That he didn't know that they were logic fallacies and that you don't use logic fallacies yourself

Juq, dont be ridiculous, you know yourself you are bad at arguing, and your "logic fallacies" are always a failure, since you do not respect your own "logical code"... God, this is so funny.

1- You are making that up, the post was entitled "bible lessons", no mention of Islam, Judaism or Atheism, nor any mention of "comparison" between religion.
You actually made that same argument to Eklipse, so i really don't know why you would contradict yourself that way.

(i skim these)

the first verse was a bible lesson, however the following post was supposed to explain the concept of this thread (which is the comparison and opinions from all different types of people atheists included for the most part but i messed up and it didnt go through...the bible verse was a kicking off point.

Edited 10/8/2015 21:06:16

Warning: Long post (1/3)

I am responding to the points i think needs responding the most, or to the point that i haven't adressed yet (since a lot of what you write is repeating the same thing over an over again, i don't see the point in adressing them again). If you think you have a good argument that i didn't adressed, show me what argument and i'll respond.

No, you address everything, you don't get to pick. Notice how me and Eklipse have been doing that even though what you're saying is very often repeating yourself and "poor" arguments that our gracious king is too noble to answer. Eklipse has been telling you what you've skipped

we are way past a mature discussion here

he just went on and attack me personnally, instead of engaging in a mature discussion.

You even said this after saying "you are retarded". In truth, I think that you weren't really mature right from your first post and your arguing styles.

Just to be clear, I started being very offensive towards you AFTER:
- you had already insulted me
- you used the "I refuse to let people believe what they want to believe" line.

Actually, I think you both started insulting each other early on, but you moved up the insult scale quite fast.

The verses christians love to ignore
well i'm going to dismiss most of your post because you are putting word in my mouth that i never said.
you are retarded

And then you're criticising him for making an argumentative claim? Guess I don't agree with you, retard.

and if you had acknowledged that what you said was not true (and you still haven't), when i repeatedly told you that it wasn't, we wouldn't have this conversation. But instead, you doubled down.

You are so very self-centred right now. This whole talk would not be happening if you didn't post here, consider yourself the problem.

The problem is that you think that i shouldn't have posted bad bible verses on a "bible lessons" thread.

Relm said that he made a rather misleading thread - just talk, comparison and learning between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
I disagree, i think my first post were completely appropriate.

and for the "undiplomatic" and "zero tact" bit, you are absolutely right, i took the gloves off as soon as you started lying.

More egoism - what stops us from saying that you can not argue properly since you're lying?

Also, again I will say: I did not target you in my first post. YOU decided to take exception to it and YOU fired the first shot. So stop shifting the blame. You picked the battleground, and you were the one who decided to battle.

No, you targeted him as much as he targeted you - you insulted Christians, he insulted active atheists.

You didn't answer the question. WHO did you "specifically targeted" in your first post?
(see? if your opponent is not answering questions, all you have to do is ask the question again)

Right me if I'm wrong, but he said Posting here just to attack religion is really petty and makes me wonder if you're in some way insecure about your own beliefs, or lack of. - he's speaking to those who are attacking religion.

if you want to play dumb with me, i can do that, and i'm gonna ask that question until i get an answer. Of course every one that can read english knows exactly who you were targeting, but since you want to play that game, lets play!

It's ok, no need to go into 12 year old video gamer mode where, if he's losing too much, threaten to find you and kill you using your IP address.

The point you make that my post were not diplomatic is valid, i don't know why you think i have to be diplomatic though.

It's not tactful nor sensitive - you're being patronising.

In order to achieve your goals, for folk to take you more seriously, anyhow, you be diplomatic. The moment you start using insults in your argument, just about noone who you're arguing against is going to say that you're right.

I don't understand what you are refering to (really)

especially considering all the shit coming out of his brain.

