Originally Posted by cuddleyperson
Amen. I would hug you back but my arms never grew because of errors in experimentation by geneticists.
Originally Posted by wasup
Thanks for the backup mark. As he said, psychology student, the very definitions of each of your logical fallacies will "backup" my claims. Or do you really want me to do all the work for you and post the definition of each fallacy, and exactly how each of your statements is an example of each definition? Well if that's what you want, I am sorry I am just not willing to spoon-feed you. It is, as a matter of fact, the responsibility of each side of a debate to understand the opposing position, and fundamentally understand the concepts of logic (and the notions and definitions of logical fallacies). If you cannot grasp the very basic, fundamental elements of debate -- logic and logical fallacies -- than you don't deserve to be arguing for any point, let alone a topic as sensitive as religion. Misology is simply not an apt debate philosophy".
I understood all of your crap, but it wasn't reasonably forseeable that one would understand, without checking, thats your mistake.
And burden of proof; to your points that I should make an effort to understand. No, your arguments should be lucid and simple, so they can be understood. Not coined in another language. I'm sure you have the English Vocabulary to say them.
Originally Posted by wasup
Well, for starters, your glaring ad hominem (*ahem* - ad nauseam at that), again, does not help your argument. And I must apologize for using such confounding terms, I agree that it was rather rude of me to use words that you do not understand. I suppose I should have began my post with the notion already instilled that my religious opponent would probably not hold a very developed vocabulary (oh man, I think that was an ad hominem from myself).
Again you accuse me with a term you fail to understand. Let me define it for you:
Argumentum: Argument
Ad: Against
Hominem: Man
Argument against the man.
Now in your last rant, you accused me of having made an "argumentum ad hominem". No, I didn't mention the man at all, or imply any arguments against the man. The whole post was actually about how bare and shallow your previous argument was (with is exemplified by the stick man in your avatar), be it with irony; nonetheless, not against the man, against the argument. So I don't think you understand these terms, maybe when you use them you get some sort of arousal, a positive experience that makes you feel like a man, sitting in front of that computer in your bedroom. Unfortunately this attitude will not suffice in a debate, as the terms you use need to have some validity in relation to the opposer's argument. (That is argumentum ad hominem, just to illustrate the difference).
Normally I never argue against the man when debating. It only occured in one other instance in this thread, when Stephent91 called me an idiot or something on those lines, and so I replied with an "ad hominem" remark, humourously, to deflate the situation.
[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by wasup
Your mention of "burden of proof..." Funny you mention, especially considering your constant use of the negative proof fallacy (see above post). The burden of proof indeed lies on the one who makes the accusations.
Your terms were logical ideals, therefore the burden of proof is on the accuser, like normal in logical arguments. You then try to make me look like I contradicted myself, when I haven't, because I abstained from using the burden of proof for my religious claims:
Since when has religion ever had to prove itself to exist, more or less never, it doesn't need to be proved, thus there is not burden of proof with regard to religion. Religion is here, I don't need to prove anything. Religion is not logical, hence it is not confined by logical ideals, like burden of proof. In a 100% logical society religion could not exist. I hope you understand the difference, and thus why I did not contradict myself.
|
|
Bookmarks