Prayer, "The Best Optical Illusion In The World!" [Archive] - Page 2

lilpixieofterror

October 20th 2007, 01:04 PM

I have no opinions on whether or not you like me. Nor do I particularly care. :shrug:

I found your comment about having "no respect" for Powell to be a very good reflection of how I have come to think of you. Your no-holds-barred, anything-to-win, take-no-prisoners form of discourse, learned at the feet of JPH, I would imagine, is not one that engenders respect. I don't find you to be a person who is interesting in uncovering the truth - merely a person who needs to win the fight. I don't find that particularly worthy of respect.

Yep, keep reading into what you want to see. What did I say again:

I like them too (although I'm sure they don't think so). LGB (littlegeorgiaboy as I grew to call him) can be rather funny to talk to.

Here is the thing, I don't take things personally on here nor will I ever. Myself and Jon_day have had some rather heated discussions, yet this morning we had a wonderful conversation on the shoutbox and even have each other on our friends list. I have found Evo to be a very interesting person too, in fact here is something you can read about a recent conversation we have had (see link here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2106039&postcount=224)). I also had a very lovely conversation about ID a few months ago with somebody and I discuss issues of faith with taoist on a regular bases. It was quite fun and I learned alot. Check my friends list sometime and you'll find that I have people with a wide range of beliefs.

I will acknowledge you are skilled at it, though. In a debate forum, I'm sure you'd be quite an opponent. You know all of the debate "tricks" and you have all of the "skewer your opponents" strategies down pat. You are also gifted at throwing any and all irrelevancies at an argument to so thoroughly muddy the waters as to obscure any meaningful discourse.

No Carp, you again misunderstand me and add motives in whenever it suits you. Have you ever been in Pal talk? Have you ever tried the Shout Box? How about the Rec room or Trout/Gerbil Locker room? I find that you like to ignore issues that have to do with your argument. The only people that I would 'skewer' are those who have earned it. Wyzaard has made fun of a terminal illness of a very dear and beloved friend to many of us on T web. As such I will 'skewer' him whatever chance I get. Look at my responses to him and to you sometime and you'll see a huge difference between the two. Again you are reading things that are not really there.

But you still serve a purpose. Dialogues with you force me to work to clarify my own thinking, and find new ways to articulate the same concept. That you seldom get the argument is somewhat irrelevant. It's still a useful exercise in honing my own understanding.

And Dialogues with you are a test of patiences and to watch you (at times) ignore points and even go into self contradiction.

For that much, anyway, I'm grateful. As for liking you, I don't even know you. The best I can say is that if you engage with people one-on-one as you do here, I doubt we would be friends.

Ever try something other then Apologetics 301? Perhaps the Rec room or Shout Box? Have you ever noticed how some of my avatars or signatures are directed at AOTM or picking on a friend of mine?

Somehow, I suspect the anonymity of this vehicle is such that you take far more liberty here than you would in the real world.

I treat people the same way I do here. If you want to be silly, you earn what you get. I will assure you I have spent a number of hours washing trucks or doing other such things for arguing with an NCO or have gotten LOC's for expressing my view towards them. I do not talk behind people's backs and I will tell them just how I feel about them to their face or behind their back. How do I feel about you? You're an intelligent poster who can be quite fun to chat with and quite a challenge; however; when there is a major error, you have a tendency to ignore it either willfully or just simply don't notice it.

At the end of the day, based on what I see here, you don't strike me as a particularly nice person. But impressions can be misleading in a forum such as this. However, your own posting history is pretty clear.

Have you ever read my post in the rest of the form? How about these ones:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103172 This thread is giving a fun poke to Meh_Gerbil and RumTumTugger.

This is one Meh_Gerbil posted to me:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103074 This thread is directed at me after the Gerbil and me pick on of each other a bit and he calls me a 'hell fly' and I tell him that Gerbils are the devil's favorite pets.

It seems you read what you want to read and ignore what you don't. Much of my 'name calling' or 'meanness' is not at all posted to be mean or to be mocking. It is good natured fun between friends. Few people I feel contempt towards and that is after they have more then earned it.

In fact, most of my T web activity is not directed at debates at all, but 'spam' or silly post. Have you tried reading those?

Of course - I'm sure you probably feel the same way about me. :wink:

Ummm no I do not. Did you read where I agreed and said I liked you as well? Are you sure you're not the one who has an issue?

:pixie:

Carpedm9587

October 20th 2007, 01:06 PM

Yes its true...
Despite the many times you commit the Steadele Fallacy.....I'm actually a fan.

The comment is appreciated, Steadele. It took me a while to figure out what a Steadele Fallacy was. I think it's the fallacy where I think my argument is right and yours is wrong, right?

Darn. I missed that one in Logic 101. Henceforth, I shall submit all positions and arguments to you for approval before accepting them as true. :wink:

Logically yours -

Michel

lilpixieofterror

October 20th 2007, 01:10 PM

Indeed. I note you deleted the part where I offered to link you to the posts where I had answered you. I'm sure that was by accident. :wink:

Yep, that is it... I deleted it because I was being dishonest. The reality is I grow tired of you doing the things you accuse me of doing. Now show us those links and where I 'didn't answer'.

No, I didn't. Crystal - that you STILL cannot reflect my argument back to me in your own words and get it correct is VERY revealing. And you will note that I am not the only one to have observed your inability to do so.

:ahem:

Gosh, it's funny that I've noticed you doing the same thing. Are you not saying that your argument is that there is no way to believe the Bible was divinely inspired? Please, prove this is wrong.

blah blah blah...

Whatever Carp... keep doing the very thing you accuse me of doing. I guess only Carp can insult others and make fun of them. show me those links and don't forget to show where I answered you. Why did I leave that thread?

Got tried of you ignoring what I said over and over and and as such, do not want to bother.

:pixie:

John Powell

October 20th 2007, 01:25 PM

POWELL:
Don't you mean showing everyone how I'm as dense as a brick?

LPOT:
I see when the heat gets turned up, Powell resorts to picking on grammar errors. How sad that you need to do that instead of paying attention to the point at hand. Poor Powell.

POWELL:
How dense are you compared with me? Are you as dense as a brick?

LPOT:
I can get a point, [can] you?

POWELL:
Yes. So, we both can. So, that question doesn't indicate how dense you are compared with me.

So please try again to answer the two questions. The first question is asking for a relative value ("more" or "less") and the second is looking for a "yes" or "no."

POWELL:
Arguments aren't false or true (in the way you mean), propositions (premises and conclusions) are false or true. A true argument is a thing that truly is an argument. Inductive arguments can also have false premises or conclusions, so it's not a unique problem to deductive arguments.

LPOT:
Right... so if the argument is built upon false propositions its neither true or false. Yet another reason I have almost zero respect for you.

POWELL:
Nope. It's a "true argument" if it truly is an argument. A "false argument" would be a thing that isn't truly an argument.

POWELL:
See how I answered your complex question? I didn't answer it with a "yes" or "no," but I posted a complex question to you to demonstrate the problem.

LPOT:
And I understood the problem and pointed out that your demonstration was built upon fa[u]lty propositions. Yep, dense as a brick.

POWELL:
If you do understand then please post what was wrong with the question about me still being as dense as a brick, ok? Was it that it was based on a faulty assumption?

POWELL:
So, you saw why my complex question to you was faulty but you didn't see what was faulty about your complex question to me and you call me "a(s) dense as a brick"?

LPOT:
Because as this conversation shows, you are as dense as a brick and you do miss points that are right in front of your face.

POWELL:
What point did I miss? Don't make the mistake of thinking that because I don't agree with a point that I don't understand it.

LPOT:
Or you look at minor things or argue about how an argument can be built upon fatly [faulty] propositions, yet still that doesn't make an argument false, but the proposition false. (In the real world, we would call that argument false.)

POWELL:
I'm in the real world and I don't call such an argument false. People in the know don't call such arguments false. They call them other things like unsound.

Your characterization of unsound arguments as "false" displays a weak vocabulary and a sophomoric understanding of logic. It's like calling someone "false" rather than "insincere."

LPOT:
I'm sorry that you miss points that are right in front of your face. But as I heard somebody say before, "If I had a baseball bat, he wouldn't notice it because he'd be to busy looking at the grain of the wood and when I hit him upside the head with it, he'd say that the grain was sufficient to cause the amount of pain he felt." As we can see here, that seems to be proven true yet again.

POWELL:
It doesn't seem to me to be proven.

POWELL:
I didn't claim that.

LPOT:
You said:

"Since I'm a smart person there is no way I can be a(s) dense as a brick. Might want to read profiles sometime."

That seems to be exactly what your claiming.

POWELL:
So how does "dense as a brick" equate to "dense"? Do you not see the difference?

POWELL:
Besides, concern for mutual exclusivity is an issue of "irrelevant to the real world" deductive reasoning. It's a concern for whether it's certain that if X is smart then X is not dense not merely whether that's probable.

LPOT:
And since when is it impossible to be smart and dense at the same time? In other words, I'm asking you to back up your deductive reasoning with some kind of data. Can you do that or are too busy looking at the bark of the tree to understand the argument?

POWELL:
But, LPOT, you don't think deductive reasoning is relevant to the real world so how can it be backed up with real world data?

POWELL:
I want to return to the reason I began this conversation.

Do you deny that you're inconsistent with respect to using deductive reasoning, when accused of committing deductive fallacies then you have claimed in essence that deductive reasoning isn't relevant to the real world but when you wish to accuse others of deductive fallacies then you do so?

LPOT:
Have you found out yet that when I use deductive reasoning, I do not use that as my only source of information, but I use several sources?

POWELL:
Big deal. That doesn't justify you undervaluing deductive reasoning.

LPOT:
Appeals to emotion or popularity are unreasonable rather [whether] or not they are used in deductive reasoning or the real world.

POWELL:
Wrong. there are situations in which appeals to emotion or popularity are reasonable.

You should be saying something like "whether or not they are used in deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning." It's not that inductive reasoning is the real world and deductive reasoning is not.

LPOT:
In other words, deductive reasoning should have more then [than] just deductive reasoning to back it up, pretty much, you should be sure your reasoning is backed with real world data.

POWELL:
It depends on the purpose of the argument. An argument concerning unreal entities can still be useful. For example theists and atheists can discuss the logical ramifications of God even though we may disagree whether God is real.

LPOT:
Now do you got my answer this time or do I need to repeat myself yet again?

POWELL:
Apparently your answer is "no" meaning you aren't inconsistent as far as evading deductive fallacy accusations while accusing others of deductive fallacies. Then to persuade you that you are inconsistent will require more examples. Watch for them. :uhoh:

John Powell

John Powell

October 20th 2007, 01:29 PM

I have found John Powell to be a very thoughtful poster....

I think he is careful with most of his responses and I don't think saying he is "dense as a brick" is very applicable.

There are several Christians and Skeptics I could easily say are as dense as a brick, but I don't think Powell is one of them.

POWELL:
Thanks!

John Powell

Carpedm9587

October 20th 2007, 01:30 PM

Yep, keep reading into what you want to see. What did I say again:

Here is the thing, I don't take things personally on here nor will I ever. Myself and Jon_day have had some rather heated discussions, yet this morning we had a wonderful conversation on the shoutbox and even have each other on our friends list. I have found Evo to be a very interesting person too, in fact here is something you can read about a recent conversation we have had (see link here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2106039&postcount=224)).

I followed the link. I have no clue how it applies to the statements being made.

I also had a very lovely conversation about ID a few months ago with somebody and I discuss issues of faith with taoist on a regular bases. It was quite fun and I learned alot. Check my friends list sometime and you'll find that I have people with a wide range of beliefs.

And this relates to my observations.... how...? :huh:

No Carp, you again misunderstand me and add motives in whenever it suits you.

I added no motives. I observed behavior. Your motives are unknown to me.

Have you ever been in Pal talk?

A couple of years ago.

Have you ever tried the Shout Box?

Nope.

How about the Rec room or Trout/Gerbil Locker room?

Nope.

I find that you like to ignore issues that have to do with your argument.

Not that I've noticed. I have, however, decided not to let you take me off on your endless tangents anymore. Hence our impasse. You seem to feel if you bring it up, it's relevant. I will not simply dismiss such points, but I will point them out if they are irrelevant, explain why, and then leave them be. After that - you can hammer away until the cows come home. I'm just not playing that game anymore.

The only people that I would 'skewer' are those who have earned it.

So you have claimed before, Crystal. Your behavior says otherwise. :shrug:

Wyzaard has made fun of a terminal illness of a very dear and beloved friend to many of us on T web. As such I will 'skewer' him whatever chance I get. Look at my responses to him and to you sometime and you'll see a huge difference between the two. Again you are reading things that are not really there.

I reflect what I see. Why you act as you do is known only to you.

And Dialogues with you are a test of patiences and to watch you (at times) ignore points and even go into self contradiction.

Oh I can well imagine your patience is tried. :wink:

As for the supposed contradictions, you accuse me of that often. I have responded to each with a clarification where you were incorrect, and an acknowledgement when you were correct - like the discussion we had about a circular argument I insisted I was not engaging in, which I saw when I attempted to reframe the argument and acknowledged in the next post. You are very gracious when you "win" Crystal. You just are a lot less so when you don't. Indeed, you essentially never acknowledge you have seriously erred.

But then - you apparently think the same of me. :shrug:

Ever try something other then Apologetics 301? Perhaps the Rec room or Shout Box? Have you ever noticed how some of my avatars or signatures are directed at AOTM or picking on a friend of mine?

Nope. I post here only. And I don't pay much attention to avatars unless they explicitly reflect something about a person. Most of them I consider simply eye-candy.

I treat people the same way I do here.

Then I would not have much respect for you in the RW either. :shrug:

If you want to be silly, you earn what you get. I will assure you I have spent a number of hours washing trucks or doing other such things for arguing with an NCO or have gotten LOC's for expressing my view towards them.

I can well imagine.

I do not talk behind people's backs and I will tell them just how I feel about them to their face or behind their back. How do I feel about you?

It really doesn't matter to me, Crystal.

You're an intelligent poster who can be quite fun to chat with and quite a challenge; however; when there is a major error, you have a tendency to ignore it either willfully or just simply don't notice it.

You are incorrect.

Have you ever read my post in the rest of the form? How about these ones:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103172 This thread is giving a fun poke to Meh_Gerbil and RumTumTugger.

This is one Meh_Gerbil posted to me:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103074 This thread is directed at me after the Gerbil and me pick on of each other a bit and he calls me a 'hell fly' and I tell him that Gerbils are the devil's favorite pets.

It seems you read what you want to read and ignore what you don't.

Isn't that true for everyone? :huh:

Crystal - I base my judgments of people on MY interactions with them, as I suspect do most people. I don't consider it my job to go running around looking for evidence that person X is actually like Y or Z. People engage with me, and from that I learn something. If you want me to have a different opinion of you, engage with me differently. If you don't care, then carry on. It's no skin off my nose one way or the other.

Like you, I don't talk about people behind their backs. Most of the time, you will know what I think of you if I think it.

Much of my 'name calling' or 'meanness' is not at all posted to be mean or to be mocking. It is good natured fun between friends. Few people I feel contempt towards and that is after they have more then earned it.

Yeah - I've noticed the "good natured" spirit of your posts. :ahem:

Come on, Crystal. Who do you think you're kidding? While I'm sure you do engage in fun exchanges with people you like, these are not the posts and comments to which I referred.

In fact, most of my T web activity is not directed at debates at all, but 'spam' or silly post. Have you tried reading those?

No. I post here. Consequently, my impressions are formed here.

Ummm no I do not. Did you read where I agreed and said I liked you as well? Are you sure you're not the one who has an issue?

I don't have an issue in the least, Crystal. You are who you are. My opinion of you is nothing more than that - my opinion. If you find some truth in it, and you like it. Cool. If you find some truth in it and you don't like it, feel free to act on it. If you find it to be untrue, then dismiss it. Whatever you elect to do with it is your concern, not mine.

You have a sharp mind, Crystal. There is no doubt about it. Your ability to wield logic, however, is poor. You confuse necessary and sufficient repeatedly (that is, at the end of the day, your error in this most recent discussion). Your ability to associate statements with their contrapositives and distinguish them from their inverse and converse is weak. Understanding the truth relationships of these four elements is something you don't appear to grasp very well. It surfaces in many discussions. And you appear to be unable to handle basic set theory (e.g., the Venn diagram).

All of that makes it difficult to have a logical argument with you, because you see contradiction where there is none, you introduce tangential points unrelated to the discussion at hand, and you cannot grasp many of the responses. As I have said before, you and Vig could benefit from a simple foundational course in logic.

But I doubt you will accept that assessment at my hands. I am, after all, the "opponent." That I might actually have a point in a discussion with you is not a possibility. My error is a foregone conclusion.

At the end of the day, Crystal - you STILL have not articulated my argument in the previous discussion correctly. You make all sorts of accusations, and I'm sure you will not accept it on my word alone - but I am not the only one who has noticed it. And you repeatedly ask a question I have answered many times, have shown you (with diagrams) is irrelevant to my argument, and for which you have never actually made a point or shown how your point is related to my argument.

:shrug:

It's a little hard to continue anything meaningful on those terms. I'm sure that observation will earn me yet another ad hom - but there it is. Ad hom away. It's not like it would be a big surprise or anything. :shrug:

Michel

Warcraft3

October 20th 2007, 01:32 PM

Was it?

In fact, Steadele, I don't see a lot of difference between Crystal and Jim E. Boy. They both show the same characteristic of clinging tenaciously to a claim or position regardless of what evidence is presented. They both liberally ignore the arguments made by others or answers provided by others. They both respond to arguments with non-sequitors unrelated to the arguments being made, and then insist they are not. And they both engage in the sport of shoveling ad homs around liberally.

So what do you see that is different? One is Christian and the other is atheist? We're it not for the specific worldviews, I could cut/paste their statements/arguments between them and I doubt anyone would be the wiser.

Harsh? Perhaps. But, at the end of the day, I think it was an accurate comparison.

Don't get me wrong. I bear Crystal no ill will, nor am I angry or upset in the least. Crystal is who Crystal is. But there is something in me that does tend to take a bit of satisfaction in letting the air out of the tires of the smugly righteous now and then. It's a character flaw on my part.

Michel

I can't either defend or accuse lilpixie because I am not that familiar with her as a poster yet,

All I can say so far is that she seems to be intelligent. I guess I just haven't really debated her yet on any issues.

And her avatar is hilarious.

Warcraft3

October 20th 2007, 01:34 PM

The comment is appreciated, Steadele. It took me a while to figure out what a Steadele Fallacy was. I think it's the fallacy where I think my argument is right and yours is wrong, right?

Exactly...

Darn. I missed that one in Logic 101. Henceforth, I shall submit all positions and arguments to you for approval before accepting them as true. :wink:

Logically yours -

Michel

Now that is one of the most intelligent things I have ever heard on this website. This should be the post of the day...possibly the post of the year.

Warcraft3

October 20th 2007, 01:35 PM

POWELL:
Thanks!

John Powell

No prob....

How goes the astronomy stuff?

Carpedm9587

October 20th 2007, 01:55 PM

In the interests of not further hijacking this thread, I have posted my response here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2106261&postcount=245).

Michel

lilpixieofterror

October 20th 2007, 02:08 PM

I followed the link. I have no clue how it applies to the statements being made.

Did you not say that I come in here for not intent to discuss things? Now please show where I wasn't intrested in any kind of discussion.

And this relates to my observations.... how...? :huh:

It shows that you are wrong, but how did I know you'd ignore them and pretend it doesn't relate at all? :shrug:

I added no motives. I observed behavior. Your motives are unknown to me.

And you attached something that you thought was accurate, and is downright wrong.

A couple of years ago. ]Nope.Nope.

So therefore, you know little to nothing about me nor my personality, you just add in what you want and screw the evidence.

Not that I've noticed. I have, however, decided not to let you take me off on your endless tangents anymore. Hence our impasse. You seem to feel if you bring it up, it's relevant. I will not simply dismiss such points, but I will point them out if they are irrelevant, explain why, and then leave them be. After that - you can hammer away until the cows come home. I'm just not playing that game anymore.

Yep, so ignore things that relate to your argument. Do you always go out of your way to slander people?

So you have claimed before, Crystal. Your behavior says otherwise. :shrug:

And again you add motives to what you think is accurate and not stop to try and understand what is really going on. It seems yet again you like to ignore half the post here on T web that are not serious and just add in what you want to hear and ignore the rest.

I reflect what I see. Why you act as you do is known only to you.

And what you reflected on is wrong, but I know you will never admit it.

Oh I can well imagine your patience is tried. :wink:

Yes it is, I can only watch you slander me and ignore what I asked so many times till it gets annoying. Oh yeah, only carp can follow people around and slander them, nobody else can do the same thing! So, how much longer till you get off your high horse?

As for the supposed contradictions, you accuse me of that often. I have responded to each with a clarification where you were incorrect, and an acknowledgement when you were correct - like the discussion we had about a circular argument I insisted I was not engaging in, which I saw when I attempted to reframe the argument and acknowledged in the next post.

Ummm not talking about this argument. :ahem: But you can keep trying. :wink:

You are very gracious when you "win" Crystal. You just are a lot less so when you don't. Indeed, you essentially never acknowledge you have seriously erred.

1. I learn from my losses.
2. I do not feel that was a 'loss' more of an impasse.
3. I have admitted errors before.
4. You seem to have a hard time acknowledging when you seriously error too. Perhaps you might want to correct that error in your self too.

But then - you apparently think the same of me. :shrug:

Nope, but you will not admit you are wrong. It's fun watching you downright ignore threads that prove you wrong. :shrug:

Nope. I post here only. And I don't pay much attention to avatars unless they explicitly reflect something about a person. Most of them I consider simply eye-candy.

In other words, you ignore things you don't want to see. Got it. :thumb:

Then I would not have much respect for you in the RW either. :shrug:

That's nice, sorry I don't really care if you like me or not.

I can well imagine.

You can also imagine that I've also gotten plenty of praise too for my no nonsense approach on matters.

It really doesn't matter to me, Crystal.

Of course not, you don't really care, you just want to be free to see things how you want and screw what the evidence says.

You are incorrect.

Sure, never acknowledge any error in yourself while you go around pointing out errors in others. I guess only Carp is allowed to point out errors in others. Anybody else find the irony here?

Isn't that true for everyone? :huh:

Yes, but you ignore most of my post and you pretend as if all I want to do is be mean to other people, which that isn't at all.

