DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Absolutely agree.We'll see then. If he does win, this is going to put to a life-or-death test everything humanists believe.
Still not going to commit a crime though.

Absolutely agree.We'll see then. If he does win, this is going to put to a life-or-death test everything humanists believe.
By essentally denying that this world's troubles can be seen to have (allegedly) come about through love, rather than evil.Where did I disagree with it??
I haven't denied that; I haven't taken a stance on that at all so far.By essentally denying that this world's troubles can be seen to have (allegedly) come about through love, rather than evil.
You you acknolwedge then, that - with some view into the internal logic of what God is (ostensibly) trying to do - he is not necessarily being evil, like a parent is not being evil for disciplining a child for breaking a critical rule?I haven't denied that; I haven't taken a stance on that at all so far.
This isn't a valid analogy, because God's punishment for disobedience is eternal; God has incomparably more power over his children than a human parent has over his children.You you acknolwedge then, that - with some view into the internal logic of what God is (ostensibly) trying to do - he is not necessarily being evil, like a parent is not being evil for disciplining a child for breaking a critical rule?
The fact that the principle is the same and it is different only in degree is why it's a valid analogy.This isn't a valid analogy, because God's punishment for disobedience is eternal; God has incomparably more power over his children than a human parent has over his children.
The difference isn't in the degree; God's abilities are in a different category altogether.The fact that the principle is the same and it is different only in degree is why it's a valid analogy.
Disagree. Because many things are different doesn't mean everything is different.The difference isn't in the degree; God's abilities are in a different category altogether.
God is a unique being, he has a category of his own, and he is the only member of that category.
Hence no worldly analogy is adequate for describing God.
It's the crucial things that are different.Disagree. Because many things are different doesn't mean everything is different.
You'll need to be more specific.After all, for believers, the very existence of love itself is by God's example.
Only an actual believer can say that while remainig internally consistent.It is not God that must model himself after our example, it is we who model ourselves after his. He invented it.*
The idea that an eternal punishment for a temporary offense is a just punishment, is perfectly valid too, right?A parent establishing a rule whose violation results in punishment is a perfectly valid analogy.
It's not the same.* Aside: I cannot believe these things are coming out of my mouth.But I guess it's similar defending the Enterprise's warp engines.
"Yes, it is fictional, but that doesn't mean it isn't generally logical."![]()
I laid out the crucial aspect.It's the crucial things that are different.
He invented it.You'll need to be more specific.
Why? I can understand the logic even if I don't adhere to the premise.Only an actual believer can say that while remainig internally consistent.
Why not? The simple nature of a DA is to be able to address an issue as if one believes the issue.You're trying here to play three roles at the same time:
1. DA
2. meta-analyst of religious issues
3. someone with insider perspective on theistic issues
That doesn't work.
1] That's what I mean by equivocating. You're getting into details. We're talking principle. The principle, as I laid out (parental love > rules > consequences > punishment) ), is sound, even by human standards.The idea that an eternal punishment for a temporary offense is a just punishment, is perfectly valid too, right?
How does that make any difference - without you having to commit an ad hominem?Defending Enterprise's warp engines does not involve you, as a person; defending (or opposing) theism, however, does.
Really? Human parents have the power to punish their children forever?I laid out the crucial aspect.
A parent who loves his children will sometimes have to let them hurt themselves.
And sometimes they have to punish them.
That is a truism, and aside from equivocating (i.e. details) it applies a Christian God.
You're mixing up your roles.He invented it.
No, that doesn't always hold.Why? I can understand the logic even if I don't adhere to the premise.
Not all ad hominems are fallacious.Why not? The simple nature of a DA is to be able to address an issue as if one believes the issue.
Frankly, my personal views should be irrelevant to the argument. (Indeed, it would be an ad hom if you said "You're not a believer therefore your argment is invalid").
Mixing up your roles again.1] That's what I mean by equivocating. You're getting into details. We're talking principle. The principle, as I laid out (parental love > rules > consequences > punishment) ), is sound, even by human standards.
2] "just" is an interesting choice of words. Who defines "justice"? In the presence of a God, it is not humans. It is God.
Not all ad homs are fallacious.How does that make any difference - without you having to commit an ad hominem?
That is an equivocation.Really? Human parents have the power to punish their children forever?
Some things. I notice you did not say this thing.No, that doesn't always hold.
Some things are such that unless you actually put your life on the line for them, for real, you can't really know them or understand them.
Yes, they are.Not all ad hominems are fallacious.
Including this thing.Some things. I notice you did not say this thing.
If you're not a doctor, but you want to perform surgery, and someone tells you that you can't and shouldn't because you're not a doctor, this is an ad hominem, but it is not a fallacious one.It is tantamount to "You can't be a Gyny; you're a man."
Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]
/.../
Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[9] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Sorry, an ad hominem in a discussion.If you're not a doctor, but you want to perform surgery, and someone tells you that you can't and shouldn't because you're not a doctor, this is an ad hominem, but it is not a fallacious one.
This does not actually address the target of discussion. Mixing up roles, true or not, is not a flaw in a presented case.You're mixing up your roles.
Mixing up your roles again.
In the case of discussing religion, it is sometimes not necessary to know anything about the other person's beliefs in order to reach some conclusions, it's enough to observe their actions. And the ad hominem is not personally against you; it is against anyone who would do what you're doing.Sorry, an ad hominem in a discussion.
