Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Woooah... Super wall of text. Pardon the part which repeated.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
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:
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.
Tcms said that truth changes. If that is not holding to the notion of subjective truth, then what is it? Those who hold to relativism do hold to a warped notion of truth, and I have already explained why it is so. Your failure to discern it and instead to confuse it with circular reasoning does not render my case against relativism invalid. Any bloke can cut and paste chunks of WOT on informal fallacies, but not everyone can identify them correctly.
You claimed that it is circular reasoning for me to argue that relativism is self-defeating, yet you were unable to point out where the circular reasoning is. In the first place did you even understand the point I was making? Let me again show you how self-defeating relativism is. If you claim that relativism is true, then is it ABSOLUTELY true, or relatively true? Think hard, don’t just give a knee-jerk response. Can God exists and God does not exist be both true? Relativists say “can” and thus violate the law of non-contradiction. Not only did you also fail to understand the contradictory nature of relativism, you still erroneously think this is circular reasoning on my part. Wait, there’s more. You also failed to see how relativism has no basis to judge. If what’s true is true for you and what’s true is true for me, then how can anyone be wrong? Relativism self-destructs when it is applied onto itself but instead of realising the absurdity of relativism you again accused me of circular reasoning. Thus you can’t fault me for noticing that you don’t know what circular reasoning is. See http://carm.org/refuting-relativism
Yes, I affirm that objective truth does not change with time and you still failed to demonstrate how my statement committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Good try though, but no cookies. If you were born in Singapore, then one hundred years later the truth would still be that you were born in Singapore. So pray tell where’s the fallacious part?
Concerning the flat earth myth, not everyone believed that the earth was flat. And the irony is that you failed to see within the wiki link you gave that there is this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth as well. Oh and let me spoon feed you with this http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html
Your refusal to accept the truth that an argument consists of a series of statements reflects your stubborn ego than any alleged “loser attitude” by me to produce evidence for something so self-evident. And since you refuse the less embarrassing alternative of self-correction and prefer to be corrected by me, so for what it’s worth here goes, “An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion.” See http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/ Looks like I am not the one with the loser attitude.
The very fact that you accused God of being cruel is already a moral judgement, yet now you deny that you made any judgement? Special pleading fallacy spotted! Not only that, you made a fallacious strawman argument. God was JUDGING the sin of Adam’s rebellion, and that meant subjecting the entire created universe to the curse of death. BTW, since you claim to be a parent of five kids (kudos to you for making govt very proud), isn’t punishment for wrong doing also an expression of love? And sometimes the consequences of punishment extends beyond the wrongdoer himself?
Concerning chewing the cud, I was not appealing to ignorance, but correcting YOUR ignorance.
Yes, creationists are people who believe God created. But that by itself does not mean that creationists are not credible. To claim that would be to invoke the genetic fallacy. And mind you, I was also talking about creationists who are also scientists. And then you throw out another alleged fallacy of composition, no doubt trying to sound impressive but perhaps without much substance.
I certainly didn’t miss the personal dig that you find it easier on your patience to teach them, but then again it's easier to educate kids since you probably fare better with them being more impressionable and less equipped to wear you down with well-honed critical thinking skills. Oh, and did you know that teaching kids the wrong things is also very easy too?
And the gay thingy? It wasn’t a red herring. As mentioned, it was simply another example to further illustrate a point I was trying to clarify with you. When I said “it’s like you saying...” it is not the same as saying “You said....” In any case, I wasn’t attributing that argument to you. I could well have mentioned “Ah Kow” in place of “you” and the point still remains.
On what basis do you conclude that the websites I suggested were full of fallacious conclusions? That’s the fallacy of cavalier dismissal and/or the genetic fallacy you committed. And talking about religious discrimination, who was it who said that that creationists are not credible?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Woooah... Super wall of text. Pardon the part which repeated.
I am wondering why you bother to read a truckload of nonsense and dung. utter rubbish.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
I am wondering why you bother to read a truckload of nonsense and dung. utter rubbish.
It is precisely your kind of stuck-up condescending view of creationists that result in atheists losing public debates with the theists. They enter the debate being wilfully ignorant of creationists arguments and end up being pummelled on the stage. After the loss they then whine and sulk about giving creationists airtime and how they regret dignifying their arguments. Sore loser attitude. And now they refuse to debate.
