That's because, Rosalie, if religious beliefs are not fact but mere opinion, then why should anyone claim any religion at all?
You have so much trouble with the most basic of things...
Religious beliefs are beliefs, not fact. Opinion, belief, and fact, are seperate.
And it's also been established that you are quite jealous of the fact that people find me a likeable person. I got that from avoiding things like ad hominem attacks.
Oh wow, you know the most common debate term that everyone used and people often use because they can't put up a decent argument and relies solely on technicality instead of actual content to defend themselves.
Jealously is irrelevant to your argument, and I don't care how much sugar you put on your argument if it's a stale fish on the inside.
Coming from you, Rosalie? The Queen of Ad Hominem? That's a laugh.
Again, see above. Calling me a clever little name like that is hardly removed from Ad Hominem itself.
Ad Hominen only applies when a particular point relies on a personal attack. Person A makes statement X, Person B attacks A. What I'e been doing, at worst, is Person B attacks X *then* A for the manner in which he proposes X. Since I've been mainly attacking you for logical fallacies, that statement can't be any better than anything I've said.
So it's not Ad Hominem. Any personal attacks I may are
to whatever real points and counterpoints I make, whereas your argument in it's entirety is based on your beliefs. Petitio principii, circular reasoning.
A lot of your argument relies on Argumentum ad populum(see above), and least in the context of this forum.
Also, your complete argument is one big logical fallacy.
Ignore the URL, if it bothers you that much I'll find you a less "Biased" site since they all say about the same;
That page will tell you why most of your argument is wrong. And if you so much as claim it's "against religion", I'm flying to where you live and smashing in your windows
It's for Islam, but you're making the exact same mistakes. Your argument is completely circular. I believe therefore my beliefs are my right. My opinion is right because my other opinion proves it.
Actually, did you know that Conservatism itself is technically a logical fallacy? Argumentum ad antiquitatem?
None of which has anything to do with the discussion at hand. If you feel spamming my inbox is okay, go right ahead. I’ll just forward it all to a friendly neighborhood admin and let him determine whether it’s right or wrong.
Argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to authority.
Do you honestly want me to end up listing out this ENTIRE list of logical fallacies, or are you going to start actually arguing soon?
It's plenty to do with the discussion at hand. Basically, you're only sayin what you're doing is right because you believe it's right, and you can get away with it? Arguing by authority doesn't work either. You don't know whether the "authority" of the friendly neighbourhood admins is reliable, or if they are truly an authority on the matter and not just some schmoe who couldn't care less.
Maybe not, but I do see you trying to convince me that I shouldn’t teach my religion as though I actually believe it, and doing so without offering a single piece of evidence as to why I shouldn’t.
You're muddying things up a lot. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence why I should. I've provided severeal why you shouldn't. You just chosed to ignore them, and will no doubt continue to.
But the evidence is there if both of us read true it. Whatever we say doesn't matter, and the fact is that there is a lot more substance in my posts than yours. I may be on the offensive, but if I even have used Ad Hominem, it's the absolute extent of my logical fallacies.
That's not a bad when when you actually ARE doing something wrong. Pay attention.
therefore it is your responsibility to provide reason why I should accept that. Calling my statement “stupid” is just one more ad hominem, and not a logical proof by any stretch of the imagination.
You obviously don't know what Ad Hominem is, reading that. Calling your statement stupid if it does actually defy logic. You're calling what I'm saying Ad Hominem(which is becoming Argumentum ad nauseam at this stage) so apprently it's alright to attack me in that manner; since what you're saying violates ANOTHER logical fallacy, I'm perfectly entitled to call you out on that.
Ad Hominem applies more to the person and not their point, regardless. You kind of expect your points to be attacked in the debate. So Ad Hominem is an invalid claim here.
Again, I don't write the rules of logical fallacies. Greater people than you wrote them, and greater people than you continue to live with them
Or in the very least, much smarter.
Wrong again. If your intention is to convince me I’m wrong, then it’s up to you to present facts as to why I should accept it. If not, then you really have nothing meaningful to offer and might as well keep silent.
No, you're wrong. If you're going to engage in behaviour that is potentially harmful, you have to present a defense for it. So far, all of your defenses have been logical fallacies, and you can read up on them for yourself if you don't believe me.
Though i wouldn't enjoy you going through a list of logical fallacies using them in ways you don't understand. You kind of have to know them first before you list them off.
Wrong again. My argument is essentially, “I believe my God, therefore I will obey my God rather than you.” Until you can convince me that you are wiser or have greater authority than my God, you really have nothing to offer.
I don't know the specific name for that logical fallacy, but rest assured, it is one. I'm waiting on this one from some friends of mine.
Read up on it on Wikipedia. You're pretty much doing exactly that.
Thank you for that clarification. But on the same token, you have yet to give me any reason why I should trust you more than the Apostles, or, for that matter, more than Jesus Christ himself.
Becuase you're committing petitio principii once more.
Why do you have reason to believe Jesus and the Apostles in the first place, or that what the text says is not really Jesus or his followers saying it(when you think of it like that, it shows how ridiculous the whole thing is).
