13 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSee, this is exactly what I mean. You just morphed 4 different criticisms into "a specific shared flaw". 😵
Actually when I'd read your profile a while ago, I found the D58 quote funny too. That's why I put it out there. I'd forgotten about that kid. "You take yourself so seriously".
Your "Guilt by Association fallacy" observation doesn't seem to make much sense. It's about a specific shared flaw, so it's more like "Association by Guilt". Like I said, "Different circumstances, different 'box'".
13 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo now we have:
I see. I guess "It's" IS ambiguous.
Try substituting "It's" with "Each instance is".
Each instance is about a specific shared flaw...Frankly, that's BS. In the course of one thread, Thread 145909, you managed to lump me in with robbiecarrobie, knightmeister, and RJHinds. I quoted bbarr, and you called it "RC and RJHinds-like". Evidently you don't know much about bbarr or his posting history, but that didn't stop you from lumping him in with the rest of us. That's quite an accomplishment. 😀
You also might want to be a bit more specific on what the character flaw actually is. Reading that thread leaves one under the impression that it was basically anything and everything you could dream up.
14 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou're too funny. You seem overly obsessed.
So now we have:Each instance is about a specific shared flaw...Frankly, that's BS. In the course of one thread, Thread 145909, you managed to lump me in with robbiecarrobie, knightmeister, and RJHinds. I quoted bbarr, and you called it "RC and RJHinds-like". Evidently you don't know much about bbarr or his posting history, bu one under the impression that it was basically anything and everything you could dream up.
You also might want to be a bit more specific on what the character flaw actually is. Reading that thread leaves one under the impression that it was basically anything and everything you could dream up.
Quite frankly it didn't seem important enough to elaborate. Not sure why you think I should have. I suppose if you had asked, I would have told you what I had in mind.
Frankly, that's BS. In the course of one thread, Thread 145909, you managed to lump me in with robbiecarrobie, knightmeister, and RJHinds.
Taking a quick look back, it was one thread, but two separate instances from what I saw.
I quoted bbarr, and you called it "RC and RJHinds-like". Evidently you don't know much about bbarr or his posting history, but that didn't stop you from lumping him in with the rest of us. That's quite an accomplishment.
This was the second instance. Don't know how to break it to you, but "lumping [bbarr] in with the rest of [you]" is strictly your own doing. You're really trying too hard to make a point.
Your response only contained a quote from bbarr with one of those big grin emoticons which didn't address the content of my previous post. Brought to mind RC posting a "We [JWs] are awesome" as a response or RJH posting "Amen. HalleluYah !!!" with a smug grin emoticon as a response. None of those responses address the content of the posts they are replying to, yet you all seem overly pleased with yourselves as if they clinch the debate.
14 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYeah, I'm obsessed with knowing if people can make a coherent case for positions that seem dubious or outright false to me at face value. It's what keeps me on this forum. But don't worry, you are just the subject of the moment. Eventually I will become convinced that you are either coherent or not, and will move on to other topics.
You're too funny. You seem overly obsessed.
[b]You also might want to be a bit more specific on what the character flaw actually is. Reading that thread leaves one under the impression that it was basically anything and everything you could dream up.
Quite frankly it didn't seem important enough to elaborate. Not sure why you think I should hav , yet you all seem overly pleased with yourselves as if they clinch the debate.[/b]
You kept mentioning RC and KM at the end of your posts [I counted at least 3] then mysteriously KM dropped out and RJHinds came in after the bbarr quote. I really had no idea that my use of a smiley was what set you off. I thought you were objecting to the bbarr quote and calling IT RJHinds-like. Fine, take bbarr off the list. Still four people in the box.
Of course the post with the bbarr quote didn't address the content of your previous post! You were making the same point over and over again and refusing to accept my response. Obviously it was futile to continue. The whole reason we were even on that point, which you admitted was a 'side issue', is that you were not responding to the content of my post on the main argument. If you refuse to respond to the content of opposition posts, it is unreasonable to expect the opponent to always do so with yours, even when they are repetitious.