You've claimed that Eklipse several times, unprovoked, used logic fallacies - you must tell him why they are logic fallacies and deduce that he is just refusing to follow them.

again, i don't see your point

Copouts are bad. They are things that you do when you were defeated in an argument.

That sentence doesn't have the structure one would expect from a joke.
Here was my joke:
"I'm trying to keep it family friendly here be it is really hard to do that when you compare responding to a thread on a public forum to walking into a church and attacking religion.
I'm very much inclined to say that you are retarded and then leave.

You are retarded"

Now whether you think the joke is funny or not is irrelevent, it still have the structure of a joke, and when you quote a joke, you HAVE to give the FULL quote, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

I was being sarcastic. Your joke wasn't funny. Jokes don't have a set structure, either. I don't need to quote the rest, the rest is just drivel that you call bit of your joke.

No, it is obviously not.
But if you think it is, make your case and i'll tell you why you are wrong.

Nope, i juste quoted offensive bible verses, i never even mentioned OP. Stop with your bullshit

Did you deem as Relm's argument not being important enough for you to answer, either? Anyhow, first off, it's self-contradicting - you claim your bible verses are diplomatic, later say that they are offensive? Second, you're telling me to do upon an unresolved conclusion that you have made? Third, you're indisputably insulting me?

Tell me why I'm wrong, then.

No, that is not what you said.
What you said is that i CAN'T ban it, therefore i am doing the "next best thing". Wich is a way of saying that if I COULD ban it, i would.

It's an exaggeration - how about tell me about how you know Eklipse is retarded - you have any clinic records? It's impossible to tell, even if you said you would ban it, since you can't do it.

A lot of things are wrong in that sentence.

1- You are making that up, the post was entitled "bible lessons", no mention of Islam, Judaism or Atheism, nor any mention of "comparison" between religion.
You actually made that same argument to Eklipse, so i really don't know why you would contradict yourself that way.

2- I have NOT said anything, or made ANY argument promoting atheism. (prove me wrong), all i did was quoting bible verses, and entitle it "bible lessons", same as OP, wich seems to me is perfectly on the topic.
And just to spare you some time, citicizing the violence of the bible is not the same thing as promoting atheism.

3- This is a public forum, i have the right to comment and criticize anything on it,and saying "this thread is not meant for atheists", doesn't change that. (but we already went over this point, can we move on now?)

1- Your post was half-acceptable before Relm righted himself, albeit still, in your own words, offensive, now what are you doing defending it?

As for me making stuff up:
Okay, I think this falls to me for not making it clear: this is a thread for Islamics, Jews, and Cristians (it does not matter which you are) to share their different views on things...

2- You said yourself
- Good that you are weakening folk of their faith, so that irreligion takes another step forward?

- I would consider a good thing, yes. Wasn't that clear enough?

Irreligion is a different word than atheism, but they mean the same thing here - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. and Indifference or hostility to religion

3- You have also a right to say "fuck you" - does it validate it?

Again no logical connection here. Dissuading someone to do something doesn't mean that the person bother you.
And even IF "christians bothered me", it STILL wouldn't mean that i would want to discriminate against them.
And the fact that you are still trying to make this argument even though i said multiple time that i accept anyone's freedom of expression and freedom of religion (even though i shouldn't even have to say this since there was no basis to think that i didn't in the first place) is just preposterous.

I'm not saying that the only grounds that you are actively campaigning against Christianity is since you hate it - I'm asking you what is it, if not? Also, soap doesn't kill all germs - you can't implify that just since it's possible that since you're discriminated against, you don't want to discriminate them means that it's impossible for you to be motivated for those grounds.

And the fact that you are still trying to make this argument even though i said multiple time that i accept anyone's freedom of expression and freedom of religion (even though i shouldn't even have to say this since there was no basis to think that i didn't in the first place) is just preposterous.

Well, you're going to have to accept it - you can't really stop it. Also, that's one of the things that's disputed. You believe that you made no offence to Christians and said this many times, but we doubt it.

Edited 10/8/2015 22:35:48

And this is wrong...how? this is discrimination... how? This is refusing to accept him...how?

Also, I'm not trying to induce "him" to do anything, like i have said before. I keep repeting myself, and you still don't get it, this is getting really boring. My post wasn't targeted at anyone in particular, there is absolutely NO reason to think otherwise.

More skipping of my arguments.

By the way, "inducing" is probably not the word you are looking for, "convincing" would be the appropriate word. (or else you are going to have to explain exactly what i am trying to induce him to do)

But even if i was trying to "induce" him to "do something", wich obviously i am not doing (what is wrong with you people?), it still wouldn't "indicate" that i am not willing to accept him or his views, there is no logical connection here.

I only said that I was pretty sure, but would you give the atheist version of this thread a list of grounds why Christianity is the way to go? (more skipping)

And this is refusing to accept Christianity - you said yourself that it's better if irreligion grows and you said that the grounds you came here is to dissuade folk from Christianity.

And why don't you have a problem with OP posting his bible verses? Since anyone can find them on the internet anyway?
Read yourself twice before posting man, it keeps getting worse.

You think you're so funny; BUT the funny thing is, i did none of that!

I wouldn't be so against your promoting, if the thread maker specifically said the thread was only to promote interfaith understanding between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. You tell me, now - am I genius or moron? "Wich is it?"

And why don't you have a problem with OP posting his bible verses? Since anyone can find them on the internet anyway?

I originally kind of did, I asked two kind of provocative frains, but after Relm said what the purpose of the thread was, I stopped. It wasn't the purpose of the thread and I won't be counter-promoting my atheist outlooks on what I thought was a promotion of Christianity.

I simply explained the reason why i posted these bible verses, i am sorry but if you still don't understand i can't do anything for you.

I wouldn't have posted these bible verses if he hadnt posted his bible verses.

What I am saying here is that you're justifying your misdeeds blaming him as a provocator. Your answer to me here is irrelevant.

I am criticizing your ideas yes in other post, but that has nothing to do with the bible verses i quoted.
I am not pushing atheism here, never even mentioned atheism. In my first posts (wich is the only one relevent here), all i did was criticizing the bible, not people.
You need to understand the difference between a book and a person dude.
I specifically said that it would a good thing if people lost their "faith", because you specifically asked the question. But responding to the question doesn't mean that it was the purpose of my first post. I already explained the purpose of my first post.

You're pushing irreligion - same thing. Also, it's your behaviour in general - you agree that you were being offensive, undiplomatic and untactful right from the start, all what you're posting is relevant. And the purpose of your first post - to dissuade folk from Christianity, "the hippi jesus stuff", which you are trying to dissuade, and you think that's good. That must be one of the greatest side benefits ever - you walk in as a hypnotist and you say that you're going to try and relax them - you fail, but now they're your unknowing slaves.

Also, you were criticising Christians for "ignoring" the book's bits.

An attack on a BOOK. I already said that, this game is getting old.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just going to try to take your heart away - it's not going to kill you, you can get a new one.

I never said Eklipse was vulgar, i'm the one being vulgar here. And if you want to see his attack "specifically targeted" on "the atheist that attacked religion in this thread" you just have to read his first post. Also, when did i say that i wasn't offensive?Because i am, and i think i have good reason to be.

You've no right to criticise Eklipse for using insults, then, if you're being vulgar.

He said that he gets if you (plural) are atheist - he could have been saying that to me and as a warning to other folk wanting to comment on the horrors of faith. Even if Eklipse did something wrong, another worse evil doesn't make right.

The thing that seems obvious to me is that a: yes, this talk, you are arguing about your behaviour and deed - was it right for you to post your first two posts?, and that you are not answering 80% of what Eklipse is saying.

I don't understand the first half of this sentence.

Simplified: I see that the subject is very relevant to your behaviour and deed, and also, you're not answering 80% of what Eklipse is saying.

Also i reject the claim that i am not answering 80% of what Eklipse said. I might have, but if you point me to the argument you would like answered, i will answer it.

You aren't even sure? Well, I'm not going to go into individual sentence statistics of how much you have replied to Eklipse's posts - no time for that, but here is a whole post you deemed "not important"

I don't see where is the bravery in posting bible verse online.

It's only brave because those who refuse to hide their religion in a closet often come under fire by those like you who refuse to let people believe what they choose to believe in.

and it is important to point that out every time someone tries to push this ideas on others, wich is certainly the point of this thread.

Excuse me, but how does the existence of this thread somehow "push" ideas on to you? It's completely voluntary to click on this thread and read it's contents. The title itself should even be a warning for those who seem almost allergic to religion.

If he wants to gather some christians to talk about the bible, he can do it privately.

Actually I think he can talk about it wherever he wants. People have the right to express their religious beliefs publicly and freely. The only restriction is that they can not force their own beliefs and ideas on to you, which isn't happening here. Again, even reading this thread is voluntary, you aren't being forced to do anything. You could have just as easily ignored this thread instead of going out of your way to attack something you personally don't like.

where religious people seem to think it is OK to push your religion unto others, but it is NOT OK to criticize religion,

Again, nobody was forced to do anything. This was a thread for religious people to discuss religion, nothing more. If you aren't a religious person, than just ignore all of this.

There are two types of Atheists, and you seem to be the bad kind.

1.) Atheists who do not believe in any high power but are respectful of the beliefs of others. These Atheists will usually leave religious people alone as long as religion isn't forced upon them.

2.) Atheists who act as if any public mention of religion is an insult to them and think they're on some sort of crusade to attack religious/spiritual beliefs wherever they see it.

In real life I know many of Type 1, sadly Type 2 seems to be quite common on the internet.

And the fact that you choose ad hominem attacks toward atheists

Not true. My post was directed specifically at those who've shown up to attack religion in this very thread. I made no insults towards Atheists in general.

I think i've made my case pretty clear on that

Though I'm also a genius, I still am confused since I'm still a moron - explain more easily.

Man i'm starting to think responding to you was a waste of time. I can't understand half of what you say, and the other half is full illogical arguments.
I don't even know how to respond to that, maybe you don't know what "discriminate" means?
Let me try to explain the difference between discrimination and dissuasion in the most simple way i can.

exemple of dissuasion:
someone is on the verge of jumping off a rooftop, using arguments to convince him not to do it is dissuasion.

exemple of discimination:
Treating people differently depending on their race, religion, or other group, rather than on individual merit. For example, giving the right or refusing the right to certain people to respond to this thread based on their religion is discrimination

See? there is no logical connection whatsoever between "dissuasion" and "discrimination".

There's always a logic connection of some kind. Anyhow, by your grounding:

example of oppression:
My boss is not paying me minimum wage.

example of genocide:
My family and friends were killed in extermination camps.

No connection there?

Dissuasion can be a way of discrimination. While saying "I can tell" would be technically false, let me right myself then - "I have strong suspicions"

Also, stop blaming others for your misdeeds - it's not my fault that you read at a kindergarten level.

Edited 10/8/2015 22:37:36

(3/3)

So you linked the definitions of "presuade" and "refuse", and somehow you think you have a point?
I don't have a problem with either definition.
I am actually fascinated that you are continuing with your argument, since you have the definitions under your nose, and you still think that persuade=refuse.

You didn't have a problem? Really?

By the way, "inducing" is probably not the word you are looking for, "convincing" would be the appropriate word. (or else you are going to have to explain exactly what i am trying to induce him to do)

But even if i was trying to "induce" him to "do something", wich obviously i am not doing (what is wrong with you people?), it still wouldn't "indicate" that i am not willing to accept him or his views, there is no logical connection here.