See
http://www.conservapedia.com/Creation_scientists_tend_to_win_the_creation_vs._evolution_debates
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Woooah... Super wall of text. Pardon the part which repeated.
thats really 1 big wall of text! =D -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
thats really 1 big wall of text! =DAnd really unnecessary at all, since a link would have sufficed. But no biggie, hopefully this does not become a trend and everyone do cut-and-paste Wiki-WOT.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcms said that truth changes. If that is not holding to the notion of subjective truth, then what is it? Those who hold to relativism do hold to a warped notion of truth, and I have already explained why it is so. Your failure to discern it and instead to confuse it with circular reasoning does not render my case against relativism invalid. Any bloke can cut and paste chunks of WOT on informal fallacies, but not everyone can identify them correctly.
You claimed that it is circular reasoning for me to argue that relativism is self-defeating, yet you were unable to point out where the circular reasoning is. In the first place did you even understand the point I was making? Let me again show you how self-defeating relativism is. If you claim that relativism is true, then is it ABSOLUTELY true, or relatively true? Think hard, don’t just give a knee-jerk response. Can God exists and God does not exist be both true? Relativists say “can” and thus violate the law of non-contradiction. Not only did you also fail to understand the contradictory nature of relativism, you still erroneously think this is circular reasoning on my part. Wait, there’s more. You also failed to see how relativism has no basis to judge. If what’s true is true for you and what’s true is true for me, then how can anyone be wrong? Relativism self-destructs when it is applied onto itself but instead of realising the absurdity of relativism you again accused me of circular reasoning. Thus you can’t fault me for noticing that you don’t know what circular reasoning is. See http://carm.org/refuting-relativism
Yes, I affirm that objective truth does not change with time and you still failed to demonstrate how my statement committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Good try though, but no cookies. If you were born in Singapore, then one hundred years later the truth would still be that you were born in Singapore. So pray tell where’s the fallacious part?
Concerning the flat earth myth, not everyone believed that the earth was flat. And the irony is that you failed to see within the wiki link you gave that there is this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth as well. Oh and let me spoon feed you with this http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html
Your refusal to accept the truth that an argument consists of a series of statements reflects your stubborn ego than any alleged “loser attitude” by me to produce evidence for something so self-evident. And since you refuse the less embarrassing alternative of self-correction and prefer to be corrected by me, so for what it’s worth here goes, “An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion.” See http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/ Looks like I am not the one with the loser attitude.
The very fact that you accused God of being cruel is already a moral judgement, yet now you deny that you made any judgement? Special pleading fallacy spotted! Not only that, you made a fallacious strawman argument. God was JUDGING the sin of Adam’s rebellion, and that meant subjecting the entire created universe to the curse of death. BTW, since you claim to be a parent of five kids (kudos to you for making govt very proud), isn’t punishment for wrong doing also an expression of love? And sometimes the consequences of punishment extends beyond the wrongdoer himself?
Concerning chewing the cud, I was not appealing to ignorance, but correcting YOUR ignorance.
Yes, creationists are people who believe God created. But that by itself does not mean that creationists are not credible. To claim that would be to invoke the genetic fallacy. And mind you, I was also talking about creationists who are also scientists. And then you throw out another alleged fallacy of composition, no doubt trying to sound impressive but perhaps without much substance.
I certainly didn’t miss the personal dig that you find it easier on your patience to teach them, but then again it's easier to educate kids since you probably fare better with them being more impressionable and less equipped to wear you down with well-honed critical thinking skills. Oh, and did you know that teaching kids the wrong things is also very easy too?
And the gay thingy? It wasn’t a red herring. As mentioned, it was simply another example to further illustrate a point I was trying to clarify with you. When I said “it’s like you saying...” it is not the same as saying “You said....” In any case, I wasn’t attributing that argument to you. I could well have mentioned “Ah Kow” in place of “you” and the point still remains.
On what basis do you conclude that the websites I suggested were full of fallacious conclusions? That’s the fallacy of cavalier dismissal and/or the genetic fallacy you committed. And talking about religious discrimination, who was it who said that that creationists are not credible?
BIC
It is TRUE that truth changes. I have demonstrated to you how EVEN christian truths and christian morals change over time.
Even the interpretation of the bible changes over time.
Truth does change over time.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
It is TRUE that truth changes. I have demonstrated to you how EVEN christian truths and christian morals change over time.
Even the interpretation of the bible changes over time.
Truth does change over time.
