Food for thought.

[Davian]

I'm not answering your questions because you're being unwilling to think and open your mind to new possibilities.

A closed minded person can't be forced to be an open minded person.

Do you find that only open-minded persons agree with you?

 

[anonymous person]

Based on your theology, they could say just that.

The theology that says men are accountable for the things they do, whether good or bad? That theology?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The theology that says men are accountable for the things they do, whether good or bad? That theology?

In your theology, men are NOT accountable for the things they do (whether good or bad) if only they believe as you do. Don't pretend that your theology has anything to do with accountability. The very word is anathema to your theology.

 

[anonymous person]

In your theology, men are NOT accountable for the things they do (whether good or bad) if only they believe as you do. Don't pretend that your theology has anything to do with accountability. The very word is anathema to your theology.

Oh ok. Yea, I think you are talking to the wrong person. I am not an atheist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh ok. Yea, I think you are talking to the wrong person. I am not an atheist.

Weak dodge. Very weak.

 

[Chriliman]

Do you find that only open-minded persons agree with you?

If your definition of an open minded person is someone who takes all the most reasonable truth claims and all the evidence and honestly objectively considers all of it before they determine what they themselves believe then yes.

Notice you aren't one of those people because you're not claiming to believe anything when it comes to origins of the existence of everything we percieve in reality.

Also take note of the fact that if you reject all reasonable truth claims then you can't make any valid points because all the points you think you're making are based on your rejection of all truth claims which leaves you basing your points on no truth at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If your definition of an open minded person is someone who takes all the most reasonable truth claims and all the evidence and honestly objectively considers all of it before they determine what they themselves believe then yes.

Notice you aren't one of those people because you're not claiming to believe anything when it comes to origins of the existence of everything we percieve in reality.

Also take note of the fact that if you reject all reasonable truth claims then you can't make any valid points because all the points you think you're making are based on your rejection of all truth claims which leaves you basing your points on no truth at all.

You haven't shown that any of your truth claims are reasonable. You've simply asserted that they are. We've pointed this out on multiple occasions, only to have you accuse us of closed-mindedness.

 

[quatona]

If your definition of an open minded person is someone who takes all the most reasonable truth claims and all the evidence and honestly objectively considers all of it before they determine what they themselves believe then yes.

Notice you aren't one of those people because you're not claiming to believe anything when it comes to origins of the existence of everything we percieve in reality.

Also take note of the fact that if you reject all reasonable truth claims then you can't make any valid points because all the points you think you're making are based on your rejection of all truth claims which leaves you basing your points on no truth at all.

Is it your ambition to get all logical fallacies into one single post?
(In which you have missed the mark - albeit by short).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it your ambition to get all logical fallacies into one single post?
(In which you have missed the mark - albeit by short).

Did he hit the mark for "wordiest ad hominem"?

 

[Chriliman]

Did he hit the mark for "wordiest ad hominem"?

Not an ad hominem because he is not maintaining a position.

In order to maintain a position you must be claiming that your position is true.

Davian has mastered the art of rejecting all truth claims regarding origins in order to sound as if he knows something, when in fact he can't know anything if he's rejecting all truth claims.

 

[Chriliman]

Is it your ambition to get all logical fallacies into one single post?
(In which you have missed the mark - albeit by short).

Each statement is true, so how is it a logical fallacy?

 

[Chriliman]

You haven't shown that any of your truth claims are reasonable. You've simply asserted that they are. We've pointed this out on multiple occasions, only to have you accuse us of closed-mindedness.

Eventually the truth must be asserted or else there is no truth at all.

Note: In order for you to disagree with the above statement you must be claiming that it's true that there is no truth at all.

 

[quatona]

Each statement is true, so how is it a logical fallacy?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Eventually the truth must be asserted or else there is no truth at all.

Note: In order for you to disagree with the above statement you must be claiming that it's true that there is no truth at all.

But you haven't established that what you are asserting is true. And we keep pointing that out, much to your annoyance it seems.

 

[Chriliman]

But you haven't established that what you are asserting is true. And we keep pointing that out, much to your annoyance it seems.

Let me try to help you understand. When a scientist tells me that it's true that we evolved from primordial sludge, there is no way for me to verify this because I don't have access to primordial sludge and I can't actively watch as it forms into life, so I must accept what he's saying as true (believe it). There's no other way around this basic truth of what it means to believe something.

Now I'm telling you what I know to be true and so it's up to you to believe me. If you don't believe me then you're left admitting you don't know.

Does this make sense to you?

 

[Chriliman]

Nice dodge.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not an ad hominem because he is not maintaining a position.

An ad hominem is a personal attack...not an attack on a position.

 

[Chriliman]

An ad hominem is a personal attack...not an attack on a position.

ad ho·mi·nem
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

It's true that he is not maintaining a position, therefore, all of is statements against me are not based on a position that he's claiming is true. This truth leaves me wondering why he makes statements at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me try to help you understand. When a scientist tells me that it's true that we evolved from primordial sludge...

Scientists don't say this...

If you can find one who does...quote and link it please.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ad ho·mi·nem
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

It's true that he is not maintaining a position, therefore, all of is statements against me are not based on a position that he's claiming is true. This truth leaves me wondering why he makes statements at all.

He doesn't have to maintain a position to show yours are false. I can understand how that might be frustrating...but it's true.