Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Another.
Ad hominem attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.
I think that is 14 different fallacies you have openly committed recently in this conversation.
I think fourteen is pretty impressive for one conversation. The whole conversation itself is a red herring since it has nothing to do with the original subject, but was moved to an area that you were more comfortable defending with the prove-it game.Only fourteen? What else is there? I'm sure you can squeeze in 15.
I think fourteen is pretty impressive for one conversation. The whole conversation itself is a red herring since it has nothing to do with the original subject, but was moved to an area that you were more comfortable defending with the prove-it game.
If you wanted to see all the fallacies you have in your thinking, we could look at the logic of your actual position, if you felt like providing it for examination. Instead of the "I don't have a position" schtick.
Surprising. Usually when you point out someone is committing a fallacy they usually recognize it right away and correct the behavior.I know, of course it would be considerably less if you understood what you were talking about.
Still with that hating God stuff? What a ridiculous assumption of Christians you have.I'm sure it would be amusing to lend your particular brand of "logic" to this, I've already told you my position, more times than I've been counting. But an atheist who doesn't hate God just doesn't fit into your worldview, does it?
Anyway, if you actually want to discuss how rational God is, without taking personal shots at me, I'm still here. However, you've made it clear that you have no interest in that.
Surprising. Usually when you point out someone is committing a fallacy they usually recognize it right away and correct the behavior.
Still with that hating God stuff? What a ridiculous assumption of Christians you have.
Asking you to put your logic forward isn't a personal shot anymore then pointing at the fallacies you are committing after you asked me to. If you can put any logic forward then do so, if you can't then be able to admit it instead of playing victim.
It doesn't matter if you disclose your position or not. I'm sorry that you have seen other atheists play this game and thought it would be fun to play as well but it isn't rational, nor is it productive. I'm not making a claim. I'm defending the theist position in a debate that is thousands of years old, and you are defending the materialist's position. You are just choosing to defend it by acting like you don't have to defend it because you are uninformed about your position.Again, it would help immensely if you understood how those fallacies work, and what they mean. Particularly shifting the burden of proof.
Because you have a bias towards it. It doesn't matter if you understand the subject any more than someone who votes republican understands what their platform is about.So, why do you continue to claim that I have an opinion other than the one I have put forth? Besides, that's what the True Christians(tm) preach about atheists.
You are the one who claims to be good at logic, not me. I promise whatever you put forward I will have to Google. But that is of course if we are going with the story that you can put your position forward logically, or that you don't have a position because you don't understand it fully?That's not what I meant, actually. I'm actually waiting for you to put forth some sort of logic.
It doesn't matter if you disclose your position or not.
I'm sorry that you have seen other atheists play this game and thought it would be fun to play as well but it isn't rational, nor is it productive.
I'm not making a claim. I'm defending the theist position in a debate that is thousands of years old, and you are defending the materialist's position.
You are just choosing to defend it by acting like you don't have to defend it because you are uninformed about your position.
Because you have a bias towards it. It doesn't matter if you understand the subject any more than someone who votes republican understands what their platform is about.
You are the one who claims to be good at logic, not me. I promise whatever you put forward I will have to Google.
But that is of course if we are going with the story that you can put your position forward logically, or that you don't have a position because you don't understand it fully?
It is an either or deal. Either the universe is wholly material or the universe is not wholly material.Why do you assume that I'm a materialist?
Nobody knows. The question is can you support your opinion you have a bias towards reasonably? Or are you going look for excuses not to put your position forward, and then have the audacity to ask for impossible evidence, so that it looks like your side has validity? You may not know that you are supporting materialism, but regardless you are still supporting the materialist position by asking for evidence that can only support a materialist worldview.My position is fairly simple: I don't know. You just refuse to accept that.
No it is not meant to be an excuse. I am just saying that it could very well answer your question about why Christians often don't behave in the manner Jesus prescribed. I'm surprised you think I support Ronald's action.So, there's an excuse?
