Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by alize:
Of course it's not protected in Singapore. Why else are Muslims and Buddhists excused from prayers in Christian schools but Atheists not excused?
If you want to fight about whether Atheists or Christians are more critical of each other, we can go on all day. No evidence to cite but everyone knows the answer.
You are confused between the Constitution and the rules of the Schools. Your right to be an atheist is protected under the law. The school cannot deny you the right to be an atheist or spread an atheist. But if you have chosen to be in a Christian school then you have to abide by the rules, unless it is exempted. In any case I don't suppose the Christian schools compel you to pray.
Who is more critical? I think everyone knows the answer: the atheist.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are confused between the Constitution and the rules of the Schools. Your right to be an atheist is protected under the law. The school cannot deny you the right to be an atheist or spread an atheist. But if you have chosen to be in a Christian school then you have to abide by the rules, unless it is exempted. In any case I don't suppose the Christian schools compel you to pray.
Who is more critical? I think everyone knows the answer: the atheist.
yeap by this argument
the schools dont report all the way to minister of education and minister of education isnt an MP who isnt in a parliament that governs the constitution
hahahahahahha
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
he is not against atheists specifically
he is against non christians, but he only dare to attack atheists because he know there will not be reprisals against him
do not mistaken cowardice for justified biases
Yes , man , laurence, you said it right. He does it subtlely. We know, we know it is more than meets the eyes. hahahahah
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Sorry but it seems that you are STILL confused about what is an ad hominem argument. I have explained where Tcmc's reasoning error lies in, that's the difference. It's not about pointing a negative, it's about attacking the person but not the argument. An ad homimem simply sidestep interacting with the argument and attack the person, kind of what you are really doing now."
You are not reading it right... ad hominem simply meant attacking the person to disprove/ discredit the argument. I'm questioning your reasoning(and understanding) by pointing out the illogical fallacies of your arguments. Objective truths need solid evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, to convince.
"You also failed to understand the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Anyway, you are confused. I was talking about objective truths which does not change. If it rained on 1 May 2012, then it did. 1000 years later this would still be the truth. Truth by definition is objective."
Objective truths need solid evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, at least to be logical. Else its just as subjective as anything else. For you benefit, you claimed "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow." On the premise that Tcmc was arguing, your arguments seemed to be claiming something like the earth was flat some donkey years ago = true , therefore the earth is flat today = true. Just to let you know this is not saying you did claim so... Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.
"You are also confused as to what is a statement. A statement is NOT an argument. It is often a claim or proposition which can be disputed, treated as true or false, but by itself you don't call it sound or unsound. The premise I took was that if you claim lack of evidence, then the conclusion follows that you cannot declare there is no God."
An argument IS a statement. Rhetorics aside, all claims, propositions, arguments and even opinions are statements...no less. And the premise he/ she took was if one is lack of evidence, one cannot claim existence.
"Try to catch up with the line of reasoning please."
Redundundant appeal to ridicule... I'm not one to stoop so low.
"But the problem is that the atheist CANNOT account for things like truth, logic, or moral qualities like honesty."
There wasn't any problem to begin with... even if your above claim was true.
"It is not a red herring at all. Coneys and rabbits are belonging to the same kind. You would be missing the point if you wish to split hair on this."
You can add dogs and rats into the list as they behave the same... in reference to refecting. The point now is you are saying that Lev 11:5 and 6 is describing the same animals by the way, which makes no sense to me.
"There is no double standard involved when I am telling you that I already know that the Bible is not a science textbook. I am simply saying that you are not telling me something that I already don't hold to. That's all."
You exact words... "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Creationists by and large already know that." is basically telling me to shut up since the creationists already know that... but others cannot have the priviledge to tell you the same.
"To say that creationists are not credible in their answers is to commit the genetic fallacy. You may wish to make a count of your fallacies I point out."
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
This is false accusation... I based my aguments questioning their credibilty rather than origins... Try harder...
"I was using the "gay" analogy as another example. I did not say you made that claim. Why you ignore the word "IF"?"
Subtle it may seemed, its not my position at all as "gay" can mean sexual preference to elation... "chewer of the cud" however refers to behaviours/ practise only.
'And I understand your reluctance to count the fallacies committed by your fellow atheists. You would not wish to antagonise them by agreeing with me."
Wrong assumption that I can't be bothered to correct... but its reflecting how you stereotype people... I'm quite saddened by this revelation...
You are STILL confused about what an ad hominem argument is. When employed, the argument is NOT REFUTED. What it does is to attempt to reject or negate the argument by attacking the opponent's character or something about him. Learn more about it here http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
You said you wanted to point out my illogical fallacies. How are you going to do that when you don't even know how to discern one? In any case, I was talking about the nature of truth, that it is objective. You missed the point when you went harping about how to establish that something is true. We know that the earth is round, not flat. It is a globe, not a flat plane. This is the objective truth, regardless of anyone's state of mind, or perception. Even if at one time everyone believed that the earth is flat and that they sincerely thought it was true, they were still wrong. Their belief did not reflect objective reality. Objective truth cannot change. But what we believe to be true can, i.e. our beliefs about truth can change. Geddit?
You are STILL confused. An argument is NOT a statement. It consists of usually three statements, two of which are called premises and the final statement is called a conclusion. Your further confusion is to think that the theist claims that God exists because of lack of evidence. You got it all wrong. The atheist Tcmc claims that she is entitled to be an atheist because there is lack of evidence for God's existence. I challenged that. Lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence, just like lack of evidence to convict of murder is not evidence of innocence. Geddit?
You conveniently chucked aside my contention that the atheist CANNOT account for things like truth, logic, or moral qualities like honesty. How is that not a problem for the atheist at all?
But I am NOT adding dogs and cats to the list. I am saying that the phrase "chewing the cud" reflected more the Hebrew use of the language of appearance whereas you are insisting that it must mean the current scientific definition. I am saying that it is NOT an error for the Bible to say that rabbits and coneys "chew the cud" because to a Hebrew guy living thousands of years ago that phrase simply meant "to bring up" without having any modern knowledge about refection or ruminants etc. That was good enough information for them to act upon.