Crystal - I base my judgments of people on MY interactions with them, as I suspect do most people. I don't consider it my job to go running around looking for evidence that person X is actually like Y or Z. People engage with me, and from that I learn something. If you want me to have a different opinion of you, engage with me differently. If you don't care, then carry on. It's no skin off my nose one way or the other.

Let's see, do I care what you think about me? Nope. Don't like me, don't talk to me. What I do care about is when people go around and slander me and when called upon it they say, "it's just my opinion." No it isn't, if you say X, you back it up. Now show us your evidence that anything you have said here is accurate. I've shown plenty to prove you wrong, but you ignore it. Just as I thought.

Like you, I don't talk about people behind their backs. Most of the time, you will know what I think of you if I think it.

Good, now maybe you can explain why.

Yeah - I've noticed the "good natured" spirit of your posts. :ahem:

I am no nonsense when it comes to the debate rooms. I know you were told in PM to get to know me by at least one person. Going to do that yet?

Come on, Crystal. Who do you think you're kidding? While I'm sure you do engage in fun exchanges with people you like, these are not the posts and comments to which I referred.

Carp, 95% of people, I feel no ill will towards at all and if you can into the SB, I would ignore everything you said here. There is only one person here on T web that I told any contempt towards, and that person earned it for his comments towards another poster's terminal disease. In fact, some of those people you read, we are friends and talk. Jon Day and myself have had some pretty heated discussions. taoist and myself have too. Yet we are still friends and we still get along.

No. I post here. Consequently, my impressions are formed here.

In other words, you ignore evidence that shows you in the wrong.

I don't have an issue in the least, Crystal. You are who you are. My opinion of you is nothing more than that - my opinion. If you find some truth in it, and you like it. Cool. If you find some truth in it and you don't like it, feel free to act on it. If you find it to be untrue, then dismiss it. Whatever you elect to do with it is your concern, not mine.

If you have an opinion fine, don't slander me or post mis truths. I have shown you the evidence that shows otherwise. Address it and stop ignoring it.

You have a sharp mind, Crystal. There is no doubt about it. Your ability to wield logic, however, is poor. You confuse necessary and sufficient repeatedly (that is, at the end of the day, your error in this most recent discussion). Your ability to associate statements with their contrapositives and distinguish them from their inverse and converse is weak. Understanding the truth relationships of these four elements is something you don't appear to grasp very well. It surfaces in many discussions. And you appear to be unable to handle basic set theory (e.g., the Venn diagram).

And again you are quite incorrect. I see things as linking together and sometimes unrelated subjects link together in ways you'd never imagine. I know Venn diagrams as well as other types of diagrams (I work with diagrams daily). I asked you a simple question in which you didn't want to ignore and you constantly want to accuse me of being 'off topic' when you don't want to see how things can link up. I see the world much in the same way as I see our bodies, various systems that work together that may seem not to relate, but can and do.

All of that makes it difficult to have a logical argument with you, because you see contradiction where there is none, you introduce tangential points unrelated to the discussion at hand, and you cannot grasp many of the responses. As I have said before, you and Vig could benefit from a simple foundational course in logic.

And you can benefit from trying to understand the person and where they come from instead of adding in your own personal views and ignoring anything you don't want to hear. Much of my tangent's are related (it's funny that you're one of the few that even says that i bring up tangets all the time, but I guess you know more then everyone else, eh?)

But I doubt you will accept that assessment at my hands. I am, after all, the "opponent." That I might actually have a point in a discussion with you is not a possibility. My error is a foregone conclusion.

Right... yet you feel the need to slander me when you get the chance. Hypocrite.

At the end of the day, Crystal - you STILL have not articulated my argument in the previous discussion correctly.

Of course that is it... I disagree and therefore I am wrong and do not grasp the argument. That is the only logical answer. :ahem:

You make all sorts of accusations, and I'm sure you will not accept it on my word alone - but I am not the only one who has noticed it. And you repeatedly ask a question I have answered many times, have shown you (with diagrams) is irrelevant to my argument, and for which you have never actually made a point or shown how your point is related to my argument.

1. Ummm, Nickc showed the diagram, you didn't did and Nickc did in fact say I grasped the argument, did you ignore that too?
2. No, you brought up examples such as your carpenter one and said 'it is not necessary to assume the writer is a carpenter" which of course, that is not at all what my argument said nor was about. So it seems that you didn't get my point nor did you try to.

:shrug:

[quote]It's a little hard to continue anything meaningful on those terms. I'm sure that observation will earn me yet another ad hom - but there it is. Ad hom away. It's not like it would be a big surprise or anything. :shrug:

Aww, but you can throw in ad hominems and slander against me all day. Yep, you're a hypocrite.

:pixie:

lilpixieofterror

October 20th 2007, 02:10 PM

I can't either defend or accuse lilpixie because I am not that familiar with her as a poster yet,

All I can say so far is that she seems to be intelligent. I guess I just haven't really debated her yet on any issues.

And her avatar is hilarious.

I'm glad that Carp can take the opportunity to slander me whenever he gets. What a hypocrite he is. I have changed my views several times, but he'll never admit that he's wrong.

lilpixieofterror

October 20th 2007, 02:11 PM

In the interests of not further hijacking this thread, I have posted my response here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2106261&postcount=245).

Michel

Sorry Carp, not responding to your continued attempts to drag me into the thread. I do understand it and if you want to say I don't. Go ahead, keep slandering me and ignoring things you don't want to hear. Yep, you're a hypocrite.

:pixie:

Carpedm9587

October 20th 2007, 04:42 PM

Did you not say that I come in here for not intent to discuss things? Now please show where I wasn't interested in any kind of discussion.

Would you care to show me where I said that? (of course, every other time I've asked you to do that, you have merely cut it out of your response - so I doubt you'll respond to this either. :shrug:

It shows that you are wrong, but how did I know you'd ignore them and pretend it doesn't relate at all? :shrug:

And it shows this how...? :huh:

And you attached something that you thought was accurate, and is downright wrong.

So you say. Your behavior says otherwise. :shrug:

So therefore, you know little to nothing about me nor my personality, you just add in what you want and screw the evidence.

I reflect what I see here.

Yep, so ignore things that relate to your argument. Do you always go out of your way to slander people?

In the written word - it's called "libel," Crystal. Feel free to show me where anything I have said is inaccurate. That would be required to show libel.

And again you add motives to what you think is accurate and not stop to try and understand what is really going on. It seems yet again you like to ignore half the post here on T web that are not serious and just add in what you want to hear and ignore the rest.

I reflect behavior, Crystal. Your motives are your own.

And what you reflected on is wrong, but I know you will never admit it.

The behavior speaks for itself, Crystal. I'll let others draw their own conclusion concerning the accuracy of my observations. :shrug:

Yes it is, I can only watch you slander me and ignore what I asked so many times till it gets annoying. Oh yeah, only carp can follow people around and slander them, nobody else can do the same thing! So, how much longer till you get off your high horse?

Actually - the horse is rather short. :wink:

Ummm not talking about this argument. :ahem: But you can keep trying. :wink:

Then you are talking about...? :huh:

1. I learn from my losses.

AFAICT, you have never acknowledged a "loss," so it's hard to see how you would have learned from one. But feel free to point me to a place where you acknowledged a serious error in a discussion or debate. Just one. I've pointed you to one of mine, which I'm sure you remember.

2. I do not feel that was a 'loss' more of an impasse.

I have no clue what that means.

3. I have admitted errors before.

Not that I have ever seen :shrug:

4. You seem to have a hard time acknowledging when you seriously error too. Perhaps you might want to correct that error in your self too.

Actually, I don't - given the number of times I have done exactly that in this forum.

Nope, but you will not admit you are wrong. It's fun watching you downright ignore threads that prove you wrong. :shrug:

Feel free to point to one thread I have left that has "proven me wrong" without acknowledging I was wrong. You will find that all of the threads I participate in I either make the case, or the person I am discussing it with and I agree to disagree, or I acknowledge I made an error. You will not find another one, of that I am confident.

In other words, you ignore things you don't want to see. Got it. :thumb:

That's a pretty good example of how you like to twist what is said to suit your needs, Crystal. Congrats. :thumb:

That's nice, sorry I don't really care if you like me or not.

Nor did I expect you to, :shrug:

You can also imagine that I've also gotten plenty of praise too for my no nonsense approach on matters.

People like you will always find others to affirm your behavior. I'm sure MM and JPH are very proud of you.

Of course not, you don't really care, you just want to be free to see things how you want and screw what the evidence says.

I have always made it my practice to follow the evidence to the best of my ability. If you do not like my conclusions, provide different evidence. Otherwise, your actions speak for themselves. I'm merely pointing them out.

Sure, never acknowledge any error in yourself while you go around pointing out errors in others. I guess only Carp is allowed to point out errors in others. Anybody else find the irony here?

Feel free to point out exactly where I said "Carp was the only one allowed to point out errors in others." As with other things you ascribe to me, you will not find it in my posts nor be able to link to it. This is so much hot air, Crystal. You're beginning to sound a bit desperate, IMO.

Yes, but you ignore most of my post and you pretend as if all I want to do is be mean to other people, which that isn't at all.

I have said several times I do not know what your intent is. I merely reflect what I observe of your behavior. :shrug:

Let's see, do I care what you think about me? Nope.

Then why the long posts? :huh: Just move on, Crystal. You don't care, and there is nothing else to say.

Don't like me, don't talk to me. What I do care about is when people go around and slander me and when called upon it they say, "it's just my opinion." No it isn't,

Yes, it is.

if you say X, you back it up.

I have. Your posts are my basis.

Now show us your evidence that anything you have said here is accurate. I've shown plenty to prove you wrong, but you ignore it. Just as I thought.

Do you really want me to create a link of all of the places where you have resorted to ad homs, Crystal? Or the places where you have introduced tangential issues into the discussion?

Even if I did - what would be the point? It would be like a bible discussion. You'd deny/explain all of them away. I think I'll pass - much as I'm sure that will earn me another set of ad homs. :shrug:

Good, now maybe you can explain why.

I have done so.

I am no nonsense when it comes to the debate rooms. I know you were told in PM to get to know me by at least one person. Going to do that yet?

Really? Who would that be? One of the many supporters that you pointed me to last time? I think I am going to leave the contents of those discussions in PM. If you want to know what was said to me, I suggest you ask them.

Carp, 95% of people, I feel no ill will towards at all and if you can into the SB, I would ignore everything you said here.

SB? :huh:

There is only one person here on T web that I told any contempt towards, and that person earned it for his comments towards another poster's terminal disease. In fact, some of those people you read, we are friends and talk. Jon Day and myself have had some pretty heated discussions. taoist and myself have too. Yet we are still friends and we still get along.

I am glad for you, Crystal - and I wish you well with them. When and if you decide to treat me with the same courtesy in discussions, and to assume it is my goal to learn and to weed error out of my beliefs, and not to "dodge" or "spin" or "weave," and when you are prepared to leave your ad homs in the closet, and discuss civilly, let me know. Until then - my opinion of you has been formed by your own posts. Deal with it. Or not. As I said - it makes little difference to me.

In other words, you ignore evidence that shows you in the wrong.

In other words - I post here and my impressions are formed here.

If you have an opinion fine, don't slander me or post mis truths. I have shown you the evidence that shows otherwise. Address it and stop ignoring it.

I have done so.

And again you are quite incorrect. I see things as linking together and sometimes unrelated subjects link together in ways you'd never imagine. I know Venn diagrams as well as other types of diagrams (I work with diagrams daily). I asked you a simple question in which you didn't want to ignore and you constantly want to accuse me of being 'off topic' when you don't want to see how things can link up. I see the world much in the same way as I see our bodies, various systems that work together that may seem not to relate, but can and do.

Your denial is laudable, Crystal. Your posts speak for themselves.

And you can benefit from trying to understand the person and where they come from instead of adding in your own personal views and ignoring anything you don't want to hear. Much of my tangent's are related (it's funny that you're one of the few that even says that i bring up tangents all the time, but I guess you know more then everyone else, eh?)

Crystal - when you are unable to accurately reflect back a person's argument, and then you claim to "disagree" with an argument you don't understand, and then insist you have not received answers when you have - or explanations when you have - there is something awry with your logic. Your denial is bluster, my friend. Again - your posts speak for themselves.

Right... yet you feel the need to slander me when you get the chance. Hypocrite.

Again, it's called libel - and you may feel free to point out where that has been done.

Of course that is it... I disagree and therefore I am wrong and do not grasp the argument. That is the only logical answer. :ahem:

No - you are wrong because you cannot correctly articulate the argument against which you are arguing. Your disagreement is irrelevant since you cannot disagree with an argument you do not understand. That you cannot udnerstand it is clear from your constant failed attempts to actually articulate it.

1. Ummm, Nick showed the diagram, you didn't did and Nickc did in fact say I grasped the argument, did you ignore that too?

Yes, the diagram came from Nick. My language was sloppy there and did appear to imply I was claiming authorship. I was not. Whatever Nick said about your posts, I disagree since you have yet to correctly reflect the argument, as both Parm and Max have successfully done.

2. No, you brought up examples such as your carpenter one and said 'it is not necessary to assume the writer is a carpenter" which of course, that is not at all what my argument said nor was about. So it seems that you didn't get my point nor did you try to.

I actually have used several analogies to illustrate the issue. The practice is pointless with you since you do not focus on the point of the analogy but on the mechanics of the story. Given your behavior, I have to suspect that if you were listening to Jesus' parables you would be the one saying, "but Jesus, no self-respecting farmer would throw his seed all over the place. Your story is bunk!"

The stories are there to illustrate. That you focus on irrelevant details is - well - interesting. It's revealing of your focus. And it's pointless to the argument.

:shrug:
Aww, but you can throw in ad hominems and slander against me all day. Yep, you're a hypocrite.

:pixie:

Like I said, I figured it would earn me another ad hom. Color me surprised :shrug:

Michel

Carpedm9587

October 20th 2007, 04:43 PM

I'm glad that Carp can take the opportunity to slander me whenever he gets. What a hypocrite he is. I have changed my views several times, but he'll never admit that he's wrong.

Feel free to provide a link to a single instance. I have.

Michel

Carpedm9587

October 20th 2007, 04:45 PM

Sorry Carp, not responding to your continued attempts to drag me into the thread. I do understand it and if you want to say I don't. Go ahead, keep slandering me and ignoring things you don't want to hear. Yep, you're a hypocrite.

:pixie:

You have tried to say it several times and failed each time. Your own words bear testament to your lack of understanding. That you understand it will be clear when you can actually SAY it correctly. Until then you are making assertions you cannot support.

And I am not surprised you have no interest in returning. I didn't really expect you would. It is, as I have noted, your pattern. :shrug:

Michel

John Powell

October 20th 2007, 05:50 PM

Carpedm (to LittlePixieOfTerror):
You have tried to say it several times and failed each time. Your own words bear testament to your lack of understanding. That you understand it will be clear when you can actually SAY it correctly. Until then you are making assertions you cannot support.

POWELL:
There's nothing in the Bible that, to be adequately explained, requires that it be inspired by God, so although this doesn't prove the Bible wasn't inspired by God, by Occam's Razor, we should explain the Bible without invoking God. Is that your argument, Carpedm?

I think your tree house analogy is a good one, where because the info is what you already know and you aren't a carpenter so you don't need to invoke the assumption that a carpenter wrote the book. It shows that you don't have to provide examples of what a carpenter would say if a carpenter had written the book for the argument to work. Similarly, for your Occam's Razor argument to work with the Bible, it's not required that you provide examples of what the Bible would say if God had inspired it. However, it's a difficult line you have to walk to avoid giving the kinds of examples that LPOT and other Bible defenders will ask of you and people like Jimbo and me are willing to provide to them.

John Powell

John Powell

October 20th 2007, 05:50 PM

No prob....

How goes the astronomy stuff?

POWELL:
Looking up.

John Powell

shadowmaster

October 20th 2007, 06:42 PM

POWELL:
Looking up.

John Powell

heh heh heh

An astronomy joke.

:lol:

Carpedm9587

October 20th 2007, 06:45 PM

There's nothing in the Bible that, to be adequately explained, requires that it be inspired by God, so although this doesn't prove the Bible wasn't inspired by God, by Occam's Razor, we should explain the Bible without invoking God. Is that your argument, Carpedm?

In a nutshell yes - although the second half (the application of Occam's Razor) is actually a second step. The argument I initially presented merely points out that the claim that god inspired the bible cannot be substantiated using the bible.

I think your tree house analogy is a good one, where because the info is what you already know and you aren't a carpenter so you don't need to invoke the assumption that a carpenter wrote the book. It shows that you don't have to provide examples of what a carpenter would say if a carpenter had written the book for the argument to work. Similarly, for your Occam's Razor argument to work with the Bible, it's not required that you provide examples of what the Bible would say if God had inspired it. However, it's a difficult line you have to walk to avoid giving the kinds of examples that LPOT and other Bible defenders will ask of you and people like Jimbo and me are willing to provide to them.

Unfortunately, I doubt your acknowledgment and summary of the basic argument will do much to impress Crystal, John. She apparently thinks any attempt to show her where her argument jumps the rails is "not answering her." :shrug:

Michel

Warcraft3

October 20th 2007, 09:09 PM

POWELL:
Looking up.

John Powell

:smile:

John Powell

October 20th 2007, 10:58 PM

In a nutshell yes - although the second half (the application of Occam's Razor) is actually a second step. The argument I initially presented merely points out that the claim that god inspired the bible cannot be substantiated using the bible.

POWELL:
Yes. I see now that I took it farther than you did.

CARPEDM:
Unfortunately, I doubt your acknowledgment and summary of the basic argument will do much to impress Crystal, John. She apparently thinks any attempt to show her where her argument jumps the rails is "not answering her." :shrug:

Michel

POWELL:
I'm pretty good at avoiding that accusation from her (she tends to accuse me of other things like not understanding her points), but I'm more inclined than you to keep answering someone even when they've been answered.

I would like to mention that I think her tendency to focus on the superficial is partly encouraged by discussions with people like me, people whose points are written to be superficially clear.

John Powell

shadowmaster

October 20th 2007, 11:48 PM

I would like to mention that I think her tendency to focus on the superficial is partly encouraged by discussions with people like me, people whose points are written to be superficially clear.

John Powell
shadowmaster agrees that John POWELL's post are generally very clear. That, however, is not enough for many people. Some are looking for more substance than just pedantic, deductive logic based upon potentially questionable assumptions.

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 05:50 AM

Would you care to show me where I said that? (of course, every other time I've asked you to do that, you have merely cut it out of your response - so I doubt you'll respond to this either. :shrug:

That is exactaly what you are implying and here is your own words for your convince:

In fact, Steadele, I don't see a lot of difference between Crystal and Jim E. Boy. They both show the same characteristic of clinging tenaciously to a claim or position regardless of what evidence is presented. They both liberally ignore the arguments made by others or answers provided by others. They both respond to arguments with non-sequitors unrelated to the arguments being made, and then insist they are not. And they both engage in the sport of shoveling ad homs around liberally.

This right here shows me you don't understand anything about me. You just find things you like and screw the rest of the evidence that proves you wrong. I have change my beliefs and views several times on T web. In fact, I have gone more away from YEC then I would of before. I have also abounded the rapture theory in favor of what I feel is a more likely (orthodox preterits). Again you are wrong, but I know you will not admit it. I tell you the truth and you REFUSE TO SEE IT IN FAVOR OF YOUR OPINION THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY FORMED! Which means that you love to ignore things that prove you wrong in favor of spreading slander.

And it shows this how...? :huh:

Did I call Evo any names? Nope. Yet again you ignore evidence you do not want to see in favor of your pre assumed view that I am the scum of the earth. Do me a favor. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. You keep going out of your way to slander me which really begs the question, "Why are you allowed to use ad hominem's and complain when other people do it to you?" You are a hypocrite of the worst kind. You slander other people and downright ignore things that prove you wrong.

So you say. Your behavior says otherwise. :shrug:

My behavor has been shown to you again and again and you choose to ignore things that go

I reflect what I see here.

And you ignore the rest. How wonderful it is for you to ignore entire conversations here on T web and base your interactions on your perceived notions and opinions. I've tried and tried to get along with you, I've tried to be as patient as possible, guess what, I have failed at something. I assumed you would see the evidence that proves you wrong and change your views. I was wrong, you will not and you'll just see what you want to see instead of what is really there.

In the written word - it's called "libel," Crystal. Feel free to show me where anything I have said is inaccurate. That would be required to show libel.

Links have proven you are wrong, but I know you'll ignore them because your views are far more important. Thanks for the slander.

I reflect behavior, Crystal. Your motives are your own.

And I showed you where you are in error. Show anywhere where I called Evo any kind of name. I've tried and tried and tried to get along with you and as I can see, you don't care nor will you ever care that I have put in my best effort to get along with you. Do me a favor, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. I'm tried of trying to please you, I'm though trying. Think what you want, I don't care to explain myself to you anymore, but stop spreading your slander around.

The behavior speaks for itself, Crystal. I'll let others draw their own conclusion concerning the accuracy of my observations. :shrug:

And you don't seem to understand why I do what I do (Not like you care anyway). Look at my responses to people who just want to troll and those who are interested in a discussion. The simple fact is, you don't care nor will you try to let me explain anything. You will go from your precious assumptions and screw the evidence that shows otherwise. All I ask is that you stop your slander and leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

Actually - the horse is rather short. :wink:

Oh, it's tall from what I say. Stop spreading slander and rooms. Links were provided that you ignore, which means you do not care to understand nor will you ever. Stop spreading slander.

Then you are talking about...? :huh:

Why should I bother? You already think what you want and screw what everyone else has to say. I'm tried of trying to please you. leave me

AFAICT, you have never acknowledged a "loss," so it's hard to see how you would have learned from one.

Really? Keep saying that again and again until it becomes true. I have admitted loss several times, but I know that you will say I am wrong and you are right, thus no point in trying to please you. I am always wrong. There feel better now? Is that what you wanted to hear? Now stop slandering me and leave me alone, I don't want to deal with your self righteous attitude anymore.

But feel free to point me to a place where you acknowledged a serious error in a discussion or debate. Just one. I've pointed you to one of mine, which I'm sure you remember.

Why? You will ignore it like you have ignored everything else. Why bother? I'm though trying to please you anymore.

I have no clue what that means.

And I don't care to explain it to you. I'm through trying to please you. Leave me alone and don't talk to me and I will not talk to you. Go on and slander me elsewhere.

Not that I have ever seen :shrug:

Links where shown and you ignored them. Which means you want to spread slander and screw the evidence that proves you wrong.

Actually, I don't - given the number of times I have done exactly that in this forum.

Why? You'll ignore it anyway like you've ignored everything else that proves you wrong. You are a slander who slanders against me and REFUSES TO ADMIT HE IS WRONG!

I'm though dealing with you...

LEAVE ME ALONE AND I WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE!!!! AND STOP SPREADING SLANDER ABOUT ME. I'm though trying to please you, no matter what I am wrong and and evil hateful person and nothing I show will ever change you view. Leave me alone, I don't want to deal with your slander anymore or you ignoring links that prove you wrong. Bye and have a good life.

:pixie:

Here's a thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2106782#post2106782) you can say and do whatever you want.

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 06:53 AM

That is exactly what you are implying and here is your own words for your convince:

Now let me see.

Crystal's Accusation: Did you not say that I come in here for not intent to discuss things? Now please show where I wasn't interested in any kind of discussion.

Michel's Supposed Grievous Error: In fact, Steadele, I don't see a lot of difference between Crystal and Jim E. Boy. They both show the same characteristic of clinging tenaciously to a claim or position regardless of what evidence is presented. They both liberally ignore the arguments made by others or answers provided by others. They both respond to arguments with non-sequitors unrelated to the arguments being made, and then insist they are not. And they both engage in the sport of shoveling ad homs around liberally.

Now I've reread this multiple times. I see a) stubbornness, b) illogic, c) ad homs, but I don't see anything about "not interested in any kind of discussion." In fact, you post rather generously in here. You clearly love to mix it up. You just appear to really hate to be wrong and love to insult people. Where exactly does that mean "not interested in any kind of discussion?" :huh:

This right here shows me you don't understand anything about me. You just find things you like and screw the rest of the evidence that proves you wrong.

No. You're wrong.

I have change my beliefs and views several times on T web. In fact, I have gone more away from YEC then I would of before. I have also abounded the rapture theory in favor of what I feel is a more likely (orthodox preterits). Again you are wrong, but I know you will not admit it. I tell you the truth and you REFUSE TO SEE IT IN FAVOR OF YOUR OPINION THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY FORMED! Which means that you love to ignore things that prove you wrong in favor of spreading slander.

It's called libel, Crystal. This is the written form. And libel requires proof that what has been said is incorrect. So far I see a lot of claims. My observation has been a simple one: I have never seen you acknowledge an error or concede a point, even when your logic was so flawed it was obvious. What you do instead is simply stop posting, or you declare victory with a snide insult and sneak off into the high grass.

You are free to demonstrate that observation to be incorrect. So far all I see is a lot more of the same. :shrug:

Did I call Evo any names? Nope.

Again, your failure to grasp simple logical concepts betrays you. I did not say you insulted everyone. And providing a name of someone you did NOT insult does not negate all of the people you DO insult. You actually do more name calling than my 8 and 10 year olds'. I'd stack their behavior against yours any day of the week.

Yet again you ignore evidence you do not want to see in favor of your pre assumed view that I am the scum of the earth.

Feel free to show me one place where I called you "scum of the earth." Now you're just getting emotional and reacting. You might want to take a breather and get away from this.

Do me a favor. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. You keep going out of your way to slander me which really begs the question, "Why are you allowed to use ad hominem's and complain when other people do it to you?"

Actually, Crystal, I am not complaining. The written word is a difficult vehicle because it lacks expressiveness. But I am not angry or upset. Your attempts to insult me don't have any effect. For someone to successfully make me feel insulted, I have to respect them. I don't respect you, so your comments have no effect. They just demonstrate who and what you are repeatedly.

As for leaving you alone - you post here and the tradition in a forum is that people post and others respond. If you don't want to be responded to, don't post here. If you don't want to see my responses, take Jim E. Boy's exit strategy and engage ignore. If you don't want to engage in a dialogue, don't respond to me. Or feel free to exercise your authority as a mod and have me expelled from the site. You have many options, Crystal. I am not "stalking" you. I stay here in Apologetics and chat with people who post here. If you post here, I am quite likely to respond. :shrug:

You are a hypocrite of the worst kind. You slander other people and downright ignore things that prove you wrong.

Ahhh... more ad homs. Well, at least you're true to form. :shrug:

My behavior has been shown to you again and again and you choose to ignore things that go

You really should try to finish those sentences... :wink:

Yes, your behavior has been demonstrated to me time and again - by you. You are who you are, Crystal. Whatever you actually intend or want, you leave the impression of a person who likes to insult, twist arguments, dance and weave around explanations, deny what others have said, and read into other people's posts. Your posts speak for themselves - I am merely reflecting them back to you. What you do with the information is up to you.

It appears that what you are going to do is basically what you always do here: fight, insult, deny, and then probably leave the room.

And you ignore the rest. How wonderful it is for you to ignore entire conversations here on T web and base your interactions on your perceived notions and opinions. I've tried and tried to get along with you, I've tried to be as patient as possible, guess what, I have failed at something. I assumed you would see the evidence that proves you wrong and change your views. I was wrong, you will not and you'll just see what you want to see instead of what is really there.

This appears to be more baseless assertions. Crystal, you're like a person standing in front of a portrait of an elderly lady screaming "it's a bowl of fruit!" Unfortunately, as much as you may scream, I think everyone can see it's an elderly lady.

But of course, this will probably be responded to with "what do pictures and elderly ladies have to do with posting on Tweb." I keep forgetting that analogies are lost on you.

Links have proven you are wrong, but I know you'll ignore them because your views are far more important. Thanks for the slander.

You might want to look up "slander" and "libel." :wink:

Anyway - I've looked at your links. As with our other discussion, they have nothing to do with my observations. Once again, you go off on tangents unrelated to the arguments being made. Why am I surprised? :doh:

And I showed you where you are in error. Show anywhere where I called Evo any kind of name. I've tried and tried and tried to get along with you and as I can see, you don't care nor will you ever care that I have put in my best effort to get along with you. Do me a favor, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. I'm tried of trying to please you, I'm though trying. Think what you want, I don't care to explain myself to you anymore, but stop spreading your slander around.

I've already responded to all of this. You're repeating yourself.

And you don't seem to understand why I do what I do (Not like you care anyway). Look at my responses to people who just want to troll and those who are interested in a discussion. The simple fact is, you don't care nor will you try to let me explain anything. You will go from your precious assumptions and screw the evidence that shows otherwise. All I ask is that you stop your slander and leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

I've already responded to most of this. You're repeating yourself. And since I am one of those people who is interested in a discussion, and your posts to me are not any different than those you make to "trolls," I would say your claims are a tad thin.

Oh, it's tall from what I say. Stop spreading slander and rooms. Links were provided that you ignore, which means you do not care to understand nor will you ever. Stop spreading slander.

I've already responded to all of this. You're repeating yourself.

Why should I bother? You already think what you want and screw what everyone else has to say. I'm tried of trying to please you. leave me

You really should try to finish those sentences. Why on earth would you want to try to please me? :huh:

Crystal, if that is actually your objective, than the path to doing it is very simple: dialogue like a mature adult. Stop assuming the worst when someone responds to you, accept that they are conversing in good faith, and explore the issues as an adult in civil discourse. I had no problem with Parm. I have no problem with Max (and we mix it up a great deal, actually). I have no problem with Johnny. These are all people who's worldviews I do not share, but civil discourse is possible.

With you - it's like having a discussion with a spoiled child. Almost immediately the posts are accusatory, snide, condescending, and belittling. It is your nom de plume. Your signature. The essence of your style. Little miss Crystal with the boxing gloves and the sharp mouth out to do battle.

If you want to be seen otherwise, than behave otherwise. Otherwise... :shrug:

Really? Keep saying that again and again until it becomes true. I have admitted loss several times, but I know that you will say I am wrong and you are right, thus no point in trying to please you. I am always wrong. There feel better now? Is that what you wanted to hear? Now stop slandering me and leave me alone, I don't want to deal with your self righteous attitude anymore.

So you and MM have said several times. I have yet to see it. Even when your error is staring you right in the face. I can only reflect what I can see, Crystal. :shrug:

Why? You will ignore it like you have ignored everything else. Why bother? I'm though trying to please you anymore.

I didn't actually think you would, Crystal. "I'm wrong" is not a comfortable part of your lexicon.

And I don't care to explain it to you. I'm through trying to please you. Leave me alone and don't talk to me and I will not talk to you. Go on and slander me elsewhere.

You're repeating yourself.

Links where shown and you ignored them. Which means you want to spread slander and screw the evidence that proves you wrong.

I've already responded to all of this. You're repeating yourself.

Why? You'll ignore it anyway like you've ignored everything else that proves you wrong. You are a slander who slanders against me and REFUSES TO ADMIT HE IS WRONG!

I'm though dealing with you...

LEAVE ME ALONE AND I WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE!!!! AND STOP SPREADING SLANDER ABOUT ME. I'm though trying to please you, no matter what I am wrong and and evil hateful person and nothing I show will ever change you view. Leave me alone, I don't want to deal with your slander anymore or you ignoring links that prove you wrong. Bye and have a good life.

Wow, you are really getting emotional about this. Crystal, I think a bit of space might be in order here. Then, maybe, we can attempt a more civil exchange.

Or not. The choice is yours. :shrug:

Here's a thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2106782#post2106782) you can say and do whatever you want.

For a second there, I thought I was actually going to see something of import. Maybe one of those infamous places where you acknowledge an error.

No thanks on the offer, Crystal. I have no desire to spend time in the boiler room and engage in pointless insults. I do understand that you feel insulted, but insult was not my intent. My intent was to hold up a mirror and let you see yourself as I (and others) see you here. Mirrors can be useful tools. If they do not distort (and I have tried not to), they can help us see ourselves and recognize the things we need to work on.

When we look in a mirror, we have a choice. We can say "hmm..I should work on that" and get to it. Or we can deny the mirror is accurate and storm off. The choice, at the end of the day, is yours.

I know, at the end of the day, I go to my bed and I sleep well after my exchanges on TWeb. The only twinge I have had lately is my treatment of Jim E. Boy in that Devastating Arguments thread, and I will probably own up and apologize to him sooner or later. As ridiculous as his argument is, I crossed the line to ad homs with him.

I have no such twinges about you. My comments have been about your argument, and your behavior. Who and what you are personally I do not really know. That you feel insulted I understand. Some of these things are hard to hear about ourselves. That I have intentionally insulted or libeled you I reject. You and I both know I have not. You are having a hard time separating your feelings/reactions from my comments/intent. That is understandable. It's just not accurate.

And the horse IS rather short. It's a Shetland, actually. And it's dead, so it's not very impressive. :wink:

Michel

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 07:33 AM

Now I've reread this multiple times. I see a) stubbornness,

And a refusal to admit you are wrong. Seems

b) illogic,

While you compare me against Jim E, hypocrite.

c) ad homs,

While you accuse me of doing the same thing. I forgot. ONLY CARP IS ALLOWED TO POST AD HOM's and get away with them, nobody else.

but I don't see anything about "not interested in any kind of discussion."

That is exactly what you are implying. Jim E is not interested in any kind of discussion either. Now you have the gull to keep spreading this error on your part and you take no interest in correct (even when proven wrong).

In fact, you post rather generously in here. You clearly love to mix it up. You just appear to really hate to be wrong and love to insult people. Where exactly does that mean "not interested in any kind of discussion?" :huh:

WRONG AGAIN!!!!!

I don't not like to insult people and 95% of people I do not insult, I have given you evidence that proves you wrong and you refuse to accept your conclusion is wrong. Thus you spread slander about others. Out of those I have insulted, do you notice a common pattern about all of them or do you ignore that in favor of your opinions?

No. You're wrong.

Yep, I was wrong. I thought you would try to understand a person, you clearly don't want to.

It's called libel, Crystal. This is the written form. And libel requires proof that what has been said is incorrect.

And proof was given and you ignored it, thus what you wrote is incorrect and you refuse to admit it. How long till you take back your slander against me or admit you are wrong? My guess is never because you don't care.

So far I see a lot of claims. My observation has been a simple one: I have never seen you acknowledge an error or concede a point, even when your logic was so flawed it was obvious. What you do instead is simply stop posting, or you declare victory with a snide insult and sneak off into the high grass.

Kind of like what you do eh? Now Carp, show us all any errors you've admitted to. I'd love to see some.

You are free to demonstrate that observation to be incorrect. So far all I see is a lot more of the same. :shrug:

And it was demonstrated and you ignored it. Just as expected, you want to be free to slander and screw the evidence that proves you wrong.

Again, your failure to grasp simple logical concepts betrays you. I did not say you insulted everyone. And providing a name of someone you did NOT insult does not negate all of the people you DO insult. You actually do more name calling than my 8 and 10 year olds'. I'd stack their behavior against yours any day of the week.

:sigh:

And again you REFUSAL to understand the person you are talking to betrays you. Look at the people I do insult and look at the common thread with them al. Did you know that Powell started a rant against me saying my spelling is an embarrassment to T web? Are you aware that I've tried to be nice to Amnouy and Jackie Fox and they started to insult me first? Nope, you are not aware of that because you ignore what you don't want to hear and screw evidence that proves you wrong, thanks so much for again showing everybody how uninterested you are in getting to know what is really going on. Here is an error I will admit to: I thought you'd be open up to evidence that proves you wrong. Clearly you are not, thanks for proving me wrong in that area.

Feel free to show me one place where I called you "scum of the earth." Now you're just getting emotional and reacting. You might want to take a breather and get away from this.

Yes I am getting emotional, I am sick and tired of you attaching motives and spreading what slander you want while ignoring the evidence that works against you. I will not take a breather until I see you publicly apologize for spreading slander and roomers about me.

Actually, Crystal, I am not complaining. The written word is a difficult vehicle because it lacks expressiveness. But I am not angry or upset.

Nope, but you seem to think it's ok to slander people and not say sorry when pointed in error. Evidence is given, admit you are wrong or leave me alone and I'll ignore you too.

Your attempts to insult me don't have any effect. For someone to successfully make me feel insulted, I have to respect them.

And I have tried and tried and tried to earn it and you just see what you want to see and ignore what you don't want to see, when evidence is given that shows you are in error, you ignore it. I know for a fact (because I asked) that the people I asked you to IM about me said to get to know me first, but it seems you don't want to do that, you want to be free to see whatever you want to see and screw everything else. Thanks for showing me how wrong I was about you.

I don't respect you, so your comments have no effect. They just demonstrate who and what you are repeatedly.

And I've tried and tried to get along with you, and you refuse to get to know me in the least bit. LEAVE ME ALONE AND NEVER TALK TO ME AGAIN AND STOP SPREADING SLANDER ABOUT ME! Did you get that or do I need to repeat it again?

As for leaving you alone - you post here and the tradition in a forum is that people post and others respond.

So you ignore a request a person makes towards you. You're a class A jerk, thanks for again proving that I am wrong and you can not even honor a simple request.

If you don't want to be responded to, don't post here. If you don't want to see my responses, take Jim E. Boy's exit strategy and engage ignore.

Can't ignore you, that is why I requested that we not longer talk to one another. It seems you can't even honor a simple request.

If you don't want to engage in a dialogue, don't respond to me. Or feel free to exercise your authority as a mod and have me expelled from the site.

Even if I could, why would I do that? Sorry, that goes against my morals, I will not use my moderation authority to get anybody thrown off the site, unless the break the rules. Yet again you don't know a thing about me.

You have many options, Crystal. I am not "stalking" you.

Didn't imply stalking, are you sure you're the one not having to make up things as you go along?

I stay here in Apologetics and chat with people who post here. If you post here, I am quite likely to respond. :shrug:

Yep, can't respect a simple request.

Ahhh... more ad homs. Well, at least you're true to form. :shrug:

Yep, while you engage in them yourself. I guess you are above your own standards, eh?

You really should try to finish those sentences... :wink:

And you should try to pay attention to the evidence that proves you wrong... :wink:

Yes, your behavior has been demonstrated to me time and again - by you.

And you don't want to sit here and discuss any of this behavior, you just want to see want to see and nothing else. I have tried to get along with many of those people (including you) and it became clear they were not interested in doing so. Keep those blinders on and ignore everything that proves you wrong.

Did you know that Powell started a spelling against against me saying I was an embarrassment for not being the best of spellers?

Did you know that I tried to have a conversation with Amnouy on another topic a few months ago and he went into insult and hateful mode, so I gave the respected he showed me?

Did you know that wyzaard made a hateful comment about another members terminal illness?

Did you know that Nickc tried to play spell checker by pointing out every little spelling and grammar error (basically implying that I was stupid) and thus he got what he earned?

Did you know that I've tried as hard as I could to get along with you and every last attempt to get along with you ends in frustration and you misunderstanding my intentions?

Did you know any of this stuff? I bet you didn't nor do I think you care.

You are who you are, Crystal. Whatever you actually intend or want, you leave the impression of a person who likes to insult, twist arguments, dance and weave around explanations, deny what others have said, and read into other people's posts.

And look above for those people who get insulted and those who don't not. You will see quite a difference in the way I treat some people and others. You know very little about what goes on here nor why I treat some people the way I do. Did you know that Lazy Agnostic IMed some very insulting and downright rude remarks? I bet you didn't, you just see what you want to see and screw everything else.

Your posts speak for themselves - I am merely reflecting them back to you. What you do with the information is up to you.

And you ignoring majoring details reflect back on your inability to see that there might be alot more going on then you seem to think. I grow tried of watching people like yourself seeing what they want to see and ignoring that much of what goes on is not always obvious or behind the scenes. Much of those people I do insult have more then earned it with their performance around T web. You also pretend that I do not make an effort to get along with you and others, you know nothing about me, nothing about my background, nor do you want to understand or care because you want to be free to make any judgments you want and screw what everyone else says. Which is why I pointed out you are slandering and I bet you will ignore all that I told you here and still keep believing what you want to believe, despite what the evidence tells you.

It appears that what you are going to do is basically what you always do here: fight, insult, deny, and then probably leave the room.

And again, you are wrong, but I know you will not admit it.

This appears to be more baseless assertions. Crystal, you're like a person standing in front of a portrait of an elderly lady screaming "it's a bowl of fruit!" Unfortunately, as much as you may scream, I think everyone can see it's an elderly lady.

:ahem:

Yep, complain about insults while you engage in it yourself. I guess yet another example of how you are above your own rules and standards. How does it feel to be above your own standards?

But of course, this will probably be responded to with "what do pictures and elderly ladies have to do with posting on Tweb." I keep forgetting that analogies are lost on you.

And you will keep ignoring that I like to analyze what is going on and you keep ignoring that your 'analogies' are wrong and in fact are two different things. In order to use Occam's Razer, you first need to have all the info available to you, you didn't have all the info about the divine and what the divine would write, thus you can not apply Occam's razer, too bad you didn't get that nor do you care to, just as expected.

I've grown tried of watching you do the very thing you accuse me of doing, enjoy being above your rules and standards. Thanks again for proving me wrong that you would honor a simple request, I guess I thought higher of you then I should of. :sad:

:pixie:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 08:33 AM

Wow - you're really hung up on this thing... :huh:

And a refusal to admit you are wrong. Seems

While you compare me against Jim E, hypocrite.

While you accuse me of doing the same thing. I forgot. ONLY CARP IS ALLOWED TO POST AD HOM's and get away with them, nobody else.

More ad homs, and baseless accusations. :shrug:

That is exactly what you are implying. Jim E is not interested in any kind of discussion either. Now you have the gull to keep spreading this error on your part and you take no interest in correct (even when proven wrong).

It's not gaul or gull, Crystal. It's "gall."

And I said nothing about anyone "not being interested in discussion." So this is baseless and not worth considering further.

WRONG AGAIN!!!!!

I don't not like to insult people and 95% of people I do not insult, I have given you evidence that proves you wrong and you refuse to accept your conclusion is wrong. Thus you spread slander about others. Out of those I have insulted, do you notice a common pattern about all of them or do you ignore that in favor of your opinions?

A statistic pulled out of thin air? :huh:

I have no clue what your statistics are, Crystal. I will say that the majority of your posts here in Apologetics are insulting. Of course, you've already noted that this is due to this being a "debate" forum. Funny how many others can "debate" here without recourse to ad homs, though.

Yep, I was wrong. I thought you would try to understand a person, you clearly don't want to.

Since you are coming back and repeating exactly what you normally do even in your responses in THIS discussion, I should change my opinion based on...? :huh:

And proof was given and you ignored it, thus what you wrote is incorrect and you refuse to admit it. How long till you take back your slander against me or admit you are wrong? My guess is never because you don't care.

Already responded to.

Kind of like what you do eh? Now Carp, show us all any errors you've admitted to. I'd love to see some.

Well, I just posted to Jim's thread and apologized for my behavior and error in slipping into ad homs. I acknowledged I could not support my stance about absolute morality to Arterial Spray. I acknowledged an error to you in my having employed circular reasoning. Those are the first that come to mind. Unfortunately, the site no longer permits searching old threads (that I can find) to locate links - except to the one I just did in the Devastating Arguments thread.

And it was demonstrated and you ignored it. Just as expected, you want to be free to slander and screw the evidence that proves you wrong.

Already responded to.

:sigh:

And again you REFUSAL to understand the person you are talking to betrays you. Look at the people I do insult and look at the common thread with them al. Did you know that Powell started a rant against me saying my spelling is an embarrassment to T web? Are you aware that I've tried to be nice to Amnouy and Jackie Fox and they started to insult me first? Nope, you are not aware of that because you ignore what you don't want to hear and screw evidence that proves you wrong, thanks so much for again showing everybody how uninterested you are in getting to know what is really going on. Here is an error I will admit to: I thought you'd be open up to evidence that proves you wrong. Clearly you are not, thanks for proving me wrong in that area.

Already responded to.

Yes I am getting emotional, I am sick and tired of you attaching motives and spreading what slander you want while ignoring the evidence that works against you. I will not take a breather until I see you publicly apologize for spreading slander and roomers about me.

I have nothing to apologize for, Crystal. Your behavior speaks for itself.

Nope, but you seem to think it's ok to slander people and not say sorry when pointed in error. Evidence is given, admit you are wrong or leave me alone and I'll ignore you too.

I've not slandered anyone. First of all, I can't - this isn't a verbal forum. Second, I have said nothing untrue about your behavior. Your record speaks for itself. If you don't agree - fine. Feel free to stop posting and put an end to it. :shrug:

And I have tried and tried and tried to earn it and you just see what you want to see and ignore what you don't want to see, when evidence is given that shows you are in error, you ignore it.

