Kowtow to Atheists? Oh, hell to the no!

[Spirit of Light]

My first reaction to the question asked was, why do you kowtow to any one? Do you know the meaning behind the word Kowtow? We do not need to do that any human being

And Atheists are no diffrent then those of us who follow a religion/spiritual path except that they do not believe.

 

[Jollybear]

It's not an ad hom to say, "Smith is a liar".

What if smith is called a lier but theres no proof hes lying, is it ad hom then?

It's an ad hom to say, "Smith's argument fails because Smith is a liar".

I agree, i can see that. However, what if he really was lying?

The key is whether or not the attack is used to undermine their argument.

Right.

 

[Jollybear]

I have tried to explain this to him to no avail.

And ive tried to explain to you that im not being dishonest or lying. Also, to no avail.

 

[Sunstone]

What if the argument is a lie?

That's a legitimate attack on the argument then. You see what the principle here is?

Consider the logic (or illogic) in this example:

SMITH: Your gauge is reading empty, therefore your car needs petrol.

JONES: My gauge may be reading empty, but you are a known liar, therefore my car does not need petrol.​

Jone's argument is an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a fallacy precisely because the reason given for rejecting an argument is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

Now just to make matters more confusing, there are times when "attacking the man", so to speak, is NOT an ad hominem, but a logically legitimate argument. For instance:

JONES: The caravan contains middle eastern terrorists, and thus must be met by armed force.

SMITH: Jones is known to be a pathological liar who seldom tells the truth. There is no other evidence that the caravan contains middle eastern terrorists other than his word, which is unreliable. Therefore, it seems unlikely the caravan contains middle eastern terrorists, and for that reason needs to be met by armed force.​

The reason that argument is NOT an ad hominem is because the reason given for rejecting Jone's argument is indeed relevant to the truth or falsity of Jone's argument.

Ad hominems are ad hominems if and only if the "attack on the man" is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument being attacked.

I hope this helps.

 

[Sunstone]

What if smith is called a lier but theres no proof hes lying, is it ad hom then?

See post #64, please. The real question is not whether there's proof Smith is lying. The real question is whether accusing Smith of lying is relevant to the truth or falsity of Smith's argument.

 

[Jollybear]

See post #64, please. The real question is not whether there's proof Smith is lying. The real question is whether accusing Smith of lying is relevant to the truth or falsity of Smith's argument.

Ok, i read post 64. What your saying makes sense.

However, i guess i would like feedback on actual CONSTANT examples that have been going on with my debate with sub.

Ive been called dishonest countless times. And still, despite the fact i reported him in the past for it.

So, rules and even enforcing the rules wont work on him. So, i wont be reporting him again.

What i woyld like is staff feedback on actual examples. Sub thinks im dishonest. I KNOW im not. But, out of pure curiosity, id love staff feedback on the examples of him calling my points dishonest.

If i can do that, are you and other staff willing to give feedback on verbatum examples?

 

[Revoltingest]

What if smith is called a lier but theres no proof hes lying, is it ad hom then?

Consider 2 different intentions....
1) The meaning is the "argumentum ad hominem" fallacy.
This typically wouldn't apply.
2) Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Number 2 fits like a glove.

 

[Sunstone]

Ok, i read post 64. What your saying makes sense.

However, i guess i would like feedback on actual CONSTANT examples that have been going on with my debate with sub.

Ive been called dishonest countless times. And still, despite the fact i reported him in the past for it.

So, rules and even enforcing the rules wont work on him. So, i wont be reporting him again.

What i woyld like is staff feedback on actual examples. Sub thinks im dishonest. I KNOW im not. But, out of pure curiosity, id love staff feedback on the examples of him calling my points dishonest.

If i can do that, are you and other staff willing to give feedback on verbatum examples?

Copy and paste an example of what you're talking about without, however, the name of the other person involved. Just your argument, and their counter-argument, and I'll give it my best shot. But I can't speak as staff here. Just my personal opinion n the logic alone.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok, i read post 64. What your saying makes sense.

However, i guess i would like feedback on actual CONSTANT examples that have been going on with my debate with sub.

Ive been called dishonest countless times. And still, despite the fact i reported him in the past for it.

So, rules and even enforcing the rules wont work on him. So, i wont be reporting him again.

