Conversion

[Kyuuketsuki]

I didn't say [the TAG] dictated morality. I said it (your cartoon caricature god) is the source of morality.

What you said is that the TAG fails "because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture)" [source]. You could have meant one of two things, and neither one of them succeed as a rebuttal. On the one hand, you could have meant that what people consider 'moral' varies across cultures; that refers to ethics, which the TAG does not even address (q.v. it addresses the ground of moral order, not what is or isn't moral). Fallacy? "Straw Man," attacking a position different from the one actually held.

The claimed existence of a deity that created morality necessitates that that morality be consistent so actually I think my argument works very well.

The TAG argument uses the existence of morality as a justification for the existence of a god and the existence of that god to explain morality ... circular reasoning. Others here, Eilonnwy for instance, had no problem understanding what I said ... why do you? I can only assume you're in some way brain damaged ... oh, I forgot, you're a theist ... of course you're fucking brain damaged!

I was directly attacking the TAG argument, quite possibly badly, but it was nevertheless direct so no strawman.

On the other hand, you could have meant that what people consider "the ground of moral order" varies across cultures (belief Y); that is a completely irrelevant when it comes to criticism of the TAG (belief X). Fallacy? "Red Herring," attempting to divert the argument (e.g., pointing to the fact that some people believe Y has absolutely no bearing on the merits of belief X).

Restated above.

PLEASE stop likening me to Kirk Cameron ...

As long as you continue to do what he does, I'll compare the similarity. (And if you think the similarity was "fundamentalism" then it still went over your head.)

So? No holds barred then? Well at least I know where I stand!

Is any of that in any way relevant, beyond being a highly codified insult?

Does pointing out (i) the utter irrelevance of your apathy with respect to the merits of my argument (ii) and the persistence of your fallacies have bearing on the matter at hand? Yes, certainly. Pointing out bankrupt responses is always relevant. And if having someone point out every irrelevancy you make is insulting to you, then stop making them.

When was I apathetic you idiot ... that I am here, that I continue to argue against you demonstrates my lack of apathy extremely well! And that last paragraph was nothing more than a codified insult as far as I can tell.

If you were being facetious then you should have made it clear.

When I am being facetious, I usually attempt to make it clear. However, in this case I was not being facetious. I was quite serious.

Sometimes I feel like I'm just talking to a series of very stupid brick walls!

Look ... you said, "Rrrright. Just like evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes. Good job, Kirk Cameron—err, I mean Kyuuketsuki."

To which I, assuming you were genuinely stating that evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes, responded, "Firstly evolution DOES NOT teach that humans evolved from apes, it teaches that humans ARE apes and that all 5 species of great ape (of which humans are one) had a common ancestor euphemistically called a manape. "

You said that was your whole point so if you weren't being serious you were being facetious or cynical or sarcastic ...

Now you say you weren't?

Make your fucking mind up

Come on then brainache ... which f***ing logical fallacies have I used? Be precise, link to it, explain it. And retract it if you are wrong!

I always identify them and explain them. But with you I will address them by their name rather than by their nature. (I will not link to them, however, as I have to assume you know how to look things up on the internet on your own.)

And it seems to me you're little more than a disingenuous narcissistic creep!

Kyu