responding to common objections to bible part 5

[HoreTore]

oh, you made it seem you were a professor,i was just looking for a few tips that all. Though i did not know i was handing in a paper to be graded. Thanks for book references, but in all honesty the chances of me getting and reading are almost 0%. Time is the problem really.

These are the kind of books most members of these forums have read(or at the very least skimmed....). A methodology book is mandatory for any bachelor degree, and most poster here have at least that. Which one you read is based on your education, as there are different books for different fields and diciplines. In all honesty though the content is basically the same, it's just the context and examples they swap from book to book.

If you're going on a quest to prove the world's leading intellectuals wrong, the first thing you need to do is make sure you understand methodology(a key ingredient in critical thinking).

[total relism]

thank you, i will reconsider the books.

you did say my post was a goldmine for a way not to, i was just looking for some helpful tips to avoid,or do in future post,could you help?.

[HoreTore]

thank you, i will reconsider the books.

you did say my post was a goldmine for a way not to, i was just looking for some helpful tips to avoid,or do in future post,could you help?.

I and several others(like PVC) has gone down that road before, and since none of it seems to sink in any way, I find it hard to motivate myself to do it again. I can't really be bothered to anything other than to say "get yourself an education".

The errors are huge, from the common misconception of "theory is the opposite of fact", instead of "theory is the opposite of practice" and up.

[total relism]

I and several others(like PVC) has gone down that road before, and since none of it seems to sink in any way, I find it hard to motivate myself to do it again. I can't really be bothered to anything other than to say "get yourself an education".

The errors are huge, from the common misconception of "theory is the opposite of fact", instead of "theory is the opposite of practice" and up.

so no help than? well do you disagree with op for any reason or want to object to material [weather presented properly or not]?.

[HoreTore]

so no help than? well do you disagree with op for any reason or want to object to material [weather presented properly or not]?.

Sigh..... Okay, I'll bite. A fundamental principle when building an argument, is that the counter-argument is represented honestly, fully and in the spirit of those who would voice that argument. Failing to do so means that one fails to actually engage with the argument at all, and the attempted counter-argument simply becomes an isolated statement.

When you write the following....

Assumptions/things to consider before answering.

Atheist must put themselves in place as god, as perfect judge of people living thousands of years ago, to decided what is morally correct or not.
1] we must assume we are god, that only we can tell and know what is morally acceptable or not.
2] we must assume their are such things as morals, “right” and “wrong” those ideas only make sense if a moral god created us.
3]we must assume our evolved brains of completely random chemical reactions and matter can somehow have the right idea of what is right and wrong, our evolved animal brains formed by random chemical reactions and matter [dirt] that combined for a survival advantage[according to atheist]. They only “feel” killing is wrong because the random chemical reactions give them a chemical feeling that killing is wrong.

....you massively break that rule. You fail to represent the argument you are trying to counter in a proper way, and so your attempt isn't a counter-argument at all.

[total relism]

Sigh..... Okay, I'll bite. A fundamental principle when building an argument, is that the counter-argument is represented honestly, fully and in the spirit of those who would voice that argument. Failing to do so means that one fails to actually engage with the argument at all, and the attempted counter-argument simply becomes an isolated statement.

When you write the following....



....you massively break that rule. You fail to represent the argument you are trying to counter in a proper way, and so your attempt isn't a counter-argument at all.

I agree with you 100%, but i am purposely looking for a fight here.that is what i come on here for, others to argue against my position. I as you, want to hear the objections,But as for what you quoted, there are no counters that deal with what i said, i have tried this before on thread and others [https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ty&highlight=] if i new of any that countered/refuted it, i would not post it. I have watched plenty of philosophical debates on this subject with top atheist, you wont find a response that deals with it, often straw man or no understanding what is said, that is if we start with atheistic assumptions of life. I agree i have not offered responses,but how many thread do you see here that do so in op?.

[HoreTore]

Then you have not only failed to properly represent the argument of the other side, you have also completely failed to grasp their argument.

As such there is absolutely no grounds for a discussion.

[spankythehippo]

I agree with you 100%, but i am purposely looking for a fight here.

Hmmm. That doesn't seem very civil. Why can't you just let sleeping dogs lie? I bet when the entire world finally accepts each other, there will be people like you who are stirring fights among the people. Not very Christian of you.