I already clarified what I meant by saying that you need not tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Had you been an informed debater and familiar with creationist writings you would certainly have known that creationists do not treat the Bible as a science textbook. I am not asking you to shut up. You are taking this too personally. There is no double standard on my part. Anyway I see no need to dwell on this point further.
That you committed the genetic fallacy is NOT a false accusation. You asked "since when has creationists been credible..." If this is not a genetic fallacy then what? On what basis do you question their credibility? Mind you, there are many creationists that possess PhDs from world class universities. Perhaps you should get out of your closet to know some of them.
Again, I never claimed that you said that gay meant homosexual in the Bible. In any case I have proven you wrong in that the word did appear in the KJV.
If there's any group of people I am stereotyping it would be the village atheists.
See http://www.equip.org/articles/village-atheists-with-vengeance
-
Repeat Post Deleted
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It's OK if you wish to patronise my views. But just think about it, what are the options available for you? This universe had a beginning and thus had a cause. Then either the universe was caused by something external to it, or the universe caused itself. But the latter is absurd, so you are only left with an external cause.
Now, once we get past the point that there is a cause and that this cause is God, it becomes easy to answer the rest.
Jesus said, "But if you don't believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"
In short, if the earthly things in the Bible can be trusted (i.e. tested and found to be true), then we can also trust what the Bible says about heavenly things or things that cannot be directly verified. Makes sense?
so if a textbook writes that water reaches boiling pointat 100 deg C and then it writes that donkeys can talk, unbelievers of christ goes to hell. it is true then since water is scientifically proven to reach boiling point at 100 deg C?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
so if a textbook writes that water reaches boiling pointat 100 deg C and then it writes that donkeys can talk, unbelievers of christ goes to hell. it is true then since water is scientifically proven to reach boiling point at 100 deg C?
I know where you are coming from. I agree with you that merely being right on some things does not therefore means being right on all other things. That's not how I am reasoning here. It's more like, if the Bible is wrong on earthly matters where it can be tested, then it would be wrong on heavenly matters where it cannot be tested. The point is that if we cannot trust the Bible on earthly things, then there is no basis to trust it concerning spiritual things. Jesus asked Nicodemus: ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). So if we can’t trust the Bible about earthly things (such as the timeframe of creation), why should we trust it on heavenly things (e.g. faith and morals)? If the Bible were in error on something that you could check, why should you believe it on things you could not check (e.g. ‘matters of faith and practice’)?
Moreover, we are not talking about an ordinary textbook here which can be right on a few things but wrong elsewhere, but about the Bible which claims to be God's revelation to us which contains writings from thousands of years ago, which has been verified in many places, and where no known fact has rendered it false. It is not just right about one or two things, but about many things, some of which could only be known in modern times. No mere ordindary textbook makes such a claim that the Bible makes for itself.
http://creation.com/but-genesis-is-not-a-science-textbook
-
BIC,
I always tell you this.
It's fine if you wanna believe in the magic fruit, talking serpent, talking donkey, man in a fish ,man flying and walking on water and unicorns/dragons.
But NOT everyone needs to believe in that.
-
"You are STILL confused about what an ad hominem argument is. When employed, the argument is NOT REFUTED. What it does is to attempt to reject or negate the argument by attacking the opponent's character or something about him. Learn more about it herehttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html"
Your ad hominem statement was "You have a warped notion of truth." - Ad hominem
"What is true now cannot be false h..." when Tcmc was obviously arguing on the premise of subjective truth. You attacked Tcmc's personal worldview of subjective truth in a bid to discredit his claim,- Person A(Tcmc) makes claim X.
- Person B(You) makes an attack(You have a warped notion of truth.") on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false
Ad hominem criteria fulfilled.After which made a counter claim "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow", attempting to refute Tcmc's statement, which was apparently affirming the consequent. Conclusion: 2 illogical fallacies in your statement "You have a warped notion of truth. What is true now cannot be false tomorrow. If you claim lack of evidence, then you can only say that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. You cannot say that there is no God"."You said you wanted to point out my illogical fallacies. How are you going to do that when you don't even know how to discern one? In any case, I was talking about the nature of truth, that it is objective. You missed the point when you went harping about how to establish that something is true. We know that the earth is round, not flat. It is a globe, not a flat plane. This is the objective truth, regardless of anyone's state of mind, or perception. Even if at one time everyone believed that the earth is flat and that they sincerely thought it was true, they were still wrong. Their belief did not reflect objective reality. Objective truth cannot change. But what we believe to be true can, i.e. our beliefs about truth can change. Geddit?See above if you still deny your good self is able to commit such fallacy. You misunderstood my efforts... My goal was to establish a bridging communication through sound argumets, statement,... by pointing out the typical illogical fallacies that people commit. Of course some ego may not take such constructive correction positively and I don't blame anyone.The earth was not believed to be a globe some donkey years back. Its through established evidence that it became an objective truth. That knowledge, that acknowledgement of the evidence/s beyond reasonable doubt is the crux of my point. If no such evdence is provided, any objectively truth than anyone can claim is as subjective as any other, not more."You are STILL confused. An argument is NOT a statement. It consists of usually three statements, two of which are called premises and the final statement is called a conclusion."Prove or it did not happen."Your further confusion is to think that the theist claims that God exists because of lack of evidence. You got it all wrong."Strawman. I am not concerned of how theist believe god/s exist.The atheist Tcmc claims that she is entitled to be an atheist because there is lack of evidence for God's existence. I challenged that. Lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence, just like lack of evidence to convict of murder is not evidence of innocence. Geddit?"Clear as day that you forgotten my argument with Tcmc... I argued that "Atheism is faith based, fairly speaking... as in the absence of prove is prove of absence. Which is an argument from ignorance..."And your good self quoted moi... My above argument still stands."You conveniently chucked aside my contention that the atheist CANNOT account for things like truth, logic, or moral qualities like honesty. How is that not a problem for the atheist at all?"You making me feel bad as if I deliberately shun challenges... Hypocritical. Answer these 1st:1) So are you saying the other lifeforms suffer death because of Adam's sin...?2) So are you saying that Lev 11:5 and 6 is describine the same animals?since they were queuing quietly before your contention above."I already clarified what I meant by saying that you need not tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Had you been an informed debater and familiar with creationist writings you would certainly have known that creationists do not treat the Bible as a science textbook. I am not asking you to shut up. You are taking this too personally. There is no double standard on my part. Anyway I see no need to dwell on this point further."My question was scientific... iirc, however limited."That you committed the genetic fallacy is NOT a false accusation. You asked "since when has creationists been credible..." If this is not a genetic fallacy then what? On what basis do you question their credibility? Mind you, there are many creationists that possess PhDs from world class universities. Perhaps you should get out of your closet to know some of them."You don't seemed to be able to read rhetorics... Try harder and figure out what I was trying to say in the simple sentence. Hint: Not origins of the creationists and not their qualifications of their... field."Again, I never claimed that you said that gay meant homosexual in the Bible. In any case I have proven you wrong in that the word did appear in the KJV.Confirmed. Strawman."If there's any group of people I am stereotyping it would be the village atheists.See http://www.equip.org/articles/village-atheists-with-vengeance
http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol10/bullough.html"
Any basis of such stereotyping? Akin to discrimination... honestly didn't click the links.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
I always tell you this.