You are confused between truth that does not change over time and practices/beliefs that do change over time. Whether Christians choose to cremate or bury a dead body is a matter of Christian liberty, the Bible makes no demands. People in the past bury their dead, but in land scarce Singapore we usually cremate. What change of truth are you talking about?
Beliefs also change over time. Long ago some people BELIEVED that the earth was flat but now people no longer believe that. Did the truth change? Nope. Long ago the earth was a globe, today it is still a globe. People lacked the information then to align their beliefs to reality/truth but as we discover more about the world, we discover facts to which we may need to revise our beliefs, or what we BELIEVE to be true. But the truth never changes. Geddit?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are confused between truth that does not change over time and practices/beliefs that do change over time. Whether Christians choose to cremate or bury a dead body is a matter of Christian liberty, the Bible makes no demands. People in the past bury their dead, but in land scarce Singapore we usually cremate. What change of truth are you talking about?
Beliefs also change over time. Long ago some people BELIEVED that the earth was flat but now people no longer believe that. Did the truth change? Nope. Long ago the earth was a globe, today it is still a globe. People lacked the information then to align their beliefs to reality/truth but as we discover more about the world, we discover facts to which we may need to revise our beliefs, or what we BELIEVE to be true. But the truth never changes. Geddit?
BIC
Like you who think that every of your beliefs is truth, christians living a few hundreds years back believed that cremation will affect salvation. AND THAT IS TRUTH to them. But today, this truth has changed. Similarly, today you might believe that believing in the name of jesus will save you. But in a few hundred years time this will/might change. Also, christians used to believe many things are literal in the bible, but not anymore. To them their literal beliefs were truth. But to you, of course now you find them silly. But to them it was truth and today that "truth" has changed.
Can you please see past yourself and your own beliefs? Stand in the shoes of a christian who lived300 years ago. See what he believed as truth. And see how that truth has changed over hundreds of years. Christian truth does change.
Dont act darn.
Even more closer to our time, many christians did believet aht rock music was satanic and even christian rock music was meant for hell. To them fifty years ago, that was biblical truth.
Today? Dont they loook silly?
Similarly your beliefs (and probably mine) might look silly in fifty years time!
Christian truths do change!
Truth changes!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Like you who think that every of your beliefs is truth, christians living a few hundreds years back believed that cremation will affect salvation. AND THAT IS TRUTH to them. But today, this truth has changed. Similarly, today you might believe that believing in the name of jesus will save you. But in a few hundred years time this will/might change. Also, christians used to believe many things are literal in the bible, but not anymore. To them their literal beliefs were truth. But to you, of course now you find them silly. But to them it was truth and today that "truth" has changed.
Can you please see past yourself and your own beliefs? Stand in the shoes of a christian who lived300 years ago. See what he believed as truth. And see how that truth has changed over hundreds of years. Christian truth does change.
Dont act darn.
Even more closer to our time, many christians did believet aht rock music was satanic and even christian rock music was meant for hell. To them fifty years ago, that was biblical truth.
Today? Dont they loook silly?
Similarly your beliefs (and probably mine) might look silly in fifty years time!
Christian truths do change!
Truth changes!
Either you are still utterly CONFUSED between belief and truth or you are acting daft.
I said it again. The truth does not change. But our perception/beliefs ABOUT what is true does. The fact that you put the word "truth" in quotes speaks volumes. You agree with me but your ego does not want to publicly admit it.
The Bible says you can EXCHANGE a truth for a lie, but you cannot change a truth into an untruth over time.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Either you are still utterly CONFUSED between belief and truth or you are acting daft.
I said it again. The truth does not change. But our perception/beliefs ABOUT what is true does. The fact that you put the word "truth" in quotes speaks volumes. You agree with me but your ego does not want to publicly admit it.
BIC
Lol. What you perceive as truth hundreds years ago or now is still TRUTH to you. You understand?
Do you believe today that jesus is the way to salvation? Is that truth or is that "perception of truth"?
If that is your belief and to you that is TRUTH, then to christians living 300 years ago who believed that cremation affects salvation, that is truth too.
Why do you try to make them look silly but saying theirs is a perception and not really trth?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Lol. What you perceive as truth hundreds years ago or now is still TRUTH to you. You understand?
Do you believe today that jesus is the way to salvation? Is that truth or is that "perception of truth"?
If that is your belief and to you that is TRUTH, then to christians living 300 years ago who believed that cremation affects salvation, that is truth too.
