Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 8, 2010 at 4:03pm

@Khemin,

Don't get all bent out of shape. McDowell makes it look so easy to have people you are witnessing to jump through the hoops. Unfortunately, sometimes when you are doing those little apologist card tricks, people don't always pick the cards they are expected to like good little stooges.

I mean, you are getting this whole argument regarding Tacitus from McDowell, aren't you? If not it's the most amazing synchronicity.

You aren't an atheist, are you? From your own profile:

I am a non-theist in that I do not believe in any sort of "God" as defined by any religion or philosophy. In this, I might also be described as agnostic, meaning that I do not claim to have knowledge of any such being.

Likewise, however, neither can I claim to know that there is no form of Creative Force or Entity/Entities out there somewhere, either. In my view, to claim any such knowledge of that which cannot be known... whether theistically or atheistically... is to be, frankly, religiously dogmatic.

For me, at least, I seek truth wherever it is found. To do otherwise is to be just as bigoted and close-minded as the very religious fanatics I despise.

Not an atheist, but a "non-theist", whatever that is. Once you take away the hedging and bullshit, you really are a form of theistic agnostic, aren't you? You certainly don't lack belief in "Creative Force or Entity/Entities". What do those "Creative Force or Entity/Entities" create? Universes? Life? Historical Jesus maybe?

Permalink Reply by Khemin on February 8, 2010 at 5:56pm

(As no reply is possible to Mykeru's last entry, I'm relegated to posting mine here)

Mykeru -

After you have wasted everyone's time here page after page engaging in either constant logical fallacies (in your case, constant strawman, ad hominem and "begging the question") or deliberately bobbing and weaving away from any of the key issues raised while being entirely unable to provide the required evidences in support of your arguments, and thus, having finally painted yourself into a corner of your own illogical creation and by your own idiocy, the best you can come up with is to desperately try to paint me as some closet Christian trying to "witness"?!?!

That's shockingly similar to how religious zealots in Galileo's time treated him when he presented scientific evidences contrary to their predetermined beliefs; they accused him of being aligned with Satan... just as you accuse me of being aligned with religion.

Is your position so insecure, as also was that of the Catholic Church in Galileo's time, that you must lash out at anyone who dares to point out valid evidences and logically contests challenges thereto? Just because I find Tacitus a valid evidence and argument in favor of same and you are unable to logically contest that position... well then, I must be a theist trying to "witness." Wow! Galileo, as I've mentioned, was treated exactly the same way; they couldn't logically counter his arguments... so they accused him of believing that which they viewed as heretical. And so you are doing likewise with me.

For an atheist, you sure sound like any other religiously orthodox little bigot.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 8, 2010 at 6:30pm

"After you have wasted everyone's time here page after page engaging in either constant logical fallacies (in your case, constant strawman, ad hominem and "begging the question") or deliberately bobbing and weaving away from any of the key issues raised while being entirely unable to provide the required evidences in support of your arguments, and thus, having finally painted yourself into a corner of your own illogical creation and by your own idiocy, the best you can come up with is to desperately try to paint me as some closet Christian trying to "witness"?!?!"

Yeah, you still haven't answered if you are getting your arguments from McDowell.

"For an atheist, you sure sound like any other religiously orthodox little bigot."

Wow, the "atheist fundamentalist" card. I'm devastated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Khemin on February 9, 2010 at 9:06am

For one who hasn't been able to be bothered enough to answer on-topic questions throughout your disjointed harangues here, you've got a lot of gall to whine when others fail to answer your completely off-topic questions. However, no matter... to answer you, I have absolutely NO idea who "McDowell" is. Though if his points are similar to mine, small wonder as such points are the natural and logical result of considering all the evidences carefully prior to arriving at a conclusion and thus formulating an opinion based on the facts and evidences available. For those such as yourself, however, who "religiously" form opinions (beliefs) first and then have to live their lives attempting to force evidence to conform to same, I can see how such would be rather problematic.

And finally... just because the evidence would seem to argue for the actual historical existence of Buddha, Mohammed or even Joseph Smith does not mean that to so conclude, one must be either or collectively Buddhist, Moslem and/or Mormon. So also, to weigh all the evidences and conclude that the historical "Yeshua," who is claimed to be the founder of that called Christianity, also existed does not mean that to do so requires that one be either Christian or attempting to "witness" as such.

Your inability to comprehend such simple logic is staggering and I am through attempting to discuss it with you for the same reason as it would be pointless to attempt discussing color with one who is blind. Of course the key difference in that scenario is that, in your case, the blindness is deliberately self-imposed. In fact, the only other similar discussions I have had that have likewise been reciprocated as irrationally and as vitriolically as these with you have been those unfortunately engaged in with ... religious fanatics. Isn't that fascinatingly ironic? I'll have to think on that for awhile.

