FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2002, 02:25 AM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Post

James
I'm really serious. Dead serious. We're here dealing with your eternal soul, which once detached from your body might sink to Hades rather than float up to the aether (if you're not careful and it's too heavy).

Now I know that you too, are joking.
Which is Ok.

In any case, I don't think we really have any issue to contend upon. So I will lay this baby down right here.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 06-12-2002, 09:06 AM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Post

Did I win the argument?
Vinnie is offline  
Old 06-12-2002, 09:35 AM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Angry

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 06-12-2002, 01:05 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Rochester NY USA
Posts: 4,318
Angry

Quote:
Originally posted by ilgwamh:
<strong>Did I win the argument? </strong>
You crazy lexical-syntactical (dyslexical-satanical?) pedant! Hijacked my thread you did!
PopeInTheWoods is offline  
Old 06-12-2002, 08:21 PM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Lightbulb

Its obvious the skeptics in here aren't on the same level as me. I once challenged a skeptic to refute one of my posts here and astonishingly, the skeptic responded with "Impossible". Note that I am not bragging. All glory goes to God. In the inerrant and infallible book of James (who cares if Luther didn't like it and a lot of scholars think it teaches something contrary on faith than does Paul) it is said: "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." I ask God about apologetics all the time. Given my superiority, this verse is obviously true. My arguments are not untouchable because I am smart, but because they are carried forth by the power of God. The Holy Spirit convicts and teaches believers with isotropic astuteness. Some would appeal to different denominations as if Christians are given different and contradictory revelations by the Holy Ghost. That is not the case. True Christian doctrine is homogeneous. The real reason there are different denominations is because the Holy Spirit convicts believers of so much truth that we need the 33,000 current deniominations to fit it all in. It would take one denomination far too long to make a statement of faith explaining all the teachings of the Holy Spirit. That is why God has created 33,000 plus denominations. The power of the Kingdom of God is measured in terms of denominations. The more, the better it is doing. As we can see, the atheists charge that "Christians can't even agree on their own doctrine" is clearly false.

I'd also like to reflect upon 'Poop in the woods' latest post :

Ilgwamh : Did I win the argument?
Poopinthewoods : You crazy lexical-syntactical (dyslexical-satanical?) pedant! Hijacked my thread you did!

Poop has offered us a bit of poop. His post has 12 words in it. We can remove the "dyslexical-satanical" insert. Its like a Gospel pericope (e.g. the pericope de adultera found in EVERY extant manuscript) and is superfluous to our purposes here. Once we remove the insertion we have ten words. We can also view "lexical-syntacitcal" as one word (its like a phrase). This leaves us with 9 words. Poop, decided to go Yoda on us and say:

Hijacked my thread you did!

This is reduntant. It could have been expressed more concisely as:

You hijacked my thread!

Notice 4 words vs 5.

Okay, so we have this as a basic saying now:

You crazy lexical-syntactical pedant! You hijacked my thread!

That is completely astounding! There are two sentances combining to form a total of 8 words. In those 8 words are found at the very least two to three blatant and inexcusable logic fallacies. This might have set an all time record here!

Note that the first half is an ad hominem fallacy. I am labeled a "crazy lexical-syntactical pedant."

The second half is a red herring. I asked if I won the debate to which it was replied "I hijacked the thread." That is completely irrelevant and off topic.

Other possible fallacies include "poisoning the well" (calling me crazy and a hijacker) and the Yoda cliche fallacy (e.g. outdated redundant language like 'Use the force you must' or 'Hijack my thread you did').

Say the sinners prayer, ask God for wisdom and you can be a good debater too

Vinnie

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>
Vinnie is offline  
Old 06-12-2002, 11:53 PM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Post

Ilgwamh
My arguments are not untouchable because I am smart, but because they are carried forth by the power of God

You know, when Toto and Gurdur found you funny, I was really pissed off. It was the classical case of a christian challenging an atheist, then in the face of a strong rebuttal, he turns around and makes it a joke to cover up his embarrasment.

The fact that you had no serious response to my rebuttal stands to anyone who interested in knowing whether your argument could be refuted. I only lost interest when I realized you were keen on turning the argumentation to a circus. That Toto and Gurdur saw nothing fishy in that, made it even more futile to bother.

And James Still was the last straw. Maybe you did win after all. Sometimes, I know its hard for someone in an untenable position to differentiate ridicule with rebuttal. Especially when ridicule is his only available response.

You go ahead and indulge yourself in your orgy of mirth. I hope you end up very happy. Reminds me of a toad in a pile of mud.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 06-13-2002, 12:19 AM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

I don't know Vinnie, but I gather his faith is not based on a false rationality. I can respect people who do things that are not reasonable if they don't try to prostitute their reason and claim that they have a rational basis for their beliefs when they do not.

I didn't get the idea that Vinnie was covering up his embarrassment.

But as I say, I don't know Vinnie, maybe I should let him explain himself.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-13-2002, 05:29 AM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Question

Is he capable of explaining himself?

Was that all a joke?

I'm out of the loop on this one.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 06-13-2002, 06:49 AM   #49
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by James Still:
...Judaism wasn't always monotheistic. King Solomon worshipped El, Astarte, Yahweh, and a bunch of others...
You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but in my nascent studies of ANE history I have recently become curious about the notion that the first Israelites worshipped deities from the Canaanite pantheon. I know there is biblical material decrying idolatry and such, but what is the strongest evidence for proto-Israelite polytheism. Are there extra-biblical or archaeological sources? I know of one inscription that seems to put YHWH consorting with Asherah. What else is there? The common Judeo-Xian spin is that the early faithful Jews in the Southern kingdom considered the gods of the Canaanites to be fictions and that they practiced strict monotheism.
CX is offline  
Old 06-13-2002, 07:06 AM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Rochester NY USA
Posts: 4,318
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ilgwamh:
<strong>Its obvious the skeptics in here aren't on the same level as me. </strong>
I agree!
Quote:
<strong>Okay, so we have this as a basic saying now:

You crazy lexical-syntactical pedant! You hijacked my thread!

That is completely astounding! There are two sentances combining to form a total of 8 words. In those 8 words are found at the very least two to three blatant and inexcusable logic fallacies. This might have set an all time record here!</strong>
Thank you! Anything worth doing....
Quote:
<strong>Say the sinners prayer, ask God for wisdom and you can be a good debater too
</strong>
Does Jack Chick have a tract on this subject to help me along?

Vinnie is god! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Andy
PopeInTheWoods is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.