Why do you try to make them look silly but saying theirs is a perception and not really trth?
It is you who are playing silly games.
Jesus is the way to salvation. Since when is cremation ADDED onto salvation? The Bible is our authority, pray tell when is cremation taught to affect salvation? Does the Bible teach it so? Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. You can die in 1000 ways but it does not change the truth that Jesus is the Way.
-
"Tcms said that truth changes."
Subjective truth, I might add. The context was belief, which was understood but not you.
"If that is not holding to the notion of subjective truth, then what is it?"
Hasty generalization... Are you saying realtivism= holding to subjective truth? If so, that is the exception rather than the norm.
"Those who hold to relativism do hold to a warped notion of truth, and I have already explained why it is so. Your failure to discern it and instead to confuse it with circular reasoning does not render my case against relativism invalid. Any bloke can cut and paste chunks of WOT on informal fallacies, but not everyone can identify them correctly."
Ad hominem. Spotted the your strawman(relativism), made a call and discuss it for fun.
"You claimed that it is circular reasoning for me to argue that relativism is self-defeating, yet you were unable to point out where the circular reasoning is. In the first place did you even understand the point I was making? Let me again show you how self-defeating relativism is. If you claim that relativism is true, then is it ABSOLUTELY true, or relatively true? Think hard, don’t just give a knee-jerk response. Can God exists and God does not exist be both true? Relativists say “can” and thus violate the law of non-contradiction. Not only did you also fail to understand the contradictory nature of relativism, you still erroneously think this is circular reasoning on my part. Wait, there’s more. You also failed to see how relativism has no basis to judge. If what’s true is true for you and what’s true is true for me, then how can anyone be wrong? Relativism self-destructs when it is applied onto itself but instead of realising the absurdity of relativism you again accused me of circular reasoning. Thus you can’t fault me for noticing that you don’t know what circular reasoning is. See http://carm.org/refuting-relativism"
Lets take a look at some of the contents of your link:
All truth is relative.
- If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
If the statement of "all truth is relative"=true, then "not all things are relative"=true.Therefore, "all truth is relative"=false.Why "not all things are relative" is true? Because "all truth is relative" is true.Why "all truth is relative" is false? Because "not all things are relative" is true.Circular logic, plain and direct.The rest are either catch 22 or begging the question.... or similar to circular logic. Similar to the argument you just made above quoted.If you hadn't not taken relativism as a law that subject everyone with subjective truth, it wouldn't be difficult at all. Relativism is not a law, its a theory."Yes, I affirm that objective truth does not change with time and you still failed to demonstrate how my statement committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Good try though, but no cookies. If you were born in Singapore, then one hundred years later the truth would still be that you were born in Singapore. So pray tell where’s the fallacious part?"So assuming one born in Singapore is one of your so called objective truth. And also take objective truth does not change with time into consideration, what is your objective truth about the Singaporean when earth was not formed? Or when the knowledge of Singapore has been completely wiped out, what is the value of your objective truth?"Concerning the flat earth myth, not everyone believed that the earth was flat. And the irony is that you failed to see within the wiki link you gave that there is this linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth as well. Oh and let me spoon feed you with this http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html"Conspiracy theory... interesting.... what a useless piece of information.... Did not click, lest another fallacious article."Your refusal to accept the truth that an argument consists of a series of statements reflects your stubborn ego than any alleged “loser attitude” by me to produce evidence for something so self-evident. And since you refuse the less embarrassing alternative of self-correction and prefer to be corrected by me, so for what it’s worth here goes, “An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion.” Seehttp://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/ Looks like I am not the one with the loser attitude."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_(logic). By your strawman, we are arguing about different things, your are asserting your are correct, I am asserting I'm not wrong where I don't even need to defend. Prove by intimadation much?"The very fact that you accused God of being cruel is already a moral judgement, yet now you deny that you made any judgement? Special pleading fallacy spotted!"Let you be the judge then... since saying something is "cruel" is making a judgement.cru·el/ˈkroÍžoÉ™l/
Adjective: - Causing pain or suffering.
"Not only that, you made a fallacious strawman argument. God was JUDGING the sin of Adam’s rebellion, and that meant subjecting the entire created universe to the curse of death. BTW, since you claim to be a parent of five kids (kudos to you for making govt very proud), isn’t punishment for wrong doing also an expression of love? And sometimes the consequences of punishment extends beyond the wrongdoer himself?"Gen 2:7 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.I guess the other lifeforms deserved the sudden mortality. Still, does not provide Biblical support that the other lifeforms were imortal.