You have no valid argument why my assertion is invalid based on what you know about my personal beliefs. I could be the Pope, I could be Lucifer, the validity of the stated argument itself is unchanged.
That's where you're wrong. In theistic religion, the validity of an argument is justified by religious authority and submission to said authority, not by some abstract reasoning.the validity of the stated argument itself is unchanged.
If all you're discussing is a religion of your own invention, then what you say is true.This does not actually address the target of discussion. Mixing up roles, true or not, is not a flaw in a presented case.
BTW, it's not true. A DA is not exclusive of knowing how Believers believe, and it is certainly not exclusive of analyzing religous issues.
I addressed your point. You are wrong. You are arguing about a theism that no actual theist holds.Regardless, it is an evasion tactic. You did not address the point.
This is still an ad hom.In the case of discussing religion, it is sometimes not necessary to know anything about the other person's beliefs in order to reach some conclusions, it's enough to observe their actions.
And the ad hominem is not personally against you; it is against anyone who would do what you're doing.
Like everything else, it has internal logic. The internal validity of [ how a loving God can allow suffering ] is not diminished by the external invalidity of [his being fiction]That's where you're wrong. In theistic religion, the validity of an argument is justified by religious authority and submission to said authority, not by some abstract reasoning.
No, I have not.For the purpose of this discussion, you have invented a theism of your own.
I held it. My parents held it. My congregation still holds it, as does the Catholic world, generally.You are arguing about a theism that no actual theist holds.
This is your projection. And it actually is a fallacious ad hominem.You suppose I know nothing about theist beliefs , and it is upon that that you base your assumption that my arguments aren't valid.
You don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is. I provided links earlier.Address the argument, not the person.
No. You're failing to understand my point.Pretend a priest said them. It shouldn't matter, but it seems to matter to you.
No. You're failing to understand my point. See back at the emic-etic distinction.Like everything else, it has internal logic. The internal validity of [ how a loving God can allow suffering ] is not diminished by the external invalidity of [his being fiction]
One cannot coherently make that claim.[his being fiction]
Sure. Doesn't mean you have learned Catholic doctrine accurately or sufficiently.I am describing what I learned in more than a decade of Catechism and weekly mass.
To me, you seem more like an immature atheist. You still have a bit of work to do on your atheism before it will stop causing strife to yourself and others.You see, just because I am atheist does not mean I am not knowledgeable about God as any other former-Christian. And it does not mean I don't know what it feels like to be a theist (albeit an immature one).
And yet you didn't comply with the appeal to authority; the appeal that was required of you.I held it.
We don't know that. Maybe some (or many?) of them are what Catholics themselves sometimes call "Catholics only in name, but not in faith."My parents held it. My congregation still holds it, as does the Catholic world, generally.
You still don't understand what an adequate ad hominem is.I should not have had to defend the source of my knowledge to convince you that I my arguments are well-placed. By addressing me instead of addressing my arguments, you have committed and perpetuated an ad hom spanning several posts.
From this point on, please address the content of my arguments, and not the assumed source of them. Pretend they're coming from Father Smartypants of Doom.
Look, I'm not sure we can get any further here without you feeling even more offended by my words.From this point on, please address the content of my arguments, and not the assumed source of them. Pretend they're coming from Father Smartypants of Doom.
No, I'm basing it on what you've being saying. This is why it is not an ad hom.This is your projection. And it actually is a fallacious ad hominem.
That's great. Relevance?I said: "In the case of discussing religion, it is sometimes not necessary to know anything about the other person's beliefs in order to reach some conclusions, it's enough to observe their actions."
I do. You are committing one. Refure the argument, not the arguer.You don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is. I provided links earlier.
Not relevant.You also don't seem to understand the authority role of a Catholic priest (and the Catholic Magistrate) and the regard that a Catholic believer must have toward the priest in order for it to be a proper Catholic relationship.
By that logic, no religious claim of any sort can be discussed.By taking a religious claim out of its original context and trying to somehow view it all on its own, the meaning of the claim also changes.
You are attempting to peek behind the curtain, to see who is really making the assertions. Whether that's me or the Pope, or a child or a sage. Not relevant to the argument.I make an effort to minimize that as far as I am concerned. It is not possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who expects me to unquestioningly submit to his authority, while I refuse to submit this way. I would only be confusing myself and waste time if I were to try to listen to such a person, even if it is just in a pretend scenario.
Nor did I.One cannot coherently make that claim.
Ah, suddenly it's 'no, your knowedge is not necessarily germaine'.Sure. Doesn't mean you have learned Catholic doctrine accurately or sufficiently.
An ad hom, not relevant to the discussion, has now turned into an armchair psychoanalysis. Way, way off-topic.But now that you've said that about yourself, I can see where you're coming from, a possible reason of why you didn't stay in the religion you were born in (you didn't comply with the appeal to authority), and why the state of your current atheism is what it is.
To me, you seem more like an immature atheist. You still have a bit of work to do on your atheism before it will stop causing strife to yourself and others.
And yet you didn't comply with the appeal to authority; the appeal that was required of you.
I really do.You still don't understand what an adequate ad hominem is.
I am not offended but your words. Frankly, this has been one of the most civil discussions I've had on this board in a long time.Look, I'm not sure we can get any further here without you feeling even more offended by my words.
Are you suggesting I concede simply because you declare you know more?...whether you can trust that I might know more about the topic at hand than you.