Do you think I need to apologise for something I've said?Maybe, but that's equally true for me. I still don't have to take personal shots at people.
No I cannot condemn God just because He has chosen not to save you yet, just as I can't condemn you for not having loved Him yet. You each obviously have a different plan, yet I do have opinions and I do think your opinion of Christianity is flawed. That's why I take an interest in you.Then you should all spend your time getting angry and condemning your God, not me.
It sounds unlikely that I would have called you the antichrist, it must have been your misunderstanding.I believe I said that I have to consider that you may be deluding yourself. I also believed you called me the antichrist. So, let's call it even.
Interesting choice of words. Don't you think though that for someone to go from hating Christianity to calling himself Christian literally in one moment, there must have been some pretty substantial disclosure of information?Because your experience is your experience, not mine. I can only experience my experience. Yours might be wrong, you may use selective reasoning, selective observation. You may be deluding yourself, or suffer from some undiagnosed mental illness for all I know. Furthermore, why should I believe that your experience is more valid than that of a Hindu man whose subjective testimony is completely different from yours? In the end, your experience is subjective, and neither of us can confirm it.
It is an either or deal. Either the universe is wholly material or the universe is not wholly material.
Nobody knows.
The question is can you support your opinion you have a bias towards reasonably?
Or are you going look for excuses not to put your position forward, and then have the audacity to ask for impossible evidence, so that it looks like your side has validity?
You may not know that you are supporting materialism, but regardless you are still supporting the materialist position by asking for evidence that can only support a materialist worldview.
No it is not meant to be an excuse. I am just saying that it could very well answer your question about why Christians often don't behave in the manner Jesus prescribed. I'm surprised you think I support Ronald's action.
Do you think I need to apologise for something I've said?
No I cannot condemn God just because He has chosen not to save you yet, just as I can't condemn you for not having loved Him yet. You each obviously have a different plan, yet I do have opinions and I do think your opinion of Christianity is flawed. That's why I take an interest in you.
It sounds unlikely that I would have called you the antichrist, it must have been your misunderstanding.
Interesting choice of words. Don't you think though that for someone to go from hating Christianity to calling himself Christian literally in one moment, there must have been some pretty substantial disclosure of information?
Yes, you are questioning the argument I have presented but you haven't put forward any rational or logical objections. Just repeatedly committing fallacies by asking for evidence you know isn't possible available and acting like that is somehow making a point.I'm questioning the argument you have presented. I will point out yet again. Just because your argument is poor: that in itself does not strengthen the counter argument. That counter argument has to be assessed on its own merit.
Yes, you are questioning the argument I have presented but you haven't put forward any rational or logical objections. Just repeatedly committing fallacies by asking for evidence you know isn't possible available and acting like that is somehow making a point.
Naa, that part of the conversation is over. If you need to go back and reread, then do so. The question is do you have any rational objections to the theist position, or do you have a bunch of questions that attempt to prove your previously held worldview, that this is beyond out ability to understand?Okay, so explain to me what logos is, how we know what it does, and how we know it exists.
Explain to me what spirit actually is, what it does, how we know that it is unchanging, and how we know that it exists. Your logic on is far from sound so far. It needs some major cleanup and lots of explanation.
Explain to me how God can be unchanging and yet have knowledge of a universe that changes? Explain how we know that God is unchanging. Simply explaining that Plato claimed is not explanation, but just forwarding someone else's claim. Explain how we know that it exists.
I will further challenge that my theory of "William Shatner did it" is currently more rational, and has more evidence in its favour than yours:
No, I said his statement was correct but you were right that he should have been more patient. There is a subtle but important difference. I think Ronald needs to reflect upon his contribution to your attitude.Didn't you?
Certainly some Christians do, and probably only sometimes. How about the founders of Christianity, do you think that is a fair statement to make about them?No, my point is that it's what Christians do.