I'm not perfect but God is. Don't make the mistake to compare human rationality with God's way in reference to love."Concerning chewing the cud, I was not appealing to ignorance, but correcting YOUR ignorance."
There is evidence that badgers not having behaviours of ruminant or refecting.
Was pointing out your fallacies and you resort to insult...
What fine values Christians have nowadays... *shakes head*"Yes, creationists are people who believe God created. But that by itself does not mean that creationists are not credible. To claim that would be to invoke the genetic fallacy. And mind you, I was also talking about creationists who are also scientists. And then you throw out another alleged fallacy of composition, no doubt trying to sound impressive but perhaps without much substance."
They are defined as such. What other definitions are there? What else can creationist mean? If your are referring to the scientists, scholars or whatnots, name them appropriately. The most vocal of the lot cannot represent all of them, can they? Thus moi pointing out the fallacy.
Its never their origins that I despise, its the noise the vocal lot make. Should you still falsely accuse me of a genetic fallacy or a special pleading, you seemed too desperate. There were so many that I committed, but you just falsely accuse me of two. Pathetic...
I was hoping your would see my intentions... but you put your self before what good you original intended to do and lost direction.
<Son_I'm_disappoint.jpg>
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It is you who are playing silly games.
Jesus is the way to salvation. Since when is cremation ADDED onto salvation? The Bible is our authority, pray tell when is cremation taught to affect salvation? Does the Bible teach it so? Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. You can die in 1000 ways but it does not change the truth that Jesus is the Way.
BIC,
Let me tell you again.
TO YOU now living in 2012, you see their beliefs as "perception of truth". To them living in 1700s, cremation affecting salvation was truth, biblical truth. Just like HOW today some christians believe that tongue speakers will go to hell.
Regarding the issue of cremation afecting salvation, like you, they took verses from the bible to come to the conclusion that cremation affects salvation.
Your belief that jesus is the way of salvation is also derived from the bible, isnt it?
So why are you discrediting their beliefs? Just because it is 300 years old?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
Let me tell you again.
TO YOU now living in 2012, you see their beliefs as "perception of truth". To them living in 1700s, cremation affecting salvation was truth, biblical truth. Just like HOW today some christians believe that tongue speakers will go to hell.
Regarding the issue of cremation afecting salvation, like you, they took verses from the bible to come to the conclusion that cremation affects salvation.
Your belief that jesus is the way of salvation is also derived from the bible, isnt it?
So why are you discrediting their beliefs? Just because it is 300 years old?
Tcmc,
Let me also tell you again. You need to think harder, really.
The fact that one can be wrong about anything PRESUPPOSES the existence of objective truth. If there is no objective truth there is no basis to call anything wrong.
And the sad fact is that what people may believe to be true often times turn out not to be true. You said that cremation affects salvation. I challenge you, "Support that with Scripture." Don't give me the crap that some 300 year old Christians believe that, so I should now search out their beliefs and refute them while you happily stand idle by and watch a wild goose chase? No way I'm gonna fall for this lame ruse of yours. But as for Jesus being the way to salvation, pray tell who would disagree with me that this is what the Bible clearly teaches?
The only thing I am discrediting is YOUR claim to be a Christian, or that you have given thought to it and have even read the Bible and decided to leave the faith. Nothing in my exchanges with you so far has convinced me that you have ever been well educated about the faith. Your knowledge of the Bible is pathetic, and you know little about Christian apologetics. All I see is childish and immature arguments befitting of a typical village atheist. Perhaps at most all you had was mere zeal without knowledge.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Let me also tell you again. You need to think harder, really.
The fact that one can be wrong about anything PRESUPPOSES the existence of objective truth. If there is no objective truth there is no basis to call anything wrong.
And the sad fact is that what people may believe to be true often times turn out not to be true. You said that cremation affects salvation. I challenge you, "Support that with Scripture." Don't give me the crap that some 300 year old Christians believe that, so I should now search out their beliefs and refute them while you happily stand idle by and watch a wild goose chase? No way I'm gonna fall for this lame ruse of yours. But as for Jesus being the way to salvation, pray tell who would disagree with me that this is what the Bible clearly teaches?
