The Moral Argument (revamped)

[gaara4158]

Mocking is the tool of choice for the athiest. So by all meas go ahead, this is better than some of the others.

So when you do it it’s stoic logical analysis, but when we do it it’s mocking. Got it.

 

[gaara4158]

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.

Don’t like being mocked? Stop saying ridiculous things.

 

[createdtoworship]

So when you do it it’s stoic logical analysis, but when we do it it’s mocking. Got it.

At least you are admitting to doing it. conquering an addiction always starts with admitting there is a problem.

 

[createdtoworship]

Don’t like being mocked? Stop saying ridiculous things.

Yes I know already, everything other than "we evolved from a rock" and "the universe can poof itself out of thin air" is all so intellectually stimulating, that my views are ridiculous. Saying things like "the universe has intelligent design", and "God caused the big bang" are so very foolish compared to athiesm. Sure.

 

[gaara4158]

At least you are admitting to doing it. conquering an addiction always starts with admitting there is a problem.

Admitting to what, replying with the name of a logical fallacy and nothing more? Lol, that’s not my addiction, that’s yours.

Yes I know already, everything other than "we evolved from a rock" and "the universe can poof itself out of thin air" is all so intellectually stimulating, that my views are ridiculous. Saying things like "the universe has intelligent design", and "God caused the big bang" are so very foolish compared to athiesm. Sure.

Absolute drivel. I’m not here making threads about how I’ve deduced a particular cause for the existence of the universe, you are. You need to take a break.

 

[createdtoworship]

Admitting to what, replying with the name of a logical fallacy and nothing more? Lol, that’s not my addiction, that’s yours.


Absolute drivel. I’m not here making threads about how I’ve deduced a particular cause for the existence of the universe, you are. You need to take a break.

Don't get emotional, just debate without attacking. I know it's a foreign concept.

 

[gaara4158]

Don't get emotional, just debate without attacking. I know it's a foreign concept.

You’re the most emotional, aggressive user here.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You are the rudest user here.

I thought I was. Have I been dethroned?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

yes I understand that you think that fallacy only applies when making an argument.

Because it’s literally the definition of a logical fallacy.

Sort of like, "it's only wrong if someone sees me do it."

No, it’s nothing like that at all...

You know, I had started responding to the rest of your post, but I was making corrections to every single sentence. It was exhausting.

I’ll leave you with this. Atheists and Christians alike disagree with the way you present what you call arguments. I’m not sure anyone is taking you seriously at this point. You will dismiss this of course.

If you truly want to prove to me that you know what your talking about, find people who agree with you. Take a poll to see how you’re doing.

I have a feeling you won’t. And that wouldn’t be a sign of confidence, it’s a sign that deep down you think you might be wrong, but pride prevents you from admitting it.

 

[gaara4158]

I thought I was. Have I been dethroned?

I had thought I was, too. We’ve both been outdone.

 

[createdtoworship]

You’re the most emotional, aggressive user here.

Sir here again you are adressing the poster, not the post.

that is against forum rules.
I can quote if you wish.

and I will as well avoid it,

my frustration is mainly defensive.

if you stop attacking most likely all attacking stops.

 

[createdtoworship]

Because it’s literally the definition of a logical fallacy.



No, it’s nothing like that at all...

You know, I had started responding to the rest of your post, but I was making corrections to every single sentence. It was exhausting.

I’ll leave you with this. Atheists and Christians alike disagree with the way you present what you call arguments. I’m not sure anyone is taking you seriously at this point. You will dismiss this of course.

If you truly want to prove to me that you know what your talking about, find people who agree with you. Take a poll to see how you’re doing.

I have a feeling you won’t. And that wouldn’t be a sign of confidence, it’s a sign that deep down you think you might be wrong, but pride prevents you from admitting it.

well lets tackle the idea that I can only make a fallacy when I am officiall arguing in a logical debate. Which essentially says, I cannot be illogical when I am not in a debate, which is ridiculous. But lets assume it correct and see how far it gets us.

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.

if you can commit a fallacy of begging the question without making a statement, then I presume you can make others too.

In conclusion, fallacies are not tied to official arguments but to statements, any statement can be logical as well, to imply only arguments can be logical and not statements, has no evidence.

so I hope this clears it up, so please don't use that line of arguing again.

