responding to common objections to bible part 5

[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.

[total relism]

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.

as sated, there argument does not deal with what i said, feel free to post here if you disagree, or your misrepresenting my side. In fact you ask the same question and agree with my on one of your own threads
Why is it wrong to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ers&highlight=

you throughout agree with me, no absolute morals or right and wrong, you even agree with a poster saying just what my thread was on last post.


Btw could you show me a thread you have represented the other side in your op?. reading through your recent thread started, i would say gives many examples of you not representing the other side.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/searc...earchid=106568


i read first 4 and zimmerman and woman seem the perfect example as well as Dyslexia of not doing what you claim i should do. In fact reading more it becomes very clear this is your practice,i dont mind at all, but you should apply your own ideas to yourself before criticizing others. Also my post assume the others arguments, god sent plagues that killed people/babies so he is evil, that is a argument, god unjustly punishes people for there fathers sin,that is a argument, i give the counter etc.



i think its clear your being a vague as possible and avoiding a discussion on any topic given.

[HoreTore]

What a delightful showing of not understanding. Representing two arguments are necessary when concluding, something I very rarely do. I'll go through the threads you found one by one:

First off, the thread taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others: I posted one argument, one I do not agree with myself, in order to get good counter-arguments.

Dyslexia: the OP is a scam, my point with that thread is dealt with way down in the thread. It's deliberately provocative, and my actual point is radically different from the OP. In retrospect, I failed massively with that thread, but that's besides the point.

Women: I assume you refer to the woman-bashing thread? That's a commentary on a news article I found interesting, which I copied and posted here to see what others made of it. It should be obvious that it's extremely far from my position.

Zimmerman: a simple news post to get a discussion on the topic going(not realizing it was already underway in another thread).

My motivation for posting is radically different from yours: you come here "knowing the truth" and you're trying to convince others. As such, it is vitally important that you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not. Who wants to discuss with someone who is fully convinced he is right, without knowing what the other side is talking about?

When I, and thankfully a lot of others, start threads here, I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.

[total relism]

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.

sorry,should have said argument/counter argument, not actual fighting.

But what will bring about this wold that accept each other? this deny's human sin sadly a very real thing, that is a fantasy. when will you accept me?, or people who like to argue?, cant you just accept me, i am part of this world, or do you mean people only accept what you want to accept, that is not very accepting.

What a delightful showing of not understanding. Representing two arguments are necessary when concluding, something I very rarely do. I'll go through the threads you found one by one:

First off, the thread taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others: I posted one argument, one I do not agree with myself, in order to get good counter-arguments.

Dyslexia: the OP is a scam, my point with that thread is dealt with way down in the thread. It's deliberately provocative, and my actual point is radically different from the OP. In retrospect, I failed massively with that thread, but that's besides the point.

Women: I assume you refer to the woman-bashing thread? That's a commentary on a news article I found interesting, which I copied and posted here to see what others made of it. It should be obvious that it's extremely far from my position.

Zimmerman: a simple news post to get a discussion on the topic going(not realizing it was already underway in another thread).

My motivation for posting is radically different from yours: you come here "knowing the truth" and you're trying to convince others. As such, it is vitally important that you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not. Who wants to discuss with someone who is fully convinced he is right, without knowing what the other side is talking about?

When I, and thankfully a lot of others, start threads here, I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.

Ok far off topic here, i am likely to not respond to you unless you have something relevant to the topic.


misfortunes
I scanned your every post, even at the very end post 49 you agree with post 48 that says

"Nothing is inherantly wrong unless we assume there's an all-pervasive moral structure to the universe"

but the fact is in your op, you gave no counter arguments as you told me i am suppose to do, no matter what side you may or not agree with.


Dyslexia
you said
" It's deliberately provocative"

why am i not allowed to do the same thing?is my op not so?. But does not matter,as you said i needed to post argument and best counter on op, you did not do so yourself.


Women:/Zimmerman
Well i was hoping so,yet i saw no counter. You seem to post on op to start conversation on the subjects over and over with no counters given in op. Why am i not allowed to?.



