The Moral Argument (revamped)

[Moral Orel]

I said this:

And that's because that is what all of your arguments rest on. You making wild assertions with zero evidence, and then demanding that other people prove your wrong. Your whole debate style is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of proof and you can't stand that I won't kowtow to your demands. It bugs you a lot that I spotted your gimmick and called you on it doesn't it? It's frustrating when the only trick you know just won't work, huh?

And you responded with this:

if I have to provide evidence for that claim, then please provide evidence that many atheists claim:"there appears to be no evidence of God." Please prove that claim that many atheists make.

Priceless!

 

[createdtoworship]

I said this:

And you responded with this:

Priceless!

the fact that you say "priceless" in an arrogant egotistical manner, further supports my choice to ignore your posts.

you just can't be nice.

we can all see your not happy, I suggest taking a break from CF, maybe going to an atheist forum, getting refueled in whatever you use to get refueled and encouraged, and make your way back here with a positive attitude.

being rude doesn't help anyone out.

 

[Moral Orel]

being rude doesn't help anyone out.

Glass houses, bro.

 

[gaara4158]

the fact that you say "priceless" in an arrogant egotistical manner, further supports my choice to ignore your posts.

you just can't be nice.

we can all see your not happy, I suggest taking a break from CF, maybe going to an atheist forum, getting refueled in whatever you use to get refueled and encouraged, and make your way back here with a positive attitude.

being rude doesn't help anyone out.

You are the rudest user here.

 

[Moral Orel]

HaHa, never mind. Comment withdrawn.

 

[createdtoworship]

You are the rudest user here.

Yes I know. I am taking a break too. So thats why I said it. Sometimes it's good to just take a break instead of exploding on people. I hope I have not done this, but this has happened alot to me, nearly every day for months. So it does get to you slightly. I can only do so much good, without being refilled myself. The bible says, we leak. Meaning we leak the holy spirit slowly while we encounter the world in all it's worldliness. So sometimes you need refueling. So yes I am projecting, but I also note that people are losing their temper and it's not just me.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You are the rudest user here.

Seconded.

I hope that I never get to the point where my pride prevents me from accepting something that multiple people are pointing out...

 

[createdtoworship]

Seconded.

I hope that I never get to the point where my pride prevents me from accepting something that multiple people are pointing out...

bandwagon fallacy

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

bandwagon fallacy

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you don't even have a grasp of when logical fallacies apply, let alone what any of them mean.

 

[createdtoworship]

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you don't even have a grasp of when logical fallacies apply, let alone what any of them mean.

Ad hominem

 

[createdtoworship]

So anyway, this is the conclusion. There appears to be no evidence for a natural cause of sacrificial love. My premise is still possible, logical, and not self refuted ( like the alleged evidences of natural causes of sacrificial love.) Therefore, because there appears to be no evidence of natural causes of sacrificial love and because a logical option is that God created love in mankind. We can, in conclusion use this as an evidence for God. If you wish to modify this let me know, but that is a summary of this thread so far. Minus all the attacking and belittling which is approximately half of the thread.

 

[Moral Orel]

There appears to be no evidence for a natural cause of sacrificial love.

Again, I'm sure you mean "I personally haven't seen any evidence for a natural cause of sacrificial love". Or you can tell me who this evidence doesn't appear to besides yourself, and show evidence for how you know that.

My premise is still possible, logical, and not self refuted ( like the alleged evidences of natural causes of sacrificial love.)

Parsing this sentence would mean that you're claiming: alleged evidences of natural causes of sacrificial love are self refuted. Show evidence for that. I don't know how you could... If the evidences are only "alleged" and haven't actually manifested, how did you evaluate them to be "self refuting"? But feel free to give it a whirl!

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"? Usually it's theists who like to throw that one out when folks claim that there's no evidence of God. So it's weird when theists claim that something else isn't true because they personally haven't seen evidence for it. Now, I'm not saying there isn't evidence for a natural origin of love, I'm just saying that if no one shows you evidence in this thread, that doesn't mean it's impossible.

For example, I'm going to make a claim just to prove a point. My shirt is black. I won't present any evidence of that, though. No pictures, no videos, no video chat. Is it impossible for my shirt to be black? Is it even unlikely that my shirt is black? You just don't know. My lack of presented evidence has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not my shirt is in fact black. It is totally fair to withhold belief in my claim since I haven't given any evidence, feel free to do that. But you can't make a counterclaim that I must be lying about the color of my shirt simply because I didn't provide any evidence for it.

Claiming that you know ~X is true because you haven't personally seen evidence that X is true (which means you just don't know if X is true) is an Argument from Ignorance. Telling us that if we don't provide evidence that X is true, then you have proven Y is true is Shifting the Burden of Proof. That is how you cite logical fallacies correctly.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

bandwagon fallacy

A. That wasn’t an argument, which means applying a logical fallacy to it is nonsensical.

B. You’ve been told several times that you don’t have a good grasp on logical fallacies, yet you don’t take any measures to correct that.