Oh horse hockey, Crystal - and you know it. The number of threads I have posted in that you have come back with a civil rejoinder I could probably count on my left hand. :ahem:

Your tactic is insult, belittle, condescend, and assume the person you're talking to is disingenuous and dishonest in their posting. You're being called on your behavior and you don't like it. Suck up and take it like an adult and stop pouting. If you were my child, I'd send you up to your room until your hissy was over.

I know for a fact (because I asked) that the people I asked you to IM about me said to get to know me first, but it seems you don't want to do that, you want to be free to see whatever you want to see and screw everything else. Thanks for showing me how wrong I was about you.

Then someone is lying to you.

And I've tried and tried to get along with you, and you refuse to get to know me in the least bit. LEAVE ME ALONE AND NEVER TALK TO ME AGAIN AND STOP SPREADING SLANDER ABOUT ME! Did you get that or do I need to repeat it again?

Horse hockey. You haven't even begun to make the attempt. If you have, you have an odd way of doing it. You can't seem to take what you love to dish out, Crystal - and I'm not even resorting to ad homs. My comments have been about your arguments and your behavior.

So you ignore a request a person makes towards you. You're a class A jerk, thanks for again proving that I am wrong and you can not even honor a simple request.

More ad homs? You just don't know how to stop, do you? :ahem:

Can't ignore you, that is why I requested that we not longer talk to one another. It seems you can't even honor a simple request.

Ignore doesn't have to be done with software, Crystal. It can be done by conscious choice. As far as I know, there is no policy in Tweb against responding to someone's post. I have no intention of ignoring you or anyone else. If you have no desire to engage - simply don't engage. Take responsibility for your own decisions and choices. I certainly am not going to take responsibility for them.

Even if I could, why would I do that? Sorry, that goes against my morals, I will not use my moderation authority to get anybody thrown off the site, unless the break the rules. Yet again you don't know a thing about me.

I said nothing about whether or not I thought you should. I was merely pointing out the array of alternatives available to you. Choose one. Or don't. It's not skin off my nose. :shrug:

Didn't imply stalking, are you sure you're the one not having to make up things as you go along?

From Post #278: only carp can follow people around and slander them. Sounds pretty much like "stalking" to me. However, since you did not actually USE the word stalking, I put the word in quote to denote a paraphrase.

Yep, can't respect a simple request.

Ironically, this is the subject of a falling out my brother has with me. I do not take responsibility for other people's choices, Crystal. If you do not want to chat or engage, you have options available to you. So long as I am staying within the bounds of the rules of this site, it is not my responsibility to take care of you when you are capable of doing it. Take care of yourself.

Yep, while you engage in them yourself. I guess you are above your own standards, eh?

Already responded to.

And you should try to pay attention to the evidence that proves you wrong... :wink:

I'll be certain to do that, if any is ever presented.

And you don't want to sit here and discuss any of this behavior, you just want to see want to see and nothing else. I have tried to get along with many of those people (including you) and it became clear they were not interested in doing so. Keep those blinders on and ignore everything that proves you wrong.

Did you know that Powell started a spelling against against me saying I was an embarrassment for not being the best of spellers?

Did you know that I tried to have a conversation with Amnouy on another topic a few months ago and he went into insult and hateful mode, so I gave the respected he showed me?

Did you know that wyzaard made a hateful comment about another members terminal illness?

Did you know that Nickc tried to play spell checker by pointing out every little spelling and grammar error (basically implying that I was stupid) and thus he got what he earned?

Did you know that I've tried as hard as I could to get along with you and every last attempt to get along with you ends in frustration and you misunderstanding my intentions?

Did you know any of this stuff? I bet you didn't nor do I think you care.

I have made no comments about why you act as you do, Crystal. I merely have noted that you have. When my boys start arguing and fussing, trying to determine who was wrong first is a waste of time and effort. I'll get the old "he said she said" routine. I make them sit and they are permitted to get back up again when they can resolve their problem. The timeline is completely up to them.

Why you engage in childish name calling is none of my concern. Why you feel a need to discuss/debate as you do is also none of my concern. I know how I have treated you and what I have said to you and I am comfortable that I have kept my comments within the bounds of civility. You will have to assess your own behavior and decide how you feel about it. If you disagree with my assessment, then simply ignore it. :shrug:

And look above for those people who get insulted and those who don't not. You will see quite a difference in the way I treat some people and others. You know very little about what goes on here nor why I treat some people the way I do. Did you know that Lazy Agnostic IMed some very insulting and downright rude remarks? I bet you didn't, you just see what you want to see and screw everything else.

As I say to my boys, I have no intention off getting into a childish "he said she said" debate with you. I have stated no opinions about your rationale - I merely reflect the behavior.

I have avoided observing this for some time, Crystal, but this may merely be a matter of age. As you get older, you will probably find that wasting time responding to people in kind is folly - and all it successfully does is lowers you to their level, as you have managed to do to yourself on this forum. So why are you surprised that, when you behave like a child, someone points out that you are behaving like a child?

My 8 and 10 year olds already know better. They return a smile for insults (most of the time), and walk away from people they cannot deal with on civil terms. They very seldom engage in the ad hom matches you feel obliged to engage in. And if they ever said to me, "but Dad, he called me names first!" I would simply raise one eyebrow and they would know that doesn't wash. We cannot control what others do - but we CAN control the choices WE make. I am reflecting back to you that you are NOT doing so here, most of the time. What you do elsewhere I do not know, nor do I care.

If my son says "gee, Dad, I am good 95% of the time - why do you give me a hard time when I mess up 5% of the time," my response would be, "because you mess up 5% of the time, of course." I doubt any judge or jury in the world would exonerate someone for a crime because they say "most of the time I'm not like that!"

Oops... I forgot about the analogy thing, again. I have to remember not to use stories to illustrate points with you. I'm probably going to get something like "ohh... so now you're the judge and the jury!!" :ahem:

And you ignoring majoring details reflect back on your inability to see that there might be a lot more going on then you seem to think. I grow tried of watching people like yourself seeing what they want to see and ignoring that much of what goes on is not always obvious or behind the scenes. Much of those people I do insult have more then earned it with their performance around T web. You also pretend that I do not make an effort to get along with you and others, you know nothing about me, nothing about my background, nor do you want to understand or care because you want to be free to make any judgments you want and screw what everyone else says. Which is why I pointed out you are slandering and I bet you will ignore all that I told you here and still keep believing what you want to believe, despite what the evidence tells you.

Already responded to. See above.

And again, you are wrong, but I know you will not admit it.

Well, I'll admit you have'nt left the room! :wink:

But I see a LOT of fighting, insulting, and denying. Let me see, so far we have "jerk" and "hypocrite" and there were a few others. I don't remember - and don't care to go hunting for them. They are irrelevant except insofar as they attest to exactly what I have been saying. You cannot seem to control your tongue. Nor, I suspect, would you ever consider apologizing for it.

:ahem:

Yep, complain about insults while you engage in it yourself. I guess yet another example of how you are above your own rules and standards. How does it feel to be above your own standards?

Again, you mistakenly think I am complaining. None of this bothers me in the least, Crystal. Insult away, if that is what you would like to do. It does no injury. That would require that I respect you and care about your opinion. You have done little or nothing to earn such respect, so your comments have no effect whatsoever. I am merely providing a mirror.

And you will keep ignoring that I like to analyze what is going on and you keep ignoring that your 'analogies' are wrong and in fact are two different things. In order to use Occam's Razor, you first need to have all the info available to you, you didn't have all the info about the divine and what the divine would write, thus you can not apply Occam's razor, too bad you didn't get that nor do you care to, just as expected.

Actually, they are not incorrect. Several others seem to have understood them quite well. Of course, they looked to the logical point the analogies were attempting to illustrate - and not ridiculous issues like "is there really a house with no doors or windows." And I have shown several times that I do have all of the information I need to make the judgment I have made. You have been shown by several people why that is so. Your logic has failed (surprise surprise) but you either do not or will not see it.

There are now several people (including John, Parm, Max, JSD, and Nick) who have clearly understood the argument and have managed to do so without your condescension. Your problem is you are trying to change my argument into something it is not. Whether or not you are doing that intentionally, I don't know - but it is a straw man (intentional or otherwise). My argument is based on what IS in the bible (not what should be) and what people DO and DID know. I know what I need to know in these domains. I have said nothing about what SHOULD be in the bible or what a divine being OUGHT to write or WOULD write. Indeed, I have acknowledged I do not have this information, and I have pointed out several times that a divine being COULD have written exactly what IS in the bible. You have pointed ignored all of those repsonses.

The source of your problem, Crystal, is that you still do not understand the argument. I bring as evidence to that fact your complete inability to reflect the argument back correctly. You have attempted to do so some four or five times, and missed the mark each and every time. This is not made up. This is YOUR words in YOUR posts. YOU provided the evidence. Rest assured, when you CAN state my argument clearly and correctly, I will acknowledge it, as I did with Parm, Max, and John.

It is possible, Crystal, that for all your sharp mind, this is simply beyond you. I had thought not, because you strike me as an incredibly intelligent person. For whatever reason, however, you continue to make illogical rejoinders and think you have said something applicable. You have not - for all of the reasons I have cited in previous posts. So your argumentation, as I noted to Steadele, is beginning to look and sound like Jim E.'s in the Devastating thread. No matter what - you are not going to be wrong - even if you have to call an apple a pear and a pig a horse.

Oops.. there goes that analogy thing again. I keep forgetting. Yes - I am aware you did not ACTUALLY call an apple a pear or a pig a horse. :wink:

I've grown tried of watching you do the very thing you accuse me of doing, enjoy being above your rules and standards. Thanks again for proving me wrong that you would honor a simple request, I guess I thought higher of you then I should of. :sad:

If I am on a pedestal, then you should remove me. I do not place myself there, nor should anyone else. I am quite capable of playing the fool, as I demonstrated in the "Devastating" thread. As for the rest, I've already responded to those points.

Michel

P.S. I was going to post this in the "Some thoughts" thread, but figured I'd just be accused of "following you around and slandering" again. Your post to Jimbo is an excellent example of what I am speaking to. Dimbo? Oh nicely done, Crystal. Truly the behavior of a mature, sophisticated, civil adult. :ahem:

And you can spare me the "but daddy, he did it first!" defense. I'm not your daddy and you don't need to defend yourself to me - and that defense wouldn't wash anyway.

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 09:35 AM

Wow - you're really hung up on this thing... :huh:

Yes I am, I'm sick you doing the very thing you accuse others of and reading the worst intentions possible. I hope one day you get that huge plank out of your eye.

More ad homs, and baseless accusations. :shrug:

Just like you do, but only Carp is allowed to do so, nobody else is.

It's not gaul or gull, Crystal. It's "gall."

Picking on minor spelling errors eh? Another example of how Carp is allowed to engage in ad homs while crying that others do it. How does it feel to be above one's own standards that he lays down for others?

And I said nothing about anyone "not being interested in discussion." So this is baseless and not worth considering further.

It isn't baseless at all, Jim E is not interested in a conversation and you make it appear I'm not either. You'll never admit you are wrong here either, thanks for exposing that.

A statistic pulled out of thin air? :huh:

Which is backed up, but I doubt you care.

I have no clue what your statistics are, Crystal. I will say that the majority of your posts here in Apologetics are insulting.

Of course, ignore that 2/3rds of my post are not apologetics and much of those 'insults' are not insults or met to be insulting at all. :blush:

Of course, you've already noted that this is due to this being a "debate" forum. Funny how many others can "debate" here without recourse to ad homs, though.

Funny how you use them often, while complaining that I use them. I guess you're above your own standards, eh?

Since you are coming back and repeating exactly what you normally do even in your responses in THIS discussion, I should change my opinion based on...? :huh:

I know you're not going to change your opinion because you are right and I am wrong. It does not matter how many post I link to and how many people say otherwise. You will believe whatever you want and screw what the evidence says. You have been shown to be using ad homs in this post! Going to admit it yet?

Well, I just posted to Jim's thread and apologized for my behavior and error in slipping into ad homs.

So how long till you do that to me?

I acknowledged I could not support my stance about absolute morality to Arterial Spray. I acknowledged an error to you in my having employed circular reasoning.

Those are relatively minor errors. Now let's see you admit a major error. How about you start by explaining why you can't see the ad homs you posted all over the place by you and ignoring that mine were in response to your double standards?

Those are the first that come to mind. Unfortunately, the site no longer permits searching old threads (that I can find) to locate links - except to the one I just did in the Devastating Arguments thread.

I also remember the child punishment thread where you pretty much said you were right and Mountain Man was wrong and then proceeded to leave when shown otherwise.

Already responded to.

Already responded to.

What you should say is, "already ignored in favor of my views and opinions."

I have nothing to apologize for, Crystal. Your behavior speaks for itself.

As you said above, 'already responded to'. Situations have been explained and it is not my fault that you choose to ignore what you don't want to hear.

I've not slandered anyone.

Yes you have, you have been pointed in error and refuse to correct yourself. What does it mean when you keep saying the same thing when evidence has been shown that you're in error and the situations you think are me being rude is really giving a person the treatment they have earned?

First of all, I can't - this isn't a verbal forum.

No it isn't and you shouldn't read into more then what is there. There is no 'screaming' or 'mocking attitude' like you seem to think there is. The only person here who is reading into what the other says is yourself.

Second, I have said nothing untrue about your behavior.

Yes you have, you pretend as if I go around and insult everybody or do it just because. Each and every person that I have insulted in the least bit has more then earned it. I have already told you why wyzaard and several others have gotten what they have earned. Now do you want me to show you cases where the other person didn't want to be a jerk or when I pointed out why I was a jerk to them and they corrected themselves? The conversation between myself and Evo that I showed you is a perfect example of that.

Your record speaks for itself. If you don't agree - fine.

And it has been explained to you and you ignore it.

Feel free to stop posting and put an end to it. :shrug:

Feel free to say sorry for posting in error. Going to do it yet?

Oh horse hockey, Crystal - and you know it. The number of threads I have posted in that you have come back with a civil rejoinder I could probably count on my left hand. :ahem:

There is quite a few of them and notice the people who I responded to in a rude manner? Wyzaard, Amnouy, John Powell, Jackie Fox or Lazy Agnostic. Are you noticing a pattern yet?

Your tactic is insult, belittle, condescend, and assume the person you're talking to is disingenuous and dishonest in their posting. You're being called on your behavior and you don't like it. Suck up and take it like an adult and stop pouting. If you were my child, I'd send you up to your room until your hissy was over.

Wrong again. I assume a person is honest and here for general information, until proven otherwise. In fact, just a few days ago a poster came in here and I thought at first he wasn't interested in any kind of discussion, but when we discussed the topic on the SB some more, he simply wanted to be a little goofy and thus I told him sorry for assuming the worst about him. You again know very little about what goes on here on T web and just speak from a few post where you perceive X and thus do not try to get to know the person behind the poster and see if maybe they simply did not understand things the same way you do. You perceive 'hissy fits' where is nothing of the sort going on. What is really going on is that I am sick of you reading more into things then what is really there and not wanting to understand or get what is going on. John Powell and wyzaard, the things they did were not done here on Apologetics, but somewhere else. Your understanding is very limited and you comparison to me as 'one of your children' only exposes that you think it's ok for you to call names, while complain about other people. The reality is, if I don't like what a person does, I don't do it, perhaps you might get off your high horse for two seconds and actually try to see what is really going on here, but I doubt you will. Thanks for showing how big of a hypocrite you are and how unwilling you are to look at evidence that proves you wrong.

Then someone is lying to you.

I doubt they are going to lie to me. I have a feeling you just read what you wanted to read and that was it.

Horse hockey. You haven't even begun to make the attempt. If you have, you have an odd way of doing it.

And again you do not care about the other person nor do you want to. Thanks for assuming everybody is like you and does things the same way. Do you always assume the worst about everyone?

You can't seem to take what you love to dish out, Crystal -

Name calling doesn't bug me at all, it's people like yourself who are unable to admit they are wrong and just read what they want and screw things that show otherwise. Trout, Gerbil, and DE call me names all the time. Teal had mossy change my name to 'bug bomb' and we all had a pretty good laugh about it. Again, you see what you want to see and nothing more.

and I'm not even resorting to ad homs. My comments have been about your arguments and your behavior.

Yes you are resorting to ad homs! I find truly amazing that you can not see that calling me one of your children is not an ad hominem. Hypocrite.

More ad homs? You just don't know how to stop, do you? :ahem:

Neither do you. Hypocrite.

Ignore doesn't have to be done with software, Crystal.

You do know that I do have different policies to follow then you do, right? I can't put anybody I want on ignore.

It can be done by conscious choice. As far as I know, there is no policy in Tweb against responding to someone's post.

No there isn't, but when you want to say things about me that isn't true and ignore evidence that shows you are in error, then I have to say something or people might assume it is true.

I have no intention of ignoring you or anyone else. If you have no desire to engage - simply don't engage. Take responsibility for your own decisions and choices. I certainly am not going to take responsibility for them.

:sigh:

Yep, keep reading into what isn't really there. As a mod, I fall under different guidelines and I can't just put you on my ignore list like a regular member can. Since you refuse to want to get along and I find no point in us trying to anymore, I thought it would be best for us not to respond to one another at all. It again seems that you read what you want and completely misunderstand the intentions of the person and warped it to fit into what you want to see. You again expose before all that you're a hypocrite who refuses to follow the standards he lays down for others. You are impossible to get along with.

I said nothing about whether or not I thought you should. I was merely pointing out the array of alternatives available to you. Choose one. Or don't. It's not skin off my nose. :shrug:

Then stop spreading slander about me or say sorry for what you say (I know you will refuse to do either, but that's ok, it seems you are above the standards you lay down for others).

From Post #278: only carp can follow people around and slander them. Sounds pretty much like "stalking" to me. However, since you did not actually USE the word stalking, I put the word in quote to denote a paraphrase.

Let's see, who came into this thread when not a word about or towards them was said? Yep keep warping sentences that were said when I was quite upset with you and make them fit your agenda.

Ironically, this is the subject of a falling out my brother has with me. I do not take responsibility for other people's choices, Crystal. If you do not want to chat or engage, you have options available to you. So long as I am staying within the bounds of the rules of this site, it is not my responsibility to take care of you when you are capable of doing it. Take care of yourself.

Yep, just as I was telling RTT and Sparko last night on PM, you will take my request and warp it and place the blame on me. You are impossible to get along with and always add in the intentions you want to see and ignore the fact I simply want us to get along. Hypocrite.

Already responded to.

What you really mean is, "ignored and warped".

And I'm done listening to you cry about MY attitude while ignoring you own. Just as I suspected, you will warp everything I say and make it appear as if it all my fault and never once admit you are wrong. You are a hypocrite of the worst order, who refuses to admit any major error and makes up the worst of intentions about others while saying they do the very things you do! One day (I hope) you either get off that high horse of yours or somebody knocks you down a few notches. Feel free to warp this too and make me look like that childish bad guy who can never admit to anything.

:pixie:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 10:43 AM

Yes I am, I'm sick you doing the very thing you accuse others of and reading the worst intentions possible. I hope one day you get that huge plank out of your eye.

Since I have said nothing about your intentions, I have no response.

Just like you do, but only Carp is allowed to do so, nobody else is.

More baseless accusations. :shrug:

Picking on minor spelling errors eh? Another example of how Carp is allowed to engage in ad homs while crying that others do it. How does it feel to be above one's own standards that he lays down for others?

Correcting spelling is an ad hom? Crystal - you need to look up the meaning of "ad hom."

Are you by any chance under the mistaken assumption that any time someone takes exception to a comment, the commenter has autmatically engaged in an ad hominem attack? "Ad hominem" means "to the person." It describes a form of argumentation where the arguer abandons the point of the argument and focuses on the person arguing. It usually involves name calling (you should be very familiar with that one) and personal attacks.

I have attacked no one. I have noted your behavior, which is evident in your posts here in Apologetics. I have noted my opinion of said behavior: it is childish. I would not accept such behavior from my 8-year old. Feel free to do with the opinion and observation what you wish.

So far, "what you wish" appears to be to confirm the observations by engaging in the same ad hominem comments, name calling, illogic, and tangential argumentation you bring to most of your discussions in Apologetics. :shrug:

It isn't baseless at all, Jim E is not interested in a conversation and you make it appear I'm not either. You'll never admit you are wrong here either, thanks for exposing that.

More baseless accusations.

Which is backed up, but I doubt you care.

No - it's not. I see no support for a 95% statistic - but feel free to provide it.

Of course, ignore that 2/3rds of my post are not apologetics and much of those 'insults' are not insults or met to be insulting at all. :blush:

I didn't say anything about your posts elsewhere - my comments were about your posts here. You've even acknowledged, in our previous discussion on this topic, that this is your favored strategy here. It's how you debate. So why be embarrassed? If you want to act like this, then just say "I want to act like this" and carry on. No need to make a big fuss.

Sounds like your best response to my observations might be something like: "in Apologetics I like to insult people and belittle them and I see no problem with that." At least, that seems to be what both your words and actions imply. It's is, after all, what you tend to do. :shrug:

Funny how you use them often, while complaining that I use them. I guess you're above your own standards, eh?

Already responded to.

I know you're not going to change your opinion because you are right and I am wrong. It does not matter how many post I link to and how many people say otherwise. You will believe whatever you want and screw what the evidence says. You have been shown to be using ad homs in this post! Going to admit it yet?

I will change my opinion when you change your behavior. That's how it works. :shrug:

So how long till you do that to me?

Until I have cause to apologize. I have none I am aware of. But when someone tells me they think I owe them an apology, I would like to think I take such a thing seriously. So feel free to tell me exactly what I said that you think merits an apology. And I don't mean you vague repetition of how it made you feel or what you think. I mean my specific words. Quote me - and link the post. What exactly have I said that you believe merits an apology.

I promise to look at it and seriously consider it. If it is indeed an ad hominem attack, I will most definitely apologize. In fact, I will go further, if there is input from others that they feel I should be apologizing, even if I do not agree, I will extend the apology.

Those are relatively minor errors. Now let's see you admit a major error. How about you start by explaining why you can't see the ad homs you posted all over the place by you and ignoring that mine were in response to your double standards?

Minor errors!? :lmbo: Let's see - "I was wrong about morality being absolute" is a "minor error?" :rofl:

I would love to know what you consider to be a major one. :wink:

I also remember the child punishment thread where you pretty much said you were right and Mountain Man was wrong and then proceeded to leave when shown otherwise.

Link please. It is not my practice to abandon a thread without a mutual "agree to disagree" or a resolution.

What you should say is, "already ignored in favor of my views and opinions."

Already responded to.

As you said above, 'already responded to'. Situations have been explained and it is not my fault that you choose to ignore what you don't want to hear.

Already responded to.

Yes you have, you have been pointed in error and refuse to correct yourself. What does it mean when you keep saying the same thing when evidence has been shown that you're in error and the situations you think are me being rude is really giving a person the treatment they have earned?

Already responded to.

No it isn't and you shouldn't read into more then what is there. There is no 'screaming' or 'mocking attitude' like you seem to think there is. The only person here who is reading into what the other says is yourself.

This IS a verbal forum? :huh:

Crystal, you're not making any sense.

Yes you have, you pretend as if I go around and insult everybody or do it just because. Each and every person that I have insulted in the least bit has more then earned it. I have already told you why wyzaard and several others have gotten what they have earned. Now do you want me to show you cases where the other person didn't want to be a jerk or when I pointed out why I was a jerk to them and they corrected themselves? The conversation between myself and Evo that I showed you is a perfect example of that.

Already responded to.

And it has been explained to you and you ignore it.

Already responded to.

Feel free to say sorry for posting in error. Going to do it yet?

Already responded to.

There is quite a few of them and notice the people who I responded to in a rude manner? Wyzaard, Amnouy, John Powell, Jackie Fox or Lazy Agnostic. Are you noticing a pattern yet?

Yes - you make childish responses to people you believe have provoked you, which is apparently most of the people in Apologetics who don't share your worldview. :shrug:

Wrong again. I assume a person is honest and here for general information, until proven otherwise.

Right. :ahem:

In fact, just a few days ago a poster came in here and I thought at first he wasn't interested in any kind of discussion, but when we discussed the topic on the SB some more, he simply wanted to be a little goofy and thus I told him sorry for assuming the worst about him.

I still have no clue what an SB is. :shrug:

You again know very little about what goes on here on T web and just speak from a few post where you perceive X and thus do not try to get to know the person behind the poster and see if maybe they simply did not understand things the same way you do. You perceive 'hissy fits' where is nothing of the sort going on.

This isn't a hissy? :huh:

Wow - you could have fooled me!

What is really going on is that I am sick of you reading more into things then what is really there and not wanting to understand or get what is going on. John Powell and wyzaard, the things they did were not done here on Apologetics, but somewhere else. Your understanding is very limited and you comparison to me as 'one of your children' only exposes that you think it's ok for you to call names, while complain about other people. The reality is, if I don't like what a person does, I don't do it, perhaps you might get off your high horse for two seconds and actually try to see what is really going on here, but I doubt you will. Thanks for showing how big of a hypocrite you are and how unwilling you are to look at evidence that proves you wrong.

More ad homs. Well, at least you're true to form!

I doubt they are going to lie to me. I have a feeling you just read what you wanted to read and that was it.

You may believe what you wish. :shrug:

And again you do not care about the other person nor do you want to. Thanks for assuming everybody is like you and does things the same way. Do you always assume the worst about everyone?

Feel free to show, with links, where I have exhibited this behavior or made these statements.

Name calling doesn't bug me at all,

Apparently not - since you engage in it regularly.

it's people like yourself who are unable to admit they are wrong and just read what they want and screw things that show otherwise. Trout, Gerbil, and DE call me names all the time. Teal had mossy change my name to 'bug bomb' and we all had a pretty good laugh about it. Again, you see what you want to see and nothing more.

I'm actually not referring to the kind of "name calling" that happen between friends in jest, Crystal, and I think you know it. This is specious at best.

Yes you are resorting to ad homs! I find truly amazing that you can not see that calling me one of your children is not an ad hominem. Hypocrite.

Another ad hom. And feel free to provide link and location where I called you "my child."

Neither do you. Hypocrite.

You're not very good at this, Crystal. A little variety would at least be entertaining.

You do know that I do have different policies to follow then you do, right? I can't put anybody I want on ignore.

Again, Crystal, you miss the point. "Ignore" can be done by things other than software, as I said in my previous post. You can simply choose to ignore. Just don't read the posts. It's not very complicated.

No there isn't, but when you want to say things about me that isn't true and ignore evidence that shows you are in error, then I have to say something or people might assume it is true.

I have said nothing untrue. But if you think I have, feel free to ask someone to review and moderate the posts. Or provide proof that I have. So far, you have not.

:sigh:

Yep, keep reading into what isn't really there. As a mod, I fall under different guidelines and I can't just put you on my ignore list like a regular member can.

Already responded to

Since you refuse to want to get along and I find no point in us trying to anymore, I thought it would be best for us not to respond to one another at all.

Then don't respond. :shrug:

It again seems that you read what you want and completely misunderstand the intentions of the person and warped it to fit into what you want to see. You again expose before all that you're a hypocrite who refuses to follow the standards he lays down for others. You are impossible to get along with.

Already responded to

Then stop spreading slander about me or say sorry for what you say (I know you will refuse to do either, but that's ok, it seems you are above the standards you lay down for others).

Already responded to

Let's see, who came into this thread when not a word about or towards them was said? Yep keep warping sentences that were said when I was quite upset with you and make them fit your agenda.

I think it is fairly common practice, around here, to point out inconsistencies in people's post. My response in this thread was exactly that: you have recently abandoned a thread in which you missed an obvious argument completely. Your comment to John was ironic, not to mention yet another of your lovely ad homs. I merely pointed it out. :shrug:

Yep, just as I was telling RTT and Sparko last night on PM, you will take my request and warp it and place the blame on me.

You may freely point out where I assigned blame. You will not find anywhere. I did, however, note that I will not take responsibility for doing what you can do yourself. If you do not want to engage, do not engage. I am not going to tailor my behavior to suit your needs unless and until someone can demonstrate that it is inappropriate to begin with. Thus far, I have stayed within the bounds of the protocols of this site.

You are impossible to get along with and always add in the intentions you want to see and ignore the fact I simply want us to get along. Hypocrite.

More ad homs. :ahem: You know, a little variation would be welcome.

What you really mean is, "ignored and warped".

Already responded to

And I'm done listening to you cry about MY attitude while ignoring you own.

I'm not crying. I don't even really care all that much. :shrug:

Just as I suspected, you will warp everything I say and make it appear as if it all my fault and never once admit you are wrong.

I have assigned no "blame" that I am aware of. I have noted your actions. You are free to do with the information what you wish.

You are a hypocrite of the worst order, who refuses to admit any major error and makes up the worst of intentions about others while saying they do the very things you do!

Already responded to

One day (I hope) you either get off that high horse of yours or somebody knocks you down a few notches.

My wife takes care of that regularly. :wink:

Feel free to warp this too and make me look like that childish bad guy who can never admit to anything.

No need, Crystal. You are making yourself look like what you usually make yourself look like. You have no need of my assistance.

Again, as I tell my children, the power is in your hands. If you want people to have a different perception of you, look to your own behavior and the causal relationship between it and the perception....

...or not. You are certainly free to keep ranting if you wish. I have to admit you still have not "left the room," which I expected you to do long since. You haven't managed to post without the ad homs, illogic, and stubborn clinging to being right, however. And you continue to cut out the sections of the posts you probably can't respond to. That much remains pretty much true to form. :shrug:

Michel

P.S. We have pretty much hijacked this thread, and it now appears to be a thread devoted to a dispute between you and I, Crystal. So you have another avenue for ending the discussion. Simply move it to your "boiler room" and it will pretty much end. As I said, I pretty much only engage in Apologetics. The only recent post I've made elsewhere in recent memory is the one I just made in Zelu's poll in the boiler room, which I only saw because your link led me to that forum. It was interesting to me to note that Zel doesn't seem to think I've engaged in libel either. She has always struct me a pretty level headed, though we have slight differences of worldview.

I have to say, Crystal, that thread you started "Here You Go" was pretty lame. Did you really think I was going to set out to engage in the kind of ad hom attacks you seem to favor? :huh:

Michel

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 11:03 AM

No need, Crystal. You are making yourself look like what you usually make yourself look like. You have no need of my assistance.

No Carp, you are not at all wanting to understand what is going on or what is reality. What you want to do is see things your way and screw evidence that says otherwise.

Again, as I tell my children, the power is in your hands. If you want people to have a different perception of you, look to your own behavior and the causal relationship between it and the perception....

And I'm sorry that you do not take the time to get to know what is going on before you say something. I have learned that you do not let your perceptions tell you what is happening because often times your perceptions are wrong. What you do instead is find out why a person said or did what they did before you let the little bit you have seen set your views or mood. Why did person X say what they did? Are they under stress? What is the history? In other words, build upon your information before you pass judgment. You don't want to do that and this conversation is a perfect example of that. You know nothing about what you are talking about. You know nothing about the history that is going on. You just open your mouth and not do the least bit of investigation before you pass judgment. In other words, you have let your biasness overcome any evidence that proves you wrong. Just as I suspected, you will never admit you are wrong nor will you even try to understand what really goes on that you do not see.

...or not. You are certainly free to keep ranting if you wish.

Yep, I'm ranting because I'm defending myself against unwarranted attacks by a person who goes by the bare min information and ignores everything he doesn't want to hear.

I have to admit you still have not "left the room," which I expected you to do long since. You haven't managed to post without the ad homs, illogic, and stubborn clinging to being right.

Like you eh? So how long till you get that huge plank out of your eye? It must be very hard for you to open doors. Let's see, who called who childish? YOU! Who said I am illogical? YOU! Who said that I'm stubborn cling to being right (while you do the same thing)? YOU! Yep, a hypocrite to the very end, just as suspected now explain why you are allowed to engage in the behavior you condemn me for?

And you continue to cut out the sections of the posts you probably can't respond to. That much remains pretty much the same. :shrug:

:rofl:

Ummm no, I get tired of telling you the same thing over and over again or writing long paragraphs just to watch you brush it aside without the slightest consideration. I hope someday you get off that high horse of yours. BTW I'd love to know what bases you condemn my behavior by, after all... why does it matter if I'm rude or not?

P.S. We have pretty much hijacked this thread, and it now appears to be a thread devoted to a dispute between you and I, Crystal. So you have another avenue for ending the discussion.

I started a thread for you to rant in all you want.

Simply move it to your "boiler room" and it will pretty much end. As I said, I pretty much only engage in Apologetics. The only recent pot I've made elsewhere is the one I just made in Zelu's poll in the boiler room, which I only saw because your link led me to that forum.

In other words, you know hardly anything that goes on outside Apologetics and as such, you don't know much of the history I have had against other people in the past. You base your view on a few snipes of what you see and ignore what may be going on outside of your stomping grounds.

I have to say, Crystal, that thread you started "Here You Go" was pretty lame. Did you really think I was going to set out to engage in the kind of ad hom attacks you seem to favor? :huh:

You engage in ad hom attacks here, what makes it different there? Oh yeah, you can't see your own behavior and how much you contradict yourself by talking about my behavior and being unable to see your own. What a hypocrite you have become, but I'm sure you'll just brush this off as an 'ad hom' without even once looking at your own behavior.

:pixie:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 11:10 AM

No Carp, you are not at all wanting to understand what is going on or what is reality. What you want to do is see things your way and screw evidence that says otherwise.

Already responded to

And I'm sorry that you do not take the time to get to know what is going on before you say something. I have learned that you do not let your perceptions tell you what is happening because often times your perceptions are wrong. What you do instead is find out why a person said or did what they did before you let the little bit you have seen set your views or mood. Why did person X say what they did? Are they under stress? What is the history? In other words, build upon your information before you pass judgment. You don't want to do that and this conversation is a perfect example of that. You know nothing about what you are talking about. You know nothing about the history that is going on. You just open your mouth and not do the least bit of investigation before you pass judgment. In other words, you have let your biasness overcome any evidence that proves you wrong. Just as I suspected, you will never admit you are wrong nor will you even try to understand what really goes on that you do not see.

This is a long winded version of "But daddy, he said it FIRST." (And no, I'm not saying you are my child - I am making a metaphor, whether or not you are able to parse those is not my concern). As I tell my kids, it doesn't wash. But you deleted most of that part of that post, I noticed.

Yep, I'm ranting because I'm defending myself against unwarranted attacks by a person who goes by the bare min information and ignores everything he doesn't want to hear.

Your choice... :shrug:

Like you eh? So how long till you get that huge plank out of your eye? It must be very hard for you to open doors. Let's see, who called who childish? YOU! Who said I am illogical? YOU! Who said that I'm stubborn cling to being right (while you do the same thing)? YOU! Yep, a hypocrite to the very end, just as suspected now explain why you are allowed to engage in the behavior you condemn me for?

Already responded to

:rofl:

Ummm no, I get tired of telling you the same thing over and over again or writing long paragraphs just to watch you brush it aside without the slightest consideration. I hope someday you get off that high horse of yours.

Unfortunately, what you are cutting out are also new elements to which you are not responding. I find myself wondering why...:huh:

BTW I'd love to know what bases you condemn my behavior by, after all... why does it matter if I'm rude or not?

It doesn't, Crystal. As I said, I'm just holding up a mirror. :shrug:

I started a thread for you to rant in all you want.

So I noticed.

In other words, you know hardly anything that goes on outside Apologetics and as such, you don't know much of the history I have had against other people in the past. You base your view on a few snipes of what you see and ignore what may be going on outside of your stomping grounds.

our snipes here hardly constitute "a few snipes" Crystal. :shrug:

You engage in ad hom attacks here, what makes it different there?

No, I don't.

Oh yeah, you can't see your own behavior and how much you contradict yourself by talking about my behavior and being unable to see your own.

Already responded to

What a hypocrite you have become, but I'm sure you'll just brush this off as an 'ad hom' without even once looking at your own behavior.

Hard not to call a shovel a shovel, Crystal. You tendency to ad hom is pretty distinct. But I will let our faithful readers come to their own conclusion. I have come to mine and you aren't doing much to change that perception. :shrug:

That being said, I added something to my last post, about apologies, that you may wish to see. I provided you an avenue for getting one, if one is merited. I leave it to you to decide if you want to.

Michel

MrManNo1

October 21st 2007, 11:12 AM

I find it funny that Carpe is trying to "teach" someone else about logic.

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 11:58 AM

Already responded to

Don't you mean, "already ignored"?

This is a long winded version of "But daddy, he said it FIRST." (And no, I'm not saying you are my child - I am making a metaphor, whether or not you are able to parse those is not my concern). As I tell my kids, it doesn't wash. But you deleted most of that part of that post, I noticed.

Ummm Carp, I can give two licks about name calling. What I care about are hypocrites who do the things they accuse others of. It's a simple fact, if I feel something is beneath me, I don't engage in it. Perhaps someday you'll do that, but I guess today is not that day. I deleted most of your post because I'm not dealing with your endless tangents and endless misunderstandings and assuming the worst possible about a person. You sir are the biggest hypocrite I have ever had the displeasure of talking to. Might want to take that little speech of yours and follow your own advice.

Unfortunately, what you are cutting out are also new elements to which you are not responding. I find myself wondering why...:huh:

Because my dear Carp, you are going off on endless tangents and basically doing the very things you accuse me of doing.

It doesn't, Crystal. As I said, I'm just holding up a mirror. :shrug:

Too bad you haven't looked at it yourself.

Hard not to call a shovel a shovel, Crystal.

You should know. :thumb:

You tendency to ad hom is pretty distinct.

About as well known as your tendency. :lol:

But I will let our faithful readers come to their own conclusion. I have come to mine and you aren't doing much to change that perception. :shrug:

Nope, because the simple fact of the matter is that you don't care, you want to be free to believe what you want and screw evidence that proves you wrong. One of our faithful readers has already offered a response.

That being said, I added something to my last post, about apologies, that you may wish to see. I provided you an avenue for getting one, if one is merited. I leave it to you to decide if you want to.

Let me guess... do I have to admit that you are right and I am wrong? :ahem:

Post it here, I'm not reading though your endless tangents and repeating yourself again and again.

:pixie:

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 11:58 AM

I find it funny that Carpe is trying to "teach" someone else about logic.

You're forgetting. I am wrong and Carp is right! It is the only logical way!

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 12:25 PM

Don't you mean, "already ignored"?

Already responded to.

Ummm Carp, I can give two licks about name calling.

That much is apparent. You engage in it regularly. So it's odd to me that you object to my pointing it out. :shrug:

What I care about are hypocrites who do the things they accuse others of. It's a simple fact, if I feel something is beneath me, I don't engage in it.

Umm... right... :ahem:

Perhaps someday you'll do that, but I guess today is not that day. I deleted most of your post because I'm not dealing with your endless tangents and endless misunderstandings and assuming the worst possible about a person.

Umm... right... :ahem:

You sir are the biggest hypocrite I have ever had the displeasure of talking to. Might want to take that little speech of yours and follow your own advice.

I attempt to regularly, and try to acknowledge it when I don't.

Because my dear Carp, you are going off on endless tangents and basically doing the very things you accuse me of doing.

Umm... right... :ahem:

Too bad you haven't looked at it yourself.

When/if you provide the information requested, I intend to. Until then, the bluster I basically ignore. :shrug:

You should know. :thumb:

Agreed.

About as well known as your tendency. :lol:

I'm comfortable with my record, Crystal. Where I am not, I've apologized. "I'm sorry" is not really that hard. Just as when I am shown to be wrong, I say, I was "wrong." That too is not that difficult. :shrug:

Nope, because the simple fact of the matter is that you don't care, you want to be free to believe what you want and screw evidence that proves you wrong. One of our faithful readers has already offered a response.

Yes, they have - about my ability to engage in logic. They are welcome to point out places where my logic is flawed. I have chatted with MMN1 a few times. His logic appears to be a lot more solid than yours. Most of the time we disagree on issues, not logic.

Let me guess... do I have to admit that you are right and I am wrong? :ahem:

Nope. You don't have to admit anything. The offer is there. Take it or leave it. It's of no concern to me one way or the other. :shrug:

Post it here, I'm not reading though your endless tangents and repeating yourself again and again.

Fair enough. From post #293:

Until I have cause to apologize. I have none I am aware of. But when someone tells me they think I owe them an apology, I would like to think I take such a thing seriously. So feel free to tell me exactly what I said that you think merits an apology. And I don't mean you vague repetition of how it made you feel or what you think. I mean my specific words. Quote me - and link the post. What exactly have I said that you believe merits an apology.

I promise to look at it and seriously consider it. If it is indeed an ad hominem attack, I will most definitely apologize. In fact, I will go further, if there is input from others that they feel I should be apologizing, even if I do not agree, I will extend the apology.

Michel

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 12:28 PM

You're forgetting. I am wrong and Carp is right! It is the only logical way!

As I have said, Crystal, feel free to post verse and link where I have claimed this.

You have deleted all of the places where I have challenged you to do so. Your intentions are known only to you, of course, but the circumstances seem very suspicious. I have come to believe that you delete and don't link because you cannot. You know I do not claim this, nor have I said it or implied it.

So this goes on an already rather long list of baseless accusations. It really is making you look a bit desperate, Crystal, to resort to such tactics. :shrug:

Michel

MrManNo1

October 21st 2007, 01:13 PM

As I have said, Crystal, feel free to post verse and link where I have claimed this.

You claimed that, since people come to different conclusions from "careful and biased study", it must be the base claim that is wrong, not the interpretation, and nothing at all can be known about the base claim. In other words, you are saying, since people come to different conclusions, every single person who believes the base statement is wrong.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2079026&postcount=2645

If that's not throwing out everyone else's logic and saying your's is ipso facto better, I don't know what is...

John Powell

October 21st 2007, 01:21 PM

LPOT:
. . . In order to use Occam's Razor, you first need to have all the info available to you, you didn't have all the info about the divine and what the divine would write, thus you can not apply Occam's razor, . . .

Carpedm:
. . . I do have all of the information I need to make the judgment I have made. . .

My argument is based on what IS in the bible (not what should be) and what people DO and DID know. I know what I need to know in these domains. I have said nothing about what SHOULD be in the bible or what a divine being OUGHT to write or WOULD write. Indeed, I have acknowledged I do not have this information, and I have pointed out several times that a divine being COULD have written exactly what IS in the bible. . .

POWELL:
I agree with Carpedm about this issue. I think LPOT is mistaken. You don't need to know what God would or should write if God had inspired the Bible in order to properly apply Occam's Razor.

Let's suppose that to explain LPOT's behavior, someone (let's make up a name, Steve) suggested that LPOT's father was an alien and Carpedm used Occam's Razor to reject that assumption. Carpedm would argue that there's nothing about LPOT's behavior that requires that her father be an alien. This doesn't prove her father wasn't an alien. Her father could have been an alien and she behave just how she has.

Now, if Steve were to ask Carpedm to tell him what her behavior would be if she were an alien would Carpedm need to provide that answer in order for Carpedm to properly apply Occam's Razor? I don't think so. What do you think, Crystal?

If you still think the same way about this then perhaps you will provide a good example in which that kind of information (how things would be if the rejected assumption were true) would be REQUIRED to properly apply Occam's Razor. Will you post such an example?

John Powell

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 01:31 PM

You claimed that, since people come to different conclusions from "careful and biased study", it must be the base claim that is wrong, not the interpretation, and nothing at all can be known about the base claim.

Careful and biased? Are you sure you meant that? :huh:

I'm going to assume you didn't and you meant "careful and unbiased." And no, that was not my argument. There are many places where "careful and unbiased" study can achieve results because the results have a mechanism by which they can be verified. This includes scientific claims, and it includes some kinds of historical claims. Many of the claims in the bible, for example, that have to do with political structures, personages, places, and cultural details can be carefully studied, and since many of them have external corroborating evidence, can be verified and differences (eventually) reconciled.

The claims that cannot be are the more nebulous "the intent of the author was" claims, and claims about the nature of god, the intent of god, etc. Because there is no external verification possible, these will result in an endless sequence of "I am right and you are wrong" with no avenue for establishing what is the truth.

In other words, you are saying, since people come to different conclusions, every single person who believes the base statement is wrong.

No - I am not. And I am beginning to wonder if perhaps I erred in my comment about disagreements with you not being related to logic. Perhaps I had you confused with someone else.

My statement was about a very narrow aspect of scriptural and historical studies - not all topics and all disagreements. And it is not the disagreement that indicates the problem, it is the absence of a mechanism for resolving the dispute. Nor did I ever say that they were necessarily wrong. What I said was there is no mechanism for determining which one of them is right - which is not the same thing.

Your logic is not what I thought it was, MMN1, if you can take a fairly simple observation and read so much into it incorrectly.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2079026&postcount=2645

If that's not throwing out everyone else's logic and saying your's is ipso facto better, I don't know what is...