I am a real person using real logical principles I am using from a real source that I can back up and present to you, or you can simply find for yourself. There is a definite 1 possibility than i am real, whereas no matter how much you believe in God, on a global scale, there is <1, and even innumerably less so for all the specifics of the Bible.
Quote:
Therefore, until you can give me good sound reason why I should trust you more than them, I will continue to trust them rather than you. And as it stands, your past behavior on this forum (which in my observation hasn’t greatly improved) basically undermines any credibility you might have had.
That IS Ad Hominem, or least a similiar logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemIf your trust for me is based purely on my "past behaviour", which is down to other people frustrating me with logical fallacies, rather than my argument itself, it's getting into heavy A-H territory.
Here's some examples:
"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
"You feel that abortion should be legal, but I disagree because you are uneducated and poor."
Sound familiar?
Hurts when your own argument comes around to bite you in the arse, doesn't it?
Quote:
But, I reiterate my previous point: you are the one trying to convince me.
This isn't about convincing, it's whether it's right or not. And you're probably too nutty to convince anyway, That's not Ad Hominem, it's a pretty obvious observation that's seperate to the actual argument.
Quote:
And as it stands, you still have given me no reason to believe you rather than the Prophets and Apostles and Saints.
And you've given far, far less that I should believe them over common logic.
Plus, you're reiterating the same point at an insane rate. Ad Nauseum once more!
Maybe you should get that through your head. You expect me to treat my faith as a mere opinion, but why should I? As far as I’m concerned, it is fact, unless you can offer me any substantial reason not to believe it.
That's not how "fact" works. Fact isn't something that can't be irrefuted(though it's a good start), fact is something which has been proven to be fact. Your beliefs have not proven to be fact.
Quote:
Chronological snobbery again. Claiming that they’re outdated rather than actually trying to prove them wrong.
That's just stupid on so many levels(not ad Hominem since i have further to say on the subject, I'm afraid
). That would only apply if that was the *only* reason I was saying it may be wrong.
It's a valid point. They were written in a time when homosexuality was not an accepted or well known behaviour, for instance, and thus it's not a huge leap to assume a text written in that era may reflect this. Ignoring that as a probability would be insane.
But that's for the other topic.
Your tactics get more and more horrible with every point.
Quote:
I’ve already pointed out the logical flaw of that.
You, point out a logical flaw? Don't make laugh.
Quote:
Just saying an idea, belief, or even people themselves are wrong just because they lived hundreds or even thousands of years ago is not the same as offering evidence to prove them wrong.
No, but it makes the source less accurate.
Quote:
Wrong again. We have manuscripts dating back to the second century for the New Testament, and manuscripts dating back to the fourth century b.c. for the Old Testament. Oh, and incidentally, the emperors of those times were actually trying to destroy the manuscripts, not alter them. As far as they were concerned, these documents contradicted their own political and religious authority, and they wanted no part in them at all, other than to light them on fire.
Nevertheless, there are surviving manuscripts. I’ve actually posted pictures of them before. Maybe when I get a chance I’ll post them again. There is actually a whole discipline of studying these ancient manuscripts to determine their accuracy called Textual Criticism. You would do well to read up on it rather than try to bluff with your unsubstantiated claims.
Actually, they don't have to be directly editted; it's quite possible that they were editted because of the values of the emporers to give them a better chance of surviving, which is a reasonable assumption. The less you offend him, the less he's going to want to go after them.
Nonetheless, "Unsubstantiated claims" is a laugh to hear from someone who believes in a text as fact with no proof whatsoever. Not that it's necessarily wrong, just that you're a hypocrite.
Quote:
Wrong again. I believe them to be great because of what God accomplished through them, because of the deeds they accomplished on his behalf. These were men who showed extraordinary courage, wisdom, compassion, and faith. When you have demonstrated these qualities, then you can make the claim that you are their equal. Not before.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
You're presuming that the "Great Deeds" are tied with believing in this God with no evidence.
Should we include The Crusades in those great deeds, then? Oops.
And how much do you really know about people that lived thousands of years ago, from a text built off word of mouth?
Quote:
Which is why you’ve also made ad hominem attacks against liberals as well, I suppose. Liberals like InterruptorJones.
Because he made an offensive remark which was not helping, but provoking the situation he was complaining about.
Quote:
Incidentally, ad hominem attacks include things like telling people to shut their mouths,
That's not an Ad Hominem attack.
Quote:
calling someone’s statement stupid without offering facts to contradict their claims,
No honey, that's what you do. I'm the one with the posts that are long and filled to the brim with logical constructs. Yours are based on repition and blind faith.
Quote:
expressing interest in seeing physical violence done to people,
If you took that seriously, you're an idiot. I'm a hippie pagan pacifist. While I'm not entirely against violence when necessary, I'm just venting anger. Considering every second time I say it it's followed by a wink, or some unneccessarily specific statement like "at least 12 times", it's not my fault you didn't pick up on it.
Quote:
and making false accusations against people based on your own prejudices and presuppositions.
Nope. You've quite proven any prejudice I might have had against you, actually.