My motivation does not matter to, if or what i should post, i come on forums like this see objections to things i believe to be true arguments against. Than respond since noone gives a response to these, tell me what is wrong with that?. Its not like serious debates [phd scientist at universities etc] are with people discussing a topic, no they find people firmly behind were they stand to debate. its also not like opinions cannot be changed. Neither am i trying to convince anyone, i am simply giving a counter response to arguments, not sure why your having a big problem with this. Your also kind of committing a logical fallacy Appeal to motive.


you keep saying this
"you understand both sides of the issue which you have demonstrated(through your nonsense about "atheist morality") you do not."

yet you know you either are not understanding, or know you cant debate subject or defend the other side. As i said before this topic has been done for all to see [you were their made no counters to op] here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=

but phd debate after another will show this true. Are you humble enough to admit it may be you [either just trying to sound like you have a counter and keeping it all to yourself] that has misunderstood argument?, that makes you think there is a counter. As i asked before please respond to show i am misunderstanding and you are correct,until than its just wishful thinking.


Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3


"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133



you said you post because
I do so because of an acknowledged lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the thread topic. I post to be informed, and have zero interest in convincing others about anything.


so than you should have at least learned something from my op you did not know. So what is problem?.

[spankythehippo]

sorry,should have said argument/counter argument, not actual fighting.

But what will bring about this wold that accept each other? this deny's human sin sadly a very real thing, that is a fantasy. when will you accept me?, or people who like to argue?, cant you just accept me, i am part of this world, or do you mean people only accept what you want to accept, that is not very accepting.

I am merely questioning your aggressive way of putting forward an argument. Variety is good, but in the end, you need to understand that people are different. That is when people can truly accept each other. The fact that people are different is the truth. Some people know it's the truth, but don't like it (i.e. you). They want everyone to be the same as them. When you start preaching to people about how they need to change their life to a Christian one, people can get testy. I repeat, let sleeping dogs lie. If people want to know more about what you perceive to be true, let them come to you. Don't intrude on them.

[Sigurd]

I scanned your every post, even at the very end post 49 you agree with post 48 that says
"Nothing is inherantly wrong unless we assume there's an all-pervasive moral structure to the universe"
but the fact is in your op, you gave no counter arguments as you told me i am suppose to do, no matter what side you may or not agree with.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Dyslexia
you said "It's deliberately provocative"
why am i not allowed to do the same thing?is my op not so?. But does not matter,as you said i needed to post argument and best counter on op, you did not do so yourself.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Women:/Zimmerman
Well i was hoping so,yet i saw no counter. You seem to post on op to start conversation on the subjects over and over with no counters given in op. Why am i not allowed to?.

argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Right so my point is... you can't qualify your arguments by pointing out that others has done the same. It then becomes a fallacy. You should rather point out how your OP arguments follow a known and accepted methodology for arguments. They will then remain valid in the continued discussion, unless contested again. It is then your job to prove their validity by restate your counter if they don't bring anything new.

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

Because Jesus never disagreed with anybody?

[The Stranger]

I think truth is knowable..

Oh boy, I'm so excited! You found an answer to the skeptical argument! My professor will be so thrilled as well!

[Sarmatian]

Does anyone else find the numbers in the thread title ominous? Like a reverse countdown to something... When he gets to 10, we'll all be converted and call him master, or something?

I'm gonna stay away from this. Like I don't have enough problems already. And that elephant in my backyard needs to be watered again.

[Pannonian]

Does anyone else find the numbers in the thread title ominous? Like a reverse countdown to something... When he gets to 10, we'll all be converted and call him master, or something?

I'm gonna stay away from this. Like I don't have enough problems already. And that elephant in my backyard needs to be watered again.

He's certainly a master hand at baiting debate traps that even the wary fall into. Not sure what title this entitles him to.

[total relism]

Sorry M8... pointing out hypocrisy is still ad hominem. "You do it too" is and will always be ad hominem tu quoque.

agreed, if i was trying to make the argument for the posting style he was saying i should have, but clearly i disagree with him as my post show. So i was simply showing his own hypocrisy, not as a way to say, hay i should not have to post that way because you dont. That is made clear in my post 26 and 31. If your saying i am supose to post the way he thinks that he does not apply [%99.9999 you dont either] than that is separate discussion, that really does not need to be had unless you can show me some forum rule on it. Also as i pointed out,my op assume a argument against, so it is a counter argument to arguments made.

Oh boy, I'm so excited! You found an answer to the skeptical argument! My professor will be so thrilled as well!

? i said truth is knowable,no more no less. What is the skeptical argument? i think you misunderstand,skeptical is good,that does not mean truth is not knowable or that we can know everything.