The Atheist As Moralist

"Fine, since you won't let it go, I'll play your silly game."

IOW, if I won't let *you* win, you'll ramp the misrepresentation up even further.

"Yes, I didn't actually believe that. I was making a sarcastic comment regarding your naive misuse of logic terms."

So now we know that you will deliberately post things that you don't believe when you believe it is convenient for you.

"It wasn't at the time. I didn't realize that I was engaged in a formal debate. I was making conversation. But if you insist on this silly technicality, it wasn't a non-sequitur, and here's why. I was expressing an opinion."

So, it's your position that you can engage in fallacy and non sequitur in normal conversation? IOW, you can claim anything you want to in conversation because it isn't 'real'?

"This wasn't the case in our discussion, because I was speaking from the world view of the non-existence of God and the process of evolution as fact, which I believe to be true, while MrB was speaking from the world view of the existence of God-as-creator as fact."

Unfortunately, the world view of the non-existence of God and the process of evolution must engage in logical fallacy and non sequitur to even have a 'conversation'.

If you can simply say whatever you want with no regard for logic and steal your opponent's positions and claim them for yourself with no basis whatsoever in your own beliefs, you aren't really showing anything but an extreme lack of principle. Of course, principle has no basis in an atheistic, evolutionary worldview anyway, so lack of principle apparently isn't viewed as a problem.

"I was stating an opinion, then stating another opinion. From my perspective we were simply having a conversation, which is what people with actual social skills do sometimes when they wish to talk to each other and learn from each other in a non-confrontational way."

Unfortunately, your opinions have no basis in the facts of your stated position. You simply state them even though they are based from the position of your opponent and are without basis in your own.

"You'll understand when you get to Logic 102. (Yes, I know you aren't actually taking logic classes. Recognizing sarcasm is a valuable skill. You should look into it.)"

Apparently, we can assume that you will continue to make statements that you don't actually believe when it is convenient for you.

"I'm not sure I see how."

Unfortunately, based on your previous behavior and admissions, I can't even assume that you actually believe that.

"Now, if you wish to engage me in formal debate, please do me the honor of expressing exactly what topic you wish to debate rather than attacking me from behind."

I think we have already established that you will make statements that you don't actually believe, use your opponents arguments when your own position has no basis to support them and generally say whatever you want without regard to logic.

IOW, if I won't let *you* win, you'll ramp the misrepresentation up even further.

Straw man and ad hominem.

So now we know that you will deliberately post things that you don't believe when you believe it is convenient for you.

Straw man and appeal to motive.

So, it's your position that you can engage in fallacy and non sequitur in normal conversation? IOW, you can claim anything you want to in conversation because it isn't 'real'?

It's my position that I can state an opinion in conversation. So can you. You do it every time you type IOW. That doesn't make my opinion not real. It's just not real to you.

Unfortunately, the world view of the non-existence of God and the process of evolution must engage in logical fallacy and non sequitur to even have a 'conversation'.

Bare assertion fallacy.

Bare assertion fallacy. Ad hominem.

Unfortunately, your opinions have no basis in the facts of your stated position. You simply state them even though they are based from the position of your opponent and are without basis in your own.

I'm not sure what claim I stated from my opponents position. I'm assuming you're referring to "God wrote these things in our very being. It’s part of the “general revelation” which drives humans to seek Him. Sounds like the Bible says that people know right from wrong whether they believe in God or not. What was the argument about then? " I wasn't trying to steal points from his position. I was trying to find common ground that would lead to agreement on the issue regardless of the existence of God.

Apparently, we can assume that you will continue to make statements that you don't actually believe when it is convenient for you.

Yes, I reserve the right to use sarcasm. Since it has been a sticking point for you though, I will also continue to let you know when I'm doing that.

Unfortunately, based on your previous behavior and admissions, I can't even assume that you actually believe that.

You've proven yourself quite capable of assuming whatever you want to assume about me.

Straw man and ad hominem. We've established no such thing. Again, is there any specific issue that you wish to debate, or are you just enjoying showing everyone how bad my logic skills are? Because I'm pretty sure no one cares but you and me, and I'm quickly losing interest.

"Straw man and ad hominem."

Not in the context of "Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy." followed by "Fine, since you won't let it go, I'll play your silly game."

In fact, "IOW, if I won't let *you* win, you'll ramp the misrepresentation up even further." was perfectly predictive of your actual response. The misrepresentations are piling up quickly.

"Straw man and appeal to motive."

Motive was admitted when you posted, "Yes, I didn't actually believe that." Can't be a straw man when you posted the admission yourself.

"It's my position that I can state an opinion in conversation. So can you. You do it every time you type IOW. That doesn't make my opinion not real. It's just not real to you."

Neither does it mean that your opinions are logical. They arent. They are non sequitur. They don't follow from your position but are simply borrowed wholesale from the position that you oppose.

"Bare assertion fallacy."

Not at all. There have been no conversations from the non-existence of God and process of evolution position that have not been based on logical fallacy and non sequitur.

"Bare assertion fallacy. Ad hominem."

Not at all. You have posted, "Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy." followed by "Fine, since you won't let it go, I'll play your silly game." No principles there, no logic there, and no problem for you to make contradictory statements. You could always claim sarcasm again, if it's convenient for you.

"I'm not sure what claim I stated from my opponents position. I'm assuming you're referring to "God wrote these things in our very being. It’s part of the “general revelation” which drives humans to seek Him. Sounds like the Bible says that people know right from wrong whether they believe in God or not. What was the argument about then? " I wasn't trying to steal points from his position. I was trying to find common ground that would lead to agreement on the issue regardless of the existence of God."

You assign value judgments to comments attempting to support your position with no objective basis from the non-existence of God process of evolution. There is only the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. This gets back to my point that the world view of the non-existence of God and the process of evolution must engage in logical fallacy and non sequitur to even have a 'conversation'.

"Yes, I reserve the right to use sarcasm. Since it has been a sticking point for you though, I will also continue to let you know when I'm doing that."

The fact that you claim sarcasm shows the weakness in your argument. It was empty of any real meaning or point and was just 'filler' so that you said something, anything in response. Admitting that "Yes, I didn't actually believe that." simply demonstrates that you will post whatever you want whenever it is convenient.

"You've proven yourself quite capable of assuming whatever you want to assume about me."

No assumptions necessary. You posted, "Yes, I didn't actually believe that." "Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy." followed by "Fine, since you won't let it go, I'll play your silly game."

You are the one quite capable of assuming whatever you want to assume about me with statements like, "I'm assuming you're referring to "God wrote these things in our very being." and "Since it has been a sticking point for you though..." and "You'll understand when you get to Logic 102. (Yes, I know you aren't actually taking logic classes. Recognizing sarcasm is a valuable skill. You should look into it.)" to name a few.

"Straw man and ad hominem. We've established no such thing."

Of course we have. You said, "Yes, I didn't actually believe that." "Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy." followed by "Fine, since you won't let it go, I'll play your silly game." This clearly establishes that you will make statements that you don't actually believe, use your opponents arguments when your own position has no basis to support them and generally say whatever you want without regard to logic.

"Again, is there any specific issue that you wish to debate, or are you just enjoying showing everyone how bad my logic skills are?"

You're doing a fine job debating the specific issue I want to debate.

"Because I'm pretty sure no one cares but you and me, and I'm quickly losing interest."

You've proven yourself quite capable of assuming whatever you want to assume about me. And of course you are losing interest. That way you don't have to justify where your objective basis is for value judgments in a non-existence of God and process of evolution paradigm.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.