Logical fallacies hijack discussion

[ATP]

If you have truly come to Christ, and if you have received teh Holy Spirit, than you have a teacher, which is the greater, the dead letter or the Living Word, Jesus...

So many know the bible so few know Jesus.

Its teh difference between Knowing about, and knowing...

In All His Love

It's believing in your heart. It's not easy for some, that is for sure. Is stubbornness a sin. I wonder.

Many people will hit rock bottom first.

Rom 10:9-10 NIV If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

 

[Barrd]

The attack is found in post which I have posted multiple times. Here is the direct link to the post in question.




http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19#entry259302

Why are you dodging answering this? It's clearly a personal attack yet no one seems able to admit it.

He asked a logical question. Do you understand the term "anthropomorphism"?

 

[ATP]

1 Tim 4:10 NIV That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

 

[Barrd]

1 Tim 4:10 NIV That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

That is not the subject of this thread, ATP.
That is yet another attempt by you to hijack a thread by using a red herring.

 

[ATP]

Why can't it be a blue herring, or green.

 

[ewq1938]

He asked a logical question. Do you understand the term "anthropomorphism"?

That question isn't the issue. It's the attack on my intelligence that is wrong and I would speak up if it had been directed against you, Oz, or anyone. A person should not be attacked, only what they believe in should be and that only when the intent is to shine light on real truth in order to benefit everyone involved.

Ad hominems only bring in a spirit of negativity which erodes any positivity the thread might have had.

 

[Barrd]

That question isn't the issue. It's the attack on my intelligence that is wrong and I would speak up if it had been directed against you, Oz, or anyone. A person should not be attacked, only what they believe in should be and that only when the intent is to shine light on real truth in order to benefit everyone involved.

Ad hominems only bring in a spirit of negativity which erodes any positivity the thread might have had.

This may seem like a foolish question to ask, but there is method to my madness.
Have you ever watched cartoons, like Yogi Bear, or Bugz Bunny, or Garfield, or even Scooby Doo?

 

[ewq1938]

This may seem like a foolish question to ask, but there is method to my madness.
Have you ever watched cartoons, like Yogi Bear, or Bugz Bunny, or Garfield, or even Scooby Doo?

I'd love to answer if you would answer the question I asked of you earlier first.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19#entry259302

"Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?"

Is this a personal attack on someone's intelligence? Should that be allowed in a Christian forum?

 

[Barrd]

I'd love to answer if you would answer the question I asked of you earlier first.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19#entry259302

"Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?"

Is this a personal attack on someone's intelligence? Should that be allowed in a Christian forum?

Asking you if you understood the meaning of the term "anthropomorphism" is very relevant to the discussion you were having.
As such, it was not a fallacy. And that's why he didn't get punished.
Now, if you don't know the meaning of the word, be honest enough to say so.
Intellectual dishonesty is not attractive in a Christian, and it is okay to say "I don't know", if you don't know.
Remember, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

Since you chose not to answer my question, I will explain to you that every cartoon I mentioned is an example of anthropomorphism.
Bears do not generally go raiding "pick-a-nick" areas in search of food unless they are desperate, nor do rabbits generally have that Bronx attitude. Cats don't call pizza delivery services and order a bunch of food, and dogs don't speak English too well.
The cartoonists have added human characteristics to their animal characters in these, and tons of other cartoons.
Giving human characteristics to a cartoon animal is an example of anthropomorphism.
What Oz was trying to tell you was that the verses you cited speaking of God's supposed human acoutrements...no scratch that...His supposed human body parts...those verses are examples of anthropomorphism, since it is very clear from other scriptures that God does not have or need a human body.

And that is why what he said to you was not a fallacy, and why staff didn't punish him for the post you are so angry about.
Do you understand now?

 

[ewq1938]

Now, if you don't know the meaning of the word, be honest enough to say so.
Intellectual dishonesty is not attractive in a Christian, and it is okay to say "I don't know", if you don't know.

Of course I know what it means. Oz knows I know what it means. His question to me was an intentional insult.

Since you chose not to answer my question, I will explain to you that every cartoon I mentioned is an example of anthropomorphism.

I didn't refuse to answer your question I merely asked that you answer mine first because that is the appropriate way a discussion with questions should be conducted.

Bears do not generally go raiding "pick-a-nick" areas in search of food unless they are desperate, nor do rabbits generally have that Bronx attitude. Cats don't call pizza delivery services and order a bunch of food, and dogs don't speak English too well.
The cartoonists have added human characteristics to their animal characters in these, and tons of other cartoons.
Giving human characteristics to a cartoon animal is an example of anthropomorphism.
What Oz was trying to tell you was that the verses you cited speaking of God's supposed human acoutrements...no scratch that...His supposed human body parts...those verses are examples of anthropomorphism, since it is very clear from other scriptures that God does not have or need a human body.