It's fine if you wanna believe in the magic fruit, talking serpent, talking donkey, man in a fish ,man flying and walking on water and unicorns/dragons.
But NOT everyone needs to believe in that.
Well, if the Bible is the Word of God (and it is) then one cannot choose the bits he like to believe and ditch the others.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Well, if the Bible is the Word of God (and it is) then one cannot choose the bits he like to believe and ditch the others.
BIC
You say that rightfully! But you yourself do not practice what you preach!
You do not obey many parts of the bible, but instead give lots of excuses! You say that verse is metaphorical, you say this verse is out of context and you say another verse is a figure of speech!
Then now you say one cannot choose the bits he like and ditch the rest!
You are doing the exact same thing! All christians do that!
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You are STILL confused about what an ad hominem argument is. When employed, the argument is NOT REFUTED. What it does is to attempt to reject or negate the argument by attacking the opponent's character or something about him. Learn more about it herehttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html"
Your ad hominem statement was "You have a warped notion of truth." - Ad hominem
"What is true now cannot be false h..." when Tcmc was obviously arguing on the premise of subjective truth. You attacked Tcmc's personal worldview of subjective truth in a bid to discredit his claim,- Person A(Tcmc) makes claim X.
- Person B(You) makes an attack(You have a warped notion of truth.") on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false
Ad hominem criteria fulfilled.After which made a counter claim "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow", attempting to refute Tcmc's statement, which was apparently affirming the consequent. Conclusion: 2 illogical fallacies in your statement "You have a warped notion of truth. What is true now cannot be false tomorrow. If you claim lack of evidence, then you can only say that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. You cannot say that there is no God"."You said you wanted to point out my illogical fallacies. How are you going to do that when you don't even know how to discern one? In any case, I was talking about the nature of truth, that it is objective. You missed the point when you went harping about how to establish that something is true. We know that the earth is round, not flat. It is a globe, not a flat plane. This is the objective truth, regardless of anyone's state of mind, or perception. Even if at one time everyone believed that the earth is flat and that they sincerely thought it was true, they were still wrong. Their belief did not reflect objective reality. Objective truth cannot change. But what we believe to be true can, i.e. our beliefs about truth can change. Geddit?See above if you still deny your good self is able to commit such fallacy. You misunderstood my efforts... My goal was to establish a bridging communication through sound argumets, statement,... by pointing out the typical illogical fallacies that people commit. Of course some ego may not take such constructive correction positively and I don't blame anyone.The earth was not believed to be a globe some donkey years back. Its through established evidence that it became an objective truth. That knowledge, that acknowledgement of the evidence/s beyond reasonable doubt is the crux of my point. If no such evdence is provided, any objectively truth than anyone can claim is as subjective as any other, not more."You are STILL confused. An argument is NOT a statement. It consists of usually three statements, two of which are called premises and the final statement is called a conclusion."Prove or it did not happen."Your further confusion is to think that the theist claims that God exists because of lack of evidence. You got it all wrong."Strawman. I am not concerned of how theist believe god/s exist.The atheist Tcmc claims that she is entitled to be an atheist because there is lack of evidence for God's existence. I challenged that. Lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence, just like lack of evidence to convict of murder is not evidence of innocence. Geddit?"Clear as day that you forgotten my argument with Tcmc... I argued that "Atheism is faith based, fairly speaking... as in the absence of prove is prove of absence. Which is an argument from ignorance..."And your good self quoted moi... My above argument still stands."You conveniently chucked aside my contention that the atheist CANNOT account for things like truth, logic, or moral qualities like honesty. How is that not a problem for the atheist at all?"You making me feel bad as if I deliberately shun challenges... Hypocritical. Answer these 1st:1) So are you saying the other lifeforms suffer death because of Adam's sin...?2) So are you saying that Lev 11:5 and 6 is describine the same animals?since they were queuing quietly before your contention above."I already clarified what I meant by saying that you need not tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Had you been an informed debater and familiar with creationist writings you would certainly have known that creationists do not treat the Bible as a science textbook. I am not asking you to shut up. You are taking this too personally. There is no double standard on my part. Anyway I see no need to dwell on this point further."My question was scientific... iirc, however limited."That you committed the genetic fallacy is NOT a false accusation. You asked "since when has creationists been credible..." If this is not a genetic fallacy then what? On what basis do you question their credibility? Mind you, there are many creationists that possess PhDs from world class universities. Perhaps you should get out of your closet to know some of them."You don't seemed to be able to read rhetorics... Try harder and figure out what I was trying to say in the simple sentence. Hint: Not origins of the creationists and not their qualifications of their... field."Again, I never claimed that you said that gay meant homosexual in the Bible. In any case I have proven you wrong in that the word did appear in the KJV.Confirmed. Strawman."If there's any group of people I am stereotyping it would be the village atheists.See http://www.equip.org/articles/village-atheists-with-vengeance
http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol10/bullough.html"
Any basis of such stereotyping? Akin to discrimination... honestly didn't click the links.
1. Again you failed to discern what is an ad hominem attack. I did not merely say that Tcmc has a warped notion of truth and therefore she is wrong. I actually state where the problem is, that truth is objective and cannot change. Tcmc has a warped notion of truth precisely because she holds to the absurd notion of subjective truth, and it seems that you also hold to this view. Perhaps you are not aware of the problems with the notion of subjective truth (relativism)? Let me enlighten you then:
a. It is self-defeating. The relativist believes that subjective truth is true for everyone, not just from them. This is the one thing they cannot believe, if they are relativist. Therefore, if a relativist thinks it is true for everyone, then he believes it is an absolute truth. Therefore, he is no longer a relativist.
b. Relativism is full of contradictions. If Billy Graham believed God exists and an Atheist believes God did not exist both would be right. God would have to exist and not exist. If the Christian believes Jesus died on the Cross and Muslim believes Jesus did not die on the Cross, both would be right. This is patently absurd.
c. Relativism means no one has ever been wrong. With Subjective truth, no one could ever be wrong since there is no standard for right and wrong. As long as something is true to holder of truth, it is true even if it is wrong for someone else.
2. How is the statement "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow" a fallacy of affirming the consequent? Why not you try to lay out the argument in proper form and demonstrate it for all to see? Perhaps I can learn a thing or two from you. Until you have succesfully demonstrated that, why should I admit to anything?
3. If you hold to the view that everyone believed in a flat earth in the past, then you are oh-so-wrong. Really you should not be perpetuating such an indefensible view. Please do not be lazy to click this link, it will help you, seriously. Have an open mind ya? See http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html and http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism
4. What do you want me to prove about the statement that an argument is NOT a statement? An argument is actually a SERIES of statements called premises and conclusion.
5. OK, I remember now your correcting Tcmc of her fallacy concerning lack of evidence.
6. Going ad hominem with a hypocritical accusation? I did answer your questions. I said Adam's sin brought resulted in a fallen world. You cannot join the dots? As for the coney and rabbit, I did answer it as well. You must have missed it.
7. What rhetorics do you fault me for failing to see? I spotted a rhetoric that committed the genetic fallacy which you refuse to own up. Saying that creationists are not credible in explaining scientific things is to commit a genetic fallacy. Or would you want to explain yourself better?
8. Did you not say that the word "gay" did not appear in the Bible? You even roped me in for that. Forget liao? Anyway, there is no strawman argument because I was making an illustration.
9. If you didn't bother to click the links how can you ask me for the basis? Surely you aren't afraid of reading up on what a village atheist is?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
You say that rightfully! But you yourself do not practice what you preach!
You do not obey many parts of the bible, but instead give lots of excuses! You say that verse is metaphorical, you say this verse is out of context and you say another verse is a figure of speech!
Then now you say one cannot choose the bits he like and ditch the rest!
You are doing the exact same thing! All christians do that!!!
the bible is full of paradoxes and inconsistencies. how can truth be like that?
anyway the whole thing just doesnt make any sense and logic. this much we already know that isnt it.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
You say that rightfully! But you yourself do not practice what you preach!
You do not obey many parts of the bible, but instead give lots of excuses! You say that verse is metaphorical, you say this verse is out of context and you say another verse is a figure of speech!
Then now you say one cannot choose the bits he like and ditch the rest!
You are doing the exact same thing! All christians do that!
You are utterly confused. It is one thing to identify the genres in the Bible, but another thing to select verses to believe. And you must have been sleeping during CE classes. Not everything in the Bible is meant for you to apply and obey. But then again, exegesis was NEVER your strength.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
the bible is full of paradoxes and inconsistencies. how can truth be like that?
anyway the whole thing just doesnt make any sense and logic. this much we already know that isnt it.
A paradox is not a problem. But inconsistencies? Where? I have a strong feeling that you are ignoring context and time.
This much we do know, the whole atheism does not make any sense and logic.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
I always tell you this.
It's fine if you wanna believe in the magic fruit, talking serpent, talking donkey, man in a fish ,man flying and walking on water and unicorns/dragons.
But NOT everyone needs to believe in that.
Thumbs up!
It is like that bitchy old heck christian in the work place keep preaching and imposing christians teachings and values on non christians , she does not live by what she preaches and impose on others. GREATEST BLOODY HYPOCRITE!
-
Hi, non christians here, it is impossible or a tough job to help the brainwashed people see the light. hahahaha!
-
well additionally, BIC is a troll, u cannnot talk sense to him, he wont understand
-
"Again you failed to discern what is an ad hominem attack. I did not merely say that Tcmc has a warped notion of truth and therefore she is wrong. I actually state where the problem is, that truth is objective and cannot change."
How many times do I have to stress that the truth is subjective on premise Tcmc was arguing... which is REALLY obvious even to the uninitiated. Regardless of who's right or wrong, I have showed you through your link that what you did fulfilled the criteria of commiting an ad hominem but all you can do is a <no_u.jpg>?
" Tcmc has a warped notion of truth precisely because she holds to the absurd notion of subjective truth, and it seems that you also hold to this view. Perhaps you are not aware of the problems with the notion of subjective truth (relativism)?"
What makes you think that you are not holding on to subjective truths? Or are you trying to say subjective truth has no value?
"Let me enlighten you then:"
Strawman... but I'll entertain you....
"a. It is self-defeating. The relativist believes that subjective truth is true for everyone, not just from them. This is the one thing they cannot believe, if they are relativist. Therefore, if a relativist thinks it is true for everyone, then he believes it is an absolute truth. Therefore, he is no longer a relativist."
"b. Relativism is full of contradictions. If Billy Graham believed God exists and an Atheist believes God did not exist both would be right. God would have to exist and not exist. If the Christian believes Jesus died on the Cross and Muslim believes Jesus did not die on the Cross, both would be right. This is patently absurd."
Circular logic again...
"c. Relativism means no one has ever been wrong. With Subjective truth, no one could ever be wrong since there is no standard for right and wrong. As long as something is true to holder of truth, it is true even if it is wrong for someone else."
