Stealth Moose
Umbrella Elite
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
They're not red herrings, no matter how many times you want to use the term.
Each is relevant to a point I've brought up.
No, they're not. I DID show you why there were red herrings, and you receded into the shadows from whence you came, only to pop up later to heckle Shaky over semantics or some other trivial thing.
You made it a point to answer my challenge question about the equal validity of faith-based belief systems, regardless of the higher power agent in place. You did so by sidestepping my repeated direct questions, putting spin and context on things that was unnecessary or not otherwise present, and you repeatedly quoted other people on ideas and concepts that were not related to the concept at hand. This is all before you vanished and stopped replying except again, to antagonize Shaky.
If you think they are, SHOW me why they are red herrings.
I already did. Should I work the time machine for you as well?
I even provided the definition.
All you are effectively doing is making the fallacy called "appeal to authority" to try to "win" your point. Here, you're referring to YOURSELF as the authority, but it is still effectively the same: "I, Stealth Moose, have all this knowledge of debate, so listen to me", etcetera.
No, not at all. At no point have I said "I'm right, because I debate moar than you". I've said specifically "I can spot your BS misdirection (read: red herrings) a mile away", because I can. And everyone else can. Any time you come up against a question you can't answer, you redirect your energy into criticizing someone else's wording, or their tone or personality or motives, or you talk about something that isn't at all important.
You're just butt-hurt because you hamstrung yourself by arguing with people without having any kind of framework with which to defend yourself. The internet exists. Go educate yourself and come back.
Sometimes burden of proof is an invalid tool.
Certainly it was in the cases I'm describing.
No, it wasn't. The person asserting the truth had to prove that truth, because in lieu of evidence, there's no reason to believe EITHER party. This is so basic it's axiomatic.
I have posted many simple examples of how the burden of proof works. You have refused to accept them because it hurts your religious bias.
No.
And that's not what I said, either.You're using a technique called "strawman" now.
No, I'm not. You're saying essentially that, in your limited comic book experience, you feel that the burden of proof was unfair because one person had to prove up, even if they were right. You feel that the person who was wrong knew he was wrong and did this to frustrate and delay the other person instead of winning. Because of the abuse of this valid tool, you feel that it has been misused, therefore it will be misused by me.
In the same vapid frame of mind, I could feel that because the act of using a car is abused by drunk drivers, it will be misused by other people/everyone, and therefore no one should drive.
How are you this dense?
It is quite simple.If the boy is saying he has a baseball right now in the present, then, more likely than not, he should be able to show that baseball to someone to prove it.
No real problem there.
But that is NOT the case when we're talking about things from long ago, as we have been in this thread.
Suppose you said, far more relevant to this conversation
"I, Stealth Moose, had a baseball when I was ten years old".
What if I then said,
"Stealth Moose, I don't believe you had a baseball when you were ten years old. Show me that baseball now."
If you then replied "I, Stealth Moose, can't do that! Blue, that was over 20 years ago!"
Would I then be justified in thinking you were lying?
Answer this for me directly, please.
No crap.
Just answer the question.
Would I be justified in thinking you were lying just because you couldn't now show me something you claimed to have owned 20 years ago?
Sure. If I don't have a picture of me holding that baseball, a receipt of ownership of the baseball, a video of me using the baseball, or testimony from the person who sold me the baseball that I purchased and held it, yeah. The claim lacks any proof. I shouldn't trust you on any basis other than what you can prove.
The assertion here is "God is legit" or "God did it" or "The Creation story and Adam/Eve is legit". The evidence includes a book of dubious value, which was written and compiled by humans, almost two thousand years ago, extensively translated, interpreted, and cherry picked by the early leaders of the church, and does not contain anything that is otherwise verifiable, testable, or so on.
The Bible has equal proof to the existence of Yahweh and Jesus's miracles as does the Prose Edda proof of Odin's magics and the Ragnarok.
Now, when you're done being obtuse and ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrow world view (and you've educated yourself on something more than just the top five forum-used fallacies) come back to the table.
Preferably with that belief system which is derived from universally recognized natural principles and bans all dat gay secks..