And if "convincing" is the word you meant, It would just mean that i disagree and that i am using the only right way to make my case: Argument and Reasoning (what's wrong with that?), it would not mean that "i am not willing to accept" or some other bullshit.

BUT the funny thing is, i did none of that! I am not trying to convince him that religion is bad, i don't care about what he believes.
What i care about is showing the other side of the bible, not just the hippi jesus stuff, so that the people that he is trying to evangelize by posting bible verses on a public forum may have other sources of information.

You imply that you're trying to dissuade him, and I strongly believe that you are refusing for Christianity to hold it's majority position and will do your bit against it.

Dissuasion is obviously not the same as refusal, but dissuasion, again, can be a way of refusal.

Already adressed all of this, challenge failed

First of all, that's a very outstanding instance of parading your disputed claim as undeniably true. Second of all, do you agree you were wrong here? Now obviously you wont provide evidences for these claims. And third of all, I don't remember you addressing all of it.

*You're implying that you're trying to dissuade Christians.
*You're trying to induce Relm and other Christians to leave their faith. Their faith, as you described it, they believe in "the hippi jesus stuff", which you are trying to dissuade. (Why else would you, as you said, post an opposing outlook that Christians don't often get?)
*The verses christians love to ignore

@Relm
Well...i can't read minds, not like that other guy who know what i think better than me apparently, and is convinced that i want to ban religion and discriminate against christians, despite me assuring him over and over that this is simply not true.
Sad thing is that everyone on this thread, you included, seems to think that he is right apparently, since everyone is standing silent while he is making such disgusting claims about me.
And unless you told him privately what your intentions were, he was in fact making that up, since there was no way to know what your intentions were. All you did was quoting bible verses, and ask if anyone had questions. All i did was posting more bible verses.

You also said that there was 3 logicals fallacies in this quote:

xapi:

Well, you are refusing to let people believe what they want to; obviously, you can't ban or illegalise faith, nor really discriminate against most Warlight-ers in any significant way, so you're doing the next best thing: dissuasion.

my response:

Nope, i juste quoted offensive bible verses, i never even mentioned OP. Stop with your bullshit

Now tell me exactly where you see a logical fallacy in my response please, don't do like the other two and make claims you can't support with evidence. I'm gonna put my sentence right next to the definition of the logical fallacies you pointed out to make it easier for you:

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than addressing the content of their arguments.

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

Nope, i juste quoted offensive bible verses, i never even mentioned OP. Stop with your bullshit.

Good Luck

Edited 10/8/2015 22:46:39

hallelujah

Now tell me exactly where you see a logical fallacy in my response please, don't do like the other two and make claims you can't support with evidence. I'm gonna put my sentence right next to the definition of the logical fallacies you pointed out to make it easier for you:


Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than addressing the content of their arguments.

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

Nope, i juste quoted offensive bible verses, i never even mentioned OP. Stop with your bullshit.

I wasn't even using your fancy Latin words, most of this you should take up with Relm since he knows the minutae better, but here:

*Stop with your bullshit.

This is insulting character, pour ceux qui parlent en latin, ad hominem

sorry xapi, i started reading you, but i didn't understand half of the thing you said so i stopped.

I have made myself pretty clear anyway, and i don't intend to defend myself forever against the preposterous claims you are making about me. You don't make any sense half of the time, and the other half you are full of shit, anyone older than five can see that. That's good enough for me. I rest my case

edit: xapi you are now responding for the post adressed at Eklipse AND Relm, you should take a break really

Edited 10/9/2015 00:02:38

Forgot to give: the one person supporting you on this thread is someone who hated me before this thread was made.

Anyhow, i started reading you, but i didn't understand half of the thing you said so i stoped.

I have made myself pretty clear anyway, and i don't intend to defend myself forever against the preposterous claims you are making about me. You don't make any sense half of the time, and the other half you are full of shit, anyone older than five can see that. That's good enough for me. I rest my case. You are moron.

Edited 10/8/2015 23:21:06

Жұқтыру is very knowledgeable. If he had more confidence, he wouldn't bother replying on this thread.



Grammar Nazi case : stopped.





This thread must be derailed.



Also, Matteo Ricci is a great man. A good example of religious tolerance. What is the difference between religion and philosophy ? The line is not always clear...

Жұқтыру is very knowledgeable. If he had more confidence, he wouldn't bother replying on this thread.

I wouldn't normally be so involved, but I'm trying to hold my and Eklipse's good names.

@Hostile

Grammar Nazi case : stopped.

Corrected, i actually hesitated to add the extra "p" but i ended up not doing it.

What is the difference between religion and philosophy ? The line is not always clear...

Here is the definitions i got from wikipedia, wich i think are good enough
"Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

Both philosophy and religion try to explain the nature of reality, but they do it using vastly different methods.

Philosophy try to explain reality through arguments, conversation, theories. Philosophy is an open debate. There is no definitive answer in philosophy.

Religion explains reality through faith, supernatural beliefs and superstitions. And usually, specifically monotheistic religions, make the claim to have a definitive answer about the "truth" of our reality, a truth revealed through a holy book representing the perfect word of the perfect creator of our world. The debate in monotheistic religions is essentially about the interpretation of the holy book.

Edited 10/9/2015 00:04:23

But you have metaphysics that are on borderline of religion-philosophy.

The first greek philosophies borrowed many ideas/themes from religion.



Confucionism can be viewed as religion AND philosophy by example. Both definitions are true.



They both discuss moral grounds or try to FIND the ultimate truth. Socratism was a religion.

Edited 10/9/2015 00:45:48

I agree with you. Actually the problem i see is in the question. Philosophy is more or less defined, but religion is a term so broad, and englobe so many different system of beliefs that you kinda have to take it case by case if you want to compare it to philosophy, or measure what in the religious doctrine has more to do with philosophy than faith, etc.

Philosophy and religion are not mutually exclusive, as religious doctrines can (and often are) based on phylosophic arguments.
You can also have a philosophic discussion based on a religious point of view.

1. i had no interaction with zhuq before this thread (i havent sent him a mail since he left the wolves)
2. i misread who committed the fallacies, the fallacies were commited by both of you throughout your posts however the majority of the ones commited by hitch were relevant to the argument and therefor not fallacies of relevance.
3. most fallacies are named in latin, just so happens i know latin well.

Now i offer a compromise since this debate has gone on to long and doesn't look to be going anywhere for a while.

Hitch i think your in the right, send me a mail and i can explain each verse you listed in detail, (it would go quicker if i sent you my skype)

Zhuq and eklipse, although your arguments were pretty great as well, i would prefer you to hold some of your debating skill for when we have one on the topic of comparing/contrasting religion

@Relm
Dont worry, the "debate" is over, i rested my case. It was never a debate in the first place, it was me defending myself against stupid accusations. I deeply regret wasting my time on these guys and should have stopped this way before i did, since it was clear that there is no way to reason with them (Especially Zhuq, at least Eklipse knows how to make coherent sentence)

I don't accept the claim that i have made any logical fallacy, and you haven't pointed to me any of the alleged fallacies, exept the one that you then admitted was not a fallacy (apparently)

The only claim that i accept, and never contested, is that i wasn't diplomatic and that i (later on) used offensive language.

As for your explanation for the bible verses i posted, we can have a conversation about them using PM if you want. Although I am not asking you to do that, so only do it if you want to. I wouldn't want to force anyone to do anything ;)

So back to not fighting a flamewar. Pope Francis - Is he awesome or not?

He's a Argentinean so yes, he is awesome.

Pope Francis seems like a pretty decent guy so far. Taking a stand against climate change and poverty is definitely something I can respect.