Yes I was pleased with my performance in that debate. I was more than accommodating to you. I humored you until the end, even discussing the 'side point' and doing my best to not only answer your question, but provide ample rationale for my answer. You refused to continue on the side point and refused to go back to the main point because I would not tell you what you wanted to hear, which would have meant that I would have had to lie about what I actually thought. That would have been a very strange way to counter an accusation of disingenuity. All avenues for further debate were closed.
In fact, if you disagree that the debate is not over, feel free to go back and address my main argument in that thread. I'd be delighted to hear a response to it, but I suspect you have none.
14 Apr 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitlol. Do you believe your posts to me today on this thread have been coherent? You're all over the place making assertions whether or not you have the facts to back them up.
Yeah, I'm obsessed with knowing if people can make a coherent case for positions that seem dubious or outright false to me at face value. It's what keeps me on this forum. But don't worry, you are just the subject of the moment. Eventually I will become convinced that you are either coherent or not, and will move on to other topics.
You kept mentionin ...[text shortened]... in that thread. I'd be delighted to hear a response to it, but I suspect you have none.
This latest post of yours is just more of the same. I can't see addressing all the issues, but I will address a couple.
Still four people in the box.
Actually as I pointed out, I had found two instances. If you look back at what I wrote earlier, you'll see that two instances may mean two different "boxes". If there were even more instances as you say, then there may be even more than two "boxes". With the two instances I saw, there were at least two. So no, it's not "Still four people in the box".
You've also provided a seriously skewed and not so coherent recap. For example you said:
"The whole reason we were even on that point, which you admitted was a 'side issue', is that you were not responding to the content of my post on the main argument."
The reason we were on that point was because I wanted to discuss that point. To characterize it the way you did is plain silly. As I explained then:
"I went off on the tangent because I wanted to clarify something in my mind before responding to your '5 reasons'".
In fact, if you disagree that the debate is not over, feel free to go back and address my main argument in that thread. I'd be delighted to hear a response to it, but I suspect you have none.
Well, you'd suspect wrongly. But given that you thought the following a valid argument even though you refused to provide any evidence, I can't see going back there:
"Again, there is the possibility that he lied about it. Maybe he was the argumentative type and liked humiliating the scribes and Pharisees in debates. Maybe he preferred to say controversial things to draw attention to himself."
Like I said then:
"Since you haven't presented any evidence that Jesus was lying, I'll assume that you have none. All you have is conjecture on your part. Simply insisting that "it's possible that [Jesus] lied" does not constitute evidence.
Hard to think of a situation where one couldn't claim that "it's possible" that a second party was lying. So evidently in SwissGambit-land all one need do to discount something someone said is to claim that "it's possible" that the person was lying."
14 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo in your mind, there are at least two boxes; maybe more. Apparently, I would be in all of them, as would RC [since he came up in every instance]. KM would be in 75% of them. RJHinds would be in 25% of them. And, just to be sure you didn't miss anyone - you put 'et al' is in 75% of them! Who knows how many are in that group. [Feel free to correct the math; I figured the percentages from the 4 instances I counted.]
lol. Do you believe your posts to me today on this thread have been coherent? You're all over the place making assertions whether or not you have the facts to back them up.
This latest post of yours is just more of the same. I can't see addressing all the issues, but I will address a couple.
[b]Still four people in the box.
Actually as I point to claim that "it's possible" that the person was lying."[/b]
Then there's the 'idiot box' - with occupants as yet unnamed. 😵
I was going to say, "No one's that big an idiot", but I only needed to think of some of the posters on this forum 🙂There is apparently no limit to this mysterious power to create boxes simply by naming names over and over [even the names are optional, apparently]. But the more you create, and the more people you stuff into so many of them, the more the divisions between the boxes begin to blur and fade away, and the reality of one large out-group box emerges.
****
The reason we were on that point was because you wanted to 'discuss' that point to divert attention from the main point. This is borne out by the obvious falsity of the statement:
I went off on the tangent because I wanted to clarify something in my mind before responding to your '5 reasons'.I gave a clear answer. You objected on grounds that it was not in 'good faith' and '[il]logical', but not on grounds of clarity.
****
You cling to the claim that I provided no evidence that Jesus was lying, blatantly ignoring the contradiction in Jesus' statements on this very issue. Don't you think if someone contradicts themselves on an issue, that it is likely they are lying about that issue in some way? Who knows, maybe self-contradictions don't set off your BS detector.
