"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...