Featured Typical Calvinists’ Methods of “Debate” and Elitism

Benjamin

You have derailed your own thread as it looks as if you are guilty of many debate fallacies on your own thread:laugh::laugh:

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

Argumentum verbosium

onus probandi – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

(cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.


Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[21]

Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.[24]


Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[27]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[28]



Inflation Of Conflict - The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.

Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.

Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[34]

Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.

Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.

Moral high ground fallacy - in which a person assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make himself look good to win an argument.

Personal Attacks ("Argumentum ad Hominem")- the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent
Hedging- using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later
False Authority- (single authority)- using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion


You are guilty of all of these debate fallacies my friend...shocking as it is, but nevertheless true.:wavey:

 

You forgot some;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

I noticed you left THIS ONE off the list:

Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Schmuck...I'm not a Calvinist. Btw...anyone ever tell you that you bear a striking resembelance to Corky Romano?:laugh:

 

I knew I could count on you to offer it...:wavey: Benjamin might be in shock however as resident debate fallacy expert he is short circuiting as he contemplates his numerous fallacies:BangHead:
GO easy on yourself Benjamin...it will get better soon:laugh:

 

No Winman.....while Benjamin is a serial offender he is not guilty of all on the List....only those selected have been in evidence...:wavey::thumbsup::love2: Show some compassion on him Winman, do not throw him under the bus....lol

 

Now you know I agree with Benjamin.

I would love it if Calvinists would simply be straightforward and answer questions. That is not what you folks do. You change the subject, you attack the poster, you copy and paste some creed that has nothing to do with the argument, etc...

Truth is, you guys cannot go head to head with non-Cals, you guys get knocked out in the first round every time. It is not because you guys are stupid, it is because your doctrine is utterly false and nonsensical.

For example, I could show at least half a dozen scriptures right now that all say a person must first believe before they are regenerated or made alive. That is super easy for me, because there are dozens of verses that say this.

You on the other hand must quote creeds or theologians who try to infer from vague scripture that regeneration precedes faith. You can't show a single verse in all the Bible to support your view.

You come off looking like fools. Nobody is fooled unless they truly are stupid, or just don't want to know the truth.

Calvinism is nonsensical and contradicts the word of God. It is not about you convincing us, you guys are trying to convince yourselves. It's pathetic really.

Someday you'll get tired of playing games with the truth.

 

Benjamin....you know that carnal philosophy and debate fallacy talk...and dose upon dose of benjamin logic is really important.....I am all over it my friend...

 

Winman.....because you cannot see what we see does not negate it.you get answers and reject them. We point it out and you say we are arrogant when we answer you.

 

I can see what you see, and I see a bunch of folks deceived by false doctrine. Calvin was a smart man, but he did not understand the scriptures AT ALL. He got everything exactly backwards.

You guys are no different than Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons that have come to my door many times. Brainwashed.

 

Oh my goodnes 12 strings, your stock value just went up, you recognize a mathematical principle of statistics (larger sample size equals greater accuracy in conclusions drawn)

 

Even those not on this board who have written books about Calvinism say the same thing:

"To direct you away from the aspect of inability, the Calvinists imply that you are confusing inability with something they call 'absolute depravity'. This is due in part to the ploy of Calvinists when confronted with their true position. As we saw in chapter 1, the Calvinist has a peculiar habit of changing the subject or informing you what he doesn't believe when confronted with objections to his position." Laurence Vance, PhD (1999) The Other Side of Calvinism, pg 189.

When 2 or so people agree, it's a coincidence. When you have several people from different beliefs and locations that all see the same thing-it's a conspiracy!

 

my wife taught calculus for 7 yrs until we had kids...now she is a mom...

...and I can't help but notice none of the accusers of Calvinists has addressed my post...

 

Calculus is our friend.

Many do not understand that even something as "concrete" as the number 4 can be argued against being an ontological truth as such as well as all mathematics are creations of the human mind. 2 + 2 = 4 because we "created" the concept and rules to govern the concept.

 

I'll skip over the part where you equate your brothers and sisters in Christ with a non-christian cult...to simply ask:

Do we know we are wrong? ...or are we brainwashed into believing we are right? Which is it?

 

Surely, when you say "we created the concept"...you mean "God created the concept without any help from us" RIGHT?

Also, I regret to inform you that I just remembered that my wife never liked statistics. :tear:

 

How can anyone even begin to lay out some systematic scriptures when the non-cal group resides in the land of denial?

Why even on this thread there have been posts that proclaim the cal group as no better than heretical jw or mormons.

Such is totally unwarranted and beneath Christian character.

Historically on the BB as well as other boards, it is actually an exercise in futility for the cal view to attempt to bring any truthful light. Over and over it is met by the same vitriol as found throughout this thread by the non-cals who are even in denial of their own stink.

There are a few non-cals who for the most part maintain a level headed discussion using Scriptures and exegesis, and some who have engaged with spirited dialogue over various questions.

But, Ben - To be brutally honest - your one sided view that this is all a cal problem is also a denial of reality.

Look at the level of vitriol on THIS thread - where is it coming from.

From the non- cals.

Those cals who have posted, have generally been tongue in check (like mine) or pointed out the fallacy if your basic OP (12 strings) or even chimed in with good hearted banter.

But you and other non- cal folks remain in the heartland of denial. Keep on spewing unfounded and unwarranted demeaning dialogue.

Let your choir sing praises to your skill.

But the truth of my post lays at the very Thread this post resides.