Hat trick circular logic.... Well done, you have out done yourself
"2. How is the statement "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow" a fallacy of affirming the consequent? Why not you try to lay out the argument in proper form and demonstrate it for all to see? Perhaps I can learn a thing or two from you. Until you have succesfully demonstrated that, why should I admit to anything?"
If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p.If true now then cannot be false tomorrow.
One day passed....
If true today then must be true yesterday. Or If cannot be false today then must be true yesterday."3. If you hold to the view that everyone believed in a flat earth in the past, then you are oh-so-wrong. Really you should not be perpetuating such an indefensible view. Please do not be lazy to click this link, it will help you, seriously. Have an open mind ya? See http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html and http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth. No one was arguing for everyone. You need to read more... question even more.
"4. What do you want me to prove about the statement that an argument is NOT a statement? An argument is actually a SERIES of statements called premises and conclusion."
Am I suppose to take your word as absolute truth now? Don't be lazy, try harder.
"6. Going ad hominem with a hypocritical accusation? I did answer your questions. I said Adam's sin brought resulted in a fallen world."
So are you saying the other lifeforms suffered mortality because of one man sin? Conclusion: God is cruel to impose such suffering to other lifeforms on the 1st mistake that man supposedly made.
"You cannot join the dots? As for the coney and rabbit, I did answer it as well. You must have missed it."
You are pratically saying Lev 11:5 and 6 is describing the same animal, which is not consistent with the style in which it was wrote. So tell me what exactly is a "coney", according to Lev 11:5, today? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for not attempting to commit an appeal to ignorance.
"7. What rhetorics do you fault me for failing to see? I spotted a rhetoric that committed the genetic fallacy which you refuse to own up. Saying that creationists are not credible in explaining scientific things is to commit a genetic fallacy. Or would you want to explain yourself better?"
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
How you misunderstood my rhetoric to accuse... You stated the creationists already know that the bible is not a science text is already an appeal to authority. I ignore that since I don't think they are any kind of authority. They are called creationist because of their belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. And now you are saying as if they are some kind of authority, thus invoking the appeal to authority fallacy.
"8. Did you not say that the word "gay" did not appear in the Bible? You even roped me in for that. Forget liao? Anyway, there is no strawman argument because I was making an illustration."
That was never my point. You attacked as if it was and claim I'm wrong (which I was). You proved it yourself even if you can't see it for yourself.
- Person A has position X.
- Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
- Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
- Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
- Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
- Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
- Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
- Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
"9. If you didn't bother to click the links how can you ask me for the basis? Surely you aren't afraid of reading up on what a village atheist is?"
I had enough of those internet fallacities... and I think you are trying too hard to parrot them. I lost count really... but stereotyping is just categorizing those with discriminating traits.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Again you failed to discern what is an ad hominem attack. I did not merely say that Tcmc has a warped notion of truth and therefore she is wrong. I actually state where the problem is, that truth is objective and cannot change."
How many times do I have to stress that the truth is subjective on premise Tcmc was arguing... which is REALLY obvious even to the uninitiated. Regardless of who's right or wrong, I have showed you through your link that what you did fulfilled the criteria of commiting an ad hominem but all you can do is a <no_u.jpg>?
" Tcmc has a warped notion of truth precisely because she holds to the absurd notion of subjective truth, and it seems that you also hold to this view. Perhaps you are not aware of the problems with the notion of subjective truth (relativism)?"
What makes you think that you are not holding on to subjective truths? Or are you trying to say subjective truth has no value?
"Let me enlighten you then:"
Strawman... but I'll entertain you....
"a. It is self-defeating. The relativist believes that subjective truth is true for everyone, not just from them. This is the one thing they cannot believe, if they are relativist. Therefore, if a relativist thinks it is true for everyone, then he believes it is an absolute truth. Therefore, he is no longer a relativist."
"b. Relativism is full of contradictions. If Billy Graham believed God exists and an Atheist believes God did not exist both would be right. God would have to exist and not exist. If the Christian believes Jesus died on the Cross and Muslim believes Jesus did not die on the Cross, both would be right. This is patently absurd."
Circular logic again...
"c. Relativism means no one has ever been wrong. With Subjective truth, no one could ever be wrong since there is no standard for right and wrong. As long as something is true to holder of truth, it is true even if it is wrong for someone else."
Hat trick circular logic.... Well done, you have out done yourself
"2. How is the statement "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow" a fallacy of affirming the consequent? Why not you try to lay out the argument in proper form and demonstrate it for all to see? Perhaps I can learn a thing or two from you. Until you have succesfully demonstrated that, why should I admit to anything?"
If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p.If true now then cannot be false tomorrow.
One day passed....
If true today then must be true yesterday. Or If cannot be false today then must be true yesterday."3. If you hold to the view that everyone believed in a flat earth in the past, then you are oh-so-wrong. Really you should not be perpetuating such an indefensible view. Please do not be lazy to click this link, it will help you, seriously. Have an open mind ya? See http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html and http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth. No one was arguing for everyone. You need to read more... question even more.
"4. What do you want me to prove about the statement that an argument is NOT a statement? An argument is actually a SERIES of statements called premises and conclusion."
Am I suppose to take your word as absolute truth now? Don't be lazy, try harder.
"6. Going ad hominem with a hypocritical accusation? I did answer your questions. I said Adam's sin brought resulted in a fallen world."
So are you saying the other lifeforms suffered mortality because of one man sin? Conclusion: God is cruel to impose such suffering to other lifeforms on the 1st mistake that man supposedly made.
"You cannot join the dots? As for the coney and rabbit, I did answer it as well. You must have missed it."
You are pratically saying Lev 11:5 and 6 is describing the same animal, which is not consistent with the style in which it was wrote. So tell me what exactly is a "coney", according to Lev 11:5, today? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for not attempting to commit an appeal to ignorance.
"7. What rhetorics do you fault me for failing to see? I spotted a rhetoric that committed the genetic fallacy which you refuse to own up. Saying that creationists are not credible in explaining scientific things is to commit a genetic fallacy. Or would you want to explain yourself better?"
