Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Argumentum ad consequentiam. What's that you were saying about not using fallacies?
That's not reality: it's a statement of belief.

Positive statement about reality. Now prove it Shaker.

Positive assertions made by careless antitheists today: 4
Number of those justified: 0

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is not a reality, just your belief. I completely disagree.

Sin and evil do not exist.

Another positive assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No more circular than not believing in leprechauns because of the lack of evidence.  Engage brain before opening mouth

Leprechauns have material properties. Category confusion on your part.

[Shaker]

Positive statement about reality.

What is? That Ballsup Burns has deployed yet another fallacy, or something else?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is? That Ballsup Burns has deployed yet another fallacy, or something else?

You said that something that was believed was not reality. Evidence that thank you.

[Shaker]

You said that something that was believed was not reality. Evidence that thank you.

No need. Ballsup Burns was the one who made the assertion in #18719 ("The reality is that God has given us the knowledge of good and evil" etc.; my emphasis): that, in your words, is a positive statement about reality on his part so it's his job to back it up, not mine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

No it isn't. Moral philosophy is a substantial body of thinking, research, discussion and debate. "Sin" on the other hand is a word religious people use to describe rules written in books they think to be "holy" (and therefore inerrant) with no cogent logic to support the claim.

I think theres the genetic fallacy in here as well. Ad Hominem, The idea of sin not being part of moral philosophy? Justify.

Sin thought of as rules written in a book. Evidence that is the exclusive view please.

No cogent logic.....another positive assertion Evidence please.

It's a good job there are only 2 theists and several New atheists bothered with your output.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

I think you'll find sin is a part of moral philosophy.

And a new fallacy is added to the palette – the proof by assertion.

Fallacy number fouuurrrrteeeeeeen!

It’s only “part of moral philosophy” when it’s done by theologians. “Sin” is a religious concept.

Moral irrealism actually has nothing to offer the debate ultimately because morality needs arbitration and there is no actual arbitration in moral irrealism.

And another two are added, the non sequitur and the divine fallacy.

Fallacy number fifffteeeeeeeennnnn….

Fallacy number sixxxteeeeennnnn….

Morality doesn’t need “arbitration” at all, and even if it did there’s no reason to think that the supposed god in which you just happen to believe is the man for the job.
 

In other words, what moral irrealists perform is a kind of intellectual pretence. Unlike you I would not seek to exclude moral irrealism no matter how cranky it's proponents are.

Fallacy onnneeeeee….The straw man.

I haven’t done that.

In other words you are wrong to exclude sin from moral philosophy....but hey....if intellectual totalitarianism isn't about saying ''moral philosophy is whatever I say it is''....what is it for?

Fallacy number oooonnnnneeeee – agaaaaaaain: another straw man.

“Moral philosophy” is readily defined. Some theists are also moral philosophers. “Sin” however is a religious precept.

PS Any news yet on the logical path you intend to establish between someone saying "I will die for your sins" and that person being therefore divine?


Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

Fallacy 14: Proof by assertion

Fallacy 15: The non sequitur

Fallacy 16: The divine fallacy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Leprechauns have material properties. Category confusion on your part.

Fallacy number tweeelllllvvvveeee – the vacuous truth fallacy/argument from irrelevance.

Claims and assertions about leprechauns can entail physical properties (as can claims and assertions about “God” by the way). The point though is that when an argument works equally for either, then it’s probably a bad argument.

The category confusion is all yours.

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

Fallacy 14: Proof by assertion

Fallacy 15: The non sequitur

Fallacy 16: The divine fallacy

[Rhiannon]

Sin cannot exist in any objective form, since to sin means to break God's rules, and there is nothing objective about God or belief.

[wigginhall]

Sin cannot exist in any objective form, since to sin means to break God's rules, and there is nothing objective about God or belief.

That's a killer line. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

I think theres the genetic fallacy in here as well.

No there isn’t.

Ad Hominem,

No there wasn’t.

The idea of sin not being part of moral philosophy? Justify.

Fallacy number onnnneeeee – the straw man.

I merely described what “sin” means. It’s meaningful only for theists. That does not mean though that some theists don’t do moral philosophy.

Sin thought of as rules written in a book. Evidence that is the exclusive view please.

Fallacy number ooonnnneeeee: the straw man. Agaaaiiinnnn…

Who said anything about “exclusive”. That said, you’d have to go a long way I’d have thought to find anyone who isn’t religious taking the term seriously.

No cogent logic.....another positive assertion Evidence please.

Fallacy number seveeennntteeeeeennn – shifting the burden of proof.

If you think there is cogent logic, then (finally) present it. “No cogent logic” is merely the observation that – so far at least – none has been produced. That’s why for example schools (or at least non-faith ones) don’t teach religious “truths” as they do truths about geography or physics.

You may have noticed this. 

It's a good job there are only 2 theists and several New atheists bothered with your output.

Why?

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

Fallacy 14: Proof by assertion

Fallacy 15: The non sequitur

Fallacy 16: The divine fallacy

Fallacy 17: Shifting the burden of proof

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Sin cannot exist in any objective form, since to sin means to break God's rules, and there is nothing objective about God or belief.

Indeed, though presumably someone like Vlad would assert that his “God” is objectively real, that his belief about that is objectively true, that this “God’s” moral rules are accurately recorded in a book, and that those rules are inerrantly correct. Or at least they are until they are “interpreted” differently.

OK, so he can’t demonstrate any of these things except by relying on various fallacious thinking but that at least as I understand it is what he and others assert nonetheless.   

[wigginhall]

Well, do you think torturing a child for fun is wrong?  Oh no, I've  been thrown into an alternative universe, where daft questions like that are played over death metal music, and all I can do is thkweam and thkweam.   Drink!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Well, do you think torturing a child for fun is wrong?  Oh no, I've  been thrown into an alternative universe, where daft questions like that are played over death metal music, and all I can do is thkweam and thkweam.   Drink!

But, morally vacant wretch that I am, how can I possibly know that without consulting a big book of rules to "arbitrate"?

But then which big book of rules should I choose?

And what if I pick one and someone comes along and "interprets" it differently?

Maybe I should torture on a Monday but not on a Tuesday, you know - just to play the odds?

Darn but it's tricky this religious morality stuff 

[Alan Burns]

Incidentally Alan, as you haven't replied are we now agreed that logical fallacies are a function of the structure of the argument and not of their content? You referenced the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy a while back for example - do you now agree that it's a bad argument regardless of whether you happen to populate it with gods, leprechauns or anything else?

And if you do agree, can you now see why your post about evolution, emergence etc was irrelevant?

And if you do see that, can you also see why any argument you make whose structure correlates to that of a fallacy is necessarily a wrong argument, regardless of what it happens to be about?   

And if you do see that, can you now see why identifying the fallacies on which you depend isn't a matter of difference of opinion or of interpretation at all?

To fully answer this I would need to backtrack on my previous posts to verify if I have been careless in the wording of my arguments (when I get the time).  But in essence I agree that if the structure of an argument does follow a fallacious definition, it will invalidate the argument.  However I am confident that if guilty, I can re structure my arguments to accurately reflect the intended logic.

I will start with looking up the post hoc ergo propter you mention, (my memory cells are rapidly deteriorating!)

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To fully answer this I would need to backtrack on my previous posts to verify if I have been careless in the wording of my arguments (when I get the time).

Not really. It’s not that your wording may have been careless, but rather that arguing the content of an argument (evolution, emergence etc) has no relevance to the structure of the argument itself.

But in essence I agree that if the structure of an argument does follow a fallacious definition, it will invalidate the argument.

Phew! Well I for one call that progress.

Thank you.

However I am confident that if guilty, I can re structure my arguments to accurately reflect the intended logic.

I look forward to it.

I will start with looking up the post hoc ergo propter you mention, (my memory cells are rapidly deteriorating!)

To be fair, it may be me who’s misremembering. I thought it was that fallacy, but perhaps it was the correlation/causation one. Either way though, the force of the point remains – namely that a bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of what it happens to be about. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

No there isn’t.

No there wasn’t.

Fallacy number onnnneeeee – the straw man.

I merely described what “sin” means. It’s meaningful only for theists. That does not mean though that some theists don’t do moral philosophy.

Fallacy number ooonnnneeeee: the straw man. Agaaaiiinnnn…

Who said anything about “exclusive”. That said, you’d have to go a long way I’d have thought to find anyone who isn’t religious taking the term seriously.

Fallacy number seveeennntteeeeeennn – shifting the burden of proof.

If you think there is cogent logic, then (finally) present it. “No cogent logic” is merely the observation that – so far at least – none has been produced. That’s why for example schools (or at least non-faith ones) don’t teach religious “truths” as they do truths about geography or physics.

You may have noticed this. 

Why?

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

Fallacy 14: Proof by assertion

Fallacy 15: The non sequitur

Fallacy 16: The divine fallacy

Fallacy 17: Shifting the burden of proof

Certainly most of your output is judgmental language...and the complete antitheist argument boils down to a number 14.

Hang on......what's that noise?....it sounds like pylon and TV transmitter mast enthusiasts imploring you guys to ''Get a life''!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Certainly most of your output is judgmental language...

No it isn't. Reason and argument don't constitute judgmental language.

...and the complete antitheist argument boils down to a number 14.

No it doesn't. An "antitheist" is opposed to theism, or to the behaviour of theists. Whether he has a cogent argument to support that view is a different matter.

For what it's worth, I'm an anti-theist in the sense that I don't think societies should privilege the beliefs of theists above any other type of guessing, but I'm also a secularist inasmuch as I would defend the right of people to believe whatever they like.   

Hang on......what's that noise?....it sounds like pylon and TV transmitter mast enthusiasts imploring you guys to ''Get a life''!

Could be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

No it isn't. Reason and argument don't constitute judgmental language.

That's certainly true of Reason but we are talking about your posts here which is a completely different thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

That's certainly true of Reason but we are talking about your posts here which is a completely different thing.

An assertion you'll presumably be along soon to demonstrate?

Won't you?

Hellloooooo?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a killer line.

Only if evidenced or cogently argued......go on then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

An assertion you'll presumably be along soon to demonstrate?

Won't you?

Hellloooooo?

Argumentum ad humbug.

[Sebastian Toe]

Argumentum ad humbug.

Argumentum ad soor ploom?

[Sassy]

Sassy,

You don't understand how an open message board works. If you don't want others to comment, don't post here.

We are writing messages so I understand how the board works and clearly it has nothing to do with the fact I was replying to something Susan said.
Your not Susan and it had nothing to do with you in any shape or form.

By the way, as you've shown precious little sign of it so far here when do you plan to start contributing to this "compassionate world" of your tagline?   

You call your replies a contribution?  I am not a board participant I am a financial contributer to the causes I believe in.
Now buzz off...