C. You’re responding to a post dealing with pride with what seems to be more prideful actions.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So anyway, this is the conclusion. There appears to be no evidence for a natural cause of sacrificial love. My premise is still possible, logical, and not self refuted ( like the alleged evidences of natural causes of sacrificial love.) Therefore, because there appears to be no evidence of natural causes of sacrificial love and because a logical option is that God created love in mankind. We can, in conclusion use this as an evidence for God. If you wish to modify this let me know, but that is a summary of this thread so far. Minus all the attacking and belittling which is approximately half of the thread.

Here’s my summary:

You’ve presented a faulty argument. We’ve pointed out these faults. You either don’t seem to understand what we’re saying regarding those faults, or your something is preventing you from admitting it. You then claim to have won the debate, in the same way someone claims to have won a board game after they flip over the table.

But don’t take my word for it. Take a poll to see how other people think you’re doing. I’ve given you this suggestion many times and you’ve yet to do it. It seems like the person who is sure of themselves would jump at the chance...

 

[createdtoworship]

A. That wasn’t an argument, which means applying a logical fallacy to it is nonsensical.

yes I understand that you think that fallacy only applies when making an argument. Sort of like, "it's only wrong if someone sees me do it." But I have posted many times how this logic does not work but I will try once again to post why fallacy can happen any time we make a statement, not simply when making an argument. Here is the line of thought: is flaming someone wrong even when not making statements? Lets go even further, is flaming illogical in debate? Is it an honest tactic? Even when not making arguments? If you agree it's making logical errors, then me exposing logical errors is actually the more moral stance to take. I disagree that an argument needs to be present for their to be fallacies, I believe that all that is required is a statement, either positive or negative. So in this case simply replying to a comment, granted it is a statement, can be fallacious. Now at this point you may find some blog somewhere that states you need to have an argument but those are almost always skeptic blogs, and these skeptics wish to get away with their mockery of religion, but it doesn't work and I will prove why in a minute. Premises are not needed to have a fallacy, as you can commit a fallacy of begging the question when you offer no premises, a fallacy of assuming your conclusion without evidence. Since you don't need premises to commit that fallacy, you don't need an argument either. So thus all that is needed is either a negative or positive statement.

B. You’ve been told several times that you don’t have a good grasp on logical fallacies, yet you don’t take any measures to correct that.

bandwagon fallacy. Again sir, you seem to think because the majority believe something that it is inherently true. If I made a mistake the logical thing to do is use reason and correct it, like I do. Simply stating it wrong, even repeating it over and over and over is subtle form of begging the question. Your premise assumes your conclusion true without offering facts of the matter. So again, if I say something out of line, use logic and correct it. But I tend to think it easier for a skeptic to cop an attitude and mock, rather than simply using logic. But that does not make it right to do.

C. You’re responding to a post dealing with pride with what seems to be more prideful actions.

confidence is not the same as pride, and I have mentioned that many times in this thread too. Pride means that I personally think I am better than other people, and I don't. I feel people make mistakes because they lack knowledge of how bad it hurts them to make these mistakes. But the only person I think I am better than is myself (before I was christian).

 

[createdtoworship]

Here’s my summary:

You’ve presented a faulty argument. We’ve pointed out these faults. You either don’t seem to understand what we’re saying regarding those faults, or your something is preventing you from admitting it. You then claim to have won the debate, in the same way someone claims to have won a board game after they flip over the table.

But don’t take my word for it. Take a poll to see how other people think you’re doing. I’ve given you this suggestion many times and you’ve yet to do it. It seems like the person who is sure of themselves would jump at the chance...

I figured you would respond this way. Again please read my other post. I am posting this summary in order to reawaken the debate. I don't wish to fight. If you logically think I made an error, then make your case. I firmly believe that you have convinced yourself you are correct, and I am wrong. But you have not verbalized that for a typical reader to know what you are talking about, all they see is someone trying to fight, not someone wanting to have a logical debate. So if you wish to convince someone else that you are correct, other than a typical atheist, or skeptic, and if you wish to be convincing to a theist, then you must make logical statements. Mocking is not a logical statement.

 

[gaara4158]

bandwagon fallacy

Fallacy fallacy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Fallacy fallacy.

That's one we're gonna hafta re-use. Both because it's good and because it is necessary.

 

[gaara4158]

That's one we're gonna hafta re-use. Both because it's good and because it is necessary.

I don’t think he realizes it’s real.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don’t think he realizes it’s real.

mocking is the tool of choice for the athiest. So by all means go ahead, this is better than some of the others. I think it's actually funny. Partly because of the fact that no one can prove that my fallacies are fallacies, but it feels good to call them that, and quite humerous.