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
How you misunderstood my rhetoric to accuse... You stated the creationists already know that the bible is not a science text is already an appeal to authority. I ignore that since I don't think they are any kind of authority. They are called creationist because of their belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. And now you are saying as if they are some kind of authority, thus invoking the appeal to authority fallacy.
"8. Did you not say that the word "gay" did not appear in the Bible? You even roped me in for that. Forget liao? Anyway, there is no strawman argument because I was making an illustration."
That was never my point. You attacked as if it was and claim I'm wrong (which I was). You proved it yourself even if you can't see it for yourself.
- Person A has position X.
- Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
- Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
- Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
- Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
- Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
- Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
- Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
"9. If you didn't bother to click the links how can you ask me for the basis? Surely you aren't afraid of reading up on what a village atheist is?"
I had enough of those internet fallacities... and I think you are trying too hard to parrot them. I lost count really... but stereotyping is just categorizing those with discriminating traits.
1. And I have just as much stressed that Tcmc is wrong in believing that truth is subjective. Obviously I know that Tcmc is arguing that truth is subjective, which is why I challenged that and said that this is a warped notion of truth! This is not ad hominem because I actually explained where her problem is. You really need to understand what this fallacy is about. As for me, haven’t I stated it clearly? I said that truth is objective, so why are you asking me if I am holding to subjective truths? Now let’s address your replies concerning the problems of relativism.
a. The statement “relativism is true” is itself an absolute statement. Relativism is a self-defeating belief which you have confused it with circular reasoning.
b. Relativism contradicts itself. Two opposite statements (God exists, God does not exist) cannot be true at the same time in the same sense. But relativism says can. This violates the fundamental law of logic, but you again confused it with circular reasoning.
c. Relativism has no basis to judge anything as wrong since what’s true for you may not be true for me. So how can anyone be wrong under such a notion of truth? This you again confused it with circular reasoning.
Bottom line: you don’t know what a circular argument is!
2. You failed to demonstrate in what way the statement "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow" commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your attempt to craft my statement in its formal fallacy form is convoluted and makes little sense. Try again?
3. You held to the erroneous view that people in the past believed in a flat earth. When I pointed that out you excused yourself that you were not arguing for everyone. Yet you said earlier, “The earth was not believed to be a globe some donkey years back.”
4. Like it or not, you were wrong. An argument is actually a SERIES of statements called premises and conclusion. You can of course choose not to take my word for it, just go check a dictionary or any book on critical thinking if letting someone else correct you makes you feel better.
5. Yes, you heard me right, the Bible teaches that Adam’s sin brought death into the world. The consequences of one man’s actions are not limited to just himself. You should have lived long enough to know this. This is not about God being cruel, it is about the wide reaching effects of sin. BTW, to judge God is to presuppose a basis, a moral standard, for making moral judgement. From where does an atheist get this moral standard?
6. You missed the whole point and is now fixated with splitting hairs here. I am saying that the coney and the rabbits have been classified in the OT law as animals that “chew the cud” because the phrase simply means “to bring up” which is good information enough for the Israelites without having to know the digestive distinctions between cows and coneys. I also mentioned that coney was an old English word for rabbit and I am not wrong. (see http://www.rabbit.org/links/history.html ) Anyway, the Hebrew word is shaw-fawn', a species of rock rabbit (from its hiding), i.e. probably the hyrax. Some Bible versions translate it as rock badger while others as hyrax. But whatever it was, it was a rabbit-like rodent.
7. I am taking issue with YOUR fallacious statement that the creationists are not credible. You then said I am appealing to authority here? You are diverting the issue by throwing a red herring accusation at me. But like it or not, many creation scientists have PhDs from world class universities. If that does not qualify them as authorities in their respective fields of study, then what does?
8. You are flogging a dead horse. I already made it clear that my “gay” example was an illustration. I did not say you made that claim. I even made it clear with an “IF”. And now you then went on an irrelevant exposition of what a strawman argument is.
9. I’m not asking you to check out another website on fallacies! But then again, I think you do need to brush up on them anyway. When it comes to stereotyping the village atheists, OK guilty as charged! But you should find out more for yourself what characterizes the village atheists.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are utterly confused. It is one thing to identify the genres in the Bible, but another thing to select verses to believe. And you must have been sleeping during CE classes. Not everything in the Bible is meant for you to apply and obey. But then again, exegesis was NEVER your strength.
BIC
Excuses. How dare you come up with human doctrines to explain the bible away? The bible is God's Word and it says that those who read but do not obey are blind!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Excuses. How dare you come up with human doctrines to explain the bible away? The bible is God's Word and it says that those who read but do not obey are blind!
1. Pray tell what human doctrines are you talking about? Be specific please.
2. Have I explained the Bible away? How so?
Since when did you, who denied the existence of God, became a defender of God's Word? Sounds really hypocritical to me.
And you do not even know the Scriptures well. In his epistle James was telling his hearers to be doers of the Word as well and not mere hearers only. He likened it to a man who sees himself in a mirror and forgets how he looks like. Nothing at all about being blind. And nothing at all about obeying everything in the Bible.
In fact, common sense tells you that not everything in the Bible is meant to be obeyed, or should be obeyed, or can be obeyed? Case in point: You want to obey God's command to Noah to build an Ark today?
Then again, you never had the proper Christian Education to begin with. How come you can attend church for so long but do not know simple hermeneutics, exegesis and application? Really wonder which church you went to, or whether you really went at all, but just making fraudulent claims just to make yourself sound credible.
-
"1. And I have just as much stressed that Tcmc is wrong in believing that truth is subjective. Obviously I know that Tcmc is arguing that truth is subjective, which is why I challenged that and said that this is a warped notion of truth! This is not ad hominem because I actually explained where her problem is. You really need to understand what this fallacy is about. As for me, haven’t I stated it clearly? I said that truth is objective, so why are you asking me if I am holding to subjective truths? Now let’s address your replies concerning the problems of relativism."
He is not arguing that truths are subjective. See how you took your mispresentation of Tcmc's argument and attacked? Just because you are saying there are no subjective truth and those who held it have a warped logic. Anyone who has any kind of education has believe/d in subjective truth.
"a. The statement “relativism is true” is itself an absolute statement. Relativism is a self-defeating belief which you have confused it with circular reasoning."
Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".[1] A circular argument will always be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.
I wouldn't know how relativism is self defeating. Taking premise of your logic; "The relativist believes that subjective truth is true for everyone, not just from them. This is the one thing they cannot believe, if they are relativist. Therefore, if a relativist thinks it is true for everyone, then he believes it is an absolute truth. Therefore, he is no longer a relativist." Therefore you conclude that relativism is self defeating. Your logic applied to whatever you know about relativism is circular, don't you think?
"b. Relativism contradicts itself. Two opposite statements (God exists, God does not exist) cannot be true at the same time in the same sense. But relativism says can. This violates the fundamental law of logic, but you again confused it with circular reasoning."
Therefore you concluded relativism contradicts itself. Your logic applied to whatever you know about relativism is circular, don't you think? x 2
"c. Relativism has no basis to judge anything as wrong since what’s true for you may not be true for me. So how can anyone be wrong under such a notion of truth? This you again confused it with circular reasoning."
Therefore you concluded "Relativism has no basis to judge...." Your logic applied to whatever you know about relativism is circular, don't you think? x 3. Then again... what is wrong when there is no right and vice versa?
I preconcluded that this relativism you introducing is a strawman, you proved I was correct again.
"Bottom line: you don’t know what a circular argument is!"
Ahem... you don't see how circular your logic to relativism is... The circular refers to your argument about relativism, not about relativism.
"2. You failed to demonstrate in what way the statement "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow" commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your attempt to craft my statement in its formal fallacy form is convoluted and makes little sense. Try again?
As you said, objective truth does not change with time. True today= true yesterday
If p then q. What is true now then cannot be false(true) tomorrow
q. True tomorrow (or true today)
Therefore, p. Therefore, true today(or true yesterday)Criteria fulfilled no less. <no_u.jpg> much?
"3. You held to the erroneous view that people in the past believed in a flat earth. When I pointed that out you excused yourself that you were not arguing for everyone. Yet you said earlier, “The earth was not believed to be a globe some donkey years back."
People in the past did believe in a flat earth. The earth was not believed to be a globe some donkey years back. These are verificable facts. Where is the error? Obviously you did not read much... I had even linked for your benefit. See below pasta from wiki. *Spoonfeeds*
-
Ancient Near East
In early Egyptian[8] and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account of the 8th century BCE in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods."[9]
The Hebrew Bible used poetic language consistent with that of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth with a solid roof, surrounded by water above and below,[10][11] as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth" in the following examples:
- "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."[12]
- "For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world."[13]
- "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."[14]
In the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts it is revealed the ancient Egyptians believed Nun (the Ocean) was a circular body surrounding nbwt (a term meaning "dry lands" or "Islands") and therefore believed in a similar Ancient Near Eastern circular earth cosmography surrounded by water.[15][16][17]
[edit]Classical world
[edit]Poets
Both Homer[18] and Hesiod[19] described a flat disc cosmography on the shield of Achilles.[20][21] This poetic tradition of an earth-encircling (gaiaokhos) sea (Oceanus) and a flat disc also appears inStasinus of Cyprus,[22] Mimnermus,[23] Aristophanes,[24] and Apollonius Rhodius.[25]
Homer's description of the flat disc cosmography on the shield of Achilles with the encircling ocean is also found repeated far later in Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica (4th century AD) which continues the narration of the Trojan War.[26]
[edit]Philosophers
Thales believed the earth was flat and floated in water like a log.[28][29] Many other pre-Socratic philosophers considered the world to be flat, at least according to Aristotle.[30] According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460–370 BC) believed in a flat Earth.[31][32]
Anaximander (c. 550 BC) believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top that remained stable because it is the same distance from all things.[33][34] Anaximenes of Miletus believed that "the earth is flat and rides on air; in the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies, which are all fiery, ride the air because of their flatness."[35] Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 500 BC) thought that the Earth was flat, with its upper side touching the air, and the lower side extending without limit.[36]
Belief in a flat Earth continued into the 5th-century BC. Anaxagoras (c. 450 BC) agreed that the Earth was flat,[37] and his pupil Archelaus believed that the flat Earth was depressed in the middle like a saucer, to allow for the fact that the Sun does not rise and set at the same time for everyone.[38]
[edit]Historians
Hecataeus of Miletus believed the earth was flat and surrounded by water.[39] Herodotus in his Histories ridiculed the belief that water encircled the world,[40]yet most classicists agree he still believed the earth to be flat because of his descriptions of literal "ends" or "edges" of the earth.[41]
[edit]Ancient India
Further information: Indian astronomyIn antiquity, a cosmological view prevailed in India that held the Earth is a disc that consists of four continents grouped around the central mountain Meru like the petals of a flower. An outer ocean surrounds these continents.[42] This view was elaborated in traditional Jain cosmology and Buddhist cosmology, which depicts the cosmos as a vast, flat oceanic disk (of the magnitude of a small planetary system), bounded by mountains, in which the continents are set as small islands.[42] The belief in a disk remained the dominant one in Indian cosmology until the early centuries AD, such as in the Puranas:
"In the Puranas the Earth is a flat-bottomed, circular disk, in the center of which is a lofty mountain, Meru."[42][edit]Norse and Germanic
The ancient Norse and Germanic peoples believed in a flat earth cosmography of the earth surrounded by an ocean, with the axis mundi (a world-tree: Yggdrasil, or pillar: Irminsul) in the centre.[43][44]The Norse believed that in the world-encircling ocean sat a snake called Jormungandr.[45] In the Norse creation account preserved in Gylfaginning (VIII) it is stated that during the creation of the earth, an impassable sea was placed around the earth like a ring:
...And Jafnhárr said: "Of the blood, which ran and welled forth freely out of his wounds, they made the sea, when they had formed and made firm the earth together, and laid the sea in a ring round. about her; and it may well seem a hard thing to most men to cross over it."[46][edit]Ancient Japan
The first chapter of the Nihongi ("Chronicles of Japan") describes the ancient Japanese belief that the world was flat and that dry land floated "like oil" on water:
Hence it is said that when the world began to be created, the soil of which lands were composed floated about in a manner which might be compared to the floating of a fish sporting on the surface of the water... ...Of old, when the land was Young and the earth young, it floated about, as it were floating oil. At this time a thing was produced within the land, in shape like a reed-shoot when it sprouts forth.[47]The Kojiki[48] and Ainu folklore also describes a flat earth cosmography where the earth is "floating" on water.[49]
[edit]Ancient China
Further information: Chinese astronomyIn ancient China, the prevailing belief was that the Earth was flat and square, while the heavens were round,[50] an assumption virtually unquestioned until the introduction of European astronomy in the 17th century.[51][52][53] The English sinologist Cullen emphasizes the point that there was no concept of a round Earth in ancient Chinese astronomy:
Chinese thought on the form of the Earth remained almost unchanged from early times until the first contacts with modern science through the medium of Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century. While the heavens were variously described as being like an umbrella covering the Earth (the Kai Tian theory), or like a sphere surrounding it (the Hun Tian theory), or as being without substance while the heavenly bodies float freely (the Hsüan yeh theory), the Earth was at all times flat, although perhaps bulging up slightly.[54]
The model of an egg is often used by Chinese astronomers to describe the heavens as spherical. Historian Joseph Needham quotes Zhang Heng (78-139 AD) as saying:
The heavens are like a hen's egg and as round as a crossbow bullet; the earth is like the yolk of the egg, and lies in the centre.[55]
-
Zhang Heng is better known for his invention of the rectangular grid or coordinate system that was used for terrestrial maps in the same way as Marinus of Tyreand Ptolemy, who were contemporaries.[56] Cullen comments:
In a passage of Zhang Heng's cosmogony not translated by Needham, Zhang himself says: "Heaven takes its body from the Yang, so it is round and in motion. earth takes its body from the Yin, so it is flat and quiescent". The point of the egg analogy is simply to stress that the earth is completely enclosed by heaven, rather than merely covered from above as the Kai Tian describes. Chinese astronomers, many of them brilliant men by any standards, continued to think in flat-earth terms until the seventeenth century; this surprising fact might be the starting-point for a re-examination of the apparent facility with which the idea of a spherical earth found acceptance in fifth-century B.C. Greece.[57]
Likewise, the 13th century scholar Li Ye, arguing that the movements of the round heaven would be hindered by a square Earth,[50] did not advocate a spherical Earth, but rather that its edge should be rounded off so as to be circular.[58]
As noted in the book Huai Nan Zu,[59] in the 2nd Century BC Chinese astronomers effectively inverted Eratosthenes' calculation of the curvature of the earth in order to calculate the height of the sun above the earth. By assuming the earth to be flat, they arrived at a distance of 100,000 li, a value short by three orders of magnitude.
"4. Like it or not, you were wrong. An argument is actually a SERIES of statements called premises and conclusion. You can of course choose not to take my word for it, just go check a dictionary or any book on critical thinking if letting someone else correct you makes you feel better."
In other words, no source, no basis for your above arguments. What a poor loser attitude... Come on... you are the one accuse me that my English is bad... Try harder!
"5. Yes, you heard me right, the Bible teaches that Adam’s sin brought death into the world. The consequences of one man’s actions are not limited to just himself. You should have lived long enough to know this. This is not about God being cruel, it is about the wide reaching effects of sin. BTW, to judge God is to presuppose a basis, a moral standard, for making moral judgement. From where does an atheist get this moral standard?"
I did not judge as I know "cruel" is subjective. So according to you, God is loving when He supposedly made the other lifeforms to suffer mortality when the 1st man made his 1st mistake because banishment is not enough. Remember God is Omnipotent/present/benevolence. That actually meant, God intended the various lifeforms to have mortality. Which is no support to your original claim that" There was no death before sin."
"6. You missed the whole point and is now fixated with splitting hairs here. I am saying that the coney and the rabbits have been classified in the OT law as animals that “chew the cud” because the phrase simply means “to bring up” which is good information enough for the Israelites without having to know the digestive distinctions between cows and coneys. I also mentioned that coney was an old English word for rabbit and I am not wrong. (see http://www.rabbit.org/links/history.html ) Anyway, the Hebrew word is shaw-fawn', a species of rock rabbit (from its hiding), i.e. probably the hyrax. Some Bible versions translate it as rock badger while others as hyrax. But whatever it was, it was a rabbit-like rodent."
Appeal to ignorance... must be appealing to the ignorant...
"7. I am taking issue with YOUR fallacious statement that the creationists are not credible. You then said I am appealing to authority here? You are diverting the issue by throwing a red herring accusation at me. But like it or not, many creation scientists have PhDs from world class universities. If that does not qualify them as authorities in their respective fields of study, then what does?"
Creationists are just people who belief in a created world.
cre·a·tion·ism (kr
-
sh
-n
z
m)n.Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
cre·ation·ist adj. & n.Yet you refer them as if they are any kind of authority. Yes there are phd's and whatnot, you just commited a fallacy of composition...
Please...
A red herring is a clue which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue.P.S: I have 5 kids. Educating them proved to be easier on my patience.... at least I know their innocence...
"8. You are flogging a dead horse. I already made it clear that my “gay” example was an illustration. I did not say you made that claim. I even made it clear with an “IF”. And now you then went on an irrelevant exposition of what a strawman argument is."
Wanna point out that the "gay" example is a red herring... as it could meant from sexual preference to elation where "chewer of the cud" refers to behaviours. The "if" you said in :" It's like you telling me that if the word "gay..." was refering to the word "gay" not the "you", which is me. Its a strawman because your English is bad or you don't know how to posit yourself or you just can't stand correction. I just hate to be corrected incorrectly.
"9. I’m not asking you to check out another website on fallacies! But then again, I think you do need to brush up on them anyway. When it comes to stereotyping the village atheists, OK guilty as charged! But you should find out more for yourself what characterizes the village atheists."
You misunderstood. I just don't wanna see a website full of fallacious conclusions. I don't religously discriminate like you do... Not in sync with Jesus's Beautitudes.... Sorry to reject your sincere offer.
