.

[Axeman @TheAxemander]

Yes. There are considerable disconnects in all those items. But by simply naming off the biggest, or most significant, broad matters of Human life, you're also not illustrating them.

I said last night that atheists are lazy. Perhaps this is not exhaustive, but it's going to be much simpler for them to reject those statements out of hand and the idea that something either resolves them behind the scenes or they do not matter, anyway, because we "evidently" have something that approximates those in some way, blah blah blah <insert hand waves here>.

But analytically, parsimoniously taken: that does not necessarily follow.

What is minimally demonstrated is that a projection by parsimonious attribution *fails*.

In this dynamic "God" represents "sufficient enough". Whereas from the time that we understood more about maggots and grain to separate grain as a cause of maggots, there has been a Best Practice of not attributing capability to a matrix simply because it is there.

Atheists _believe_ they are following this practice, but not so when it requires the "universe" to just be attributed whatever capability we observe because that's "simpler", or "or otherwise it would not have happend".

"Atheism", to a large part, is a modern folklore. It's a community that claims to be a lot more analytical--and skeptic--than they are.

They back each other up on the in-group value of the "stupidity of believing in" sufficient intelligence, because they judge themselves parsimonious--at least where they care to be. And they don't really care where they abandon parsimony.

They have to abandon it, but as it doesn't necessarily, as understood, include God, they don't care where it occurs.