Amie

Oh how lovely now you are resorting to calling him names. Nice.
What makes you think you'd separate yourself from him if you were a christian? you are an atheist and you still cant even manage to be as "far away from him as possible"...

Amie

Hi Beyelzu
thats the beauty of it, he does not even need anyone to defend him. He does fine on his own....

Daggah

Now there's a laugh.

I'm sorry if my not getting along with dishonest people doesn't sit well with you.

I think you know what I meant, and I think you know that this isn't it.

Also, Amie, I'm utterly baffled (heh) as to why you didn't respond to the first part of my post on the matter you brought up. Did you actually go back and read the thread? Are you unable to admit you were wrong?

Amie

Come on Daggah, not getting along and resorting to personal insults are not the same...
Daggah I cant read your mind.
Of course I can admit to being wrong. Can you?
I was referring to this post you made

Daggah

I don't expect you to. I still think you know what was meant by my statement.

Oh, and I can admit when I'm wrong...when I'm actually wrong.

beyelzu

I defend people who I think are being unfairly attacked, which is not so in the case of rad.

So if amie goes around defending people who are wrong simply because that person is outnumbered, that doesnt make sense to me either. We pound on Radforth, because he lies and we prove it, so we are wrong?

I guess I dont see your point.

Amie

Hi Beyelzu
I dont defend someone simply because they are outnumbered, I do feel he is unfairly attacked. however my question to you is this: do you honestly belief that Radorth is trying to deceive?

Infinity Lover

Well, if you don't see how you're completely wasting your time with trying to make Radorth see things your way...

...happy banging. :banghead:

Vorkosigan

What! :banghead: People are still replying to 'Dorth Evader? :banghead:

:notworthy:

scombrid

He often comes across as being deliberately dishonest and antagonistic. Repeatedly bringing up those evolutionist "hoaxes" such as "pigs teeth" repeatedly after they've been proven to be the result of quackery and bad journalism and not accepted science is one example. He has a history here and many posters simply aren't willing to grant him a clean slate on each new thread and I often don't blame them. When he brings up the same point in several unrelated threads (He's been on a "disobedience causes suffering" kick here lately and is willing to shoehorn that into a topic by any means) it's easier to say, that's been discussed see here and link the appropriate thread.

In this topic he brought up an old irrelevant and dishonest point that was discussed elsewhere and then he posted an antagonistic closer.

This next bit was sort of on topic but mischaracterized the atheist position significantly.

He wrote this as if atheists really believe in god but are rebelling. That position is insulting itself. It’s insulting because it calls us liars. God doesn’t murder babies. The bible says that a god murders babies. There’s a difference in believing that god murders babies criticizing the text that asserts that a god murders babies. Without the moral absolutes that the bible asserts many of his other statements about atheist belief are only conditionally true but not the absolute opposite of biblical mandates as he states them.