It's not, and if you go back and read my post and the thread carefully, you will find you have misinterpreted the argument. Nor have I claimed I am any more capable of resolving such disputes than anyone else. Indeed, I have been rather clear that I don't waste time engaging in them. This link does not demonstrate what Crystal is accusing me of. And you won't find one since I do not have that opinion nor have I ever made or implied that statement.

Michel

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 01:34 PM

You claimed that, since people come to different conclusions from "careful and biased study", it must be the base claim that is wrong, not the interpretation, and nothing at all can be known about the base claim. In other words, you are saying, since people come to different conclusions, every single person who believes the base statement is wrong.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2079026&postcount=2645

If that's not throwing out everyone else's logic and saying your's is ipso facto better, I don't know what is...

Now let us watch Carp jump though hoops or ignore what he doesn't want to hear.

:popcorn:

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 01:35 PM

It's not, and if you go back and read my post carefully, you will find you have misinterpreted the argument. Nor have I claimed I am any more capable of resolving such disputes than anyone else. Indeed, I have been rather clear that I don't waste time engaging in them. This link does not demonstrate what Crystal is accusing me of. And you won't find one since I do not have that opinion nor have I ever made or implied that statement.l

Yep, predictable as always...

"You misunderstand my argument, so there!"

:popcorn:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 01:47 PM

POWELL:
I agree with Carpedm about this issue. I think LPOT is mistaken. You don't need to know what God would or should write if God had inspired the Bible in order to properly apply Occam's Razor.

Let's suppose that to explain LPOT's behavior, someone (let's make up a name, Steve) suggested that LPOT's father was an alien and Carpedm used Occam's Razor to reject that assumption. Carpedm would argue that there's nothing about LPOT's behavior that requires that her father be an alien. This doesn't prove her father wasn't an alien. Her father could have been an alien and she behave just how she has.

Now, if Steve were to ask Carpedm to tell him what her behavior would be if she were an alien would Carpedm need to provide that answer in order for Carpedm to properly apply Occam's Razor? I don't think so. What do you think, Crystal?

If you still think the same way about this then perhaps you will provide a good example in which that kind of information (how things would be if the rejected assumption were true) would be REQUIRED to properly apply Occam's Razor. Will you post such an example?

John Powell

Oops.. you used an analogy, John. Not a good idea. That's likely to get you a "prove to me there are aliens" or "I dont have any friends named 'Steve' " response... :wink:

Much as you and I have crossed swords in the past, John, your logic is usually pretty solid (if somewhat hairsplitting). Others I would say that of include Johnny, MaxVel, APNick, Arterial Spray (I miss him), JSD, Red Wine, and even Meh_Gerbil (but don't tell him I said so!).

Michel

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 01:47 PM

Now let us watch Carp jump though hoops or ignore what he doesn't want to hear.

:popcorn:

You'll need to put the hoop a little higher. :wink:

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 01:48 PM

You'll need to put the hoop a little higher. :wink:

Let me guess:

"You don't understand my argument."

I'm guessing that is going to be the response from now on?

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 01:50 PM

Let's suppose that to explain LPOT's behavior, someone (let's make up a name, Steve) suggested that LPOT's father was an alien and Carpedm used Occam's Razor to reject that assumption. Carpedm would argue that there's nothing about LPOT's behavior that requires that her father be an alien. This doesn't prove her father wasn't an alien. Her father could have been an alien and she behave just how she has.

Gosh Powell, I never knew that. Please tell me where you came up with this grand revolution! So since when does behavior you disagree with imply that a person has a father that is an alien? Wow, what a silly comparison.

:rofl:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 01:51 PM

Yep, predictable as always...

"You misunderstand my argument, so there!"

:popcorn:

I do try to live up to expectations! :wink:

Anyway - it appears we're done here, Crystal, unless you have more you want to say. I'll leave it to you to decide what (if anything) to do with the observations. If history is any indication, that will be nothing. The chain of ad homs, belittling responses, illogic, assumption that the other person is "the enemy" and tangential arguments will continue unabated.

And you STILL haven't reflected the argument back correctly. It amazes me you can actually think you are making a meaningful response when you don't even grasp the point being made. :huh:

Oh well... such is life. :shrug:

Michel

P.S. Thanks for the :popcorn: I was hungry :wink:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 01:52 PM

Let me guess:

"You don't understand my argument."

I'm guessing that is going to be the response from now on?

Only when you actually don't :teeth:

And I notice you still haven't posted the link to what you believe you are owed an apology for. I presume that request has been withdrawn?

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 01:53 PM

Gosh Powell, I never knew that. Please tell me where you came up with this grand revolution! So since when does behavior you disagree with imply that a person has a father that is an alien? Wow, what a silly comparison.

:rofl:

Am I a prophet, or what? :wink:

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 01:55 PM

Anyway - it appears we're done here, Crystal, unless you have more you want to say. I'll leave it to you to decide what (if anything) to do with the observations. If history is any indication, that will be nothing. The chain of ad homs, belittling responses, illogic, assumption that the other person is "the enemy" and tangential arguments will continue unabated.

Just following your example. :wink:

And you STILL haven't reflected the argument back correctly. It amazes me you can actually think you are making a meaningful response when you don't even grasp the point being made. :huh:

I do grasp the point being made and again the analogy is false. Perhaps you and Powell can come together and write better metaphors? There must be hundreds of thousands of people who have fathers that are aliens! I'm sure the AF must be shocked to learn that my DNA on file contains non human DNA. The analogy is silly, but my bet is you do not or will not see it.

:pixie:

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 01:57 PM

Am I a prophet, or what? :wink:

I knew that you would pretend that the analogy is right. I must be a prophet too.

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 01:58 PM

Only when you actually don't :teeth:

And I notice you still haven't posted the link to what you believe you are owed an apology for. I presume that request has been withdrawn?

Why bother? I'm wrong and you are right and no amount of evidence will change that.

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:00 PM

Just following your example. :wink:

Umm.. right... :ahem:

I do grasp the point being made and again the analogy is false.

So you keep saying, Crystal. But since you have tried to spit it out four or five times and gotten it wrong each time, until you actually get it right I think I'll go with what you seem capable of doing and not what you claim to be capable of doing. It seems only reasonable. :shrug:

Perhaps you and Powell can come together and write better metaphors?

As best I can tell, it would be a waste of time. You don't focus on the point of the metaphor/analogy, so the exercise is lost on you.

There must be hundreds of thousands of people who have fathers that are aliens! I'm sure the AF must be shocked to learn that my DNA on file contains non human DNA. The analogy is silly, but my bet is you do not or will not see it.

You win your bet, Crystal. And you have just made my point marvelously.

P.S. By the way, Bagger Vance has just made the argument you seem to think I am making in the Mundanities thread. So now you actually have someone to argue with and your response will fit their argument. For the record, in THAT argument, I would agree with you (for the obvious reasons).

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:03 PM

Why bother? I'm wrong and you are right and no amount of evidence will change that.

Given the caveat that I would extend an apology if anyone else concurred with your position, even if I disagreed, your accusation falls a bit flat, Crystal. I conclude, therefore, that the problem is more that you cannot find anything to link to, and you know it.

And you still have not provided a link to where I have said I believe I am always right and your are always wrong, so that accusation is a bit moot as well. :shrug:

You're dancing, Crystal. You're too sharp not to know, deep inside, that there is some merit to what I have said. You're clearly angry, and reacting. Perhaps, in time, you'll give it some thought and do something about it.

Or not.

As I said, the choice is entirely yours. It does not impact me one way or the other. The discussions are tedious as they are, and a lot of time is wasted on your non-sequitors (I can never spell that right). But such is life. There are worst things. :shrug:

Michel

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:08 PM

I knew that you would pretend that the analogy is right. I must be a prophet too.

I don't need to pretend. John's analogy is fine, for the logic it attempts to deal with. You, of course, will focus on whether or not there are "really aliens" or "you might really be an alien." At the end of the day, Crystal, it's really rather silly. But hey - it's your dime. Spend it any way you like.

Or maybe you just don't understand analogies? :shrug:

Michel

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 02:10 PM

Umm.. right... :ahem:

Still can't see your own ad homns or illogic eh? It's ok.

So you keep saying, Crystal. But since you have tried to spit it out four or five times and gotten it wrong each time, until you actually get it right I think I'll go with what you seem capable of doing and not what you claim to be capable of doing. It seems only reasonable. :shrug:

Of course, I am wrong and you are right. There we have figured out the problem. Now just tell the world that.

As best I can tell, it would be a waste of time. You don't focus on the point of the metaphor/analogy, so the exercise is lost on you.

Gosh, sorry that I also want to see rather or not the metaphor has even a bases in reality. If all people's behavior you disagreed with had fathers that were aliens, there must be millions of people running around with aliens as fathers. Too bad that you can't see how downright silly that metaphor can be. Perhaps you need better metaphors?

You win your bet, Crystal. And you have just made my point marvelously.

Sorry Carp, I have found it a pointless crusade to sit here and argue with you because no matter what, everyone who disagrees is wrong and you are right and nothing anybody says will prove otherwise. You are free to engage in the very behavior you accuse others of, illogic, self contradictions, name calling, but anybody does it back, they are in the wrong.

P.S. By the way, Bagger Vance has just made the argument you seem to think I am making in the Mundanities thread. So now you actually have someone to argue with and your response will fit their argument. For the record, in THAT argument, I would agree with you (for the obvious reasons).

Sorry that I tried to apply your argument to the real world and see if it works. I'll try not to do that in the future.

:pixie;

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 02:12 PM

I don't need to pretend. John's analogy is fine, for the logic it attempts to deal with. You, of course, will focus on whether or not there are "really aliens" or "you might really be an alien." At the end of the day, Crystal, it's really rather silly. But hey - it's your dime. Spend it any way you like.

:ahem:

Ummm no I didn't.... Miss the point again eh? It's ok... only I miss the point, you never do.

Or maybe you just don't understand analogies? :shrug:

Of course. Crystal disagree therefore Crystal does not understand analogies. That is the logical reasoning, there is no other way.

:pixie:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:15 PM

Still can't see your own ad homns or illogic eh? It's ok.

Already responded to.

Of course, I am wrong and you are right. There we have figured out the problem. Now just tell the world that.

You still have not furnished a link for this accusation, Crystal - so it's looking rather silly. And you can certainly continue to believe I am the enemy and I am lying to you when I tell you that your attempts to reflect my argument have not been accurate. I can only tell you that you have NOT reflected the argument back accurately. What you do with that information is entirely up to you. :shrug:

Gosh, sorry that I also want to see rather or not the metaphor has even a bases in reality. If all people's behavior you disagreed with had fathers that were aliens, there must be millions of people running around with aliens as fathers. Too bad that you can't see how downright silly that metaphor can be. Perhaps you need better metaphors?

Already responded to.

Sorry Carp, I have found it a pointless crusade to sit here and argue with you because no matter what, everyone who disagrees is wrong and you are right and nothing anybody says will prove otherwise. You are free to engage in the very behavior you accuse others of, illogic, self contradictions, name calling, but anybody does it back, they are in the wrong.

Already responded to.

Sorry that I tried to apply your argument to the real world and see if it works. I'll try not to do that in the future.

Since you don't know what my argument is (based on your failed attempts to express it), it is a stretch to think you could apply it to anything, Crystal.

Why don't you do the adult, thing, Crystal, and just make another attempt to reflect the argument back, if you think you understand it. You were close last time. You just still aren't there. You still think I am making the argument Bagger made. Once you see that I am not - you will see your error. Or go talk to one of those logical friends of yours and see what they say about your grasp of my argument. You obviously won't believe me.

Or you can continue the silly fight. Your choice. :shrug:

Michel

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:16 PM

:ahem:

Ummm no I didn't.... Miss the point again eh? It's ok... only I miss the point, you never do.

I miss them sometimes. :shrug:

Of course. Crystal disagree therefore Crystal does not understand analogies. That is the logical reasoning, there is no other way.

Already responded to.

Michel

P.S. You know this makes a lot more sense. With three nested threads working, we can keep answering each other in real time. :wink:

But we're going to have to wrap it up. I have to go coach an Odyssey of the Mind meeting in about 20 minutes. :smile:

shadowmaster

October 21st 2007, 02:19 PM

"I am right and you are wrong."

Nice for a black and white world, unlike the one we inhabit.

Actually that is largely the theme of all tweb debates. Seldom is anything ever resolved.

Edward deBono wrote a book by that title ... illustrating why that concept of debate is flawed. shadowmaster recommends it.

http://www.amazon.com/Right-You-Are-Wrong-Renaissance/dp/0140126783/ref=sr_1_5/104-7234817-4828702?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192990554&sr=8-5

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:20 PM

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 02:21 PM

You still have not furnished a link for this accusation, Crystal - so it's looking rather silly. And you can certainly continue to believe I am the enemy and I am lying to you when I tell you that your attempts to reflect my argument have not been accurate. I can only tell you that you have NOT reflected the argument back accurately. What you do with that information is entirely up to you. :shrug:

Really? So you are not saying that we have no reason to assume that the Bible was divinely inspired? Please explain what your True ArgumentTM is if I 'missed it'.

Since you don't know what my argument is (based on your failed attempts to express it, it is a stretch to think you could apply it to anything, Crystal.

Yep, I don't understand it, keep saying that again and again, it just might become true.

Why don't you do the adult, thing, Crystal, and just make another attempt to reflect the argument back, if you think you understand it.

Do you think there is no reason to assume that the Bible is divinely inspired? Is there anything there I missed or misunderstood?

You were close last time. You just still aren't there.

Of course, I am wrong and you are right.

You still think I am making the argument Bagger made. Once you see that I am not - you will see your error.

Nope, I think you said that there is no reason to assume that God inspired the Bible because you think there is nothing in it that can't be explained by those living in the ANE. What did I miss? Point it out.

Or you can continue the silly fight. Your choice. :shrug:

Or you can tell us all what I missed above (besides asking a simple question that you refused to answer). Keep saying that I didn't understand the argument. Please point out one thing I didn't understand and tell us why my question was invalid. I shall wait for an answer.

:pixie:

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 02:22 PM

I miss them sometimes. :shrug:

What do you think it was?

:pixie:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:35 PM

Really? So you are not saying that we have no reason to assume that the Bible was divinely inspired? Please explain what your True ArgumentTM is if I 'missed it'.

I have done this so many times, at this point, I don't see how doing it once again is going to make a whit of difference, but I'll give it a shot. I have to admit I do so with full expectation that I'll get another of your infamous blasts, but who knows, maybe I'll be proven wrong.

Your statement above is correct - but it is not my argument. It is the conclusion to my argument. It is the argument you do not appear to understand correctly because you are arguing against a position I do not take.

The bible contains many passages and statements. When these are examined, and when they are compared with what we know of the people of the ANE and with other writings from that period, everything the bible contains is explainable by the level of knowledge the people of that era had. Ergo, an adequate explanation for the authorship of the bible is at hand (Occam's Razor): the people wrote it unassisted.

A claim that it was inspired/authored by a god is not supportable by recourse to the text itself. That does not mean it is an untrue claim. It merely means there is not adequate evidence to suggest it IS true.

Yep, I don't understand it, keep saying that again and again, it just might become true.

You have a simple mechanism for showing it to be false, Crystal. Merely reflect the argument back correctly. Otherwise, I can only go by your last attempt, which was not correct. I think I am a reasonable judge of whether or not someone is accurately reflecting my own argument back to me. I have done for for Max and for Parm. I would have no reason to do otherwise for you. Your assumption that I have an agenda here is incorrect, and pointless, IMO.

Do you think there is no reason to assume that the Bible is divinely inspired? Is there anything there I missed or misunderstood?

You have my conclusion correct. You have not reflected the argument that leads to the conclusion. Your inability to do so is resulting in your making refuting arguments that are disconnected and have nothing to do with my argument. Your refusal to accept that in the spirit of discussion, and to assume I am the "enemy" is making discussion virtually impossible.

Until you let that go, we will get nowhere. Of that I am confident.

Of course, I am wrong and you are right.

You know, Crystal, you can repeat this mantra forever if you wish, but you're starting to sound a bit petulant. And it really is pointless, you know. I do not hold this position with you or anyone else. But... as I said.. it's your dime. Spend it as you wish. :shrug:

Nope, I think you said that there is no reason to assume that God inspired the Bible because you think there is nothing in it that can't be explained by those living in the ANE. What did I miss? Point it out.

Excellent! I should have read down further before posting mine above. It would have saved me time. This is it in a nutshell. So the argument is about what IS in the bible, and what the people of the ANE could have known. It is NOT about what SHOULD be in the bible, or COULD be in the bible, or what a divine being MIGHT know. These are all tangents unrelated to my argument, and about which I have said nothing, nor do I have any opinion in this argument.

Or you can tell us all what I missed above (besides asking a simple question that you refused to answer). Keep saying that I didn't understand the argument. Please point out one thing I didn't understand and tell us why my question was invalid. I shall wait for an answer.

Why your question about what "should" be in the bible is irrelevant should be clear if you understand the argument you just reflected back. I take no position on what should be in the bible. The bible "should" contain exactly what it does contain, AFAICT. I am not arguing or suggesting it should be different. So what it should contain is irrelevant.

Michel

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:36 PM

What do you think it was?

:pixie:

:huh:

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 02:37 PM

Crystal -

Just so you know, I am not blowing you off. But I do have to go coach this Odyssey of the Mind meeting and I must go. The last post showed a bit of progress, and I hope it continues. However, I will be unable to respond until this evening.

Until then -

Michel

John Powell

October 21st 2007, 03:45 PM

POWELL:
Let's suppose that to explain LPOT's behavior, someone (let's make up a name, Steve) suggested that LPOT's father was an alien and Carpedm used Occam's Razor to reject that assumption. Carpedm would argue that there's nothing about LPOT's behavior that requires that her father be an alien. This doesn't prove her father wasn't an alien. Her father could have been an alien and she behave just how she has.

LPOT:
Gosh Powell, I never knew that. Please tell me where you came up with this grand revolution!

POWELL:
My mind, of course.

LPOT:
So since when does behavior you disagree with imply that a person has a father that is an alien? Wow, what a silly comparison.

POWELL:
I suppose you would need to ask hypothetical "Steve" that, but it's not required to understand the issue about Occam's Razor. I picked that example because I hoped it would be more clear to you than the Biblical example as to how Occam's Razor applies. I'm disappointed you don't like the example.

Anyway we can follow your tangent for a little bit. So, since when is it that because some book CLAIMS to be God inspired or CLAIMS certain miracles occurred or because millions of people believe it or some people have died defending it or whatever, since when do those kinds of things imply that the book is God inspired and the claimed miracles occurred?

Especially since you don't like my example (I would like to post an example you like), will you provide a good example supporting your position, i.e., one in which to properly apply Occam's Razor one would need to know what it would be like if the rejected superfluous assumption were true? That doesn't mean ask another question, but it means propose a hypothetical. Also, of course, it means some OTHER example than the controversial Biblical one.

John Powell

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 04:19 PM

I have done this so many times, at this point, I don't see how doing it once again is going to make a whit of difference, but I'll give it a shot. I have to admit I do so with full expectation that I'll get another of your infamous blasts, but who knows, maybe I'll be proven wrong.

And again you are going to pretend that I didn't get it. I did.

Your statement above is correct - but it is not my argument. It is the conclusion to my argument. It is the argument you do not appear to understand correctly because you are arguing against a position I do not take.

Ummm, no I am not arguing for or against your position. I was just asking you a simple question. WHAT ARE THESE SPECIFIC PASSAGES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! I do not see why it is so very hard for you to give some specific details or answer a few questions about the application of your argument.

The bible contains many passages and statements. When these are examined, and when they are compared with what we know of the people of the ANE and with other writings from that period, everything the bible contains is explainable by the level of knowledge the people of that era had. Ergo, an adequate explanation for the authorship of the bible is at hand (Occam's Razor): the people wrote it unassisted.

Ummm, and how some specifics please. Also, what do you say about Christians that say that the OT contains things that the people who wrote could not of known?

A claim that it was inspired/authored by a god is not supportable by recourse to the text itself. That does not mean it is an untrue claim. It merely means there is not adequate evidence to suggest it IS true.

And that is what I was attempting to do and you refuse to answer the simplest of questions and you refuse to give even one example of a said passage.

You have a simple mechanism for showing it to be false, Crystal. Merely reflect the argument back correctly.

And the conclusion was reflected back correctly. I do not see why I need to give every tiny little detail back like a parrot. The conclusion to your argument is more then enough to do that. You are just being anal about it.

Otherwise, I can only go by your last attempt, which was not correct.

Yes it was correct, you just want to be overly anal about the stupidest of details. I do not need to repeat you back word for word, I am not a parrot nor did you long ramble above subtract from what I said. Explain how it did.

You think the Bible has nothing in it that can be explained by people living in the ANE.

How on Earth is that not a far rep of your argument? Explain the major detail that was missed. Does not saying that 'The bible contains many passages and statements (when it is implied and as such there is no need to mention it)' really take away form your argument? No it doesn't you just want to be overly anal about the stupidest of details. Show me how my one sentence explanation did not adequately explain your argument.

I think I am a reasonable judge of whether or not someone is accurately reflecting my own argument back to me.

It appears you are not as good at as you seem to think. Please explain how what I said makes it impossible for us to determine what your argument said. Why do I need to go back and copy and paste your argument when a simple one sentence explanation is more then accurate to explain it?

I have done for for Max and for Parm. I would have no reason to do otherwise for you. Your assumption that I have an agenda here is incorrect, and pointless, IMO.

And your insistence that you repeat each and every sentence of your argument back (when much of it is just fluff and can be adequately explained by what i said) only shows how silly you want to be about it. Tell me how my one sentence explanation did not adequately capture your argument.

You have my conclusion correct.

Which is basically your argument. There is no need to mention the Bible has loads of passages, that is implied. There is no need to mention that you think looking though them proves that it takes no divine intervention to explain them. That is implied. There is nothing in that one sentence that subtracts for your argument. I find pointless to repeat back a bunch of implied or oblivious statements when a once sentence explanation is more then adequate.

You have not reflected the argument that leads to the conclusion.

Why is it needed? Why do I have to state the Bible has alot of passages? Why do I have to state that you believe none it can be written by somebody living in the ANE? These are all implied things that are meaningless to the question of understanding the argument. You asked me if I understood the argument, not if I was a parrot and can repeat things back to you word by word. Perhaps you should try asking the right question, try asking:

Can you repeat back my argument word by word?

See that way we can avoid this whole mess next time.

Can you repeat my argument back in a complete fashion? And not if I understood it.

