@Herald,
A native speaker of a language, who is evidently literate, indulges in no fallacy to point out to someone who is not only not a native speaker but whose command of that language is evidently poor, that it is poor. It is no straw man to point out that you claimed that you can command the English language just by having a dictionary, and that it's simply not true. No native speaker of English will consider misunderstanding to be cognate with defective understanding. Get out your precious dictionary and look up the word defect. It was no red herring, either, because it is important to point out when you are wrong because of your lack of a command of English.
It is not
argumentum ad hominem to point out that your English is poor. Once again, it is no red herring to point that out, especially as it leads you to make incomprehensible remarks, or remarks which do not say in English what you apparently thought they meant--such as that misunderstanding and defective understanding are cognate, which they are not.
An argument from omniscience involves a claim that "everyone knows this." I used no such argument. It is neither a half truth nor an argument from omniscience to point out that your English is so poor that you have no business attempting to argue semantics with a literate native speaker. (You do know what literate means? You do know that reading my posts is evidence that i am literate?)
This site has many, many subjects under discussion. You made a snide remark about me having more than 10,000 posts. Not all of my posts, nor even a significant fraction of them have been made under the rubric of religion. There's a hell of a lot more going on at this site than talking to arrogant and ignorant strangers who think they can speak my native language better than i can, and that they are entitled to dictate definitions to me, and to tell me what i believe when they know nothing about me.
There is no "circular reasoning" involved in pointing out that you are ignorant. Nor is it an
argumentum ad hominem when it is self-evidently true. Apparently, you don't understand what an observational fallacy is. That fallacy does not apply to pointing out the evidence of your ignorance.
Your remark about my having repeated that i don't care whether or not there is a god is certainly well within the subject of this thread, as i am challenging the bullshit you've been peddling about atheists. It is not by the wildest stretch of the imagination an
argumentum ad hominem to say that i don't care if a there is or is not a god. You're going off the deep end attempting to display all the logical fallacies you've heard of.
Religion and god are not the same thing, although you may think so in your narrow little world. It apparently doesn't occur to you that someone who does not believe there is a god but who can see the evidence of religion all around is going to be able to distinguish them. I don't care whether or not there is a god. I do care if religious fanatics and bullies (which is what you have attempted to be here by dictating terms) are trying to force their beliefs on me, or on anyone else.
Once again, you apparently don't understand that someone who doesn't believe that there is a god is not going to be trying to "stay above god," as there is nothing to stay above. (Another sterling example of your poor English, too, by the way.)
It's rather hilarious and pathetic to see you whine about "ad hominem," not just because pointing out your poor English and your ignorance is not an
argument ad hominem, but simply accurate observations, but also because you then accuse me of trolling (and i suspect you don't really know what that means, either) and doing so to collect points--which by your feeble standards would be "ad hominem." Who awards the points? What does one get for those points?
You're getting nastier and more childish as this progresses. Once again, that's not an argument, it's just an accurate observation.
Tell us some more about your anthropomorphized "big bang," that's about the funniest **** you've posted here.