The only thing I am discrediting is YOUR claim to be a Christian, or that you have given thought to it and have even read the Bible and decided to leave the faith. Nothing in my exchanges with you so far has convinced me that you have ever been well educated about the faith. Your knowledge of the Bible is pathetic, and you know little about Christian apologetics. All I see is childish and immature arguments befitting of a typical village atheist. Perhaps at most all you had was mere zeal without knowledge.
BIC,
It seems like this statement "And the sad fact is that what people may believe to be true often times turn out not to be true." applies to OTHER christians only and never yourself, huh?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
It seems like this statement "And the sad fact is that what people may believe to be true often times turn out not to be true." applies to OTHER christians only and never yourself, huh?
Not true.
I used to believe that God used evolution. I was wrong. I did not read the Bible as it was meant to be read. I compromised with the clear teachings of the Bible thinking that it would "help" God to look more receptive to unbelievers. I was wrong. It amounted to saying that God cannot speak clearly to us and that God cannot mean what He says, even when He is speaking simply. It also meant distrusting God's Word.
So you still think there is no objective truth?
-
What is considered objective truth? The objectivity that something exist/s does not mean that that particular thing does not change.
Reading a textbook is as subjective as reading the bible. Let say their existence is objective(non changing), the objectivity is still subjected to the perceiver interpretations and observations. The interpretations affects the observations and the observations affects the interpretation and give rise to opinions.
For Christians, I observed (therefore subjective) at least 3 objective truth. God exist, Jesus saves, I sinned. Each not affecting the other in objectivity, but becomes subjective when refering them to each other.
I believe thats what Tcmc was trying to say.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not true.
I used to believe that God used evolution. I was wrong. I did not read the Bible as it was meant to be read. I compromised with the clear teachings of the Bible thinking that it would "help" God to look more receptive to unbelievers. I was wrong. It amounted to saying that God cannot speak clearly to us and that God cannot mean what He says, even when He is speaking simply. It also meant distrusting God's Word.
So you still think there is no objective truth?
BIC
Depends on what you are talking about.
But I can highlight a few christian morals that are subjective.
Christians say that lying is always wrong. This does not apply to every situation. Lying can sometimes be good.
Christians say that jesus is the only god. This is also subjective. Not every single human being believes int hat. It also depends on many factors like what religion you were brought up in/exposed to, what religious book you have read, and your personality and culture.
Christians say abortion is always wrong. Subjective again.
All these christian truths will/can change, and are subjective to the specific situation/individual.
THey are not universal truths.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
What is considered objective truth? The objectivity that something exist/s does not mean that that particular thing does not change.
Reading a textbook is as subjective as reading the bible. Let say their existence is objective(non changing), the objectivity is still subjected to the perceiver interpretations and observations. The interpretations affects the observations and the observations affects the interpretation and give rise to opinions.
For Christians, I observed (therefore subjective) at least 3 objective truth. God exist, Jesus saves, I sinned. Each not affecting the other in objectivity, but becomes subjective when refering them to each other.
I believe thats what Tcmc was trying to say.
Ane.
I think even for christians, the three you stated might not be objective truths to each and every denomination.
It depends on the denomination.
Some christian denominations do not believe jesus is god or that only jesus saves.
-
What is true may not be the truth. And what is the truth may not be true. Same can be said that what works may or may not be true, but what fails cannot be true because the truth always works.
If you break "Truth" down to definitions, this is what u can get.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
What is true may not be the truth. And what is the truth may not be true. Same can be said that what works may or may not be true, but what fails cannot be true because the truth always works.
If you break "Truth" down to definitions, this is what u can get.
BadM
What does not work might be true too, just that we might not have discovered how to adapt to it.
THat said, i do agree to a certain extent that what works could most probably be true to that individual or group, depending on context.
For example, hindus praying together and prayers answerd. It works for them, so its truth to them.
Another example, christians praying together and prayers answered. It works for them, so its truth to them.
-
"Love distills desire upon the eyes, love brings bewitching grace into the heart."
Euripides
have a nice day
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Tcms said that truth changes."
Subjective truth, I might add. The context was belief, which was understood but not you.
"If that is not holding to the notion of subjective truth, then what is it?"
Hasty generalization... Are you saying realtivism= holding to subjective truth? If so, that is the exception rather than the norm.
"Those who hold to relativism do hold to a warped notion of truth, and I have already explained why it is so. Your failure to discern it and instead to confuse it with circular reasoning does not render my case against relativism invalid. Any bloke can cut and paste chunks of WOT on informal fallacies, but not everyone can identify them correctly."
Ad hominem. Spotted the your strawman(relativism), made a call and discuss it for fun.
"You claimed that it is circular reasoning for me to argue that relativism is self-defeating, yet you were unable to point out where the circular reasoning is. In the first place did you even understand the point I was making? Let me again show you how self-defeating relativism is. If you claim that relativism is true, then is it ABSOLUTELY true, or relatively true? Think hard, don’t just give a knee-jerk response. Can God exists and God does not exist be both true? Relativists say “can” and thus violate the law of non-contradiction. Not only did you also fail to understand the contradictory nature of relativism, you still erroneously think this is circular reasoning on my part. Wait, there’s more. You also failed to see how relativism has no basis to judge. If what’s true is true for you and what’s true is true for me, then how can anyone be wrong? Relativism self-destructs when it is applied onto itself but instead of realising the absurdity of relativism you again accused me of circular reasoning. Thus you can’t fault me for noticing that you don’t know what circular reasoning is. See http://carm.org/refuting-relativism"
Lets take a look at some of the contents of your link:
All truth is relative.
- If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
If the statement of "all truth is relative"=true, then "not all things are relative"=true.Therefore, "all truth is relative"=false.Why "not all things are relative" is true? Because "all truth is relative" is true.Why "all truth is relative" is false? Because "not all things are relative" is true.Circular logic, plain and direct.The rest are either catch 22 or begging the question.... or similar to circular logic. Similar to the argument you just made above quoted.If you hadn't not taken relativism as a law that subject everyone with subjective truth, it wouldn't be difficult at all. Relativism is not a law, its a theory."Yes, I affirm that objective truth does not change with time and you still failed to demonstrate how my statement committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Good try though, but no cookies. If you were born in Singapore, then one hundred years later the truth would still be that you were born in Singapore. So pray tell where’s the fallacious part?"So assuming one born in Singapore is one of your so called objective truth. And also take objective truth does not change with time into consideration, what is your objective truth about the Singaporean when earth was not formed? Or when the knowledge of Singapore has been completely wiped out, what is the value of your objective truth?"Concerning the flat earth myth, not everyone believed that the earth was flat. And the irony is that you failed to see within the wiki link you gave that there is this linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth as well. Oh and let me spoon feed you with this http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html"Conspiracy theory... interesting.... what a useless piece of information.... Did not click, lest another fallacious article."Your refusal to accept the truth that an argument consists of a series of statements reflects your stubborn ego than any alleged “loser attitude” by me to produce evidence for something so self-evident. And since you refuse the less embarrassing alternative of self-correction and prefer to be corrected by me, so for what it’s worth here goes, “An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion.” Seehttp://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/ Looks like I am not the one with the loser attitude."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_(logic). By your strawman, we are arguing about different things, your are asserting your are correct, I am asserting I'm not wrong where I don't even need to defend. Prove by intimadation much?"The very fact that you accused God of being cruel is already a moral judgement, yet now you deny that you made any judgement? Special pleading fallacy spotted!"Let you be the judge then... since saying something is "cruel" is making a judgement.cru·el/ˈkroÍžoÉ™l/
Adjective:- Causing pain or suffering.
"Not only that, you made a fallacious strawman argument. God was JUDGING the sin of Adam’s rebellion, and that meant subjecting the entire created universe to the curse of death. BTW, since you claim to be a parent of five kids (kudos to you for making govt very proud), isn’t punishment for wrong doing also an expression of love? And sometimes the consequences of punishment extends beyond the wrongdoer himself?"Gen 2:7 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.I guess the other lifeforms deserved the sudden mortality. Still, does not provide Biblical support that the other lifeforms were imortal.
I'm not perfect but God is. Don't make the mistake to compare human rationality with God's way in reference to love."Concerning chewing the cud, I was not appealing to ignorance, but correcting YOUR ignorance."
There is evidence that badgers not having behaviours of ruminant or refecting.
Was pointing out your fallacies and you resort to insult...
What fine values Christians have nowadays... *shakes head*"Yes, creationists are people who believe God created. But that by itself does not mean that creationists are not credible. To claim that would be to invoke the genetic fallacy. And mind you, I was also talking about creationists who are also scientists. And then you throw out another alleged fallacy of composition, no doubt trying to sound impressive but perhaps without much substance."
They are defined as such. What other definitions are there? What else can creationist mean? If your are referring to the scientists, scholars or whatnots, name them appropriately. The most vocal of the lot cannot represent all of them, can they? Thus moi pointing out the fallacy.
