"The question I asked was “Since
when is belief defined as subjective truth?” and you changed the
subject by asking me since when I became a Christian. A diversion,
and an irrelevant one no less."
You don't read rhetorics well... Your belief changes with time.
Just think of the time you accepted Christ, which also mean there
is a time where you did not accept Christ.
"Subjective truth is simply
another label for relativism, that you cannot understand this
simple truth is enough to deem you dull. Even this atheist website
apparently got it righthttp://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/Subjective.htm"
Do you still not see subjective truth does not opposes or
contradicts objective truth... regardless of what you believe as
relativism. Nothing affects objective truths.
The way you bring in relativism is a strawman just because the
discussion has nothing to do with relativism and you attack it like
it does.
By stating relativism(a concept) = subjective truth (a noun) is a
fallacy of composition. By stating anyone who accepts subjective
truth is following relativsm is a hasty generalization.
And using the exact same insult intended words back to me makes you
appear hypocrital because you claim you are Christian. Or did you
forget what Jesus said about being slapped?
"You repeatedly failed to
differentiate and distinguish between a self-defeating argument and
a circular argument. According to The Philosopher’s Toolkit, a
self-defeating argument is an argument that, if taken to be sound,
shows itself to be unsound. The term is often used for positions or
theses as well as arguments where, if you take the principle
proposed to be true, it undermines itself by its own logic. Such
cases are more accurately described as self-defeating positions."
If you insist... Strawman away.
"And pray tell how do you plant
your feet in mid-air or are you being facetious? "
"...plant your feet in
mid-air..."
If you are agreeable to
define,
"plant"=
Place or fix in a specified
position
"mid-air"=The middle of the air, as while in
flight
"You missed my point about
relativism being a worldview.
Oh well, never mind."
Yes please. Let it go to save youself more humiliation.
"And you are still sorely confused
about what is objective truth. The objective truth did not change
at all. You mean you disagree with me that before there was a
Singapore there were no Singaporeans? Or are you just trying to be
funny?"
It changed, with time. Appeal to ridicule?
"Worst, you quoted the Bible but
FAILED to understand what it means. That verse is not saying that
objective truth about the previous creation became non-existent, it
is saying that the former physical earth will cease to exist and
will not be remembered anymore because of the new heavens and new
earth. See, this again proves my point that atheists really fare
pathetically when they try to play Bible exegete."
No... the keywords are "forgotten" where subjective truths are
made non existent, and "new" where implying implicitly the old is
time related. Strawman away.
"And so what if there were some
people who believed that the earth was flat? You still missed the
point that the objective truth is that the earth is not flat and
that these people were wrong."
No one was arguing the earth is flat is objective truth.
Strawman away.
"And one can only be wrong if
objective truth exists.""
Objective truths exist regardless of what is right or wrong.
Begging the question much?
"You can play the dishonest game
for all I care. You said that an argument is a statement. I
corrected you and even provided a third party to correct you when
you asked for it, and then you go ad hominem because of a bruised
ego. And it’s not that I am insisting that you are wrong, but you
are refusing to admit that you are wrong. The evidence is plainly
on my side."
"You mean being cruel is not
something that is morally wrong? Why would that be just my
assumption and not your problem? And then you go shooting off
alleged strawman fallacies when you realised that you have been
cornered."
This where you risk being hypocritical again. Being
cruel(causing hurt and suffering) is neither right or wrong. Your
assumption of it being moralistic does not change a thing about
it.
Its your strawman to pick on arguing the morals of the one saying
God being cruel. <-- Appeal to guilt.
"You can read English,
right?"
Apeal to ridicule much?
"What does the Bible say in
Genesis about what is food for Adam and the animals? Hint: they
were vegetarian. So it still means no death before sin. And
according to the Bible, plants and fruits are not called “nephesh
chayah” which is Biblical life as distinct from biological life. If
you wish to debate intelligently with me on Bible interpretation
please at least brush up on your Bible knowledge
herehttp://creation.com/no-death-before-the-fall"
Challenge accepted.
Gen 1:30And to
every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
wherein there
is life, I
have given every
green herb for meat: and it was so.
What did the plant feed on if not the life(“nephesh chayah")? So the plant ingest the
animals alive and they survive somehow?
"The issue is not whether the rock
badger is really a ruminant or engages in refection, but that the
phrase “chews the cud” (to bring up) is applied to it because what
it does is similar to the cow or other animal that chews the cud.
The point was not to teach animal anatomy or biology but to inform
the Israelites that they can eat only those that “chew the cud” and
have split hooves, but that from among this group of animals they
are not supposed to eat the rabbit and the coney and some
others."
So you don't know how identify what animal or what behaviour is
"chew the cud" is referred in Lev11:5. Thats ignorance.
Can one objectively hold something to be objective truth when there
contents of the objective truth one is not clear about?
"And there’s no false dilemma
because you were really being ignorant. Else you were simply
playing daft."
A false
dilemma (also
called false dichotomy,
the either-or
fallacy, fallacy of false
choice, black-and-white
thinking, or the fallacy of
exhaustive hypotheses) is a type
of logical fallacy that involves a
situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in
fact there is at least one additional option.
You gave me only 2 options either not insulted or being petty and narrow minded. Which
strawmans away from disputing the validity of the insult.
"And you still continue to play
daft when I exposed your fallacious claim that creationists are not
credible."
To help you remember, I quote thee "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is
not a science textbook. Creationists by and large already know
that."
You are shifting the burden of proof when I ask what are the
credibilty of the creationists to support your views.
You should just prove their credibity, as a whole. Oh you
didn't...
