Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quite. While open discussion is absolutely fine, and even just preachfesting at least on R/S is ok, there has been a long -felt need for a 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 arena where others do not (often) pitch in - like Harry and I with Pneuma on the Nativity thread. Mainly because only Pneuma was able to put up the best case anyone could for Nativity validity.
Yes, Pneuma did good work. I doubt IWas could do the same with Christianity, IWas would just provide links to apologetic sites.
Yes, Pneuma did good work. I doubt IWas could do the same with Christianity, IWas would just provide links to apologetic sites.
Pneuma at least presented the apologetics sites as his own arguments rather than provide links to them and invite us to do his work for him. He did well on the nativity, but poorly on the Creationist debates; notably where his attempt to discredit the 'Dover' ruling betrayed how he just lifted Creationist -site arguments and passed them off as his own.
That revealed that his brilliant arguments on Nativity were not his own (which is fine of course - I use others' info all the time) and the puzzling collapse into incoherent abuse whenever he got refuted. That is the real Pneuma.
We are still sussing out Iwash so far it looks like manipulative manouvering, but we shall see is we even get an Exchange.
I see A common mistinderstanding. 'We' refers to what I believe is a general view (or verified data) which I refer to and is not my own argument,.
'I' refers to my own Idea and which i don't claim is a general consensus or verified data.
It is not referring to some secret committee which i control, though I sometime waggishly quip about a supposed atheists conspiracy that is plotting to take over the world.
Because anyone presenting a claim has the burden of proof. I have a responsibility to back up my own views and others have the be burden of proof on their own claims. Why? Because this is how logic demands that discussion works.
You see here the 'I' and 'We'? I don't have to prove the data I refer to which is why discussion of the validity of the Disciplines is banned. If anyone wants to rewrite geography to put Antioch in the dead sea let them argue on the geography forum, not here.
If anyone wants to deny that the Hyksos dynasty was Caananite ....well, I do have to validate that but I refer to consensus data in Egyptology, not my own ideas.
But when I talk of my 'Failed messiah' theory, or "Mark was not the synoptic original" , "I" is the term I have to use as nobody else believes me, even if they listen.
Now that we have cleared up a few misconceptions (in a way I never thought I'd have to as you have been here nearly as long as I have) maybe we can get off the way I do my posts and back onto topic?
Agnostics are not presenting a claim they are trying to figure it out. You are wanting to sell your product before others are allowed to 'organically' figure their way. It's sort of insulting to think your fellowman doesn't have the intellect to decide for themselves.
Let's be honest, the 'we' (threat) is a whistle call for the MAATForce clique.
I won't comment on you finally hoisting your colours. Not theism, but anti -atheism. Explains a lot.
But you are mistaken of course.
The foolish idea of people 'finding their way' without the information being presented by both sides, is just going to be the making up as they go along. And if the theist side case is not very good, that is hardly the the atheist fault. If and 'agnostic' is going to do the research on their own, why...they don't need to come here anyway.
If they come here looking for some guidance...well....we have seen the Advice given by Theists to doubters 'Please find the nearest Christian brainwashing organisation'. #Jesus is the answer - just have faith'.
And atheists are in the wrong because they are giving the other side of the case and using data and reason rather than polemic and preaching?. And the grabbing onto irrelevant and piddling points like 'We' (which I already explained) and posting a sig designed by a Theist, you have hoisted your true colours and got terminally holed, below the waterline.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-04-2020 at 07:44 AM..
I won't comment on you finally hoisting your colours. Not theism, but anti -atheism. Explains a lot.
But you are mistaken of course.
The foolish idea of people 'finding their way' without the information being presented by both sides, is just going to be the making up as they go along. And if the theist side case is not very good, that is hardly the the atheist fault. If and 'agnostic' is going to do the research on their own, why...they don't need to come here anyway.
If they come here looking for some guidance...well....we have seen the Advice given by Theists to doubters 'Please find the nearest Christian brainwashing organisation'. #Jesus is the answer - just have faith'.
And atheists are in the wrong because they are giving the other side of the case and using data and reason rather than polemic and preaching?. And the grabbing onto irrelevant and piddling points like 'We' (which I already explained) and posting a sig designed by a Theist, you have hoisted your true colours and got terminally holed, below the waterline.
