Tercel,

If you truly wish to debate/discuss ANYTHING on ANY board in a civil, gentlemanly manner, let me know. All I ask is that you not (and I will not) make snide remarks or use sarcasm. I will meet you halfway on ANY topic. Let me know.

rodahi

Rodahi, quite frankly I do not believe you. As far as I have seen you are not able to discuss things in what I would consider a civil gentlemanly manner.

I see you have a problem with me being sarcastic. (Snide remarks??) I'm not sure whether you are trying to get me back for giving you advice earlier in this thread or really mean it. At anyrate, I use sarcasm in posting very rarely so it is unlikely you'll see any more of it whether you wish to or not.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
Rodahi, quite frankly I do not believe you. As far as I have seen you are not able to discuss things in what I would consider a civil gentlemanly manner.

Should I take this as a "no?"

Tercel: I see you have a problem with me being sarcastic. (Snide remarks??) I'm not sure whether you are trying to get me back for giving you advice earlier in this thread or really mean it. At anyrate, I use sarcasm in posting very rarely so it is unlikely you'll see any more of it whether you wish to or not.

I merely asked that neither of us use snide remarks or sarcasm. It is that simple.

Are you not willing to debate/discuss ANY issue on ANY board of your choosing?

rodahi

Well I see lots of things silly, 'Cult members' for starters. Are not atheists members of the atheist cult equally as much as Christians are members of a Christian one?
Of course I am sure you are well aware of the bad meaning generally attached to the word cult, indeed you work on this in the rest of your post. But I hardly think calling Christianity a cult is valid, or if it is then the meaning of cult changes throughout your post.
But I am worried that you might actually be serious in calling Christianity a cult and have not changed the meaning of the word throughout your post. If this is the case, then I do not agree with you at all. It seems to me that this sort of opinion goes well beyond reason and I would seriously wonder if there is some special reason for your dislike of Christianity. If this is the case, I suggest you think about it for a while. Believe it or not I am trying hard to avoid a personal attack here, but it seems clear to me that such a view of Christianity is neither reasonable or justified.

Isn't this going a bit far? By all means expose circular arguments where they exist. But suggesting that all cultists have circular arguments and indoctination is a bit steep. And I certainly aren't going to agree with a generalisation that cultists obfuscate discovery in favor of dogma. This may be true for some radical creationists who will do any twisting to make the discoveries fit their predisposition. This may also be equally true for their atheist counterparts who make the discoveries fit their predispostion. But to generalise it to cult members in general I cannot agree with.

I've had many arguments with theists where the same thing happened.
I could say the same thing of you and most other atheist posters here. The only people who are going to be influenced by this discussion are any agnostic lurkers.

I don't understand your point here.

I have no problem with this post being where it is. You said 'Let's not forget that this is our site designed for us to discuss secular issues, of which the Christian cult is not the primary one'. This is a silly comment on a forum designated to dissusion of the Bible. From what I've seen of other athiest posters here the Christian cult seems to be a major concern, I don't propose to speak for them though.
If you wish.

Tercel

Probably. I'm not sure there was actually a question asked for me to answer no to.

Is it?

I have nothing currently I want to discuss with you. If a thread which I am interested in discussing comes up I will reply to it and by all means feel free to debate/discuss it with me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
Yet in the relatively short time I have been posting here I have noticed several detestable posting tactics used continuously by both Rodahi and Turtonm which would probably get them kicked off or warned by the moderators other boards - and they are supposed to be moderators???

What would those be? Would it be one of those objectionable tactics to demand relevant quotes?

These include (but are certainly not limited to): "Where is your evidence/proof?" when the other poster has just stated it.
"Try reading my post" when the other poster has just replied to it and clearly understood it. "Give the dates and names of extant MSS" when it is clearly unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion. And best/worst of all "That is your opinion", without bothering to answer the actual evidence - as if that solves all the problems.

It seems like I've been tarred with a rodahi brush! And a nice shade it is, too.

My advice to you Rodahi and Turtonm:
If you wish to feel that you are doing well/winning in a debate, then you are certainly going the right way about it. I am sure your method makes you personally feel like your position is better. However if you wish to sway readers to your side then it is useful to demonstrate both intelligence and sense. I have no doubt that you are both extremely intelligent people who have a great deal of knowledge about many things religious. I have only posted a little on this board because I realise that many here know a great deal more than me. But most readers will not be impressed by your arguments when they depart from common sense. If you come across as an intelligent person who properly understands all sides of the argument and has chosen your side for the logical reasons which you set forth in the argument then any reader will respect your opinion and listen to you. If you come across as an idiot who makes obviously unreasonable demands of the other side at every turn and who decends quickly to "that is your opinion" then I do not think the reader is going to be fully impressed by your arguments.