Its never their origins that I despise, its the noise the vocal lot make. Should you still falsely accuse me of a genetic fallacy or a special pleading, you seemed too desperate. There were so many that I committed, but you just falsely accuse me of two. Pathetic...
I was hoping your would see my intentions... but you put your self before what good you original intended to do and lost direction.
<Son_I'm_disappoint.jpg>
If belief is that which changes, then Tcmc should be clear in her communication. In any case, since when is belief defined as subjective truth? And again you any-o-how allege a fallacy of hasty generalisation when there is none committed. Relativism = subjective truth. I suggest you brush up on your knowledge concerning what relativism is here http://www.theopedia.com/Relativism
And you are STILL confused between what a circular reasoning is and what a self-defeating argument is. The statement "Relativism is true" is a self-defeating statement akin to saying "The truth is that there is no truth." It's like saying that you have your feet firmly planted in mid-air. And mind you, relativism is not just a theory but for many it has become a worldview. See http://www.theopedia.com/Relativism
When there was no earth, there would be no Singapore to speak of. That's the objective truth about the existence of Singapore before earth existed. How difficult is this? Even if today Singapore is wiped off the face of the earth, the objective truth remains that (say you were born in Singapore in 1990) you were born in Singapore in 1990. And even if the whole universe vaporised, that truth is still true, it does not cease to be true, though it may cease to be relevant or meaningful with no one around to take note.
Regarding the Flat Earth Myth, the only conspiracy is that concocted by the enemies of the Christian faith, who deceptively tries to cast the faith in a bad light by perpetuating a science-faith conflict.
There is no intimidation on my part at all in merely pointing out that you were WRONG to stubbornly insist that an argument is a statement. How you can even claim to be not wrong is beyond comprehension. Guess it is a matter of ego here for you.
Of course saying God is cruel is making a moral judgment, because the assumption is that there is something morally wrong with being cruel. If it is just a matter causing pain or suffering, then would you say the doctor is cruel in causing pain and suffering in treating a patient of cancer through chemotherapy? Of course not.
I don't blame you for your lack of theological training and Bible knowledge. When God finished with Creation on Day 6 He said it was "very good". It couldn't be all "very good" when death and suffering is present then and animals are dropping dead or dying around Adam and Eve. No, the other life-forms did not deserve death at all. It wasn't anything they did but what Adam did. But that's the point I was making, sin affects everything. And God's way is higher than ours. The mistake that atheists make is to think that God must be subject to their rational view.
I don't know what badger evidence you are talking about. The point is that the rock badger/hyrax/coney is an animal which the Bible classified as one that "chews the cud" using the language of appearance. Why would you consider it an insult when your ignorance is being corrected? You can't be that petty and narrow-minded yah?
You are employing double standards here: you can treat all creationists as not credible but I cannot speak of creationists generally as credible? The fallacy is all yours. Are creationists making a lot of noise? Sure. And what's your problem with that? Atheists and evolutionists are making a lot of din too.
Your intention, if I remember you admitted earlier, was to like a challenge and argument. Perhaps you are just being argumentative. But even so, it shows that you are a novice when it comes to critical thinking. Perhaps you were only just introduced to the world of informal fallacies but lacked the training in them, thus explaining how your confusion in recognising and identifying them.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
What is considered objective truth? The objectivity that something exist/s does not mean that that particular thing does not change.
Reading a textbook is as subjective as reading the bible. Let say their existence is objective(non changing), the objectivity is still subjected to the perceiver interpretations and observations. The interpretations affects the observations and the observations affects the interpretation and give rise to opinions.
For Christians, I observed (therefore subjective) at least 3 objective truth. God exist, Jesus saves, I sinned. Each not affecting the other in objectivity, but becomes subjective when refering them to each other.
I believe thats what Tcmc was trying to say.
You are CONFUSED still.
Objective truth is that which is true regardless of time and space and one's feelings or perceptions. It is independent of what one believes or thinks or feels. And we are not talking about whether a thing changes, but whether truth can change.
And just because a reader brings to the text his personal background and prejudices/biases which may influence his interpretation, that does not mean that the objective/intended meaning of the text is absent. We have to work at it to DISCOVER the meaning, rather than to think we can decide its meaning whichever way we like.
Please explain how those 3 truths you highlighted become subjective when referring to each other.