The Atheist Experience

The Atheist Experience Aug 16, 2018 9:22:54 GMT

Quote

Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 16, 2018 9:22:54 GMT

Aug 15, 2018 22:46:50 GMT Arlon10 said:

FF: please show where I have personally insulted, or worse, you on this thread.

Arlon: Remember what I said about you claiming others have committed logical fallacies? Remember I said you shouldn't do that? Remember what I said about you not applying the rules properly? Well, there is much more. You are apparently unaware how insulting it is. It is very much like calling a person stupid or a liar, especially when you have been shown wrong several times. Now do you think you can avoid doing that? What with it being so insulting and all? It is actually your failure of logic..

Pointing out widely accepted logical flaws in your arguments, especially when repeated, over and over, are not 'personal insults', Arlon, since I am criticising the argument, not the person so here you are reaching, rather. Most times you will see that I only helpfully repeat that you have been reminded of the weakness in argument before, and perhaps why the fallacy is considered as such. And, your objections to my flagging up the various fallacies you habitually employ were not even based around the fact that it is supposedly offensive, it was more that you just did not accept definitions.

.. but that means you're stupid

Remember what I had said about the ad hominem fallacy?

FF: Jesus was an historical personage.

Hence one would expect him characterised in anthropomorphic terms. QED.

At the very least, which is my point.

You have a conveniently poor memory, Arlon. My reply was specifically to your suggestions that the idea of Jesus would be "remarkably [my emphasis] anthropomorphic" and, more, that "The New Testament provides such an anthropomorphic convergence point in Jesus, but merely as an accommodation to children " Which implies that it would be less remarkable, and more adult, to deny Jesus such human characteristics such as say, love, empathy, kindness and anger etc. But since you don't admit to being a Christian or not, perhaps this makes sense to you.

FF: you told me earlier ... that "I have told you there is no such definition of any word."

Arlon: What I said is that definitions do not exist outside our mutually agreed arbitrary definitions. Blessed by them is a totally different thing. But thanks for your confession that you missed the whole point. Until you can follow better there is little point to this.

Leaving aside that, inconveniently, dictionaries are full of definitions (which presumably is why you feel the need to argue against them 'and win'), when you say things like "I have offered a "definition" of religion as system concerned with abstract forces in nature ... that develops an ethical system", where one does not 'mutually agree' at all that Nature is amenable to being used in this way, such a definition fails by your own rule of thumb, and so does your thesis. Again. Thanks for playing, since it appears now you are bailing.