Attack a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Welcome Theist Tongue

Hope you're holding tightly onto your hat Big Grin From what I've seen of your posts you come across pretty reasonable... but then the last guy I said that about turned out to really be a bit of a fruitcake so I'll say that you're nuts up front and hopefully will thus avert the evil eye and you won't turn out to be a culinary comestible generally consumed at the equinox festival...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Bucky Ball, Jah, and Yumeji,

With respect, could you please explain the sudden animosity towards me?

In your three posts, you stated as follows...

Jah: "Odd how in the boxing ring Mark Fulton (Dr.) has offered biblical text that refutes Mojch's claims and Mojch just rolls on past them."

Bucky Ball: "His assertion that "Biblical marriage" is one man and one woman is utterly false."

Yumeji: "Especially to his hilarious list (1-6) of why homosexuality is bad."

At 9:00 am this morning, I posted the following in my debate with Mark.

"I accept your arguments and admit the falsity of my original definition of Biblical sexuality. I therefore modify two tenants of my definition of Biblical sexuality as follows."

Thus, unless I am making a basic mistake of logic...

Jah: You are demonstrably wrong because I did not "roll past" the Biblical texts quoted by Mark. I read them, considered them, recognized them as evidence contrary to my position, and altered my position. How is this "rolling past"?

Bucky Ball: I conceded this point at 9:00 am. You attacked me for it at 1:18 pm. Unless I am wrong, this leaves three possible truths. (1) You read my argument and missed that I conceded the point. (2) You did not read my argument but assumed what I was saying and attacked me without considering my actual position. (3) You read the argument, realized that I conceded the point, but decided to argue against it anyway, thus committing a strawman fallacy. Am I incorrect? If so, how?

Yumeji: You call my logical reasoning "hilarious". Even assuming it was incorrect (which I do not concede, especially since no one has yet to attack the logic itself and instead argues generally about homosexuality), why do you feel the need to attack disrespectfully? I have made every attempt to be humble, considerate, and open-minded. Is it unreasonable for me to expect similar treatment?

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 01:38 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Morondog,

Thanks for the welcome. I will attempt to avoid becoming a "fruit cake". Should you notice any cakelike tendencies emerging, please let me know!

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(21-05-2013 01:33 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Bucky Ball

Bucky Ball: "His assertion that "Biblical marriage" is one man and one woman is utterly false."

Bucky Ball: I conceded this point at 9:00 am. You attacked me for it at 1:18 pm. Unless I am wrong, this leaves three possible truths. (1) You read my argument and missed that I conceded the point. (2) You did not read my argument but assumed what I was saying and attacked me without considering my actual position. (3) You read the argument, realized that I conceded the point, but decided to argue against it anyway, thus committing a strawman fallacy. Am I incorrect? If so, how?

Because both your Bible claims, AND your gay claims are incorrect, and unfounded.
It was false, and false on many fronts. Factually, Biblically, and culturally, Psychologically, and medically, historically, and sociologically.
You did NOT concede the point about gays. I simply pointed out why it is wrong.
There is no "animosity". Theists show up here all the time.

It is somewhat irritating you are just repeating, at this very late date all the old hackneyed arguments about gays, that have been refuted countless times, without any support. So I decided to *do* "two birds with one stone. In that context I decided to point out why, even it it were true, (and it is not, when the cultural context is understood) there is no reason to take what an ancient set of scrolls that were eventually non-unanimously voted into a collection, (now called the Bible), as some sort of ultimate reference or authority. Humanity has moved on.

Most of the people who visit here are "guests".
I write for them.
Not for anyone in particular.
Don't take it personally.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(21-05-2013 01:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-05-2013 01:33 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Bucky Ball

Bucky Ball: "His assertion that "Biblical marriage" is one man and one woman is utterly false."

Bucky Ball: I conceded this point at 9:00 am. You attacked me for it at 1:18 pm. Unless I am wrong, this leaves three possible truths. (1) You read my argument and missed that I conceded the point. (2) You did not read my argument but assumed what I was saying and attacked me without considering my actual position. (3) You read the argument, realized that I conceded the point, but decided to argue against it anyway, thus committing a strawman fallacy. Am I incorrect? If so, how?

Because both your Bible claims, AND your gay claims are incorrect, and unfounded.
It was false, and false on many fronts. Factually, Biblically, and culturally, Psychologically, and medically, historically, and sociologically.
You did NOT concede the point about gays. I simply pointed out why it is wrong.
There is no "animosity". Theists show up here all the time.

It is somewhat irritating you are just repeating, at this very late date all the old hackneyed arguments about gays, that have been refuted countless times, without any support. So I decided to *do* "two birds with one stone. In that context I decided to point out why, even it it were true, (and it is not, when the cultural context is understood) there is no reason to take what an ancient set of scrolls that were eventually non-unanimously voted into a collection, (now called the Bible), as some sort of ultimate reference or authority. Humanity has moved on.

Most of the people who visit here are "guests".
I write for them.
Not for anyone in particular.
Don't take it personally.

I personally suspect that half the guests are some kind of bots...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Bucky Ball,

I am allowed to have two "Ring" debates going at once, correct? If so, I challenge you to a debate on the following terms...

1. You may chose any topic whatsoever in an attempt to disprove Christianity. However, you must present your topic in the form of a question to me and it must sufficiently specific to inspire precise and concise debate.

2. I will respond to your question with a succinct statement of how my personal belief system answers the question.

3. You will then be free to attack my belief in whatever method you prefer. However, you must present one and only one argument at a time. Of course, I will be bound by the same restrictions in my responses.

4. No reply may exceed three hundred words. (This avoids the problem of ever increasing argument length we are encountering in the Mark debate.)

5. A point will be argued until one of the following has occurred. (1) I concede the point. (2) You concede the point. (3) I have posted on the argument twice and you three times. (EXAMPLE: You attack my belief, I respond, you respond, I respond, you get the final word.) I give you the final word so as to avoid being accused of attempting to skew rules in my favor.

6. Citation to external evidentary support is NOT necessary unless a point is contested and evidence is specifically requested. This is a rule of convienience to avoid citing evidence for points agreed upon.

7. All responses must be formulated in a logical format, although formal syllogistic reasoning is unnecessary.

8. Respect and decorum must be maintained at all times.

Interested? If so, feel free to start a "Boxing Ring" thread with your first question. If not, I also extend the challenge to Starcrash, Rahn127, or Steven (Atothetheist).

Of course, should you desire to propose a rule change, I would be glad to consider that as well.

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
I also believe its deeply ingrained in the Jewish culture to be "fruitful and multiply" Traditions were even then very important to the Jewish people (I know a few Jewish 'atheists' who follow their traditions without believing in god).

Lots of children also guarantees lots of new people in the religion. I think this is why the catholic church rails against birth control.

If the trend continues with homosexual and childless, asexual behaviors, then no children are produced. Less people means less attending and joining churches...fewer children indoctrinated.

Dom's point is very well taken also. We do have limited resources and over-crowding is an issue.

It's something that's been bugging me when I read the debate.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
21-05-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(21-05-2013 01:38 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Should you notice any cakelike tendencies emerging, please let me know!

Gettin' upset about animosity is definitely heading in a rum and raisin direction Wink Just sayin'.

I think Christians et various other religious people (wingnuts) are often taken aback with this... perceived animosity. There's a bit of confirmation bias coming in there too 'cos they're all like "well pastor Joe said these guys were irretrievably lost and here's empirical confirmation". Well I say confirmation bias but there's nothing in the rules that says we gotta be *nice* Big Grin This is life sans Bible Big Grin BRB off to murder a cup of coffee.

If you stick around you'll find we insult each other at roughly the same frequency as we do theists. We argue, cuss and perform and get into *heated* bun fights. You just gotta have a bit of a thick skin and stand up for yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
21-05-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Morondog,

In an attempt to rescend my impending fruit based doom, I offer the following well-reasoned argument to show I understand your point...

Your mom is rum and raisins.

:-)

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mojch's post
21-05-2013, 03:16 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Mojch, I would be interested in what you think about the point I made regarding procreation earlier in this thread.

I don't want a debate, I just want to know what you think about it, and whether you have given it much thought or researched it at all. Just curious about the level of awareness in church circles.....

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: