Conversion

[Ryft]

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 does not argue that God created morality. Ergo, to rebut an argument which has God creating morality is to rebut an argument that isn't the TAG. To press it as a rebuttal of the TAG is to commit the Straw Man fallacy. Q.E.D. That you think such an argument "works very well" is quite frankly embarrassing to hear.

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 ...

No, it certainly does not. I have been studying transcendental arguments and presuppositionalist apologetics for over two and a half years from such scholars as Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Gordon H. Clark, John M. Frame, Alvin Plantinga, Michael R. Butler and others. And not once have I ever observed the transcendental argument being supposed to argue any such a thing. Michael Martin, the only notable atheist to attempt rebutting the TAG, had his criticism gutted for making the same mistake—a mistake he made for probably the same reason as yours. From what sources have you studied these issues, and for how long? I have a strong suspicion that your answer will go a long way toward explaining the butchered nature of your argument.

I was directly attacking the TAG argument, quite possibly badly, but it was nevertheless direct. So, no straw man.

No, you were not directly attacking the TAG argument. What you were attacking is not found anywhere in the TAG argument, and by pressing that attack as some kind of rebuttal of the TAG you committed the Straw Man fallacy. Quod erat demonstrandum; i.e., checkmate.

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 understood clearly what you said. I also understood how absolutely fallacious it was. And pointing out other people who agree with your argument (assuming that any do), no matter how many it might be, does nothing to remedy the logical fallacies. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies just because they become fashions." And insulting or belittling your opponent is likewise fallacious ( abusive).

When was I apathetic, you idiot?

Further instances of the ad hominem abusive fallacy. And declaring that you don't care whether or not something impresses me (Msg #17) is apathetic by definition, "lack of interest or concern; indifference."

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.

It was indeed the very point I was making, and rather seriously (i.e., not facetious). Cynical? Yes. Sarcastic? Yes. Facetious? No, quite the contrary. Your criticism of the TAG is horrifically butchered in the same way, or for the same reasons, that Kirk Cameron's criticisms of evolution are horrifically butchered.