"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."
Circular logic...
"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.
"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.