In any event, as I likewise responded to them, so also do I now bid farewell to you: Enjoy your beliefs!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 9, 2010 at 9:25am

"I have absolutely NO idea who "McDowell" is"

What an amazing co-incidence then. It's like a chimp accidentally typing Hamlet.

"Your inability to comprehend such simple logic is staggering and I am through attempting to discuss it with you for the same reason as it would be pointless to attempt discussing color with one who is blind."

I like to call this the "Fundie Shuffle". When the true believer doesn't get his way he suddenly has better things to do or decrees, by fiat, that arguing with people who weigh and then reject his sorry excuse for evidence is pointless due to their "close-mindedness".

It never gets old, basically. Works for Apologists, conspiracists and people who think Grey aliens traveled a bazillion light years to probe their anus.

"Of course the key difference in that scenario is that, in your case, the blindness is deliberately self-imposed."

Yes, keep telling yourself that people who are not persuaded by your "evidence" are "blind". Hell, tell yourself that "the fool says in his heart you ain't got shit"

Whatever ad hoc defense mechanism works best for you, sweet pea.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on February 9, 2010 at 5:41pm

@Khemin.

Josh McDowell is a Christian apologist of the Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalist variety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell

His most famous book is "Evidence with demands a verdict". It includes just about every argument known to man which is in favor of the fundamentalist style "god hypothesis", several of which are mutually exclusive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Khemin on February 10, 2010 at 8:16am

Thank you, Rosemary. Your description of McDowell only furthers my point that recognizing Tacitus' statements re: "Christus" as valid evidence for the likely historicity of "Jesus" is not at all the same as mirroring McDowell's apologetics in arguing for the existence of a fundamentalist "God."

Just because an apparently Christian apologist has sufficient mental skills to recognize Tacitus as the most legitimate third-party source evidencing for the likelihood of "Jesus" existence as a person does not at all evidence any attempt on my part to argue for "Jesus" as either a "god" or the son of one, as apparently does McDowell.

It is unfortunate that Mykeru is incapable of likewise recognizing the difference.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 10, 2010 at 8:22am

"It is unfortunate that Mykeru is incapable of likewise recognizing the difference."

Oh, I see, you are "bid farewell" but you are not above working in a dig?

What are you, twelve?

If we are going to be like that, do you realize you resemble The Judge from The Wall?

Case rested, doody-head.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Khemin on February 10, 2010 at 2:14pm

Continual grade-school insults, toilet humor, and derogatory drawings in lieu of actual intelligent discourse is what you consider "perfect"? I suppose were I to have responded by putting up a picture of Mykeru as the braying ass he is would have had you just "OMG"-ing yourself into a state of ecstatic euphoria, now wouldn't it? Be honest. It would, wouldn't it?

As apparently such behavior here is considered "perfect" and apparently condoned if not encouraged by the admins here who have done nothing to kick or ban Mykeru for his continual abuse of any he disgrees with... I see no reason to remain. After all, anyone on a computer can abuse with impunity so long as admins permit it and members praise it... right Diaddy?

Thus, you may now all rejoice as once again immaturity triumphs over intelligence and the scatological over the logical. So, Mykeru, as you apparently enjoy the adulation of all others here who so apparently share your immaturity... go ahead and let your stink bombs fly and the smearing of your feces recommence on anyone else who respond to your insults and rude rebuttals with actual facts and evidence.

Of course, such only works on those who, like Diaddy here, don't have the maturity to know the difference.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mykeru on February 10, 2010 at 6:29pm

Dude, I would say you are a complete tool, except you are more the cheap prize in a box of Cracker Jacks.

There was lots of discourse, Khemin, but you decided to "yeah but" everyone and continue with your boilerplate arguments. It's far too late, and obvious to take umbrage.

Thing about atheists who "discuss" is that we've seen this shocked, Margaret Dumont reaction before. It's almost from the Apologetics 4 Dummies handbook.

Now, that being said, and in the interests of bipartisanship and civil discourse, allow me to offer the hand of conciliation and extend to you an invitation to blow me, you poo flinging prosimian douche.

Thank you.

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on February 11, 2010 at 12:16am

@Khemin

Stop feeding the trolls.

Permalink Reply by Diaddy_lil_Freethinker on February 11, 2010 at 9:33am

@Khemin You are entitled to your opinion and your opinion to me means MIERDA cause that's exactly what it sounds like MIERDA!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 37
• 38
• 39
• 40
• 41
• …
• 94
• Next ›
• Page