Disliking a gay person shoving their sexuality in people's faces isn't so wrong if they actually do it.
Quote:
All of these are things you have done on this forum, not just against me, but against people that might otherwise have sided with you.
I don't think people are really siding with me, more taking a middle ground. If someone turns against me based on tone rather than content, then they're probably too shallow to be an asset.
Quote:
And I have defended myself by pointing out how inconsistently you follow your own guidelines for “logical debate.”
No, you only know the phrase "Ad Hominem" and keep churning it out. I've spent far too much time arguing with atheists NOT to pick up the finer points of logic. Since I'm not a "Polar Opposite" I can pick up on things.
Quote:
By universally accepted rules of debate, ad hominem attacks
Yay!!!!1
Quote:
are forbidden,
As are the 6 or 7 strong array of logical fallacies I've presented.
Quote:
and if you cannot refrain from them, you undermine your own credibility. All I have to do, in fact, is point out how you consistently resort to them to demonstrate that you are not a credible debater.
You use nothing but logical fallacy. You are not a credible debater.
Quote:
In other words, you bring it on yourself. You want people to take you seriously? Then cut it out. Take your frustrations out on a blow-up punchy clown or something.
That's irrelevant. People shouldn't be frustrating me in the first place. I'm not perfect, but for he most part I only get frustrated when people aren't arguing properly. At worst, I'm a load grumpy indicator.
Quote:
As best I can tell, your main point is that I shouldn’t teach my religion as though it is factual, and, like I’ve said, until you can present me with evidence that it isn’t factual, I have no reason to do otherwise. You also claim it is wrong to expect children to spend one hour a week learning about Jesus (What Horror!).
Hold on, you EXPECT them to? So you're not only forcing them to do it, you expect them to do it even if the don't?
And yes, it is horror if it goes against what you stand for. How would you like learning one hour a week learning about something that's the anti-dogma to what you believe? And being forced into it, and that particular lifestyle?
Quote:
Well, again, until you can prove to me that what we teach is wrong,
I don't need to do that. You need to prove it's fact. Otherwise you could teach them pretty much anything.
Quote:
then it is not an unreasonable expectation (since, after all, we expect them to learn math, English, history, etc.).
... but those are factual, relevant subjects. It's your comparison of religion to these things which has gotten me so annyoed in the first place.
Belief is personal. Why don't you understand that?
Quote:
But my response is that, if what we believe is true, we would be doing those children a grave disservice by not teaching them the truth.
No. That's just an excuse to force your beliefs of them. Since they have to accept Christ out of their own choice to make it into heaven, what you do does nothing if they turn out christian, and at least a small amount of harm if they don't.
I asked you if you were doing them a grave disservice, why have you not attempted to "Save" me? Why is it only your children? Is it because you "Own" them? I rather think it is.
Quote:
Your other claim is that we should offer alternative worldviews to our teaching. Why? Why should I present falsehood alongside of the truth?
It is not falsehood and truth. You see things in an offensively binary and rather disgustingly biased manner.
They do not see it as falsehood agaisnt truth. You have no respect for your potential children if you stick by this horrid, destructive logic.
Quote:
You have yet to address any of my points.
Okay, now I'm perfectly entitled to get ticked off at you. I said that in my last post, because it was true. You are taking bits of my argument and trying to turn them against me, expecting that a hack and paste job will work.
Quote:
I reiterate my main point:
Ad Nauseum, AD NAUSEUM!!!
Quote:
Therefore, I will offer this from another great man (great because he stood for truth against a corrupt religious organization, even though it meant sacrificing his own life): “Until I am convinced from Scripture and sound reasoning, I cannot and will not recant. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me” (Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, 1520).
I couldn't care less.
Quote:
You’re the one who started this whole discussion.
... and?
Quote:
You’re the one trying to convince us we’re wrong for teaching our faith. Therefore, if you intend to convince anyone, you might want to keep that in mind.
Forcing, not teaching, and to people who don't necessarily want to hear it. Stop sugar coating things. I can't prove anything to you if you don't accept what a logical fallacy is.
Quote:
It is quite obvious that you are unable to substantiate your claims.
What the hell!? Stop trying to copy my argument. NOW. An I mean it. When I said it, it had some meaning and was even in context.
Quote:
As it stands, I have no obligation to please you. I serve a true and living God, and the last time I checked, you aren’t him.
No, I'm just a real and, despite my flaws, reasonably intelligent human being with a probability of existence of 1.
Quote:
I have an obligation to the God I serve to teach the faith as he has revealed it in the Scriptures, as well as an obligation to serve my people, including those children. I would be doing my God, my people, and myself a grave disservice if I did not. And as it stands right now, my obligation to my God, my people, and myself far outweighs any obligation I might have toward you. So, until you can actually offer an argument with some substance, evidence, and sound reasoning, I will bid you good day.
Merry Christmas Everybody!
Oh, blah blah blah. All your Ad Nauseum is making me Nauseus. Or is that Natious? How do you spell the damn thing anyway.
And Steve, I dare you to say that to my face in real life, you horrible little creature.
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
Or in the very least, much smarter.
Hot topic.