When one seeks to control the discussions you are only preaching to your own kind. You have your worldview, but you do not appear to enjoy it or else you wouldn't be here every 4-6 hrs trying to direct the conversations. If you do not appear happy and content, why would you want to share?
Apropos of which of Marc (does anyone else feel that he is a bit of an atheist celebrity who hath 'come amongst us'? ) seems willing to take IWMN on 1-1 and I for one would like to leave them to it. Even though I'll take out a few theist linebackers (or whatever you people have in this strange 'armoured rugby' game you play) in order to leave them free.
I agree. But IWash first needs to be pinned down so that the excuses (why won't one person discuss reasonably with me?) can be eliminated and we can all check that questions weren't answered . Multiple antagonists muddle the discussion. Before, IWash claimed he HAD answered questions, but it so muddled, nobody was sure.
At least i wasn't . But I'm not sure where I left my pipe and slippers these days....
I am happy to see that we are in agreement about how multiple antagonists muddle the discussion. I don’t think you will find much agreement from other atheists to allow for a more efficient and productive 1-on-1 discussion, though. I think the goal of the multiple antagonists (“we”?) is precisely to muddle the discussion.
A solution that might work is for you and me to have an uncluttered discussion via private message, then post the completed, streamlined exchange to a new thread for comments (if you want).
Agnostics are not presenting a claim they are trying to figure it out. You are wanting to sell your product before others are allowed to 'organically' figure their way.
Yes, why listen to us when you can invent a straw man to attack. Atheism is not a product, it is knowing the theist's product is a scam. Many of us have no problems with people holding religious beliefs, but we do have a problem with fundamentalism. As should you. And atheism is a response to the claims of theists, so when they come here trying to sell a product to us, we tell them why we do not want it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
It's sort of insulting to think your fellowman doesn't have the intellect to decide for themselves.
Good, no one is doing this. OK, you are, but no one else.
Again, atheism is a response to the claims of theists. So to decide, people need to hear both sides of the argument. Yet you decide to attack us for this, but not the theists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Let's be honest, the 'we' (threat) is a whistle call for the MAATForce clique.
I thought you was going to be honest? Or did you not consider it is simply using the English grammar correctly? Or is this just another chance to take an irrelevant shot instead of dealing with the actual arguments. It WOULD make a change.
I am happy to see that we are in agreement about how multiple antagonists muddle the discussion. I don’t think you will find much agreement from other atheists to allow for a more efficient and productive 1-on-1 discussion, though.
Why not, it sort of worked for this thread at the start?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I think the goal of the multiple antagonists (“we”?) is precisely to muddle the discussion.
Or that is how forums work. But once again the accusation we have ulterior motives instead of looking at other possibilities.
Yes. But there is a valid point here. 'Ganging up' has been a long -standing ...I'm looking for a word other than "Whine" but I can't think of one.....And the one vs one format has a validity. It's not everyone who can field a whole flurry of antagonists, so it would be good to accede to IWMH's demand if only that this whinge can't be used in lieu of actually having any kind of discussion.
Quite. While open discussion is absolutely fine, and even just preachfesting at least on R/S is ok, there has been a long -felt need for a 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 arena where others do not (often) pitch in - like Harry and I with Pneuma on the Nativity thread. Mainly because only Pneuma was able to put up the best case anyone could for Nativity validity.
Being ganged up on -- try being a principal -- can be a very enlightening (albeit unpleasant) learning experience. When a lone voice is in opposition...no big deal. When it's a chorus one can perhaps get a better picture of how they're being perceived.
Being ganged up on -- try being a principal -- can be a very enlightening (albeit unpleasant) learning experience. When a lone voice is in opposition...no big deal. When it's a chorus one can perhaps get a better picture of how they're being perceived.
I don't think you really want this to apply to all situations... maybe it's just against the religious?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
is the real Pneuma.
A common mistinderstanding. 'We' refers to what I believe is a general view (or verified data) which I refer to and is not my own argument,.
let them argue on the geography forum, not here.
but I refer to consensus data in Egyptology, not my own ideas.