Actually, just for the heck of it, I ran a search on is+your+opinion and my username, and whaddya know -- just two posts popped up, and in both cases quoted words from someone else.

Tercel, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Departures from common sense are important, Tercel, because that's what progress is. Your "common sense" might be a mythology to me. It might not be sensible at all. Who knows where a crazy thread will lead? Even Eternal's posts sometimes get somewhere interesting.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 08, 2001).]

No.

It is not only valid and unchanging, it is the truth. The Christian cult is one of the largest cults ever to disgrace mankind. Marginallizing that fact through terminology like "religion" and "congregation" and "church" only serves the cult agenda of making it seem as if it isn't a cult.

If you care, I consider any group who deliberately indoctrinates innocent people into worshipping a myth a cult.

You're not the first, nor the last.

Yes, there is. See any of my posts on this site for reference.

I do.

Define "steep." If this helps, I'll rephrase it thus: In the several months I have been a regular poster here, I have never seen an argument presented by a cult member that was not a thinly disguised circuitous attempt to establish the validity of their cult. Have you? If so, please provide the url and I'll gladly check it out.

Well, again, if you can provide any example where this is not the case, by all means.

Atheists have no predisposition. That's the main problem and the primary difference. One group here has a specific and irrational agenda (the cultists); one group here has no agenda at all (the secularists). It is only when these two collide that the cultist's agenda triggers a response by the secularists. I know you won't agree with this, but if you were truly honest you would see that this is precisely the case.

We aren't an organization of any kind. The only thing we all have in common is that we do not believe a fairy god king magically blinked us into existence in order to punish us the way cultists do. Contrary to popular cult propaganda, we don't even care what cultists believe so long as they keep it to their goddamned selves. When, however, a cult member posts a ludicrous, cult-serving re-hash of centuries-old propaganda we may indeed present what appears to be a "unified front" on the issue due to the fact that the propaganda is so readily apparent to us and necessarily not so readily apparent to an indoctrinated cultist. Perhaps that's why you're confused on this?

Then don't.

Congratulations. Perhaps you could give a short list of points that you have learned from the theist's arguments. As I mentioned in my original post, this is open to anyone, both theist and atheist.

I disagree (as is my wont). Most theists who post here have only one argument thinly disguised: the Christian God actually exists and all things flow from Him. Other than the occasional awakening, when have you ever read a cultist concede that this is not true? On the other hand, I have personally conceded many ill-thought out points to Singledad and others while posting arguments (just take a look at my first thread, "Christianity: Roman Last Ditch Effort (that worked)?" for a whole slew of concessions on my part!)

The difference is, of course, that our concessions necessarily happen during the formation of arguments, whereas the theist can not concede any aspect of their argument without conceding the whole (since their arguments are like holograms; every slice contains the whole )

Trying to explain that we should try not to get too frustrated at the thumpers for singing one note over and over again since they aren't the ones your argument will reach.

Excellent point! You're right, then, this post should be moved to a more appropriate forum. I just figured this would be the best place to help out newcomers gauge what can be expected when they leap into the fray.

I don't; it was just fun to "say."

I forgot to post the number one all time worst evasion tactic out there! My bad.

Jon Curry and Nomad shine at this oldie but goodie.

This is a favorite of the cultists, because, once again, they're not here to honestly argue a point; they're here to, at best, confuse the arguments so much that no one can discern what the argument was in the first place.

So long as the argument can be thoroughly convoluted, they know that their sheep will remain in the pen as they were trained to do since birth. Stating things like, "You have not made any arguments, just assertions. You must prove your assertions and you have not done so," is a perfect example. It means nothing and can be stated over and over and over again, regardless of whether or not the original poster listed the goddamned Library of Congress as a bibliography.

This also ties in nicely with the misuse of logical terminology ploy (though "ploy" is too strong a word and implies deliberate deceit, when in these instances, it is most likely bald-faced pig ignorance; a "monkey-see/monkey-do" approach to deconstruction).

Regardless, it can get incredibly annoying so make sure you avoid it at all costs.

Here's a paraphrased example from one of Nomad's duplicate threads: This, of course, is designed to simply enrage us and send us off into ad hominem land so that they can take their preferred position of martyr once again.

Unfortunately, I often take that bait, but what the hell. As I stated before, no "debate" with a cult member like Nomad will have any direct effect anyway, so why not have some fun?


(edited for formatting - Koy)



[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited April 11, 2001).]

Yes! This is exactly how Mike argues in Hindu children in Hell thread, driving me bats.

Koy, I'm curious.

You refer to Nomad as a cult member. Since Christianity is the religion on the planet with the most adherents, I was wondering why you classify him as a cult member? Of course, if you consider every member of every religion to be a cult member then I can understand. Of course, then the label really does not mean anything. In which case it would be nothing more than an ad hominen.

Of course, on second thought, even if it had definitional value it would be nothing more than an ad hominen.