Which would make you wrong yet again.
"Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand your superior intellect, but it seems to me that nothing you have said has anything to do with anything that I have said."
Or maybe avoiding non sequitur isn't something that is important to you.
"I see no reason to engage you any further."
Which brings us back full-circle to my initial post which offended you so.
"Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy."
Feel free to ignore the logical fallacies in your 'arguments' when it suits your purposes.
"I’m guessing you just took a logic class, you have a new hammer and everything in the world looks like a nail." Which would make you wrong yet again.
Yes, I didn't actually believe that. I was making a sarcastic comment regarding your naive misuse of logic terms.
"Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand your superior intellect, but it seems to me that nothing you have said has anything to do with anything that I have said." Or maybe avoiding non sequitur isn't something that is important to 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. You see, a debate using formal logic requires that both parties begin their suppositions from the same axiomatic system. 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. The only way for any logical proposition to be valid would be for me to assume that the existence of God was irrelevant to the discussion, or to backtrack to a higher level debate over the existence of God before engaging in the debate over whether a non-believer can be moral, which would have taken more time than I cared to invest and would likely have been an exercise in futility. Since we were not starting from the same axiomatic system of suppositions, the entire concept of logical fallacy was meaningless in our discussion. I did not intend for the two statements you called a non-sequitur to be consecutive steps in a propositional calculus. 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. 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.)
"I see no reason to engage you any further." Which brings us back full-circle to my initial post which offended you so.
I'm not sure I see how.
"Feel free to claim victory if it makes you happy." Feel free to ignore the logical fallacies in your 'arguments' when it suits your purposes.
I feel I've covered this point sufficiently already.
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.