Why does it need to be repeated back in a complete fashion? If you want a parrot that repeats back what you say, go get an African Grey. If you want somebody to repeat back the necessary information for your argument. Ask me.

Your inability to do so is resulting in your making refuting arguments that are disconnected and have nothing to do with my argument.

No, you clearly do not understand what I was asking or getting at. I asked you a simple question, what should the Bible contain? What specific examples do you have in mind? Why is it so very hard for you to answer a few very simple questions about your argument? Why is it that you seem to think I was making any argument? I can't argue with you if I haven't got a clue what specifics you have in mind. What do you think of Christians who say that Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection was predicted in the OT hundreds of years before he was born? If that is true, then your argument that the Bible contains nothing that somebody from the ANE couldn't know becomes void. These are the things I wanted to ask you, is it really that hard for you to just give specifics and defend your argument?

Your refusal to accept that in the spirit of discussion, and to assume I am the "enemy" is making discussion virtually impossible.

And your refusal to answer the simple of questions and pretending that I really see you as the 'enemy' (when I just wanted to see why you thought that way) only exposes that you think the worst about me and the only one here who has a problem is yourself.

Until you let that go, we will get nowhere. Of that I am confident.

You do have that right, you keep misunderstanding my intentions and somehow think that not parroting each and every word you said about your argument somehow proves I do not understand it. I do not need to repeat that the Bible contains lots of passages and you think nothing in it could be written by anybody in the ANE to understand the argument (those are implied). If you wanted me to repeat it word by word back to you, you should of asked that and not if I understood it or not.

You know, Crystal, you can repeat this mantra forever if you wish, but you're starting to sound a bit petulant. And it really is pointless, you know. I do not hold this position with you or anyone else. But... as I said.. it's your dime. Spend it as you wish. :shrug:

And I can keep sitting here watching you repeat the same nonsense you want to say before. It is oblivious that I understand your argument just fine, I do not need to repeat it word by word to show that I understood it. A one sentence explanation is more then enough to show I understand it, unless you can show what was missed.

Excellent! I should have read down further before posting mine above.

Finally, you seemed to have got over that silly thing that I need to repeat it back word by word to get it.

It would have saved me time. This is it in a nutshell. So the argument is about what IS in the bible, and what the people of the ANE could have known.

And my questions were directed at what they should of known and what you think God should of known. For example, do you think Christians are right when they say that the OT predicts Jesus by hundreds of years? If that is true, then your argument becomes void.

It is NOT about what SHOULD be in the bible, or COULD be in the bible, or what a divine being MIGHT know. These are all tangents unrelated to my argument, and about which I have said nothing, nor do I have any opinion in this argument.

And to apply your argument to the real world to see if it is accurate. We need to find out what the Bible contains, what explanations you have for Christians who point out such things as the Birth of Jesus being predicted hundreds of years before it happened. Etc. In other words, I got your argument down just fine and wanted to see how it would apply.

Why your question about what "should" be in the bible is irrelevant should be clear if you understand the argument you just reflected back.

Ummm no it isn't. I was trying to see how your argument applies. Should the Bible contain the winner of Super Bowel XXX? No, it needs to contain information that has to do with it's overall goal. But to determine what it's overall goal is, I think we need to study it and find out what it is before we can determine rather or not your argument is even valid. Myself, I think it should contain things unknown to those living when it was written and I think it does. I was trying to steer the conversation towards the prophecy of the OT. If the Prophecies about Jesus are correct, were written before Jesus, and are about Jesus. Does that mean the Bible contains information that could not of been known by those who wrote it? Yes, so therefore it would void out your argument. That is what I was getting at. Is there a reason you didn't want to let it go that way?

I take no position on what should be in the bible. The bible "should" contain exactly what it does contain, AFAICT. I am not arguing or suggesting it should be different. So what it should contain is irrelevant.

No it isn't irrelevant at all. To apply your argument, we must understand what it should and shouldn't contain. The thing is, not only do I care to understand your argument, I want to apply it.

:pixie:

lilpixieofterror

October 21st 2007, 04:25 PM

My mind, of course.

Explains alot.

I suppose you would need to ask hypothetical "Steve" that, but it's not required to understand the issue about Occam's Razor.

Oh please, tell me oh great one what it is! :bow:

I picked that example because I hoped it would be more clear to you than the Biblical example as to how Occam's Razor applies. I'm disappointed you don't like the example.

I am disappointed that you didn't think the example very well. If behavior determined that people had fathers that were aliens, then doesn't that mean lots of people have fathers that were aliens?

Anyway we can follow your tangent for a little bit. So, since when is it that because some book CLAIMS to be God inspired or CLAIMS certain miracles occurred or because millions of people believe it or some people have died defending it or whatever, since when do those kinds of things imply that the book is God inspired and the claimed miracles occurred?

Historical criticisms. Read up on them sometime. You'll be amazed on how much they can tell you. :wink:

Especially since you don't like my example (I would like to post an example you like), will you provide a good example supporting your position, i.e., one in which to properly apply Occam's Razor one would need to know what it would be like if the rejected superfluous assumption were true?

Since it is quite clear that you nor Carp understand what I was getting at, it is doubtful that I could give you an example. Read my response to Carp and just maybe you'll see what I was getting at.

:pixie:

MrManNo1

October 21st 2007, 05:05 PM

Careful and biased? Are you sure you meant that? :huh:

No, that was a typo.

And no, that was not my argument. There are many places where "careful and unbiased" study can achieve results because the results have a mechanism by which they can be verified. This includes scientific claims, and it includes some kinds of historical claims. Many of the claims in the bible, for example, that have to do with political structures, personages, places, and cultural details can be carefully studied, and since many of them have external corroborating evidence, can be verified and differences (eventually) reconciled.

And my point is, why differentiate the two? Have you ever done the two-slit electron experiment? Why, then, do you believe Quantum Mechanics is true?

The claims that cannot be are the more nebulous "the intent of the author was" claims, and claims about the nature of god, the intent of god, etc. Because there is no external verification possible, these will result in an endless sequence of "I am right and you are wrong" with no avenue for establishing what is the truth.

But, there usually is external verification possible: in the other sections of the Bible. How, in your scenario, does anything in science get accomplished, since evidence can theoretically tell you anything you want it to say?

No - I am not.

It certainly seems that way. When I gave my explanation for the "pharaoh", I gave other, external references for it, and you rejected it anyway. If that isn't immediately ignoring other's logic and simply restating your argument, as if that solved something, I don't know what is...

My statement was about a very narrow aspect of scriptural and historical studies - not all topics and all disagreements. And it is not the disagreement that indicates the problem, it is the absence of a mechanism for resolving the dispute. Nor did I ever say that they were necessarily wrong. What I said was there is no mechanism for determining which one of them is right - which is not the same thing.

How is saying that there is "no mechanism for determining which one of them is right" not simply saying, "my beliefs about your religion and Bible are true, and your's are wrong"? You're saying that the beliefs I have about the Bible (that all can be easily reconciled with careful and unbiased study) are wrong with no substantiation, and simply claiming you "logic" makes it to be so. Isn't that exactly what pixie said you were doing?

Your logic is not what I thought it was, MMN1, if you can take a fairly simple observation and read so much into it incorrectly.

Your careful and unbiased study of my posts is wrong, and you can therefore never form and accurate opinion of me. Go ahead, prove me wrong. If you prove me wrong, you prove yourself wrong.

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 06:53 PM

And again you are going to pretend that I didn't get it. I did.

I go by what you say, Crystal. You have incorrectly reflected the argument 4-5 times now. This last post you got it right. There was never any pretense involved - but I suspect my assertion to that effect will not be accepted since you've already decided, apparently, that I am deceitful. That is your right to decide. You're wrong, however.

Ummm, no I am not arguing for or against your position.

My apologies for my lack of clarity. I was referring to your posts in the other thread, prior to this discussion.

I was just asking you a simple question. WHAT ARE THESE SPECIFIC PASSAGES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

By definition, all of them, since my position is that there is NOTHING in the bible that cannot be explained by recourse to the knowledge of the people of the age.

I do not see why it is so very hard for you to give some specific details or answer a few questions about the application of your argument.

That question was about my argument, so I had no problem answering it whatsoever.

Ummm, and how some specifics please. Also, what do you say about Christians that say that the OT contains things that the people who wrote could not of known?

I don't understand this question.

And that is what I was attempting to do and you refuse to answer the simplest of questions and you refuse to give even one example of a said passage.

You have never asked me for a passage that is IN the bible - you asked me for something I believe SHOULD be in the bible. These are not the same question.

And the conclusion was reflected back correctly. I do not see why I need to give every tiny little detail back like a parrot. The conclusion to your argument is more then enough to do that. You are just being anal about it.

Lovely. We're back to ad homs. :ahem:

Oh well... I guess it was too much to expect.

And no - the conclusion is not adequate (although until the last post, you had not reflected that back accurately. The entire point of the discussion is how I GOT to the conclusion.

Yes it was correct, you just want to be overly anal about the stupidest of details. I do not need to repeat you back word for word, I am not a parrot nor did you long ramble above subtract from what I said. Explain how it did.

At this point, since you now HAVE reflected it back correctly, quibbling over whether or not you did before is a waste of time, IMO. If you believe you did, fine with me. I don't see a point in disputing it.

How on Earth is that not a far rep of your argument? Explain the major detail that was missed. Does not saying that 'The bible contains many passages and statements (when it is implied and as such there is no need to mention it)' really take away form your argument? No it doesn't you just want to be overly anal about the stupidest of details. Show me how my one sentence explanation did not adequately explain your argument.

Already responded to.

It appears you are not as good at as you seem to think. Please explain how what I said makes it impossible for us to determine what your argument said. Why do I need to go back and copy and paste your argument when a simple one sentence explanation is more then accurate to explain it?

Already responded to.

And your insistence that you repeat each and every sentence of your argument back (when much of it is just fluff and can be adequately explained by what i said) only shows how silly you want to be about it. Tell me how my one sentence explanation did not adequately capture your argument.

Already responded to.

Which is basically your argument.

No - it is not. You apparently do not understand the distinction between an argument and a conclusion. An argument is the set of premises and their arrangement and relationship. The conclusion follows from the argument. If you cannot articulate the argument correctly, you are attempting to refute a conclusion with no clue how it was arrived at. Since your refutation consistently had nothing to do with either my argument OR my conclusion, further discourse was pointless until it was clear you DID understand it.

Based on your last post, I believe (I think) that you understand it. Before that post, every attempt on your part to reflect it was incorrect. Now, if you choose to believe I'm simply being difficult, or that I am lying, I can do nothing about that. You're choice. I am telling you that I made an argument, and you did not correctly reflect it back - ergo you conveyed you did not understand it. You can gripe and moan about it if you wish, or you can make an attempt to actually understand the argument so you can then attempt to refute it if you wish. The choice is yours. :shrug:

There is no need to mention the Bible has loads of passages, that is implied.

Agreed - and not expected.

There is no need to mention that you think looking though them proves that it takes no divine intervention to explain them. That is implied.

No - it's not. Here you are incorrect. There are several arguments I could have used to arrive at that conclusion. This was the specific one I chose. It is germane to the discussion - otherwise you are not trying to refute MY argument, but the argument you THINK I am making.

There is nothing in that one sentence that subtracts for your argument.

Agreed. It, however, does not capture the argument. Merely the conclusion.

I find pointless to repeat back a bunch of implied or oblivious statements when a once sentence explanation is more then adequate.

It was not adequate. Again, I suspect you will not take my word for it, but I leave that decision to you.

Why is it needed?

Already responded to.

Why do I have to state the Bible has a lot of passages?

You don't. That element was not critical

Why do I have to state that you believe none it can be written by somebody living in the ANE?

First of all, you have this wrong, so I find myself wondering if you understand it at all since this statement is, once again, not a correct reflection of my argument.

Second, that you understand the argument that leads to the conclusion is highly germane to the discussion. If you can't see that, then I am not sure what to say to you. I would suggest further discussion is pointless if the basic principles of argumentation are not agreed upon.

These are all implied things that are meaningless to the question of understanding the argument. You asked me if I understood the argument, not if I was a parrot and can repeat things back to you word by word. Perhaps you should try asking the right question, try asking:

Already responded to.

Can you repeat back my argument word by word?

That was not what I was asking. In fact, I specifically said "in your own words." As a teacher, I understand the importance of someone being able to articulate things in their own terms to foster understanding.

And no - that does not mean I see myself as your teacher. I am merely talking about my skill set and background.

See that way we can avoid this whole mess next time.

I'll ignore the sarcasm since it is unproductive.

Why does it need to be repeated back in a complete fashion? If you want a parrot that repeats back what you say, go get an African Grey. If you want somebody to repeat back the necessary information for your argument. Ask me.

Already responded to.

No, you clearly do not understand what I was asking or getting at. I asked you a simple question, what should the Bible contain?

Which I have now answered multiple times. I have no opinion on what it should contain, and I have made no statements about what it should contain. I see no reason it should contain anything other than what it DOES contain. This answer displeases you for some reason, but asking it multiple times will only get you the same answer, since that IS my answer. :shrug:

What specific examples do you have in mind?

I have no "examples" in mind. My argument is about what IS in the bible - not what MIGHT be in the bible.

Why is it so very hard for you to answer a few very simple questions about your argument?

Already responded to.

Why is it that you seem to think I was making any argument?

A question usually implies a point. But, even if you had a point, the question WAS answered and is not germane to my argument, for the reasons I have now cited multiple times.

I can't argue with you if I haven't got a clue what specifics you have in mind.

I have no "specifics" in mind, other than the existing passages of the existing bible and my existing knowledge of the people of the ANE.

What do you think of Christians who say that Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection was predicted in the OT hundreds of years before he was born?

I believe they will have a hard time establishing that to be a true statement.

If that is true, then your argument that the Bible contains nothing that somebody from the ANE couldn't know becomes void.

Correct. IF it can be established to be true. This is essentially what I said to you in the thread: ONE example of a piece of information in the bible that could NOT have been known by the people of the ANE and my argument collapses.

These are the things I wanted to ask you, is it really that hard for you to just give specifics and defend your argument?

So far, I have had nothing to defend it from since your questions have not been germane to my argument. You asked me what I believed SHOULD be in the bible. I have no position on that and have made no argument about it.

And your refusal to answer the simple of questions and pretending that I really see you as the 'enemy' (when I just wanted to see why you thought that way) only exposes that you think the worst about me and the only one here who has a problem is yourself.

I think of you what your behavior demonstrates about you, Crystal. I'll leave it at that.

You do have that right, you keep misunderstanding my intentions and somehow think that not parroting each and every word you said about your argument somehow proves I do not understand it.

Already responded to.

I do not need to repeat that the Bible contains lots of passages and you think nothing in it could be written by anybody in the ANE to understand the argument (those are implied).

Once again, you have now reflected it incorrectly. So I find myself wondering if the first correct response was a fluke... :huh:

If you wanted me to repeat it word by word back to you, you should of asked that and not if I understood it or not.

Already responded to.

And I can keep sitting here watching you repeat the same nonsense you want to say before. It is oblivious that I understand your argument just fine, I do not need to repeat it word by word to show that I understood it.

No - it's not obvious. In fact, given that you have reflected it back one correctly, and now three times (in this post) incorrectly, I am wondering again.

A one sentence explanation is more then enough to show I understand it, unless you can show what was missed.

Already responded to.

Finally, you seemed to have got over that silly thing that I need to repeat it back word by word to get it.

Already responded to.

And my questions were directed at what they should of known and what you think God should of known.

:sigh: Neither of which has anything to do with my argument.

Oh well... I thought you were there. Maybe not...

For example, do you think Christians are right when they say that the OT predicts Jesus by hundreds of years?

Your lines of logic, Crystal, are so convoluted, I am having a hard time keeping up. This question IS on target. And it is already responded to.

If that is true, then your argument becomes void.

Already responded to.

And to apply your argument to the real world to see if it is accurate. We need to find out what the Bible contains, what explanations you have for Christians who point out such things as the Birth of Jesus being predicted hundreds of years before it happened.

Since these are question about what IS in the bible, they are germane to the argument, and I have already responded.

Etc. In other words, I got your argument down just fine and wanted to see how it would apply.

Already responded to.

Ummm no it isn't. I was trying to see how your argument applies. Should the Bible contain the winner of Super Bowel XXX?

Irrelevant. I have no opinion about what the bible SHOULD contain, and have said nothing about what the bible SHOULD contain.

No, it needs to contain information that has to do with it's overall goal. But to determine what it's overall goal is, I think we need to study it and find out what it is before we can determine rather or not your argument is even valid. Myself, I think it should contain things unknown to those living when it was written and I think it does. I was trying to steer the conversation towards the prophecy of the OT. If the Prophecies about Jesus are correct, were written before Jesus, and are about Jesus. Does that mean the Bible contains information that could not of been known by those who wrote it?

If this could be shown to be true, it would achieve what you think it achieves.

Yes, so therefore it would void out your argument.

Correct. And, at the risk of saying "I told you so," that is exactly what I said to you in the other thread. If you want to refute the position, one way it could be done is to find merely one thing in the bible that could NOT have been known by the people of the ANE and my argument falls flat. If you go back to your posts, you will find that I was then accused of trying to narrow the argument unfairly - one of your many "assume the worst of your opponent" accusations that peppered the thread from the very first response, when I was accused of "dodging" when I answered your question.

That is what I was getting at. Is there a reason you didn't want to let it go that way?

Since that is not what you asked, I had no way of knowing what you wanted. How you see a connection between "What the bible should contain" and "what the bible does contain" in this context is beyond me. Apparently it is beyond others as well. However, I'm finding the entire issue rather tedious at this point.

At the end of the day, I think it is your flights of illogical construct that are an obstacle. Following your lines of reasoning is VERY difficult.

No it isn't irrelevant at all.

Yes, it is. I have made no statement about what the bible "should" contain. My argument is based on what it DOES contain.

To apply your argument, we must understand what it should and shouldn't contain.

No.

The thing is, not only do I care to understand your argument, I want to apply it.

So you have said several times. I can only reflect back to you that you are off-track. Do with that information what you wish.

Michel

John Powell

October 21st 2007, 06:55 PM

POWELL:
My mind, of course.

LPOT:
Explains alot [a lot].

POWELL:
I suppose you would need to ask hypothetical "Steve" that, but it's not required to understand the issue about Occam's Razor.

LPOT:
Oh please, tell me oh great one what it is!

POWELL:
Make the effort to compose a good example as I've asked and I'll try to answer your question if you ask it again.

POWELL:
I picked that example because I hoped it would be more clear to you than the Biblical example as to how Occam's Razor applies. I'm disappointed you don't like the example.

LPOT:
I am disappointed that you didn't think the example very well. If behavior determined that people had fathers that were aliens, then doesn't that mean lots of people have fathers that were aliens?

POWELL:
It might mean that, but that wouldn't ruin the analogy since if the fact that a book CLAIMS it's inspired of God and CLAIMS certain miracles occurred means it is inspired by God and the claimed miracles happened then that means lots of religious books are inspired by God and lots of miracle-claims by religious groups are true, yes?

POWELL:
Anyway we can follow your tangent for a little bit. So, since when is it that because some book CLAIMS to be God inspired or CLAIMS certain miracles occurred or because millions of people believe it or some people have died defending it or whatever, since when do those kinds of things imply that the book is God inspired and the claimed miracles occurred?

LPOT:
Historical criticisms. Read up on them sometime. You'll be amazed on how much they can tell you.

POWELL:
Maybe later. Moving on.

POWELL:
Especially since you don't like my example (I would like to post an example you like), will you provide a good example supporting your position, i.e., one in which to properly apply Occam's Razor one would need to know what it would be like if the rejected superfluous assumption were true?

LPOT:
Since it is quite clear that you nor Carp understand what I was getting at, it is doubtful that I could give you an example. Read my response to Carp and just maybe you'll see what I was getting at.

POWELL:
We don't understand what you're getting at? What specific idea do you think I'm not getting? Is it that it's your position that to properly use Occam's Razor to reject the "God inspired it" assumption to the Bible then one would need to know what would be in the Bible if it were inspired? Is that what you think I'm missing? If "no" then what is it that you think I'm missing? Please state it clearly.

Carpedm posted a good-faith example (the tree house analogy). I've posted a good-faith example (LPOT being the daughter of an alien). Now, please compose a good-faith example in support of your opposing view concerning whether, to justifiably reject the assumption, the Occam's Razor user needs to know what would be the case if the rejected assumption were true. Thank you.

John Powell

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 07:03 PM

No, that was a typo.

So I assumed.

And my point is, why differentiate the two?

Because they are different by virtue of the availability of corroborating evidence. Indeed, it is not "scientific" vs. "historical" that is the differentiation - it is "corroborated" vs. "noncorroborated."

Have you ever done the two-slit electron experiment?

No.

Why, then, do you believe Quantum Mechanics is true?

I can't claim to "know" it is true. I can claim to accept as true the reports I have read when they have been peer reviewed, corroborated, and based on evidence.

But, there usually is external verification possible: in the other sections of the Bible.

I do not accept this as "external evidence" since it is, quite obviously, not external at all.

How, in your scenario, does anything in science get accomplished, since evidence can theoretically tell you anything you want it to say?

In science, we accept as true what works as a predictor of future behavior. History has a different set of criteria for determining the probability of correctness.

It certainly seems that way. When I gave my explanation for the "pharaoh", I gave other, external references for it, and you rejected it anyway. If that isn't immediately ignoring other's logic and simply restating your argument, as if that solved something, I don't know what is...

You are entitled to your view, MMN1. It is not correct, IMO.

How is saying that there is "no mechanism for determining which one of them is right" not simply saying, "my beliefs about your religion and Bible are true, and your's are wrong"?

If you cannot see the distinction between "your claim has no solid, evidentiary, logical basis" and "your claim is untrue," then I'm not sure what to say to you, MMN1. There is a difference between noting an argument is unsupported, and noting an argument is untrue.

Since I believe the mutually exclusive claims about the specific kinds of passages I was referencing are not resolvable, I would be silly to claim I know them to be false - since that would be a claim that I know how to resolve them.

My beliefs about god are not based on the bible, nor are they supported by or refuted by what is in the bible - for that very reason. I do not base my beliefs on the writings of a book alone.

You're saying that the beliefs I have about the Bible (that all can be easily reconciled with careful and unbiased study) are wrong with no substantiation, and simply claiming you "logic" makes it to be so.

Yes - this I am claiming. And for this I have provided my argument.

Isn't that exactly what pixie said you were doing?

No.

