It is funny that theists will never answer me.

[ChristianConspirator]

"You're wrong, and I can prove it"

"But I ain't gonna, nyah nyah"

This is the one to which I'm referring.

Follow up questions and replies are not fallacies

I know, but saying that I didn't answer the original question, is.

Is this shifting the goalposts? Yes, in a way. Bar the fact neither of you agreed upon what standard was acceptable for ending the argument.

A question in itself is a standard. I assumed that his line of questioning Ended at

Since this is how you treat everything else in your life, why do you make a special exception for the Bible and miracles people claim based on it happening with prayer? What makes you so sure they are not a hallicination[sic], lie, or exaggeration?

If not, then I wasted my time by answering it, because it, in reality, is a series of questions that will continue forever.

Did Hatter shift the goalposts? No. Why not? Because Hatter didn't do that

I see.

The list he presented was in rebuttal to your claim there are no contradictory passages which show exaggerations or outright lies

It didn't disprove anything, which is what he said. It is only a list of follow up questions. Again, I can't take the time to answer all of them, there are just too many, and the list will continue forever.

[Zankuu]

[ChristianConspirator]

Ha, love Calvin and Hobbes. Wait, Bill W is a Christian... I hate Calvin and Hobbes.

[Zankuu]

"You're wrong, and I can prove it"

"But I ain't gonna, nyah nyah"

This is the one to which I'm referring.

Right, but that's not an ad hominem fallacy. Those deriding quotations are the impression that was left on Anfauglir after reading your reply.

[ChristianConspirator]

Well, sure. But presumably since he didn't say anything else it can be assumed that he's implying I'm a whiner and therefore my argument is false? I'm not really too concerned if it is or isn't ad hominem, but it is suspiciously close.

[Azdgari]

Well, sure. But presumably since he didn't say anything else it can be assumed that he's implying I'm a whiner and therefore my argument is false?

No, that would be a rash assumption on your part.  He's just summarizing your post in that quote - or at least, a part of your post that he had an issue with.

I'm not really too concerned if it is or isn't ad hominem, but it is suspiciously close.

No, it's nothing like an ad hominem.  You made a mistake.  That's okay; everyone does.  But you don't have to go and be an arrogant dick about it.

[Nam]

Yeah, that's my job!



-Nam

[ChristianConspirator]

Well, sure. But presumably since he didn't say anything else it can be assumed that he's implying I'm a whiner and therefore my argument is false?

No, that would be a rash assumption on your part.  He's just summarizing your post in that quote - or at least, a part of your post that he had an issue with.

I'm not really too concerned if it is or isn't ad hominem, but it is suspiciously close.

No, it's nothing like an ad hominem.  You made a mistake.  That's okay; everyone does.  But you don't have to go and be an arrogant dick about it.

"Don't be arrogant, be more like me you dumb schmuck"

[Azdgari]

Yeah, that's what he was doing.  It's not an ad-hominem, it's a summary.  His was a bit more apt than yours, but that's okay; he's probably had more practice.

[Hatter23]

Well, sure. But presumably since he didn't say anything else it can be assumed that he's implying I'm a whiner and therefore my argument is false? I'm not really too concerned if it is or isn't ad hominem, but it is suspiciously close.

If you wanted to call it an appeal to ridicule..you'd have at least a leg to stand on.

Except that summary is essentially what you did. If you wanted to defuse it, you could do so by addressing the essence of the problem, rather than, once again, evading and leading the whole conversation into a rabbit hole of semantics. If you show the ridicule to be unfounded, it makes the person doing the ridicule no longer with a point.

The issue of your position:

I see no flaws in X. X is therefore flawless or has extremely limited flaws. Don't bother me with actual flaws in X.

AND

I do not hold X to any different standard than Y

EVEN THOUGH

Y contradicts X

is not tenable, nor logical. Your premise is falsified by the fact that X, in this case the Bible, is absolutely riddled with flaws. I did not want to hear the age old cry "You mean atheist just picked these two flaws" and to avoid this, I did so by providing a substantive list. I could have easily provided a list twenty times as long.

If you do not agree with the way I state your position, provide details of how I did so. Details that a person defending the accuracy of, lets say, The Iliad, could not use.

[Hatter23]

An ad hominem is an attack on x's character rather than addressing the argument x has presented; it is not "a false argument directed" at x like you're claiming. Or maybe you're aware and just hastily shot off a reply.

Actually, you're right. But, just because I misdefined it, does not mean that I was wrong that it was an ad hominem. Incidentally, you commited the fallacy fallacy, implying that I am wrong because my definition is wrong.

No if you use the wrong definition of a word, you are wrong. There is no fallacy fallacy here, except from you.

to use an example;

"All Priest are rapists. "

and by rapist I mean they convey incorrect information about the world by using a book of bronze age mythology.

The sentence in quotes is WRONG. period. Wrong definition = wrong statement.

[ChristianConspirator]

Please believe me when I tell you that Hatter23 requires no education on logical fallacies.

