Originally posted by twhiteheadLol your straw man is so lame. You could have come up with a better one because if I did put a bird into your shirt it could fly away.
Correct. Using the definition: 'lacking belief in a god or gods' ( or not a theist).
[b]Later you agree with me that a baby does not believe anything and you insist you have never suggested otherwise.
Correct.
So if you say that a baby doesn't believe anything and a baby is an atheist you are actually saying that an atheist does not believe ...[text shortened]... y in my shirt?
[b]Your logic is at fault,
No, it is your lack of logic that is at fault.[/b]
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I did no such thing. I gave an analogy to demonstrate your bad logic. I did not claim you had made an argument you did not make and then proceed to shoot it down.
Lol every time I nail you for an ad hominem or a straw man you post a link as your defence? Actually you did exactly what the link suggests to be a straw man.
And you never demonstrated that I had used an ad hominem. Since you don't bother to actually read the links I give you, let me try and explain: an ad hominem is when you attack a person rather than their argument and then claim that their argument fails because of who the person is.
10 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadLol you are so funny. Your analogy was a straw man. Fallaciously comparing babies and atheists to birds and the sky.
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I did no such thing. I gave an analogy to demonstrate your bad logic. I did not claim you had made an argument you did not make and then proceed to shoot it down.
And you never demonstrated that I had used an ad hominem. Since you don't bother to actually read the links I give you, let me try and expl ...[text shortened]... ather than their argument and then claim that their argument fails because of who the person is.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatA straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
A straw-man argument is very clearly defined, and what Twitehead posted clearly doesn't fall into that definition.
Instead of refuting my claim about babies and atheists he created a new argument about birds and the sky and tried to refute that instead. Unsuccessfully though because it was badly thought out. Hence I said it was lame straw man.
10 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou might find it more edifying to read around a bit rather than try to shoe-horn the analogy which was presented into a distorted reading of the definition.
[b]A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Instead of refuting my claim about babies and atheists he created a new argument about birds and the sky and tried to refute that instead. Unsuccessfully though because it was badly thought out. Hence I said it was lame straw man.[/b]
10 May 16
Originally posted by avalanchethecatHe might find it more edifying to refute my original argument, instead of resorting to irrelevant analogies.
You might find it more edifying to read around a bit rather than try to shoe-horn the analogy which was presented into a distorted reading of the definition.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo, it was not a strawman. And there is nothing fallacious about an analogy or a comparison. You apparently don't know what 'fallacious' means either. I suggest you look that up too.
Lol you are so funny. Your analogy was a straw man. Fallaciously comparing babies and atheists to birds and the sky.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYet again you don't achieve anything by simply claiming to know the meaning of something, and suggesting that someone else look it up. I have explained to you why I think your argument is a straw man. Instead of responding to my explanation and pointing out why it is flawed you simply resort to insults. That is why most people like Kelly have stopped responding to your posts. I might as well follow suit.
No, it was not a strawman. And there is nothing fallacious about an analogy or a comparison. You apparently don't know what 'fallacious' means either. I suggest you look that up too.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkKellyJay has stopped responding to some people's posts because he is a self-righteous, inarticulate and mostly feeble debater who does not think through what he is saying and who can contradict himself from one thread page to the next ~ and when this gets demonstrated in public for the umpteenth time, he sometimes clams up.
That is why most people like Kelly have stopped responding to your posts. I might as well follow suit.
Shortly before he stopped responding to me he commended me for my civility towards him etc. But then he defended Christian parents' right to let their children die for want of medical treatment and denounced the state stepping in to save such children.
Having not really thought it through (presumably), he was aghast when I pointed out that he was essentially supporting the right to engage in child sacrifice (letting/causing one's children to die in order to please/not displease one's God figure).
His response to this realization was to mumble something about how he had children too and how dare I, etc. and then he stopped responding to my posts. He's a poor communicator. And proud to the point of being fragile. It is quite possible, as you yourself suggest, that you will end up following suit. 😉
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt is apparent that I need to spell it out for you step by step. Here goes:
Yet again you don't achieve anything by simply claiming to know the meaning of something, and suggesting that someone else look it up. I have explained to you why I think your argument is a straw man. Instead of responding to my explanation and pointing out why it is flawed you simply resort to insults. That is why most people like Kelly have stopped responding to your posts. I might as well follow suit.
you said:
So if you say that a baby doesn't believe anything and a baby is an atheist you are actually saying that an atheist does not believe anything.
Lets break it down:
Premise: A baby doesn't believe anything.
Premise: A baby is an atheist.
Conclusion: An atheist does not believe anything.
Clearly your conclusion does not follow from the premises. If it is still not clear to you, let me try another analogy.
Premise: A baby doesn't believe anything.
Premise: A baby doesn't have teeth.
Conclusion: If you don't have teeth, then you don't believe anything.
Do you agree with the conclusion? If not, why not?
Is this analogy a 'straw man'?
If it is, why is it?
Is the use of the analogy fallacious? If it is, why is it?
10 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkHow would you know that? Are you a close friend of his?
That is why most people like Kelly have stopped responding to your posts.
Kelly stopped responding to me in a thread about starlight. I explained to him some of the implications of his beliefs about starlight and he accused me of lying about his position. It is notable however that he refused to point to which post of mine he objected to, or what the contents were that he objected to or even clarify what his position actually was.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis could have been a better analogy:
It is apparent that I need to spell it out for you step by step. Here goes:
you said:So if you say that a baby doesn't believe anything and a baby is an atheist you are actually saying that an atheist does not believe anything.
Lets break it down:
Premise: A baby doesn't believe anything.
Premise: A baby is an atheist.
Conclusion: A ...[text shortened]... a 'straw man'?
If it is, why is it?
Is the use of the analogy fallacious? If it is, why is it?
Premise: A baby believes in god
Premise: A baby is a theist.
Conclusion: A baby believes in god.
Once again your analogy is wrong because you are trying to discredit my argument by comparing atheism with teeth. Last time you compared it to birds. Hence it is once again a straw man.