"And I don’t see how you have been
trying to bridge any reasonable communication standard. What
standard are you talking about? Whose standards? What criteria?
None that can be discerned.
By identifying the common illogical fallacies in
arguments.
" All that I have seen are your
attempts to undermine the Christian faith, just like the other
atheists here."
What you, me, he, she thinks, have absolutely no effect on the
objective truths. What have I done to deserve this prejudice...
"Again, spewing out the names of
fallacies proves nothing beyond the fact that you can spew out
these names. When it comes to actually spotting and discerning them
you repeatedly failed. And the more you do this the more your
pretence will be exposed."
Disputable... plus I don't need pretend to be anything but you
need to uphold your beliefs.
"The example of Singaporean was a
good example of what is objective truth. Your attempt to dismiss it
failed. Again if the fact is that you were born in 1990 in
Singapore, then that is the objective truth, even if 1000 years
have passed. It cannot be that you are born in 1850 in China when
it is the year 3000."
If you insist... lets pretend you are right.
"I wonder why there is a need to
continue on when you have already conceded the whole argument to me
when your very words are that you pursue “absolute
truth”.
Concede? What do you mean? Please define.
‘All right,’ Matt conceded, ‘I probably made a mistake.’
Myers was forced to concede that competition had badly affected profits.
Holyfield had to concede in the ninth round due to a head injury.
Despite the result, he refuses to concede defeat.
The BBC will have to concede some of its broadcasting rights for sporting events.
Was anyone discussing my pursuits? Was anyone challenging my
pursuits? Did I deny what I was pursuing?
And you thought my English was bad... Whatever....
"What then is absolute truth?
Isn’t that the objective truth I have been talking about all
along?"
I'm still chasing after it. No.
"And please explain in detail your
point about time making truths subjective."
<Its_a_trap.jpg> Rephrase so that I would bother to
elaborate.
P.S: To me, its fun to name, list, draw parallels from others
argument to illogical fallacies. Its an exercise to improve
identifying such so as to avoid using them if possible.
To me, its easier for you to cry "Fallacious!" and pretend like
anyone one gonna believe than to argue logically. At least so far
from my observations....
You don’t communicate well. That beliefs change over time was
already a point I made earlier. But that is not the same as saying
truth changes. Assuming that I became a Christian in 2011, then it
is TRUE that I was not a Christian in 2010. And it is TRUE that I
was a Christian in 2011. My religious position changed but not the
truth. To say that truth changes would be to change the earlier
claim and say that I was a Christian in 2010. But that would not be
true at all.
And since you also believe in objective truth, then I have no
quarrel with you. My issue is with Tcmc who believes in relativism
aka subjective truths. But then again she just admitted that there
are objective truths too. At least she finally came round to
changing her mind about the truth.
And by any-o-how labelling fallacies is still you showing off
your confusion about what fallacies are. And why would filling in
on your ignorance on what is a self-defeating argument be a
strawman?
You failed to grasp the meaning of “feet firmly planted in
mid-air” within the context of relativism. Your attempted
demonstration of the simple phenomenon based on your own defining
aside, I was referring to the absurdity of trying to stand on air.
Planting something means to fix something securely down, as in
planting a tree, you need a solid ground/base. You can’t plant your
feet in midair because you cannot stand on air.
Truth does not change with time or over time. Beliefs can.
Preferences can. Tastes can. And even if you like durians in 1990
but hate it in 2000, the truth did not change over time but your
preferences did. The truth remains that you like durians in 1990
but not in 2000. And it is the same with the flat earth issue where
beliefs changed to be in accordance to the truth.
Regarding the “argument” issue, you played word games by
arbitrarily defining something = argument so that you can argue
that a statement is a clear expression of “argument” in writing or
speech. This holds no water at all. An argument is NOT a statement
but you said it is. You said I have no evidence for my claim,
though it is so obvious that you are wrong. I said that an argument
is a connected SERIES OF STATEMENTS. Yet when a third party
definition is given you teh-gong and asked what relevance? It is
not about me wanting to win an argument, it’s about you not
willing to admit you lost one.
And you beg the question, why is being cruel not considered
right or wrong? Of course we all know that you are just trying to
be funny. Do you teach your five kids that cruel is neither good or
bad? That it can be good to be cruel? And you any-o-how accuse me
of arguing a strawman when all I demanded from Tcmc was her
justification for posing a moral judgement when her atheistic
worldview does not supply such a basis, something which you
obviously did not grasp.
Plants do not feed on nephesh chayah. Plants are primary
producers and grow in an environment where there is sunshine,
water, air, and soil. Didn't pay attention in primary school
much?
Regarding “chewing the cud” your ignorance shows again. The
issue isn’t about not knowing which animal chews the cud, the issue
is that the text has clearly identified the rock badger and the
rabbit as two animals that are not to be eaten.
Unless you can give me a third alternative, it is not
necessarily a false dilemma that you are either ignorant or playing
daft.
You are shifting goalposts here. You made the claim “since when
are creationists credible?” The onus is not on me to prove their
credibility but that you should first provide evidence that they
are not credible if you do not wish to be guilty of the genetic
fallacy.
As to bridging reasonable communicating standards, I think you
failed here since you are so guilty of committing many fallacies,
and some more still have the cheek to say that I failed to
spot more that you committed. It’s only fun for you to spot
fallacies because when exposed you just act blur and throw up more
alleged spotting of fallacies but the truth is that you can’t even
properly identify them. To me, it’s easier for you to keep spewing
names of informal fallacies and pretend that you know what you are
talking about when you actually don't.