What i woyld like is staff feedback on actual examples. Sub thinks im dishonest. I KNOW im not. But, out of pure curiosity, id love staff feedback on the examples of him calling my points dishonest.

If i can do that, are you and other staff willing to give feedback on verbatum examples?

Copy and paste an example of what you're talking about without, however, the name of the other person involved. Just your argument, and their counter-argument, and I'll give it my best shot. But I can't speak as staff here. Just my personal opinion n the logic alone.

 

[Jumi]

Why wer you an atheist and what led you out of atheism? Curious.

I was an atheist for no particular reason. It wasn't a choice. I remember being a little kid and thought god sounded a lot like the things in my story books. I had to sit in church wondering if anyone else there thought the same.

I was middle-aged when I had an experience of god, it wasn't that long ago. I've been theist ever since.

 

[Jumi]

At least a few of the atheists here are definitely not socialists.

I know I wasn't, and never will be one. Theist or atheist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was invited to join a group that offers Christian support and tolerance to atheists. Here was my response:

-----

I was invited to this group for some reason. I've read the description and frankly I want to vomit in my mouth.

I've been dealing with atheists for 25 years online (Yes, ever since the newsgroup era). They are not looking to find answers. They want you dead. They are a manifestation of the end times. They are SGA (socialist globalist atheists).

The idea that someone has suffered abuse in the Church and therefore is an atheist is hogwash. I suffered hugely in the Church, and I'm a Veridican (which is heretical to the Church, but in fact an advanced radical Christianity).

No one is that dumb, okay? They all know that whatever abuses there were in the Church that Jesus is nothing like that. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, though it was rampant in Rome (and has always been around 5% of humanity anyway). Jesus never encouraged beating Children, in fact quite the opposite. Jesus told us never to judge and to love our neighbor as ourselves and then gave an example of loving someone completely at odds with what we are (the Samaritan).

They're not dumb. They didn't leave the Church and Christ because of abuse, and they haven't left it for "science and reason" either. There are probably more scientists who are theists than there are atheists, and the greatest minds in history have been theists, and one of the greatest minds, Newton, was particularly radical to the point of occultism.

I'm not here to preach the word to the atheists. I hang out in their groups to strengthen my arguments so that I can support the faith of my brothers and sisters in Christ. And maybe, just maybe, raise a flag in a group where other Christians who have the courage to debate the SGA are present. They will see it, and join with me. Maybe they won't become Veridican, but they might join me in these end-times preparations we better start making now.

Thanks for inviting me to the group.

It sounds like you are more focused on the nature of why some of them become atheist and not the atheists themelves? (I hope). Reason I say this is youre generalizing. I left the Church/christianity/following christ because of human sacrifice. I never experienced all the things you mentioned.

There is a difference between one disagreeing with Church teachings and leaving because of indoctrination abuse. Also, it is in the atheist right to leave a religion put on them in a negative way.

They blame christ because of the affects of christianity, not love christianity but blame christ. In many cases (not all) its christianity that makes them leave. For example, there are many people who think like you (really ); and, that type of thinking does not bring people to christ.

There are many christians who believe non-christians will go to hell. Many judge homosexuals as if they are attached to homosexual behaviors and forget straight people can be homosexuals too (according to scripture).

If it really was christ and god and not the people, some atheists would know it. But christ is not here and god is invisible, so the only reference they have is christians and scripures.

Who can blame them???

Not all atheists, just the victims of christianity and its practitioners who are resprentatives of christ. Change your views then one more atheist may consider believing in god (BUT it depends on how he defines atheism. Not you. Nor any christian)

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, i read post 64. What your saying makes sense.

However, i guess i would like feedback on actual CONSTANT examples that have been going on with my debate with sub.

Ive been called dishonest countless times. And still, despite the fact i reported him in the past for it.

So, rules and even enforcing the rules wont work on him. So, i wont be reporting him again.

What i woyld like is staff feedback on actual examples. Sub thinks im dishonest. I KNOW im not. But, out of pure curiosity, id love staff feedback on the examples of him calling my points dishonest.

If i can do that, are you and other staff willing to give feedback on verbatum examples?

Staff cannot comment on specific examples of moderation. So any actual example that was a case we have considered is off limits.

Second, all moderation is done by consensus: it takes three mods to agree before any action (or not action) is taken. So, at most, you can get the viewpoints of some mods on a general case.

