Originally posted by menace71
I'm not saying I agree or disagree but RJ gives us a good counter argument then if it is just BS
...RJ gives us a good counter argument ...
He never gives a valid 'argument' let alone a ' good counter argument'.
His 'argument' always goes along the lines of “ X therefore Z” (or words of that effect ) where Z is what ever the conclusion he wants to be true but even a typical half-wit with an IQ of 60 can see that X is obviously a false premise and “ X therefore Z” is obviously a false inference.
If you point out his logical flaw to him, instead of ever acknowledging the obvious flaw, he just responds with “Y therefore Z” where Y is another false premise and “Y therefore Z” is yet another false inference. And if you point out his new logical flaw to him, , instead of ever acknowledging the obvious flaw, he just responds with yet another flawed argument ...on for infinitum.
So it is pointless and futile to try and reason with him which is why I have blocked his posts so I don't see them and thus have no temptation to respond to them. He seems to think you can take any “X” and take any “Y” you want to be true, but where X can be false and X and Z are NOT related in any relevant way, simply arbitrarily insert the word “therefore” between the two and, hey presto! you have just magically created is a perfectly valid 'argument'!
Often what he presents as an 'argument' is not even “ X therefore Z” (or words of that effect ) but simply "X" i.e. a statement with no inference. So often he doesn't even have an argument let alone an invalid one! and yet, when I pointed this out to him, he makes out that "X" IS an "argument"! So "there is a god" could be an "argument" according to him
He doesn't even know what an ARGUMENT actually is! It is just totally hopeless tying to reason with him.