 

[gaara4158]

Sir here again you are adressing the poster, not the post.

that is against forum rules.
I can quote if you wish.

and I will as well avoid it,

my frustration is mainly defensive.

if you stop attacking most likely all attacking stops.

I won’t stop attacking your bad arguments so long as you keep smugly presenting them, and I won’t stop commenting on your terrible attitude so long as you maintain it. Take it however you like, but you have a chance to grow from this.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

well lets tackle the idea that I can only make a fallacy when I am officiall arguing in a logical debate.

Logical Fallacies only apply to arguments.

The phrase “You’re an idiot.” isn’t an argument, hence replying with “ad hom!” would be an incorrect use of language, because the definition of “ad hominem fallacy” is:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

See, the definition specifically refers to it as a fallacy that applies to an argument. It uses the word “argument” more than once.

The sentence “Your argument for the existence of objective morality doesn’t work because you’re an idiot.” is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, because it’s fallaciously saying that an argument doesn’t work because of a reason (a low IQ) not related to the argument itself. It’s entirely possible that someone who has a low IQ could still be right about this particular argument.

So now that I’ve explained what a logical fallacy is as simply as I can, hopefully you’ll start using them correctly.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Nope.

Begging the Question

"Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises."

You need a premise and a conclusion (i.e. an argument) to Beg the Question.

 

[Moral Orel]

Don’t like being mocked? Stop saying ridiculous things.

It's okay to say ridiculous things. Certain folks just need to not be all condescending about how right their wrongness is. If you say something really stupid, but you're humble about it, you get a pass. At least from me. If you say something really stupid, then tell me I'm stupid not to know the false thing you just said is true, then you get warning, after warning, after warning, before I get all petty and childish.

 

[createdtoworship]

I won’t stop attacking your bad arguments so long as you keep smugly presenting them, and I won’t stop commenting on your terrible attitude so long as you maintain it. Take it however you like, but you have a chance to grow from this.

I know you won't stop, I fully expect that from you. But that is not a good thing by the way.

 

[createdtoworship]

Logical Fallacies only apply to arguments.

The phrase “You’re an idiot.” isn’t an argument, hence replying with “ad hom!” would be an incorrect use of language, because the definition of “ad hominem fallacy” is:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

See, the definition specifically refers to it as a fallacy that applies to an argument. It uses the word “argument” more than once.

The sentence “Your argument for the existence of objective morality doesn’t work because you’re an idiot.” is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, because it’s fallaciously saying that an argument doesn’t work because of a reason (a low IQ) not related to the argument itself. It’s entirely possible that someone who has a low IQ could still be right about this particular argument.

So now that I’ve explained what a logical fallacy is as simply as I can, hopefully you’ll start using them correctly.

again I didn't think you could adress my argument, posting non authoritative dictionaries is not good enough:

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.

if you can commit a fallacy of begging the question without making a statement, then I presume you can make others too.

In conclusion, fallacies are not tied to official arguments but to statements, any statement can be logical as well, to imply only arguments can be logical and not statements, has no evidence.

so I hope this clears it up, so please don't use that line of arguing again.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Nope.

Begging the Question

"Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises."

You need a premise and a conclusion (i.e. an argument) to Beg the Question.

 

[gaara4158]

I know you won't stop, I fully expect that from you. But that is not a good thing by the way.

Well, I'd stop if I saw you learning from your mistakes or showing some intellectual humility at least once in a while, but I don't expect that to actually happen. It's actually become a kind of fun exercise untangling the mess of logical fallacies and misapprehensions you routinely present as arguments here, so if you're still getting something out of this too we're still in a win-win.

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.

A conclusion is a statement that follows from premises, so by calling the statement a conclusion you're implying that there was at least one premise. The fallacious part of begging the question isn't in having no evidence, it's in presenting the conclusion as the evidence and then proceeding to the conclusion as a conclusion. It's called question-begging because it begs the question as to where the actual support for the conclusion is. You can make a statement that has no evidence to support it without committing a logical fallacy.

In conclusion, fallacies are not tied to official arguments but to statements, any statement can be logical as well, to imply only arguments can be logical and not statements, has no evidence.

I would like to know where you got this idea, because it is incorrect as I have demonstrated.