 

[Jollybear]

I was an atheist for no particular reason. It wasn't a choice. I remember being a little kid and thought god sounded a lot like the things in my story books. I had to sit in church wondering if anyone else there thought the same.

I was middle-aged when I had an experience of god, it wasn't that long ago. I've been theist ever since.

What was your experience with God if you dont mind me asking?

 

[Jollybear]

Copy and paste an example of what you're talking about without, however, the name of the other person involved. Just your argument, and their counter-argument, and I'll give it my best shot. But I can't speak as staff here. Just my personal opinion n the logic alone.

Heres one example out of MANY. I wanna give it context so you can judge it better. Member X asked me this >

"Does Exodus specifically say that the mountain was black? Please quote it. Why did it turn black? You are not answering the question fully."

I answered this by saying this >

"The story in the bible does not say one way or the other if the top of the mountain became blackened.

But, it does say this in exodus 19:18

"Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently."

Member X responds saying this >

"So at the most it would have been smudged on the outside of the rock. A deposit that would have eroded away rather quickly. It would cause the observed formation."

I responded saying this >

"Well, theres a few more questions in need of.

How hot was the fire on mount sinai? IF it was hot enough, then it could be the cause of the rock on top being metamorphic.

Now, if it was not hot enough, then it would leave what you said, a "smudge" but, even a smudge can be a low grade metamorphosis on its surface. If it was a low grade metamorphosis, then it probably would not wither away in 5 thousand years. But, yes, a small chared smudge probably would.

In anycase, articles on the net say that the rock on top of jubel al luz IS black metamorphic rock. And per the testimony of some who broke the rocks open, it was light brown inside and black outside. So that looks like the rock metamorphed on its surface and not all the way through."

Member X responds >

"But the heat does not matter. If you understood the sources that I linked a long time ago you would not now be changing your argument. You are now grasping at straws rather than do the proper thing, which is to say that you were wrong. The Bible only says that there was smoke. That would only smudge the surface. This makes your entire argument with the mountain top a red herring. And no, as I pointed out earlier weathered surfaces are very often a different color than the inside of rocks. That is why geologists carry rock hammers and are always breaking rocks open. Weathered surfaces do not tell one as much as the interior. A dark surface would not be due to metamorphism."

I respond >

"Correction. The bible says fire too.

exodus 19:18

"Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently.

Also a red herring means to change the subject. Im still talking of the subject of mount sinai. No red herring has been done."

He responds >

"So just smoke, quoting out of context is a way of lying. Try to avoid that..

A red herring is also bringing up claims that have nothing to do with the topic at hand."

Ok, there was alot more said. But, i dont want to quote you a book. But, notice in the black underlined letters, i was called a lier. Did he ad hom me by calling me a lier here? Also was he right about me committing a red herring?

 

[Egor]

I'll come back and pick around through all these comments, but I can't possibly do that now. I have to sleep and work over the next day and a half. I'm on my computer a lot, so I'll pop in and scan through them, but how in the hell did I get 75 comments on this post?

 

[Jumi]

What was your experience with God if you dont mind me asking?

It was a mystical experience unlike anything I experienced before or since. Though I've had some interesting ones before, this one you knew that this is the god talked about by mystics. (not necessarily the god people talk about as demanding various religious affiliations and dogmas... quite opposite)

 

[Jumi]

I'll come back and pick around through all these comments, but I can't possibly do that now. I have to sleep and work over the next day and a half. I'm on my computer a lot, so I'll pop in and scan through them, but how in the hell did I get 75 comments on this post?

You made a statement about some people wanting to kill you, statements like that annoy people and elicit more responses than most and you got your post featured.

 

[Revoltingest]

....how in the hell did I get 75 comments on this post?

So you had no idea that a clickbait title & an over the
top OP would attract attention? Well, now you know.
But always remember that with great power comes
great responsibility. Use it wisely, & only for good..

 

[Jollybear]

It was a mystical experience unlike anything I experienced before or since. Though I've had some interesting ones before, this one you knew that this is the god talked about by mystics. (not necessarily the god people talk about as demanding various religious affiliations and dogmas... quite opposite)

Could you tell me the content or details of the actual mystic experience. Im interested to hear it. I am a believer in these things too mind you.