That is because you refuse to exercise discretion.Not a day goes by, just on CF, where that opinion is not reinforced.
Perhaps, but I've let it go.
You do know what that information was because I told you right upfront when our relationship commenced: http://www.christianforums.com/t7513189/#post56110954. Burning in hell was definitely a topic of interest, but not in the manner you describe.Perhaps, but I am unaware of what you're discussing, or what information was disclosed, so I'm not prepared to weigh in. Afterall, for all I know that information was "You'll burn in hell" as it so often is.
Naa, that part of the conversation is over. If you need to go back and reread, then do so. The question is do you have any rational objections to the theist position, or do you have a bunch of questions that attempt to prove your previously held worldview, that this is beyond out ability to understand?
I don't need you to ask me more questions, I need you to be able to articulate a rational objection to the theist position. You are trying to do two things with acting like you have a rational objection to the position and also that you don't understand the position.
Which is it? Do you think that Shatner did it is more rational because you understand the subject, or is that just meant as humor, because you truthful don't know if the theist position is rational or not, because you don't have any understanding of it?
No, I said his statement was correct but you were right that he should have been more patient. There is a subtle but important difference. I think Ronald needs to reflect upon his contribution to your attitude.
Certainly some Christians do, and probably only sometimes. How about the founders of Christianity, do you think that is a fair statement to make about them?
That is because you refuse to exercise discretion.
Glad to hear it. I'd like to know where that seed was sown, could you spend a few minutes to do a an advanced site search with my username looking for that keyword?
You do know what that information was because I told you right upfront when our relationship commenced: http://www.christianforums.com/t7513189/#post56110954. Burning in hell was definitely a topic of interest, but not in the manner you describe.
So you have no rational objection to the theist position then? Nobody over here is claiming knowledge about this, we are only looking to see if your skepticism is warranted with any type of reason at all.Again, you misunderstand what I'm saying, and you yourself said so earlier: Nobody knows. It's not simply that I don't know, it's that none of us do. Those that think they do, have simply made conclusions without figuring out how they got there. I just accept that I/we don't know.
There is no point discussing a theory you already realize is far from rational. It is only going to serve as an example that a theory that rests on empirical evidence isn't necessarily rational, which is the premise you are trying to suppose with your request of empirical evidence for God.No, "Shatner-did-it" is more rational because we have physical evidence of William Shatner. We all agree that William Shatner exists. We know that we didn't invent William Shatner, or dream him up, or imagine him. And if I bring a picture (or better yet Bill himself) to a Star Trek convention, I can get hundreds of people to independently verify who or what they're looking at. We can talk to Shatner, we can watch his movies and television shows, or interviews. That's more than we can say for logos, or spirit, or even this unchanging God, none of which we can identify at all. I'm not saying that this "Shatner-did-it" theory is rational. Far from it. But it's closer to it than what you've put forth because we can actually confirm some aspect of this theory.
So you have no rational objection to the theist position then? Nobody over here is claiming knowledge about this, we are only looking to see if your skepticism is warranted with any type of reason at all.
There is no point discussing a theory you already realize is far from rational. It is only going to serve as an example that a theory that rests on empirical evidence isn't necessarily rational, which is the premise you are trying to suppose with your request of empirical evidence for God.
Again, you have put forward no rational objection to the theist position.
Yeah, that is why the whole emphasis on faith in Christianity, because knowledge is known to be impossible. Because it is known to be impossible, it isn't considered to be a reason for skepticism when it isn't achieved.You're not claiming knowledge, therefore you don't know. I specifically say that I don't know. That seems to be just about the best case scenario for skepticism.
We just never saw the evidence behind that belief of yours.No, I never said that empirical evidence necessarily made a rational argument, I said that a rational argument would eventually require some empirical evidence. However, I should point out again that it's still more rational than yours.
Cool. I was under the impression that you had an actual objection to the position. My bad.The theist position has not presented any evidence to object to. I just don't believe in it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?