Are all Baptists Calvinists?

[Hammster]

Nice try, but your allegation is false.

Not only is it not false, others have chimed in to support the allegation. Are you calling us liars?

 

[Hammster]

John 6:65
Then Jesus said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him."

Did the jailer have some ability that Jesus wasn't aware of?

That's some sort of fallacy. Can't wait to find out what it is.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That's some sort of fallacy. Can't wait to find out what it is.

Actually, he keeps committing this fallacy: Non Causa Pro Causa

 

[OzSpen]

It's happened to me, as well. In my short life, I have found that those who are quick to say "fallacy" without any further explanation or comment are not very interested in having an actual discussion. They can't argue against something with any kind of substance, so they throw "fallacy" darts in hopes to distract.

With respect, Taylor, I provided you with a link to the type of fallacy used. I presumed you could read, click on the URL, and then determine the nature of this fallacy.

The situation is the other way round to what you stated. The ones who divert from the actual discussion are the ones who use logical fallacies, not the ones who show the fallacies used.

Fallacious reasoning does not lead to reasonable discussions.

Those who use logical fallacies are the ones who use 'darts' to distract.

What you have stated in your post here is a straw man fallacy of what I did in identifying a fallacy. You misrepresented what I did in identifying a logical fallacy committed by Hammster. That's what a straw man fallacy is. It gives a false assessment of what I stated.

I suggest you learn the real dangers done to discussions, including on CF.com, when people use logical fallacies. Based on what you've stated here, you don't seem to understand the serious ramifications done to discussion and debate when logical fallacies are used.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

Actually, he keeps committing this fallacy: Non Causa Pro Causa

Amazing the lengths people go to when their theology gets cornered.

 

[OzSpen]

Not only is it not false, others have chimed in to support the allegation. Are you calling us liars?

'Others have chimed in'. No brother. One other person chimed in, TaylorSexton. So you have not only used the figure of speech of hyperbole but you have committed the fallacy of 'Appeal to Popularity'.

If 'others' (which turns out to be one other) agree with you, does not make your point correct?

This is your 'Appeal to Popularity' reasoning: You have used the support or popularity of 'others' to provide evidence of the truthfulness of your claim.

The reasoning goes like this:

• 'Others' are agreeing with me;
• Therefore, what I'm saying must be the correct understanding.

That is erroneous reasoning because the popularity of a view is not related to its truthfulness. You need to supply evidence and not promote a fallacy.

As the link above states, 'Avoid this fallacy like you avoid a kiss from your great aunt with the big cold sore on her lip'.

In addition, you can't count. Up to this point of the discussion 'others' = 1.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Amazing the lengths people go to when their theology gets cornered.

Another red herring, Hammster. I've debated you for many years on this topic and we go round and round. My theology has not been cornered. I've told you many times what my understanding of soteriology is.

Now you dare to make another false accusation.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

'Others have chimed in'. No brother. One other person chimed in, TaylorSexton. So you have not only used the figure of speech of hyperbole but you have committed the fallacy of 'Appeal to Popularity'.

If 'others' (which turns out to be one other) agree with you, does not make your point correct?

This is your 'Appeal to Popularity' reasoning: You have used the support or popularity of 'others' to provide evidence of the truthfulness of your claim.

The reasoning goes like this:

• 'Others' are agreeing with me;
• Therefore, what I'm saying must be the correct understanding.

That is erroneous reasoning because the popularity of a view is not related to its truthfulness. You need to supply evidence and not promote a fallacy.

As the link above states, 'Avoid this fallacy like you avoid a kiss from your great aunt with the big cold sore on her lip'.

In addition, you can't count. Up to this point of the discussion 'others' = 1.

Oz

Your posts are rather tedious.

We don't want to be committing flagrant logical fallacies; however, in this type of forum, to be so stringent just stifles conversation, and frankly, can be used as a ploy when one doesn't have an argument, which, after reading the exchange, appears to be the case here.

 

[Hammster]

Another red herring, Hammster. I've debated you for many years on this topic and we go round and round. My theology has not been cornered. I've told you many times what my understanding of soteriology is.

Now you dare to make another false accusation.

Since you refuse to address the challenges to your view that show it to be greatly lacking, what's left to do?

 

[Hammster]

Your posts are rather tedious.

We don't want to be committing flagrant logical fallacies; however, in this type of forum, to be so stringent just stifles conversation, and frankly, can be used as a ploy when one doesn't have an argument.

#win

 

[OzSpen]

#win

 

[Hammster]

View attachment 200688

Thanks for the affirmation.

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks for the affirmation.

False again.

Red herring fallacy.

 

[Hammster]

False again.

Red herring fallacy.

View attachment 200689

No, you have affirmed that you would rather try to insult and belittle others than defend your theology against honest questions.

 

[OzSpen]

No, you have affirmed that you would rather try to insult and belittle others than defend your theology against honest questions.

 

[Hammster]

When 10% of a person's posts are them calling "fallacy", I think it's obvious where the issue is.

 

[TaylorSexton]

With respect, Taylor, I provided you with a link to the type of fallacy used. I presumed you could read, click on the URL, and then determine the nature of this fallacy.

The situation is the other way round to what you stated. The ones who divert from the actual discussion are the ones who use logical fallacies, not the ones who show the fallacies used.

Fallacious reasoning does not lead to reasonable discussions.

Those who use logical fallacies are the ones who use 'darts' to distract.

What you have stated in your post here is a straw man fallacy of what I did in identifying a fallacy. You misrepresented what I did in identifying a logical fallacy committed by Hammster. That's what a straw man fallacy is. It gives a false assessment of what I stated.

I suggest you learn the real dangers done to discussions, including on CF.com, when people use logical fallacies. Based on what you've stated here, you don't seem to understand the serious ramifications done to discussion and debate when logical fallacies are used.

Oz

Exhibit A

 

[TaylorSexton]

I would also like to point out that there is something popularly called the "fallacy fallacy" (argumentum ad logicam) and it means two things. First, it means that just because someone calls something fallacious doesn't actually make it so. Second, it means that just because someone's argument contains a fallacy does not mean their conclusion(s) is/are untrue; it just means that the conclusion based upon the given argument is invalid. There are many invalid conclusions that are entirely true. Invalidity has no bearing whatsoever upon the truth of a conclusion. Otherwise, we all had better stop being Christians. I can't think of a single syllogism that leads to God as a valid conclusion without committing some kind of fallacy.

Either way, OzSpen, it is rather apparent (at least to me) that you aren't very interested in meaningful discussion. Your obsession with pointing out fallacies without any kind of demonstration (offering a link to another site is not demonstrating where the fallacies lie, by the way) is, frankly, very obnoxious. And, it indeed seems to me that you are using fallacies to distract from any kind of meaningful discussion; you just like getting on people's nerves because you know that if you can just get on someone's nerves, you won't have to actually engage anyone. I could be completely wrong, and I truly hope I am, but that is precisely how it seems to me (and I am positive I am not alone). That you have resorted to responding by posting only images of scarecrows and fish is, in my opinion, strong evidence for this. You therefore do not make it easy for me to believe otherwise, even though I want to. I can only believe about you what you present to me. Therefore, if you wish for me to believe differently, I would suggest showing me something different.

I am not asking you to change your beliefs; I am merely asking, as a Christian brother, that you engage, which is absolutely not what you're doing right now.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

View attachment 200688

a) Your post is goading, which is in violation of CF rules.

b) It's childish.

 

[OzSpen]

I would also like to point out that there is something popularly called the "fallacy fallacy" (argumentum ad logicam) and it means two things. First, it means that just because someone calls something fallacious doesn't actually make it so. Second, it means that just because someone's argument contains a fallacy does not mean their conclusion(s) is/are untrue; it just means that the conclusion based upon the given argument is invalid. There are many invalid conclusions that are entirely true. Invalidity has no bearing whatsoever upon the truth of a conclusion. Otherwise, we all had better stop being Christians. I can't think of a single syllogism that leads to God as a valid conclusion without committing some kind of fallacy.

Either way, OzSpen, it is rather apparent (at least to me) that you aren't very interested in meaningful discussion. Your obsession with pointing out fallacies without any kind of demonstration (offering a link to another site is not demonstrating where the fallacies lie, by the way) is, frankly, very obnoxious. And, it indeed seems to me that you are using fallacies to distract from any kind of meaningful discussion; you just like getting on people's nerves because you know that if you can just get on someone's nerves, you won't have to actually engage anyone. I could be completely wrong, and I truly hope I am, but that is precisely how it seems to me (and I am positive I am not alone). That you have resorted to responding by posting only images of scarecrows and fish is, in my opinion, strong evidence for this. You therefore do not make it easy for me to believe otherwise, even though I want to. I can only believe about you what you present to me. Therefore, if you wish for me to believe differently, I would suggest showing me something different.

I am not asking you to change your beliefs; I am merely asking, as a Christian brother, that you engage, which is absolutely not what you're doing right now.

Argument from Fallacy
argumentum ad logicam
(also known as: disproof by fallacy, argument to logic, fallacy fallacy, fallacist's fallacy, bad reasons fallacy [form of])

Description: Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy.

Logical Form:
Argument X is fallacious.
Therefore, the conclusion or truth claim of argument X is false.

Example #1:
Ivan: You cannot borrow my car because it turns back into a pumpkin at midnight.
Sidney: If you really think that, you’re an idiot.
Ivan: That is an ad hominem; therefore, I can’t be an idiot.
Sidney: I beg to differ.
​

Taylor,

Of me you state, 'it is rather apparent (at least to me) that you aren't very interested in meaningful discussion'.

You have been here since Jan 2014 and have made 983 posts. I've been here for 12 years and have made 10,500 posts. I've engaged in meaningful conversation many times over.

You don't seem to be able to tolerate it when your logical fallacy is exposed. Why can't you own up to it?

Oz