The scriptures describing the Father's body have nothing to do with anthropomorphism. That is contextually obvious.

And that is why what he said to you was not a fallacy, and why staff didn't punish him for the post you are so angry about.

He used an ad hominem, that cannot be debated or disputed. He used it because his position was scripturally weak and such attacks are an easy choice to fill in what is lacking.

 

[Barrd]

Of course I know what it means. Oz knows I know what it means. His question to me was an intentional insult.

If you knew what it meant, why didn't you say so?

I'm not responding to the rest of your post, because I am not going to help you hijack this thread.
What you are attempting here is the ol' bait and switch....
Otherwise known as the "red herring fallacy".

 

[ewq1938]

If you knew what it meant, why didn't you say so?

I'm not responding to the rest of your post, because I am not going to help you hijack this thread.
What you are attempting here is the ol' bait and switch....
Otherwise known as the "red herring fallacy".

It's not a red herring because I am talking about the Op using a logical fallacy when he feels he wants to use one, yet he complains in this thread when others use them. I am exposing a hypocrisy.

 

[Barrd]

It's not a red herring because I am talking about the Op using a logical fallacy when he feels he wants to use one, yet he complains in this thread when others use them. I am exposing a hypocrisy.

Be careful, Ewq...
Oz might take offense at you calling him a hypocrite, and report that post as an ad hominem attack.
In fact, since you made this post in response to me, I could report it.
I'm thinking that since you posted it without specifically addressing the person you are talking about, anyone could report it....but I could be wrong on that one.

 

[ewq1938]

Nothing would surprise me at this point.

Be careful, Ewq...
Oz might take offense at you calling him a hypocrite, and report that post as an ad hominem attack.
In fact, since you made this post in response to me, I could report it.
I'm thinking that since you posted it without specifically addressing the person you are talking about, anyone could report it....but I could be wrong on that one.

 

[OzSpen]

It's a personal attack called an ad hominem. It implies the person is too stupid to understand the discussion or in this case a word used in the discussion. Telling you that was immature was not an ad hominem on my part. All uses of ad hominems are immature and properly labeled as fallacious.

Example: it would be an ad hominem if I said to you, "Are any of the words in this post too big for you to understand Ozspen?"

What is an ad hominem logical fallacy?

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Therefore, what I said to you was not an ad hominem fallacy but was my use of humouring you in sarcasm. The Urban Dictionary gives this definition:

sarcasm
A tongue of which the user speaks of something the complete opposite of what the user means. It often has the best comedic value.

Seems like you don't want to accept a little bit of fun in sarcasm. I sincerely apologise to you if this sarcasm has caused you personal insult. That was not my intention. I was only humouring you in the discussion.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That question isn't the issue. It's the attack on my intelligence that is wrong and I would speak up if it had been directed against you, Oz, or anyone. A person should not be attacked, only what they believe in should be and that only when the intent is to shine light on real truth in order to benefit everyone involved.

Ad hominems only bring in a spirit of negativity which erodes any positivity the thread might have had.

Do you see what is happening here, ewq? You are hijacking the discussion with this red herring logical fallacy. I've already explained to you that what I said to you about anthropomorphisms was not the use of an ad hominem logical fallacy but was the use of sarcasm - a humouring action in discussions.

But what do you do? You don't want to accept my explanation. In rejecting my explanation, you are proving the very point of the OP by hijacking the discussion.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

You have erected a straw man logical fallacy.

So you would rather know Jesus than the Bible?? You can't know Jesus apart from the revelation of Jesus IN the Bible. That's the false view you have created with your straw man fallacy.

Oz

No it is just beyond reason or logic, so you throw it all out becuase it doesnt fit into teh picture you have created. But by doing so you are missing out on the best things in God.

Everything you do not understand just gets the "strawman" "red Herring" lable.

In all His Love

 

[mjrhealth]

Butch5
How would you know God without the Bible?

Well you could ask, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, even Saul met Jesus after His resurection, they never had a bible.

In all His Love

 

[mjrhealth]

OZPEN
You can't know Jesus apart from the revelation of Jesus IN the Bible.

Lets see,

John wrote a whole book called revelation," he never had a bible" oh and than there is.

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven

Guess where revelation comes from, its not the bible.

In all his love

 

[OzSpen]

No it is just beyond reason or logic, so you throw it all out becuase it doesnt fit into teh picture you have created. But by doing so you are missing out on the best things in God.

Everything you do not understand just gets the "strawman" "red Herring" lable.

In all His Love

This is another example of how you use a straw man fallacy to hijack this argument. Your view of what I did is false, hence you have erected a straw man fallacy.