In SwissGambit-land, the BS detector is functioning soundly. It will not be switched off because some fanboy cannot entertain the possibility that his hero might be lying.
14 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt is interesting, almost comical, to witness the lengths to which Christians are willing to abandon reason and basic humanity and perform extraordinary mental acrobatics to prove the existence of something of which they have had no experience or proof. Pell is a buffoon, smug and ever so patronizing, and he has no answer for the rapier-like reaon and logic of Dawkins.
Cardinal George Pell of the RCC in Australia in the debate with Richard Dawkins recounts a story where he "proves" the existence of hell to a young boy.
Seems like both Pell's argument and belief are based upon the idea that life would be "radically unjust" if hell doesn't exist for the Hitler's of the world. He also seems to simultaneously hold the c ...[text shortened]... f they don't, life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle prevails.[/quote]
14 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you believe as the JWs do that the soul can not exist separate from the body,
Yes, and yet "Pell wants to believe that hell exists for the Hitler's of the world."
then I see no need for Hell. But if you believe as Christians do that the the body,
soul, and spirit can be separated, then the possibility of a need for a place like
Hell seems more likely. However, that does not prove the existence of such a
place except in the mind of the believer.
14 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitlol. Do you plan to get to where you demonstrate how the Guilt by Association fallacy applies? Given the tack you've chosen here, I suspect you don't know what it is. Perhaps you should look it up.
So in your mind, there are at least two boxes; maybe more. Apparently, I would be in all of them, as would RC [since he came up in every instance]. KM would be in 75% of them. RJHinds would be in 25% of them. And, just to be sure you didn't miss anyone - you put 'et al' is in 75% of them! Who knows how many are in that group. [Feel free to correct the ma e some fanboy cannot entertain the possibility that his hero might be lying.
This is borne out by the obvious falsity of the statement:I went off on the tangent because I wanted to clarify something in my mind before responding to your '5 reasons'.
That was the orginal intention so the statement isn't false. That you subsequently started spewing nonsense and I called you on it, doesn't change that fact. Is that really so difficult to understand?
You cling to the claim that I provided no evidence that Jesus was lying, blatantly ignoring the contradiction in Jesus' statements on this very issue. Don't you think if someone contradicts themselves on an issue, that it is likely they are lying about that issue in some way? Who knows, maybe self-contradictions don't set off your BS detector.
Don't know what you don't understand about the following which I posted at the time:
"So far as I know there's no reason to believe that Jesus was lying other than YOUR claim that Jesus claimed that you must follow the OT Law in its entirety which is the bone of contention. So you can't use that as evidence to prop up other claims. Now if you have other evidence that Jesus was lying, I'd be willing to listen. If you don't believe Jesus was lying, then we're left with Jesus' contradiction of the OT indicating that He saw the law as something different from the OT."
14 Apr 12
Originally posted by Pianoman1I only read the transcript, but I agree that Pell didn't seem to have it together.
It is interesting, almost comical, to witness the lengths to which Christians are willing to abandon reason and basic humanity and perform extraordinary mental acrobatics to prove the existence of something of which they have had no experience or proof. Pell is a buffoon, smug and ever so patronizing, and he has no answer for the rapier-like reaon and logic of Dawkins.
The core beliefs of Christianity are based purely in faith: the existence of God, that they will get "eternal life"/"salvation"/"kingdom of God", etc.
No matter how much "reason" one places around "faith" it's still based in "faith" since "faith" is its foundation. As such they invariably paint themselves into corners in their attempts to prove their beliefs as reasonable.
14 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOur beliefs are based on faith in Christ and His alleged teachings and the proof
I only read the transcript, but I agree that Pell didn't seem to have it together.
The core beliefs of Christianity are based purely in faith: the existence of God, that they will get "eternal life"/"salvation"/"kingdom of God", etc.
No matter how much "reason" one places around "faith" it's still based in "faith" since "faith" is its foundation. A ...[text shortened]... themselves into corners in their attempts to prove their beliefs as reasonable.
of His power by His alleged raising Himself from the dead after 3 days in a tomb
that is now empty and on display in Jerusalem to this very day. Even His burial
clothes are sometimes put on display for people to see as proof of His resurrection.