1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobits a logical fallacy because the thread is not about me or my willingness to read literature of any description and its an ad hominem for it seek to justify some kind of argument on the basis of an attack on my personality, not directly, but through inference.
Logical fallacy? Where is the logical fallacy?
Tell us why you won't read science books written by evolutionary biologists who support common descent.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieah sorry, do i need to submit a debate plan to you? i wasnt aware all points need to vetted by judge carrobie before put forward. do i need to show you just my main line of thought or should i also give you my pre-prepared counter arguments. ive also been working on the possibility that the debate may splinter, would you like those plans as well?
relevance to what in this thread?
or are you just being overly careful because you are worried about being caught out?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe issue (or one of them) is you claiming to see design in nature as one of the reasons you believe in God. I made the point that you only see design because you haven't read any literature which explains how, what appears to be designed, is in fact created by natural means. I then offered to send you some literature to educate yourself on the topic, you know seeing as how we are in the 21st century and not the Dark Ages anymore. You responded, as you freely admit, glibly. I'm curious as to why you steadfastly refuse to read such literature.
its a logical fallacy because the thread is not about me or my willingness to read literature of any description and its an ad hominem for it seek to justify some kind of argument on the basis of an attack on my personality, not directly, but through inference.
It was perfectly okay for you to ask me questions about my atheism and why i hold such beliefs this morning. Yet when i want to ask questions about your theism and why you hold such beliefs i'm informed my questions are 'logical fallacies' and 'ad hominems'. Funny how that works isn't it?!
It's like yesterday, you were perfectly fine with me asking questions about your non beliefs with regard to mythical creatures and Santa, we went on most of the day. Yet when i found the quote about Santa and you started your 'i forgot whether i believed Santa existed or not' nonsense out came the stock Carrobie reply when he realises he's been caught out - 'It's not about me'. Funny how that works also.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI don't blame him for not wanting to waste his time reading the literature you provide on your atheism. He even thinks he is wasting his time, if he reads my literature on the truth of God. I even provide him links to videos to make it easier for him and he still refuses. Therefore, I see no reason he would consider your literature worth more than mine.
The issue (or one of them) is you claiming to see design in nature as one of the reasons you believe in God. I made the point that you only see design because you haven't read any literature which explains how, what appears to be designed, is in fact created by natural means. I then offered to send you some literature to educate yourself on the topic, yo ...[text shortened]... e realises he's been caught out - 'It's not about me'. Funny how that works also.
The Instructor
Originally posted by Proper KnobAre you going to have a stab at answering my question, or are you just going to ignore it?
The issue (or one of them) is you claiming to see design in nature as one of the reasons you believe in God. I made the point that you only see design because you haven't read any literature which explains how, what appears to be designed, is in fact created by natural means. I then offered to send you some literature to educate yourself on the topic, yo ...[text shortened]... e realises he's been caught out - 'It's not about me'. Funny how that works also.
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou cannot state that someone does not see beauty or harmony or design in the natural world and no amount of literature of any description can negate this, for its a perosnal belief.
Are you going to have a stab at answering my question, or are you just going to ignore it?
Furthermore you cannot prevent some one from drawing inferences from that by telling them to read literature of any description. If I look at a painting and see harmony and design and beauty and draw certain inferences about the artist, what literature will you produce to tell me that my subjective perosnal belief concerning these elements is wrong? That beauty dies not exists? that even if it did, it does not infer that the artist intended it to be beautiful?
Its the folly of the materialist to assume, and lets be clear about it, it is an assumption, that because they like to attempt to explain the emergence and divergence of life in purely materialistic that others must also be like minded.
If you wish to avoid logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks, refrain from attacking the personality behind the post and instead, try to simply reason. Its why i love chess, perhaps a little Buddhist reasoning? there is no opponent, because there is no I, all that is important is the juxtaposition of the chessmen, all else is irrelevant. It appears to me to be the same in debate, there is no room, for I.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat wasn't the question I asked.
You cannot state that someone does not see beauty or harmony or design in the natural world and no amount of literature of any description can negate this, for its a perosnal belief.
Furthermore you cannot prevent some one from drawing inferences from that by telling them to read literature of any description. If I look at a painting and see ha ...[text shortened]... e emergence and divergence of life in purely materialistic that others must also be like minded.