Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Name 5 people you can’t stand thread who you don’t share a religion with
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Irate Canadian View PostAre you accusing him of lying?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I clearly mentioned that it was an instance of quote doctoring, so I'm not sure where you got the notion that I can't remember what it was that made me put you on ignore. What I couldn't remember was the subject of the thread where it occured (although searching TWeb on the wayback machine made me find the thread in question, namely this one:http://web.archive.org/web/201308270...Horribly-Wrong), it wasn't the memory of the quote doctoring itself which eluded me. I even remember what form the quote doctoring took; you quoted a section of one of the q&a articles* at the reasonable faith site on the slaughter of the Canaanites, but removed a crucial portion of the text without marking with an ellipsis, or any other way, which made it seem that Craig held to/defended a position which he did not in fact hold to/defend. If I'm given enough time I might just even manage to remember exactly which of the three articles in question, and what portion of it you quoted.
*It was one from one of these articles:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaug...the-canaanites
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-s...tes-re-visited
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Once-...the-Canaanites
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostRight, so just let me know when you actually remember what my alleged "slimy, dishonest" argument was. Frankly, I think you've confused me with somebody else.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I clearly mentioned that it was an instance of quote doctoring, so I'm not sure where you got the notion that I can't remember what it was that made me put you on ignore. What I couldn't remember was the subject of the thread where it occured (although searching TWeb on the wayback machine made me find the thread in question, namely this one:http://web.archive.org/web/201308270...Horribly-Wrong), it wasn't the memory of the quote doctoring itself which eluded me. I even remember what form the quote doctoring took; you quoted a section of one of the q&a articles* at the reasonable faith site on the slaughter of the Canaanites, but removed a crucial portion of the text without marking with an ellipsis, or any other way, which made it seem that Craig held to/defended a position which he did not in fact hold to/defend. If I'm given enough time I might just even manage to remember exactly which of the three articles in question, and what portion of it you quoted.
*It was one from one of these articles:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaug...the-canaanites
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-s...tes-re-visited
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Once-...the-Canaanites
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSo Chrawnus' accusation is based upon a lost thread wherein I'm supposed to have made a "slimy, dishonest" argument except that he can't remember what it was. Gotcha!
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I clearly mentioned that it was an instance of quote doctoring, so I'm not sure where you got the notion that I can't remember what it was that made me put you on ignore. What I couldn't remember was the subject of the thread where it occured (although searching TWeb on the wayback machine made me find the thread in question, namely this one:http://web.archive.org/web/201308270...Horribly-Wrong), it wasn't the memory of the quote doctoring itself which eluded me. I even remember what form the quote doctoring took; you quoted a section of one of the q&a articles* at the reasonable faith site on the slaughter of the Canaanites, but removed a crucial portion of the text without marking with an ellipsis, or any other way, which made it seem that Craig held to/defended a position which he did not in fact hold to/defend. If I'm given enough time I might just even manage to remember exactly which of the three articles in question, and what portion of it you quoted.
*It was one from one of these articles:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaug...the-canaanites
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-s...tes-re-visited
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Once-...the-Canaanites
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
Yes,try to find a document that's not been recorded in the Internet Archive. IT'S EASY. \s
Leave a comment:
-
Since a certain poster wants to mindless defend Tazzy Wazzy (and keeps doing the passive aggressive swipes at me), here is a perfect example of Tazzy's hatred of religion:
Originally posted by Tazzy WazzyIn some Scandinavian countries one is automatically added to the membership of the national church at birth and one has to actually "sign out” to not be counted as Christian. But, in actuality all the Scandinavian countries, along with much of Europe, have extremely high rates of non-belief in God, (Norway at 72%).
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
And while they may be “cultural Christians" they nevertheless rank high in the Inequality adjusted HDI whereas the actual Christian USA only ranks 28th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
"Top 50 Countries
With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics"
Notice how Tazzy leaves out the 'agnostic' part and just pretends they are talking about atheist only. Second, notice the countries on the list, with the highest atheist/agnostic populations:
Vietnam
Czech Republic
Estonia
And many others don't rank anywhere close to the top on the HDI report. So how could Tazzy Wazzy claim that atheism has anything to do with their higher HDI rankings, when many other countries, with a high population of atheist/agnostics don't rank nearly as high on the HDI ranking? Obviously, Tazzy is trying to play a fast one on us and is really hoping that nobody checks his facts too closely. Clearly the population of a countries atheist/agnostics seems to have very little to do with their HDI ranking. Just one example of many of where this certain poster just wants to mindlessly defend people, without even bothering to check to see WHY people might see Tazzy Wazzy as slimy and dishonest.
Edited to add:
What is even more embarrassing is that the USA ranks in there too at number 44. Likewise, he says:
Norway at 72%
but what he ignores is that Norway is at 72% on the higher end, on the lower end it would be closer to 31%. Again, he is trying to exaggerate his claims to make his arguments sound better (a very stupid thing to do, when your own links refute your claims for you).
How embarrassing because I know that I spent a lot of time correcting Tazzy's abuses of this data on the old tWeb (it's the major reason he accused me of having a serious mental disorder he has been unable to prove I actually have), so it makes him look even worse because he should know better.Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 06-04-2015, 07:53 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
I'm pretty sure that we more voracious posters have all been slimy and dishonest at one time or another. Nobody has the moral high ground here.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSmall mind small amusement. When are you going to back up your accusation? Still can't find anything, heh?
Yes,try to find a document that's not been recorded in the Internet Archive. IT'S EASY. \s
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYour white-knighting amuses me.
BTW I also remember what you are talking about to, but when Tazzy Wazzy is proved wrong, he projects his flaws upon others (IE how he accuses me of having a serious mental illness that he is unable to prove or show I have reflects that he likely has one himself), so don't expect him to admit he's wrong. He is incapable of doing that.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYou have no idea? Well, doesn't that figure. Darths question was in reply to your previous post, post #29, where you called Tass slimy, intellectually dishonest, narrow minded, and out of touch with reality. And in proof of this you have to go back years to find something, and even then you can come up with nothing. I would say that was a bit slimy, intellectually dishonest, narrow minded and out of touch with reality.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYou have no idea? Well, doesn't that figure. Darths question was in reply to your previous post, post #29, where you called Tass slimy, intellectually dishonest, narrow minded, and out of touch with reality. And in proof of this you have to go back years to find something, and even then you can come up with nothing. I would say that was a bit slimy, intellectually dishonest, narrow minded and out of touch with reality.
Leave a comment:
-
Note: I pushed the wrong button there. The chances of me amening something LPOT says is very remote.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
14 responses
61 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:13 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
78 responses
414 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 10:50 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Leave a comment: