david f,

<<I sympathise with your distress in dealing with someone who wants no part of your silly superstition.... no respect for your superstition>>.

There you go again with your fallacious reasoning, 'your silly superstition', Ad Hominem (Guild by Association). Here you regard my Christian beliefs by association with another group or practitioner - negatively.

We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this erroneous reasoning, instead of dealing with the issues at stake: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

<<Although I have no respect for your superstition with its man-good, a deity in three parts, a virgin mother and other silliness I would not compare you to a swine>>

This is a Strawman Fallacy in which you substitute the actual teachings of the God-man (is this what you meant by man-good?), the Trinity, the virgin birth, etc. Your self-generated view is 'a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument'. You have ignorantly or deliberately misinterpreted core teachings of the Christian faith: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

<<I would suggest that your citing of casting 'pearls before swine' is ill-chosen. If you want somebody to pay attention to you, it is not wise to compare them to swine.... I would not compare you to a swine>>

You misrepresented me again. What did I state in my comment to you?

"…. as Jesus said according to Matthew 7:6, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+7%3A6&version=NLT

“Jesus used the example of pigs and pearls to represent people who ridicule God, Jesus and the Good News (Gospel) shared with them. Jesus' view was that Christians should not continue to present the Gospel to those who trample on it and go their own godless, sinful ways. To continue presenting the Good News to people who scoff at God and ridicule Jesus is like casting pearls before pigs". Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 12 May 2019 8:24:34 PM

Casting pearls before swine came from Jesus.

I'm happy to side with Him rather than with the one who calls my Christian faith a 'silly superstition'.

Dear OzSpen,

You chose to address me. I answered you, You wanted to persuade me to abandon reason for your silly superstition. That is an accurate description of your particular Christian faith as more and more people are coming to realise. Some Christians such as Bishop Spock have a somewhat more enlightened view. It is rather pointless to quote to me from the Bible as that is not a well-researched, peer-reviewed document but in large part merely a compendium of ancient legends which reinforce your silly superstition. I have read it and can also justify nonsense by quoting from it. I leave you to your silly superstition. I hope you will leave me to my reason.

Dear NNS,

I am preparing a thoughtful reply to your posts as I think I would like to continue our conversation.

david f,

<<Bishop Spock>>

Don't you know the difference between Star Trek's Benjamin Spock and the heretical teachings of the former Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, John Shelby Spong?

You're barking up the wrong tree!

You continue to resist acknowledging you engage in fallacious reasoning with your Ad Hominem and Straw man fallacies.

Dear OzSpen,

Of course, I meant Bishop Spong. Possibly you should look up what ad hominem attacks and fallacious reasoning mean before you accuse somebody of it. There is no fallacious reasoning when I call your Christian faith silly superstition. That is my opinion of it. There is no ad hominem attack when I call when I call your Christian faith silly superstition. Ad hominem means to attack the person rather then the person's ideas. You might be a perfectly decent person, but, in my opinion, you have nutty ideas. In my opinion, your Christian faith is a nutty idea.

Thanks for correcting my reference to the bishop. You, of course, are free to believe any silly superstition you want to believe. You can believe that human virgins become mothers, that there is a god and he is in three parts and that a man-god can take other people's sins upon him. In my opinion these are silly superstitions, but they are part of standard Christian doctrine. To accept them to me means to reject reason. You are free to reject reason. However it might be worth your while to learn what fallacious reasoning and ad hominem mean. Bishop Spong apparently takes these beliefs as metaphors rather than as literal truth. I see no need for these beliefs at all, but I appreciate his attempt to make some sense out of a silly superstition.

I don't expect you to adopt reason rather than superstition, but you could learn about the meanings of the words you use.

david f,

<<Ad hominem means to attack the person rather then the person's ideas. You might be a perfectly decent person, but, in my opinion, you have nutty ideas. In my opinion, your Christian faith is a nutty idea.>>

You are false again in limiting Ad Hominem only to attacking the person. I suggest you become better informed about OTHER types of Ad Hominem fallacies. You have given only ONE type.

Ad Hominem logical fallacies include:

1. Ad Hominem (Abusive): "Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making". This is the only one you seem to know about. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

2. Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) which is " suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid". See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

3. Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association) which is "when the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively". This is what you have done to me in calling my Christian faith "a nutty idea", thus associating me with the mentally ill. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

4. Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) where the one "claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument". See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque

However, you claim that <<possibly you should look up what ad hominem attacks and fallacious reasoning mean before you accuse somebody of it. There is no fallacious reasoning when I call your Christian faith silly superstition>>

The facts are that you are deficient in your understanding of Ad Hominem fallacies. When you attack my faith by calling it <<silly superstition>> and <<a nutty idea>>, you commit the Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association) logical fallacy.

It is you, David, who needs to come up to speed with your knowledge of Ad Hominem fallacies.

Dear OzSpen,

Your faith, in my opinion, is a silly superstition. If you are secure in it my opinion shouldn't bother you. There are many religious faiths in this world. Faith is not decided on by reason. Usually people have the same faith as their parents. That may be your case. It seems reasonable to me to reject all religious faiths, and to go through life without any. It seems reasonable to try to be kind as being kind makes one feel better and can encourage others to be kind in return. It seems reasonable to question authority as the voices of authority generally say what they think is most likely to help them keep power. I don't see any point in further dialog with you. However, if you wish to say more to me I will take note and may answer.