I am beginning to doubt this claim. Please read my replies to people that said the same things you just did.

At any rate, you're changing the subject, since you should be proving to me that you did not move the goalpost, and therefore the original question should be sufficiently answered. Then you should start a new post with a new question that theists supposedly don't answer.

[Hatter23]

Please believe me when I tell you that Hatter23 requires no education on logical fallacies.

I am beginning to doubt this claim. Please read my replies to people that said the same things you just did.

At any rate, you're changing the subject, since you should be proving to me that you did not move the goalpost, and therefore the original question should be sufficiently answered. Then you should start a new post with a new question that theists supposedly don't answer.

You claim moving the goalposts. That is the positive claim. It isn't for I to disprove it, it is for you to prove it. You are shifting the burden of proof(i.e. appeal to ignorance)

My opening question, which is an easily agreed upon premise in the form of the question, is fairly standard Socratic method of argument. To follow it up after an agreed upon premise with further questions that refute a position of the person you are debating with is also, fairly standard methodology.

And this exercise here, with evasions of a direct and simple line of questions. An outright refusal to directly and succinctly address my line of reasoning that attacks the special pleading fallacy that is at the very heart of every form of gnostic theism, only proves my point further. No theist will, because they are all guilty of it; and there's no arguing against my premise without evasion and sophistry because of the truth it exposes.

[ChristianConspirator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented

That is, "because I have researched the bible and don't believe it has contradictions"

in response to a specific claim

That is, why do you believe the bible?

is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

That is, but what about this infinite series of specific contradictions?

In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt

You'll notice that there weren't any other takers on this, probably because everyone else can see it.

My opening question, which is an easily agreed upon premise in the form of the question, is fairly standard Socratic method of argument. To follow it up after an agreed upon premise with further questions that refute a position of the person you are debating with is also, fairly standard methodology

If what you want is a book-length Socratic dialogue, is it really that strange that you haven't been answered by anyone? Anyway, "question" is not a synonym of "refutation" which you seem to be implying. Because I don't want to answer something does not make it impossible

[Hatter23]

Because I don't want to answer something does not make it impossible

No. It doesn't. It just means you are incapable of doing so. As such, there is nothing to support your position, and you are admitting "I don't have what it takes intellectually to actually defend my views" and therefore you deserve any belittlement you may get for having those views.

[ChristianConspirator]

Because I don't want to answer something does not make it impossible

No. It doesn't. It just means you are incapable of doing so. As such, there is nothing to support your position, and you are admitting "I don't have what it takes intellectually to actually defend my views" and therefore you deserve any belittlement you may get for having those views.

Ipse dixit, sir, easy does it. You may recall another figure who was ridiculed for his views and put to death http://www.jesuschrist.com/

[Azdgari]

Yeah.  You being ridiculed here is just like Jesus suffering and dying on the cross.

Have you considered that sometimes people who get ridiculed, are actually being ridiculous?

[ChristianConspirator]

Yeah.  You being ridiculed here is just like Jesus suffering and dying on the cross.

Have you considered that sometimes people who get ridiculed, are actually being ridiculous?

Never crossed my mind. Is this forum done now?

[Nam]

Yeah.  You being ridiculed here is just like Jesus suffering and dying on the cross.

Have you considered that sometimes people who get ridiculed, are actually being ridiculous?

Never crossed my mind. Is this forum done now?

Are you?

-Nam

[Anfauglir]

When I hear a claim that something is untrue about the bible, I tend to take the time to research what the problem is and decide if the claims are valid. So far, at worst, the bible appears unverifiable in parts or ambiguous in others, but nothing absolutely wrong or contradictory.....

"You're wrong, and I can prove it"

By the way, don't ask me about specifics, the bible is a big book and there are plenty of other forums and people to ask about such things.

"But I ain't gonna, nyah nyah"

Just to keep the subject focussed, I have reproduced my original response above.

Was it derisory?  Yes indeedy.  Having seen dozens of believers pop up here with their evasions and dodges, these days I have a low tolerance for those who appear to announce their intention to avoid questions in advance.

CC, your post gave me the impression that you had done a lot of research into the apparent contradictions in the Bible, and that you had found explanations for everything.  Fantastic!  Always ready to hear a fresh perspective on such things.

But then you appeared to say that you had no intention of sharing any of your answers with us, that you would ignore any questions about particular contradictions that we might have.

Those two points brought the image to mind of the infant who taunts his friends with "I know something you don't know" - hence my response.

What I've not seen in the couple pages since is anything that has made me change my opinion.  You've spent several responses noting your upset about the way you are being treated, but I don't recall seeing you address a single one of the contradictions that were offered.  So I'm finding it hard to see where my initial characterisation (rude though it may have been) was wrong.  Especially ironic in a thread titled "it is funny that theists will never answer me".

Let's cut to the chase though - will you/are you prepared to share your thoughts on individual sexctions in the bible that one or more of us may view as contradictions?

