I would encourage you to look up The Straw Man Fallacy. If I ever write a book on Informal Logic, do I have your permission to quote the bolded above a real-life example of that fallacy being committed. I promise to give you "credit" for having actually written it.

Too bad "they" can't make sensible, level-headed posts like this one:

Here is an earlier gem from the "smart guy" in the room:

In my opinion, you are not mature enough yet to engage adults in an appropriate manner. Maybe your Homeroom teacher can give you some good advice.

I tried to give you a graceful out, but you are so unlike the Jesus character, so forgetful that you are even supposed to try to be like that example in your discussions, that all you are is a tit-for-tat, one upmanship trying but failing, apologist mime. You really don't remind me of the Jesus example at all, but you do remind me, imagine that, of a locked-in apologist who refuses to actually consider ideas that conflict with their worldview, and will say virtually anything to divert from this fact. Jesus isn't about tit-for-tat ego squabbles, but you are. So go ahead and keep proving it. I say it's virtually impossible for you to stand down instead of flame vainly and dishonestly. And it's just so disappointing when such great ideas are in the balance. As I've said before, I came to the wrong place for any objective analysis of ideas re religion. I might as well have gone to North Korea and asked someone on live state television what they thought of the Dear Leader. My mistake.

LOOK WHO IS BACK IN RANT MODE AGAIN!!!

WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT?

I would encourage you to take up a hobby like knitting; publicly engaging people in a civil and intelligent manner is a bit beyond your current skills set, in my opinion.

"Knock, Knock."

"Who's there?"

"Bearers of the good news. Can we come in?"

"Well, who doesn't like good news. Yeah, come on in (opening door)."

"We're bigots of the type circa 2000 years ago. We call it being a true believer in one of the thousands of god tales. We sacrifice all morality and moral agency to that tale and system of belief. Mass killing of women and children? Righteous, just and loving ... just like the story of the pre-medievals says. Forgiveness? That needs blood and guts and murder too. That way it's loving, you understand. Can we tell you about Jesus and perfect love?"

"It sounds to me like you gents are exactly what civilization is up against. There is a prison down the road with some mass killers in it. Of course you realize they are known for loving religion, real zealous like."

"Huh? We're here to save you."

"Get your stupid, indoctrinated, blind, lost, immoral, zealot, self-deceiving, apologizing-for-atrocity a$$ off my property. First you need to hear that mass killing, rape, slavery, blood sacrifice, bigotry, judgment itself, is anything but loving, is wrong everywhere it appears, not except for in your pet religion. No, the sanction of pre-medieval bigots and brutes, whose religion oddly reflects their own twisted values, does not make it holy. Go forth and think about the nature of the religion, its origins, and that it might be that morality consists of thinking for yourself instead of blind obedience, and helping to promote a world that doesn't have any of those things in it."

You already messed up! This line was supposed to be: "Bearers of good news, who?" I thought even you were at least smart enough to set up a simple knock-knock joke properly. Looks like I overestimated your skill set yet again.

Anyway, back to your joke:

I have no idea what religion you are describing here, but it sure ain't Christianity. It looks like a bad parody of Christianity that you made up in your head. It's bad parody, because it isn't a close-enough description of real Christianity to be good parody. You're actually parodying yourself: someone with such utter hatred of Christianity that he can't think straight. Nice self-own, Skippy!

Anyway, back to your joke:

More self-parody; someone so enthralled with their warped idea of what true Christianity is, that they make no sense, but just spew more-or-less random invective. Nice self-own again, Sport!

I am impressed that you regained what's left of your wits to figure out how to use the Spoiler feature. At least you did one thing right! Kudos, sir!

You double-posted the above: it is also posted in the Aaron Rodgers is a Moron Thread in the Sporting Events Forum.

While you're at it, how about posting it also in the Health&Fitness Forum?

I think we should make a poll .
Which of those 2 have more credibility , (A) fiat money or (B)god ?
Or (C) both are scam ?

You are more concerned with the form of a knock knock joke than with the mass killing of women and children. And that's why apologetics is evil. You understand? Yes, everyone understands that. Some have to defend the position that they don't.

I don't think that we need to make a poll; you can do it all by yourself. Not really something that requires group effort.

Set it up, and I'll vote.

Let's put the above argument in standard-form:


Premise: Lagtight is more concerned with the form of a knock-knock joke that with the mass killing of women and children.

Conclusion: Apologetics is evil.

Several problems here:

First, the argument is clearly logically invalid.

(If you don't know what "logically invalid" means, I will gladly provide a link for you upon request.)

In order to make the argument logically valid (if you don't know what "logically valid" means I will gladly provide a link for you upon request), we can supplement your argument with the following premise :

If Lagtight is more concerned with the form of a knock-knock joke that with the mass killing of women and children, then apologetics is evil.

We now have a valid argument:


Premise #1: Lagtight is more concerned with the form of a knock-knock joke that with the mass killing of women and children.

Premise #2: If Lagtight is more concerned with the form of a knock-knock joke that with the mass killing of women and children, then apologetics is evil.

Conclusion: Apologetics is evil.

Glad I could help you out (you sure need it).


Second, the first premise is false. While I do in fact consider the correct form a knock-knock joke to be a very important thing, I would, as a rule, consider the mass killing of women and children to be even more important. (Based on your wording, do you also have a problem with the mass killing of men? It's unclear from your wording above if you have a problem with the mass killing of men or not.)

Third, the extra premise that I provided above to create a valid argument doesn't strike me as being plausible. It's kinda a non sequitur even. (If you don't know what non sequitur means, I will gladly provide a link for you upon request.)

I understand that you're having difficulty putting together a coherent argument. Please try harder next time.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

And when his self-described "worthless" philosophy helps him out of a tough spot re his religion, suddenly he's all over that philosophy stuff again as if it's gold. Apologetics = misdirection, deception, self-deception.

I don't know of anyone who considers elementary propositional logic* to be an example of speculative philosophy**. Do you?

Even some Freshman English textbooks have a section on elementary propositional logic.



You make literally zero sense whatsoever. How and I in a "tough spot"? You can't even keep you brain turned on long enough to produce a putative coherent argument.

Please try harder. Publicly toying with you is getting rather tiresome for me.


*If you don't know what elementary propositional logic is, I will gladly provide a link for you.

**If you don't know what speculative philosophy is, I will gladly provide a link for you.

Actually you've only established that you are a true believer and that you will sacrifice ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING to whatever they believed and put in a bizarre book thousands of years ago.

Kewl assertion. Are you going to support that claim with a sound argument*? (I think you, me and all the lurkers of this thread know the answer to that question.)

*If you don't know what a sound argument is, I will gladly provide a link for you.

Stay well and be safe!

Yes, I'm going to support it. If you are willing to give the okay to the killing of millions, the slaughter of a race over a talking snake story, the judgment of billions when judgment is the opposite of love, bigotry, torture, slavery, stonings, crusades, etc. etc. then what is it that you are not willing to sacrifice? A fair deduction: "nothing." You really need to visit the idea that it is not and never was love and god moving behind the religion, but the ignorance and darkness in men. Your little ad hominem and philosophy games, the former resorted to when you have nothing else at your disposal, the latter in spite of your own testimony that it is worthless ... are actually a "no mas" surrender of the issues while evading that you are surrendering.

Now let's hear some more about what an irrational rant that is. Your religion ... no not actually your religion ... your apologetics demands it. And there is an important distinction there for you to wake up to.

Kewl.

Let me know when you're going to support your claim.

My pleasure!

Here in comes: The above was an irrational rant..

I only thing I need to "wake up to" is to start ignoring your rants.

When/if you actually post something that at least resembles a coherent argument*, this discussion ain't goin' nowhere.

Stay well and be safe!

*If you don't know what a coherent argument is, I will gladly provide a link for you.

When you get owned, you go ad hominem -- over and over. Strange for a philosophy bluffer, as ad hominem is hardly respected there. But, never fear, it's par-for-the-course for an apologist. How you keep these two separate is quite the DID trick, almost, but actually just a desperate compartmentalization that allows for protecting dogma against logic, and for the left hand forgetting that the right hand is supposed to be like Jesus. These odd little insincere salutations are telling, that is, you are using the religion to escape your self, thus resulting in the glibness so uncharacteristic of soul. Religion tends to be like that ... a soul killing anti-spirit anti-anxiety device, that then reprojects the alienated soul into a supernatural phenomenon, where it rants about things such as hell and homosexuality. Where there is true believer, there is this phenomenon. Don't take it from me; try Eric Hoffer.

Well, well, well, yet another rant! Where's my *shock* face? Oh, wait, I found it:

A favorite Dennis Prager quote seems apt here (as with most of your rants):

Psychological reductionism is the last refuge of someone without an argument.


If you decide to actually produce an argument* at some point, I will gladly respond. Until then, I'll let you prattle on with your silly rants and psychobabble.**

Stay well and be safe!


*If you don't know what an argument is, I will gladly provide a link for you.

** If you don't know what psychobabble is, I will gladly provide a link for you.

The problem is you don't know what religious babble is ... so you just parrot it and believe it like it was true or something. They are all the same in this regard; not all but the one you are miming.

Simple question lagtight .

I don’t know about you but to me , seeing in the future and being able to predict everything is very difficult .

Why you think a book written thousands years ago will make a better job at predicting and knowing what is best about everyone needs ?
I mean didn’t they already changed the Old Testament with the new one ?
How could it it be wrong in the first place if god isn’t suppose to be wrong anyway ?

Maybe a third book is coming because it seriously needs some update seeing how much societies have changed from the last 2 books ?

Why the bible would be the “final” answer to life ever afterwards ?

Predicting everything is impossible for anyone, except for God.

Because God knows everything.

The Old Testament wasn't wrong about anything.. Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament, not to abolish it.

No updates required.

Because God has told us everything what we need to know to experience joy in Him. Nothing needs to be added to achieve that aim.

You're wrong about that.

You caught me: I say things that I believe.

No, they are not all the same in that regard.

Look! A perfect parroting of the talking points of the religion, all the while unaware that that is what he is doing. Unaware because superimposed over the parroting, is the zealous belief, "No, it isn't empty religiosity, because my religion is the one true one." Funny ... the exact same ploy that almost every religion uses.

Look! A perfect example of the Dennis Prager quote I cited earlier:

Psychological reductionism is the last refuge of someone without an argument.

... and therefore when you hear such things as we need a savior to keep us out of hell, miracles on demand, being born of virgins, holiness committing genocide against children and fetuses as a function of righteousness ... you are predisposed to presume all this true, even against all reason (if you were allowed to apply it, which you aren't). A person bamboozled by religious babble eschews normal realities for the religion, and creates a category called "supernatural" to explain the flight into myth, fantasy and superstition ... then imagines that not subverting consciousness in this way is "immoral," "infidel," etc. It's not a pretty game, as you can see by the fruit.