moonshine,
Chewing the stick at both ends? If I encounter your errors in future, should I refrain from explaining to you why they're wrong?

Henry VIII didn't invent protestantism. The schism with Rome over whether he could divorce his first wife merely enabled it to take hold in England sooner than it otherwise would have.

What seemed sick to your ten year old mind seems quite reasonable to many adults today. People go to extraordinary lengths to have children. But f you misunderstand what God wanted Abraham to do, you completely miss the point of the story. They tried to do things the human way: Abraham's wife set him up with another woman in order to have a child, but later regretted it and got jealous. Then God did things His own way, and enabled Abraham to have a son by his wife, despite her old age.

God did not change His mind about shagging handmaidens. Adultery was prohibited but not very clearly defined.

AJ

I say (mis)use, you 'refute' by saying misidentify.

Is there a fallacy for trying to subtly move the goal posts?

Look, I'm getting bored with this. You either don't get or get it but can't bring yourself to admit it. So one last time:

You regularly seek to refute a point by simply applying a 'fallacy' label to it. You seem to think that if a point can be interpreted to fit one of the myriad fallacies that makes it invalid. We saw in the earlier thread when you sought to invalidate a point by just declaring it a fallacy...

"2. Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition"

No other argument, it seems, was required. Its lazy and the opposite of intelligent debate.

But since most of your posting relies on it, you keep doing it.

OK so be it.

"...you used to use that silly ‘dark matter’ analogy to suggest the possibility of a god’s existence."

I know that you never understood my point there. I wasn't and don't try to suggest the possibility of God. I'm agnostic on that. I was simply drawing attention to the fact that rationale for belief in DM wasn't a million miles from the rationale for belief in a deity. I'm agnostic on both.

"Yes, and they’re interesting questions you’ve raised. But I asked you what specifically you were referring to." and then you run off on one of your silly fallacy memes.

I was both answering your question and posing my own. The values that made the west the west. The primacy of the family unit. The worth of the individual. Rule of law. Respect for private property. Love of the other. Charity. Skepticism of authority.

These led to democracy, the rejection of slavery, the rise of lawful state, recognition and respect for human rights, property rights and from that the industrial revolution.

Christianity wasn't the only factor. Many different things came together. But to pretend that the reason all these things arose in the Christian west had nowt to do with Christian values is to elevate anti-Christian bigotry over clear analysis.

Not quite, mhaze.

<<I say (mis)use, you 'refute' by saying misidentify.>>

I mentioned your talk of “misuse”, too:

“You have invented this “meme tool” line to suggest that I am abusing something, presumably because you now realise that you cannot pin me on the misidentification of fallacies.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241945)

You were the one who originally accused me of misidentifying fallacies. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340173

<<Is there a fallacy for trying to subtly move the goal posts?>>

Yes, there is. It's called the Moving the Goalposts fallacy:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts

However, if you check that link (for once), you'll see that I never committed it. You are the one who moved the goalposts by initially (in every other discussion) falsely claiming that I had misidentified logical fallacies, and then, now, in a sleight-of-hand, switching to the more vague claim that I had misused something.

You see, some arguments are logically flawed to the point where they are invalid. We generally call these “fallacies”. Some fallacies are so frequently used that they have earned themselves a common name. All I do is point these fallacies out to demonstrate to others that their argument is invalid. But, for some reason, you don't like me doing this, so you limit the definition of ‘fallacy’ to this official- and formal-sounding “meme tool”, with an official-sounding “Fallacy List” (capitalised), to make it appear as though I'm abusing something.

Continued…

...Continued

The closest you came to justifying this claim, however, was to point out that I use fallacies as a weapon, and you're damn right I use them as a weapon. I use them as a weapon against irrational arguments, and I would challenge you to demonstrate how that is a misuse of fallacies.

<<You either don't get or get it but can't bring yourself to admit it.>>

You haven't yet demonstrated that I've done anything wrong. In fact, you've even shifted your own goalposts in a desperate attempt to pin me on something (which I guess isn't too fallacious since it doesn't make things harder for your opponent in this instance and is only a concession on your behalf).

<<You regularly seek to refute a point by simply applying a 'fallacy' label to it.>>

No, that would be the Fallacy fallacy. I merely point out that an argument has not yet been justified when a fallacious argument had been used to support it. You tried this one on the last time. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340163

<<You seem to think that if a point can be interpreted to fit one of the myriad fallacies that makes it invalid.>>

The reasoning behind it is, yes. Those with whom I converse can easily remedy the situation by finding another line of reasoning. Yet, funnily enough, they rarely ever seem to.

<<We saw in the earlier thread when you sought to invalidate a point by just declaring it a fallacy…>>

No, again, I simply pointed out that such an argument was fallacious. You, and others appealing to it, were free to find another justification for your belief and send me packing. Yet, unsurprisingly, none of you could.

<<No other argument, it seems, was required.>>

Correct. Because that was all that was needed at that point.

<<Its lazy and the opposite of intelligent debate.>>

No, it's an invitation to further discussion on a forum that has word limits. Furthermore, I will not bombard everyone with inevitable copy-and-pastes of arguments on a topic which I frequently comment on.

...Continued

...Continued

<<But since most of your posting relies on it, you keep doing it.>>

No, it doesn't rely on it. I have often extended beyond pointing out fallacies in the instances where someone challenged my claim. I even did so with you.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340176

So, your scurrilous claim here is demonstrably dishonest.

<<I know that you never understood my point there.>>

Yes, I understood what your point was, and it was dumb.

<<I was simply drawing attention to the fact that rationale for belief in DM wasn't a million miles from the rationale for belief in a deity. I'm agnostic on both.>>

Well, that's a softening of your position as stated previously. Either way, I had still discredited the comparison at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336036
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#152488

<<I was both answering your question and posing my own.>>

No, you didn't answer my question at all. You fallaciously shifted the burden of proof by expecting me to answer your questions.

<<The values that made the west the west. The primacy of the family unit. The worth of the individual. Rule of law. Respect for private property. Love of the other. Charity. Skepticism of authority.>>

Okay, so, again, how did Christianity achieve this? You can't seem to answer this without appealing to spurious correlations.

Try again, mhaze.

AJ,
We are talking about Australia, it was established by an English Culture and laws, except for the indigenous who have their own culture and laws. England was based on Christian culture and values at the time of settlement. The Greeks did not establish Australian laws and culture as you claim of our culture.