[ChristianConspirator]

Let's cut to the chase though - will you/are you prepared to share your thoughts on individual sections in the bible that one or more of us may view as contradictions?

Sure, I can do that. That's not a guarantee of course that I will answer them satisfactorily enough, especially for those who won't take answers like "It does not appear specific/clear enough to be shown conclusively that this is a contradiction" or the like.

I'm not a (paid) bible scholar, and I can't say I've researched them ALL by any means, and it may well be that you stump me; I'm prepared for that, I really came here in the hopes that I would learn how to argue more effectively and be forced to research things I haven't thought of.

I will attempt 5, but only ones asked by you. Agreed?

It may not happen today tho. I'm a bit tired, and have things to do tomorrow etc, and I'm only responding now because I couldn't sleep for a bit.

[Hatter23]

Because I don't want to answer something does not make it impossible

No. It doesn't. It just means you are incapable of doing so. As such, there is nothing to support your position, and you are admitting "I don't have what it takes intellectually to actually defend my views" and therefore you deserve any belittlement you may get for having those views.

Ipse dixit, sir, easy does it. You may recall another figure who was ridiculed for his views and put to death http://www.jesuschrist.com/

Argumentum ad misericordiam, your argument is invalid.

[Anfauglir]

Let's cut to the chase though - will you/are you prepared to share your thoughts on individual sections in the bible that one or more of us may view as contradictions?

Sure, I can do that. That's not a guarantee of course that I will answer them satisfactorily enough, especially for those who won't take answers like "It does not appear specific/clear enough to be shown conclusively that this is a contradiction" or the like.

Hard to say without looking at a specific, but I'm not sure that anyone would take this as an acceptbale premise.  The unscrupulous could use such a phrase as a handy "get-out" for points they could not answer.  I would envisage though that if someone put to you "these phrases are contradictory because....." it would as a minimum be necessary for you to explain why you believe it was not clear or specific enough.  I think we'll have to try it and see.

But thank you for agreeing to the above - it seems that my initial impressions of you may have been wrong. 

I'm not a (paid) bible scholar, and I can't say I've researched them ALL by any means, and it may well be that you stump me; I'm prepared for that, I really came here in the hopes that I would learn how to argue more effectively and be forced to research things I haven't thought of.

Good stuff.  Yes indeed, I'd be amazed if you'd covered all the bases of every question that could possibly be posed.

I will attempt 5, but only ones asked by you. Agreed?

Sorry, I can't make agreements that would exclude you from answers questions posed by others.  Even were that not the case, I would be wary of making such an agreement because I would worry I would hit five swift "It does not appear specific/clear enough to be shown conclusively that this is a contradiction" responses that would then forestall any further debate.

In any case, contradictions aren't my specialist field.  Far better for others here with more knowledge to pose the questions.  I'm sure you will be okay with that, given that "(you) really came here in the hopes that (you) would learn how to argue more effectively" - far better to argue against the best we have to offer, yes?

[Hatter23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented

That is, "because I have researched the bible and don't believe it has contradictions"

in response to a specific claim

That is, why do you believe the bible?

is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

That is, but what about this infinite series of specific contradictions?

In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt

You'll notice that there weren't any other takers on this, probably because everyone else can see it.

You state you do not apply a different standard( if this was true, it would defeat my premise) However you support for this assertion is lacking. No goalposts have been moved. Your accusation of my fallacy is unfounded.

When you state you study in length and find no error, yet I can come up with hundreds shows you to be disingenuous.

[Hatter23]

Yeah.  You being ridiculed here is just like Jesus suffering and dying on the cross.

Have you considered that sometimes people who get ridiculed, are actually being ridiculous?

Never crossed my mind. Is this forum done now?

Nah, I think I shall taunt you a second time.

[screwtape]

You may recall another figure who was ridiculed for his views and put to death http://www.jesuschrist.com/

Spare me.

For one, we've not killed you yet.  The probability of us killing you is pretty low.  So far, we have managed to not kill every xian who has ever come here.  It is a sign of superior discipline and self restraint on our part.  And if we do happen to kill you, it probably won't be for your stupid views. 

And isn't equating yourself to jesus H like that some king of a sin or blasphemy?  You've got some kind of ego complex, man.

[Hatter23]

You may recall another figure who was ridiculed for his views and put to death http://www.jesuschrist.com/

Spare me.

Yeah, I almost injured myself on the eyeroll triggered by that one.

[Hatter23]

When I have brought up the Judas contradiction before, the responses are just insane.

"Maybe he hung himself and the rope broke and he fell on the ground and his belly bursts open"

Despite when a rope breaks, a body does not fall that way. It reminds me of when you catch a little kid in a lie(through contradiction) and they then invent a new story that makes it not a contradiction, even though the new story has elements in it that are so wild, significant, and/or obvious that they would have been mentioned in the first place.

[Nam]

Yeah but little kids are still smarter than the average Christian.



-Nam