Katastrophikus

:down: Nay

Deus Ex

:down:Nay

dr lazer blast

First off I would like to show you how your band wagoning fallacy affects nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_numerum
so people that are already baised toward religion in general and me personally voting nay is hardly a factor about anything.

Secondly I would like to show how Sheshbazzar is attempting to weasel his way out of his glaringly dishonest assertions of
when in fact, there was a preceeding indication that I used amaleqs flawed logic to prove a point.
Now instead of withdrawing his position despite the fact he has been proven irrecoverably wrong, he makes a very very common logical fallacy.

This is very common of people being backed into a corner, when they realize their assertions and blatent lies have been called out and brought to light, they usually try to revive their dying argument by trying to appeal to the majority, which is what we have here, him calling for a vote of yay or nay, unable to prove any points with logic or facts or evidence, instead he is trying to prove his point with what the majority think, and that just doesn't cut it here(I now suspect the very common 'your not even using the fallacy right' comment)

Its quite sad that on a site that supposedly encourages 'free thinking' and 'intellectual honesty' there is so much intellectual dishonesty that is running rampent on these forums.

In any case, your fallacies, dishonest assertions, and outright lies, have been brought to light, as has your logically bankrupt appeal to majority last resort which is very very common among people that are backed into a corner. I suggest that once again, you read and properly understand the conversation before commenting thanks!

I am still looking for criticisms on my narrative and I am still looking for a response from amaleq regarding my post calling for him to directly respond to the bolded text in post #353

Hedshaker

NAY :down:


But............... :deadhorse:

andrewcriddle

The Inquisition in the strict sense (a professional institution set up under Papal authority for dealing consistently with heresy) started in the 12th to 13th century.

Persecution of non-Christians by Christians (Sometimes quite nasty) is much older.

Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar

Most other posters here know what an argumentum ad populum is, and that the two choices that I requested their response on does not constitute one,
as the questions did not ask of anyone what they believed, or if they agreed with me, nor solicit any support for what I believe.
No appeal was made to "the many" for any support of any of my arguments.

What was asked, is whether the readers of this forum would support YOUR arguments, And whether they have found YOUR "narrative", and YOUR "arguments" to be "well founded" and persuasive.

I trust that the readers of these exchanges are by now quite well aware of the bulk of our foregoing dialog, The question here is whether you have succeeded in persuading anyone except yourself that that quotation effectively serves to disengage you from responsibility for the making of asinine statements in all of your succeeding posts, under the guise of "employing Amaleq's flawed logic"? And how is anyone to know just when, and where, and in what instances in all of those posts you (were) are just "employing Amaleq's flawed logic" ??? rather than clearly stating your own beliefs?
Particularly when as all others here are painfully aware, your sicko version of Amaleq's "logic", is in no way actually representative of Amaleq's position.
Only Yea or Nay with regards to the persuasiveness of YOUR arguments doc, these "Nay" votes do not support me, they only indicate that your protracted arguments have not succeeded in being persuasive to these individuals. Dad used to call that "spinning your wheels" its getting you nowhere.



Of course you really should realise that many will soon tire of the silliness of YOUR convoluted attempts to hide behind excuses that you are just "employing Amaleq's flawed logic" every time you make another of your bass-akwards "somebody else's logic" posts.

If you don't like this criticism, then write about what YOU really believe, not about what you think someone else's logic or beliefs are.
You want intellectual honesty? try writing honestly, and not claiming to be posing as someone else's logic and intellect.

Use your OWN logic, drop the masquerade of trying to pose as employing someone else's logic, and who knows, perhaps someone might eventually be impressed with YOUR logic and reasoning.
Very hard to accomplish at this point, because when you write, no one here can ever be certain of who's "logic" you are employing, or whether you will yet again disavow the very words that you have written as being the product of you using "someone else's logic" when under question latter on.
sad doc, really sad.

Iasion

Nay.

Yet another crackpot.

Iasion

dr lazer blast

<edit>

I repeat
I am still looking for criticisms on my narrative and I am still looking for a response from amaleq regarding my post calling for him to directly respond to the bolded text in post #353

aChristian

Actually, it seems that at least a couple of the responses (I didn't examine them all carefully) were highly supportive of you and your position.

As far as Barker's challenge, I don't know what it is, but it seems that it is related to harmonizing the different Easter accounts and I have heard a few plausible explanations.

As far as a vote, I may not agree with all of dlb's arguements, but if his main point is that the accounts can be harmonized I would have to agree. Again, I haven't read it real closely, but a few times it seems like he has caught Amaleq in his own silly traps.

Those who are posting disagreements here remind me of people who would make good bean counters in a huge bureaucracy, nit picking on meaningless points in order to find some supposedly impossible to resolve disagreement between the accounts.

Keith&Co.

Oooh, there's a surprise.
You don't really know what his arguments are or how he's defended them, but as long as his conclusion is the right one, you're voting for in his favor.

That's....not really what was being asked.

Do you think his approach to harmonizing the gospel accounts is solid? Valid? Worth three cups of crap? Never mind the conclusion, but how he gets there.