Failed arguments

[variant]

My conjecture is supported by everybody: even by you: deep inside we all know it.

So, your argument is that I already agree with you despite me thinking otherwise?

I am not entirely sure which logical fallacy you are comitting there but it's a wopper.

Regardless, you're argument is so terrible that it hardly requires a responce. I have no reason to give you further debate.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I am sorry for your lost, since I'm right & you're wrong, & you know it.

 

[variant]

I am sorry for your lost, since I'm right & you're wrong, & you know it.

Congratulations, you're obnoxious.

 

[quatona]

So, your argument is that I already agree with you despite me thinking otherwise?

I am not entirely sure which logical fallacy you are comitting there but it's a wopper.

There is no logical fallacy in it because it doesn´t even pretend to use logic.

 

[Non sequitur]

My conjecture is supported by everybody: even by you: deep inside we all know it.

Let me try and show you how this doesn't work/is annoying...

Deep inside, you know it's a lie. If you really were open with yourself, you could admit that. The fact that you posit it, proves its non-existence.

We will get nowhere and nothing will ever come of this kind of drivel.

 

[Non sequitur]

I will say it one more time, you are presenting a question of epistimology, not ontology, therefore presenting me with a red herring. But do you not see the fault in your own question? If a subjective truth mirrors that of an objective truth than the subjective believes in the objective because it is objective. However this is as far as I am taking this as I will not take part in fallacy unless a product of my own ignorance and in this case I am not ignorant to the fallacy being presented. You know the difference between objective and subjective? Shall we carry on?

Yes I know the difference, but when you add "moral" to it, it completely changes things.

Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

How is "goodness" and "badness" not subjective?

When you say, "If a subjective truth mirrors that of an objective truth than the subjective believes in the objective because it is objective", you are making a subjective claim that are such things as "objective morals", not just "morals".

You can't just throw "objective" onto something and not be expected to explain how that new concept/thing you created can possibly be a valid something...

You just want to plow on through, and I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[acropolis]

Pascal's Wager is pretty terrible argumentation since it doesn't point to any single god or set of gods. If you're worried about going to hell you're in trouble since there are so many different hells to worry about. Believing in one god will send you to thousands of different hells, potentially, so Pascal's Wager doesn't get you anywhere.

 

[sandwiches]

I thought I heard recently that it is accepted that the problem of evil doesn't necessarily mean there is no God. Still the problem of suffering does have emotional power, perhaps making Gods existences seem less likely.Also I doubt that many educated in a similar subject would accept pascals wager.

No argument can "disprove" or falsify all gods. However, those arguments and many more can and have shown specific definitions of "god" to be absurd or falsified.

 

[sandwiches]

Congratulations, you're obnoxious.

You still reply to him? I started treating him like Greg or the long-gone AoS, a while back. I think he actually thinks his little one-liners are very profound and disarming.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Deep inside, you know it's a lie. If you really were open with yourself, you could admit that. The fact that you posit it, proves its non-existence.

True. Exactly. You're so right. I agree. Deep inside we all know evolution is a lie. So true.

 

[Non sequitur]

True. Exactly. You're so right. I agree. Deep inside we all know evolution is a lie. So true.

I was talking about deities.

 

[variant]

You still reply to him? I started treating him like Greg or the long-gone AoS, a while back. I think he actually thinks his little one-liners are very profound and disarming.

That was my last one.

I guess I wasn’t up to speed on whom I was speaking to, and how they lacked any of the maturity or intellectual honesty required for reasoned debate.

Benefit of the doubt untill proven otherwise.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I was talking about deities.

However, deep inside we question who we are & where we came from.

 

[Non sequitur]

However, deep inside we question who we are & where we came from.

We do. And deep down, if you really look inside, you know there are no deities.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, your argument is that I already agree with you despite me thinking otherwise?

I am not entirely sure which logical fallacy you are comitting there but it's a wopper.

I think in the field it's technically known as making sh!t up. Let me know if you need a layman's explanation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Cosmic fingerprints and mindless believers, can the two go together?

 

[secondtimearound]

Yes I know the difference, but when you add "moral" to it, it completely changes things.

Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

How is "goodness" and "badness" not subjective?

When you say, "If a subjective truth mirrors that of an objective truth than the subjective believes in the objective because it is objective", you are making a subjective claim that are such things as "objective morals", not just "morals".

You can't just throw "objective" onto something and not be expected to explain how that new concept/thing you created can possibly be a valid something...

You just want to plow on through, and I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Let me get this straight, you said this:


Ah, yes. The objective morals/moral authority. Those don't exist, so there's that...


And you want me to lay out for you what they are, when in that very post you claimed knowledge of exactly what I was talking about? This is you making me jump through hoops. You said they don't exist and when pressed further you never addressed your reasons for making a claim that objective morals do not exist. I'm not your puppet homeboy. You can go waste someone else's time. You know exactly what I am talking about, you just got on a slippery slope and are scared to take the next step. I would have forgiven your claim that they did not exist and continued on with the debate, however I cannot forgive you playing silly games.

 

[Faithful Skeptic]

We do. And deep down, if you really look inside, you know there are no deities.

You do realize that is pretty close to the bad and presumably satirical argument--the "Hey atheists one"--that you have in your signature, right?

 

[KCfromNC]

You do realize that is pretty close to the bad and presumably satirical argument--the "Hey atheists one"--that you have in your signature, right?

That's good, because it was intended as a satire of the post it quoted if I'm reading it correctly. Mission accomplished, I guess (and yet another confirmation of Poe's Law, in a way).

 

[Non sequitur]

You do realize that is pretty close to the bad and presumably satirical argument--the "Hey atheists one"--that you have in your signature, right?

I guess you haven't been following along.,,

JoeyA has been parroting this garbage to refute all arguments, as a last resort.

I was just trying to give it a spin and see how this, "But I really know...", worked.


(Not) oddly, it's been refuted with the exact same type of response, so I'm not sure if the point has been lost on him or he's now too committed to do anything about it