Your careful and unbiased study of my posts is wrong, and you can therefore never form and accurate opinion of me.

I don't know about "never," but in general I would agree with this as it relates to who YOU are. I can, however, assess your arguments for their validity and logical structure.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. If you prove me wrong, you prove yourself wrong.

I could not or would not prove you wrong, since I agree with you. My comments are limited to your arguments, not your person.

Michel

John Powell

October 21st 2007, 07:11 PM

CARPEDM (to LPOT):
No - it is not. You apparently do not understand the distinction between an argument and a conclusion. An argument is the set of premises and their arrangement and relationship. The conclusion follows from the argument. . .

POWELL:
The conclusion follows from the PREMISES. The conclusion is part of the argument. The properly composed argument consists of the premise(s), the inference, and the conclusion(s). Premises alone or conclusion alone do not make a properly composed argument.

John Powell

Carpedm9587

October 21st 2007, 07:13 PM

POWELL:
The conclusion follows from the PREMISES. The conclusion is part of the argument. The properly composed argument consists of the premise(s), the inference, and the conclusion(s). Premises alone or conclusion alone do not make a properly composed argument.

John Powell

I stand corrected. My logic 101 class is a few years back too! :blush:

John Powell

October 21st 2007, 07:18 PM

I stand corrected. My logic 101 class is a few years back too! :blush:

POWELL:
Hey, Crystal, do you see how quickly Carpedm admits error when he comes to conclude he was wrong? Go and do likewise.

John Powell

lilpixieofterror

October 22nd 2007, 04:39 AM

I go by what you say, Crystal. You have incorrectly reflected the argument 4-5 times now. This last post you got it right. There was never any pretense involved - but I suspect my assertion to that effect will not be accepted since you've already decided, apparently, that I am deceitful. That is your right to decide. You're wrong, however.

And you yet again apply things that are really there. Where did I say you were being deceitful? No where! You started this whole mess when you went and accused me of 'intectualy dishonesty' when it seems more and more clear now that it is just plain ignorance on both parties.

My apologies for my lack of clarity. I was referring to your posts in the other thread, prior to this discussion.

My post in the other thread reflected your argument just fine. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

By definition, all of them, since my position is that there is NOTHING in the bible that cannot be explained by recourse to the knowledge of the people of the age.

And what do you say about such things as the birth of Jesus being predicted hundreds of years before his birth? I do not believe that you have backed this claim up yet. In other words, you need to explain away such passages before your argument can likely.

That question was about my argument, so I had no problem answering it whatsoever.

All the questions had to do with your argument. The fact of the matter is, I do not believe the evidence points in your favor at all. You need to demostrate that such beliefs as the OT predicts the birth, life, and death of Jesus could of been written by anybody living in the era of the OT.

I don't understand this question.

What do you mean you don't understand the question? It's rather simple. The OT was written before the NT. Christians claim the OT has prophecies that mention Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection. Could the writers of the OT known about Jesus that long before his birth without some kind of knowledge outside of what they knew? No. You need to demonstrate this as false.

You have never asked me for a passage that is IN the bible - you asked me for something I believe SHOULD be in the bible. These are not the same question.

They are related. If you do not think that things such as prophecy count, then is there a point in trying?

Lovely. We're back to ad homs. :ahem:

Oh yeah, saying that you are being just plain silly at this point is really an ad hom. :ahem: Explain why I need to repeat every tiny detail of your argument back to you to answer the question of rather or not I understood it.

Oh well... I guess it was too much to expect.

I guess it is too much to expect for you to simply tell me why I need to repeat back your argument word by word in understand it. By all means, explain why I need to.

And no - the conclusion is not adequate (although until the last post, you had not reflected that back accurately. The entire point of the discussion is how I GOT to the conclusion.

Then by all means, explain how it is not adequate.

At this point, since you now HAVE reflected it back correctly, quibbling over whether or not you did before is a waste of time, IMO. If you believe you did, fine with me. I don't see a point in disputing it.

Reflected it back the first time just fine, you just want to cry and moan that I didn't. Demonstrate that I didn't.

No - it is not. You apparently do not understand the distinction between an argument and a conclusion. An argument is the set of premises and their arrangement and relationship. The conclusion follows from the argument.

You seem to not understand that there is no requirement to repeat back an argument word by word to answer if you understood it or not. Explain how a one sentence explination

If you cannot articulate the argument correctly, you are attempting to refute a conclusion with no clue how it was arrived at.

:sigh:

Of course, you have yet to demonstrate how not repeating back your argument to you word by word somehow proves that I don't understand it. Explain how my one sentence explination did not catch the general idea of your viewpoint.

Since your refutation consistently had nothing to do with either my argument OR my conclusion, further discourse was pointless until it was clear you DID understand it.

Since my refution was not a refution, but a simple question, this has nothing to do with what I said and thus invalid.

Based on your last post, I believe (I think) that you understand it. Before that post, every attempt on your part to reflect it was incorrect.

Funny, that is the same thing I said several times before and that is what I thought about it time and time again.

Now, if you choose to believe I'm simply being difficult, or that I am lying, I can do nothing about that. You're choice.

I do not bleieve that you are simply being difficult or lying. You just don't seem to get what I have been saying or asking since the beginning.

I am telling you that I made an argument, and you did not correctly reflect it back - ergo you conveyed you did not understand it.

And I am telling you there was no argument there other then what you want to see. All there was was questions to get some specifics of how you feel about some issues.

You can gripe and moan about it if you wish, or you can make an attempt to actually understand the argument so you can then attempt to refute it if you wish. The choice is yours. :shrug:

The only gripe and moaning going on here is you. I understood your argument and was trying to get some specifics out of you. It seems you have not though this though nor did you understand that I was posting no argument at all, but asking some questions to get some specifics.

No - it's not. Here you are incorrect. There are several arguments I could have used to arrive at that conclusion. This was the specific one I chose. It is germane to the discussion - otherwise you are not trying to refute MY argument, but the argument you THINK I am making.

And again, you need to show and explain that. Now are you going to do that or just keep up with your gripe and moan?

Agreed. It, however, does not capture the argument. Merely the conclusion.

And the reason I need to repeat each and every step of your argument is....

It was not adequate. Again, I suspect you will not take my word for it, but I leave that decision to you.

The reason is...

First of all, you have this wrong, so I find myself wondering if you understand it at all since this statement is, once again, not a correct reflection of my argument.

Prove it.

Second, that you understand the argument that leads to the conclusion is highly germane to the discussion. If you can't see that, then I am not sure what to say to you. I would suggest further discussion is pointless if the basic principles of argumentation are not agreed upon.

I would advise that you explain what leaving out uncessary detals has to do with not understanding your argument. Perhaps someday, you just might (with luck) explain what was left out. I am doubting that you will do that and just want to keep crying that I didn't not explain your argument in the way YOU WANT. If you want me to repeat back each and every little detail, ask me to do that in the furture.

That was not what I was asking. In fact, I specifically said "in your own words." As a teacher, I understand the importance of someone being able to articulate things in their own terms to foster understanding.

And that is, 'in my own words'. I see no point in repeating that in which is understood or implied. I see no reason to repeat that the Bible has lots of passages. I see no reason to repeat that you do not think that anything in it could of been written by humans living in that time. All this stuff is implied and understood by anybody who has kept up with your discussion and thus that information is un-needed. The only thing that is needed to get that I understood is to say that you do not believe that it is divinely inspired. If you want me to repeat everything word by word, then next time you should ask me to repeat things word by word.

And no - that does not mean I see myself as your teacher. I am merely talking about my skill set and background.

And talking to me as if I'm a little kid. If you don't want me to use sarcasm or 'ad homs' I would advice that you stop treating me like a kid and start treating me like an adult. If you do not want to treat me like an adult, but talk down to me like one of your kids, don't cry when I do the same thing back.

Which I have now answered multiple times. I have no opinion on what it should contain, and I have made no statements about what it should contain.

:sigh:

How many times will you avoid answering a simple question?

I see no reason it should contain anything other than what it DOES contain. This answer displeases you for some reason, but asking it multiple times will only get you the same answer, since that IS my answer. :shrug:

The 'answer displeases' me because it contradicts your claims. If you think the Bible shouldn't contain anything more then it contains, how can you say that was is in it is not of a divine origion?

I have no "examples" in mind. My argument is about what IS in the bible - not what MIGHT be in the bible.

And what is in the Bible clearly brings your claim into question. Does the OT talk about Jesus hundreds of years before his birth? Does this question or answer displease you? Explain why you don't think that counts. In other words, DEFEND your argument.

A question usually implies a point. But, even if you had a point, the question WAS answered and is not germane to my argument, for the reasons I have now cited multiple times.

Which each and every time, you have missed the point. Too bad. :frown:

I have no "specifics" in mind, other than the existing passages of the existing bible and my existing knowledge of the people of the ANE.

And what is your existing knowledge? What could they of written and not written? Is it really that hard to ask you to support your argument?

I believe they will have a hard time establishing that to be a true statement.

Then show how.

Correct. IF it can be established to be true. This is essentially what I said to you in the thread: ONE example of a piece of information in the bible that could NOT have been known by the people of the ANE and my argument collapses.

And what are you going to do to debate this specific argument? What do you think about these people? Is it really that hard for you to give some specifics?

So far, I have had nothing to defend it from since your questions have not been germane to my argument. You asked me what I believed SHOULD be in the bible. I have no position on that and have made no argument about it.

In other words, you have not a clue and thus you really have not much to talk about.

I think of you what your behavior demonstrates about you, Crystal. I'll leave it at that.

And I think your behavior demonstrates alot about you. I am not a child, you treat pretty much everyone you deal with like some kind of child. If you don't want people to talk to you like they do, I would advise that you stop treating them like children.

Once again, you have now reflected it incorrectly. So I find myself wondering if the first correct response was a fluke... :huh:

Of course, that still remains unshown. Keep treating me like a 4 year old.

No - it's not obvious. In fact, given that you have reflected it back one correctly, and now three times (in this post) incorrectly, I am wondering again.

Reflected back right again and again. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

:sigh: Neither of which has anything to do with my argument.

Oh well... I thought you were there. Maybe not...

Keep showing that talking down attitude. :thumb:

Irrelevant. I have no opinion about what the bible SHOULD contain, and have said nothing about what the bible SHOULD contain.

Yes you did! You are saying the bible contains NOTHING of divine origion. Then what would it take to show you that it does?

Correct. And, at the risk of saying "I told you so," that is exactly what I said to you in the other thread.

Ummm, that is what I was getting at the entire time. If you do not believe that prophecy proves otherwise. Is there a point in trying?

If you want to refute the position, one way it could be done is to find merely one thing in the bible that could NOT have been known by the people of the ANE and my argument falls flat.

And I was asking for some specifics that you think works or doesn't work. Is there a point in trying if you will not accept it anyway?

If you go back to your posts, you will find that I was then accused of trying to narrow the argument unfairly - one of your many "assume the worst of your opponent" accusations that peppered the thread from the very first response, when I was accused of "dodging" when I answered your question.

Yes you were dodging. You could of just said, "What about this..." And we could of covered if that is possible or not. Is there a reason you want to be hard to have a discussion with?

Everything else has been answered and adressed.

:pixie:

lilpixieofterror

October 22nd 2007, 04:41 AM

Hey, Crystal, do you see how quickly Carpedm admits error when he comes to conclude he was wrong? Go and do likewise.

Perhaps you might want to start by understanding my objections before you say something. Now explain my point and why it is wrong, since you think you know more then I do.

Carpedm9587

October 22nd 2007, 07:14 AM

Note: due to length, I have had to delete some of the (many) places where I said "Already responded to"

And you yet again apply things that are really there. Where did I say you were being deceitful? No where!

From Post #334: And again you are going to pretend that I didn't get it.

"Pretending someone didn't get it" sounds like deceit to me. :shrug:

You started this whole mess when you went and accused me of 'intellectual dishonesty' when it seems more and more clear now that it is just plain ignorance on both parties.

Here we go again. I think I can predict just how much you're going to like THIS response.

The accusation of intellectual dishonesty was based on declaring victory and exiting the thread. And frankly, Crystal, I think you are too smart not to get the points being made. Your history in this forum is of hammering at a theme, throwing out insults, and throwing in everything but the kitchen sink until the other person basically gives up. You clearly learned your craft at the knee of JPH. I have no respect for him, and I have no respect for someone who discourses LIKE him. You make your choices - live with the results. If you want different results - make different choices. It's not that complicated. :shrug:

My post in the other thread reflected your argument just fine. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

Alright. Here are your reflections, with the errors underscored for each. Not that I expect you will actually acknowledge them. :shrug:

From Post #159 in Mundanity: Yes you do. In order to say X is wrong, you need to know what right looks like.

I have not, at any time, said "X is wrong," nor is it part of my argument. My argument is based on the nature of the information in the bible, not its truth value.

From Post #164 in Mundanity: even though you say that the Bible 'contains nothing of divine origin'

At no point have I said the bible contains nothing of divine origin. Indeed, I have acknowledged that it is possible that god inspired the bible and elected to make it contain only what the people of that era would know, and have said this several times. It has been pointedly ignored and/or removed from pretty much all of your responses.

From Post #189 in Mundanities: I didn't misunderstand the argument at all. You basically are saying you want God to do the things you want to exist.

At no point have I said god SHOULD do something specific. I have said, repeatedly, that I have no "should" about the bible. I do not think the bible should be any other way than it is. If god exists and wanted it to be as it is, it should be as it is. The argument is based not on what SHOULD be in the bible but what IS in the bible. This too I have said multiple times.

From Post #190 in Mundanities: Next explain why you think the Bible should contain information that is outside of human experience.

I do not think it should. I have not argued that it should. I have argued, again, from the basis of what it DOES contain. Not what it SHOULD contain. This is a distinction you do not appear to grasp.

From post #197 in Mundanities: You say "The Bible contains nothing that would imply that it was divinely inspired."

Again you confuse the converse (I suspect John is going to correct me on this one) of a statement with the statement. I did not say the bible contains nothing to imply it was divinely inspired. Indeed, the bible may well contain much that is due to divine inspiration. My comment was about the contents of the bible and their relationship to the knowledge of the people of the ANE, not to the knowledge of a divine being - which I cannot know.

From Post #252 in Prayer: You are saying that is nothing in the Bible that can be written by anybody living in the ANE, so we should not assume that God wrote it.

I think "that" was supposed to be "that there," and the statement is pretty much the inverse of what I am saying. I didn't say nothing in the bible could be written by the people of the ANE, I said everything in the bible could be written by the people of the ANE. I note that this could have been a simple typo, but given your prior performance, elected to let you know it made no sense. Your response...

From Post #259 in Prayer: I know what you are saying, you are saying that there is nothing in the Bible that can be written by anybody living in the ANE, so we should not assume that God wrote it."

You correct the grammatical problem, but not the logic. You have now said that my argument is the opposite of what I am saying. Then, in the same post, you added:

You said that the bible contains nothing that can be explained by a God, but by people living in the ANE.

Again getting it wrong. Everything in the bible COULD be explained by a god. I have said several times that god COULD have inspired the entire thing. I have never said otherwise. My proof is not about this. My argument is that it is explainable by the action/knowledge of the people of the ANE.

From Post #331 in Prayer: Why do I have to state that you believe none it can be written by somebody living in the ANE?

This one was AFTER you got it right. Leads me to think this might be a typo, but given the prior behavior, it makes me wonder WHICH was the typo, the right one or this one. And you did this a few times in that post.

Now, I have to say, THAT was a lovely trip through ad hom land. I had forgotten about block head and thick skulled. You do love to toss those around. :wink:

And what do you say about such things as the birth of Jesus being predicted hundreds of years before his birth?

That it was predicted is not demonstrable.

I do not believe that you have backed this claim up yet. In other words, you need to explain away such passages before your argument can likely.

None of the prophecies in question specifically identify Jesus or can be shown to specifically relate to the life of Jesus. None of the prophecies in question relate to events that can be verified to have occurred. Indeed, there is no reason why many of these links could not have simply been written in by the authors of the NT to make the connection. There is no corroborating evidence of the birthplace of Jesus, or the shepherds and kings stories, and on and on. Many of them (not all) are such that a person with knowledge of them (as Jesus must surely have had) could have "arranged" some of them. About the only thing that CAN be shown in the basic test for truth of prophecy is that they were written before the life of Jesus.

You would have to work pretty hard, Crystal, to show that these are true prophecies. Based on my knowledge of the bible, I don't think you can. But you are welcome to try.

And I think I can predict the response here. You are probably going to tell me that the burden of proof is on me to disprove them. Sorry, but that is not a game I am going to play. When someone gives me a text and says "this means X" and I look at it and find no basis for accepting that claim, I am going to reject it. If they want to convince me it means "X," they are going to need to provide evidence.

If you feel you already HAVE evidence but do not want to share it, then the result will be that I will walk away with my beliefs and you will retain yours. You will probably reject the argument I have made because you have already decided there are valid prophecies in the bible. If your assumption is correct, then your conclusion is correct. Since you have not demonstrated that assumption is true, I cannot share your conclusion.

I'm sure you will feel the same in reverse. :shrug:

All the questions had to do with your argument.

No - they didn't. But it's getting a little old trying to help you see this.

The fact of the matter is, I do not believe the evidence points in your favor at all.

That much is clear.

You need to demonstrate that such beliefs as the OT predicts the birth, life, and death of Jesus could of been written by anybody living in the era of the OT.

There is nothing in the OT I find to be unexplainable by the knowledge of the people in the age. The references are vague at best, could easily have been retro-fit by the authors of the NT and "met" (in some instances) by Jesus himself. They do not pass the test of valid prophecy.

What do you mean you don't understand the question?

I mean I read it three times and did not understand what you were asking. I prefer to ask for clarification when I do not understand something. Otherwise, my response will be all over the map.

It's rather simple. The OT was written before the NT. Christians claim the OT has prophecies that mention Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection. Could the writers of the OT known about Jesus that long before his birth without some kind of knowledge outside of what they knew? No. You need to demonstrate this as false.

Already responded to.

They are related. If you do not think that things such as prophecy count, then is there a point in trying?

I do not see how they are related. We are not discussing things that ARE in the bible, not things that SHOULD be in the bible. Perhaps you don't understand the distinction? :huh:

Oh yeah, saying that you are being just plain silly at this point is really an ad hom. :ahem: Explain why I need to repeat every tiny detail of your argument back to you to answer the question of rather or not I understood it.

I would consider calling someone anal, thick skulled, a block head, a hypocrite, and a jerk (to name a few) to be ad homs. They do not address the argument - they attack the person. Not that I am complaining mind you. As I said, no skin off my nose. Ad hom away, since it is what you appear to like to do. :shrug:

As for explaining the argument - if you cannot explain the argument - both premises and conclusion - then you cannot discuss (never mind refute) the argument. It's fairly simple.

Funny, that is the same thing I said several times before and that is what I thought about it time and time again.

I cannot speak to what you thought, only what you said.

I do not believe that you are simply being difficult or lying. You just don't seem to get what I have been saying or asking since the beginning.

Yes, Crystal, I have. You have been asking me what I think should be in the bible. You have suggested that I cannot know what a divine being would know or inspire. You have asked for an example of something the people in the ANE would not know (I gave you a few) and then proceeded to discount them as ridiculous things that have no business in the bible.

But you will note that you did not ask me if I thought these things SHOULD be in the bible. You asked me for things people of that age would not know - and I responded. You then reacted as though I had suggested these things should be in the bible.

Your logic is confused. An example of something that the people of the ANE would not know (e.g. a periodic table) is not an argument that there should be one in the bible. It IS an argument that, if there WAS one in the bible, the claim for divine inspiration would be stronger because there would be no way to account for it by the knowledge of the people of the time. The same would be true of any number of examples (e.g., SuperBowl XXXIII, Trade towers, etc.).

And I am telling you there was no argument there other then what you want to see. All there was was questions to get some specifics of how you feel about some issues.

Already responded to.

The only gripe and moaning going on here is you. I understood your argument and was trying to get some specifics out of you. It seems you have not though this though nor did you understand that I was posting no argument at all, but asking some questions to get some specifics.

Already responded to.

And again, you need to show and explain that. Now are you going to do that or just keep up with your gripe and moan?

Already responded to.

And the reason I need to repeat each and every step of your argument is....

Already responded to.

The reason is...

Already responded to. But just to be clear - there are often several possible premises that can lead to the same conclusion. If you know the conclusion, but not the premises, then any attempt to refute the argument (or even to question them) will go astray, as yours has. It would be like shooting in the dark.

Prove it.

Crystal: Why do I have to state that you believe none it can be written by somebody living in the ANE

Read it, Crystal. Read it carefully. You have once again written the inverse (converse?) of what I have said. I have not said that "none of the things in the bible can be written by somebody living in the ANE."

I have said that EVERYTHING in the bible could have been written by the people of the ANE. Do you see the problem now?

I would advise that you explain what leaving out unnecessary details has to do with not understanding your argument.

You might actually be the first person to suggest that the premise of an argument are "unnecessary details." That is an amazing statement from someone who claims to be a logical person. :huh:

Perhaps someday, you just might (with luck) explain what was left out.

The premises.

I am doubting that you will do that and just want to keep crying that I didn't not explain your argument in the way YOU WANT. If you want me to repeat back each and every little detail, ask me to do that in the future.

Already responded to.

And that is, 'in my own words'. I see no point in repeating that in which is understood or implied. I see no reason to repeat that the Bible has lots of passages. I see no reason to repeat that you do not think that anything in it could of been written by humans living in that time. All this stuff is implied and understood by anybody who has kept up with your discussion and thus that information is un-needed. The only thing that is needed to get that I understood is to say that you do not believe that it is divinely inspired. If you want me to repeat everything word by word, then next time you should ask me to repeat things word by word.

Already responded to.

And talking to me as if I'm a little kid.

Actually, no I'm not. That is why I inserted that sentence, to specifically communicate I was concerned my comment would be interpreted that way and that I do NOT see you as a child. I do have to admit, however, that this is somewhat difficult. Your name calling and other behaviors put you, in some ways, at a lower skill set than my own sons, who are only 8 and 10. So I have to struggle, sometimes, to remember that you are an adult.

If you don't want me to use sarcasm or 'ad homs' I would advice that you stop treating me like a kid and start treating me like an adult.

If you want to be treated like an adult, Crystal, then act like one. Discuss civilly, stop assuming the person you are talking to is deceitful and trying to trick you, stop calling names like a street yard bully, and engage like an adult. I can assure you, respect and peer treatment will follow.

Or not - your choice... :shrug:

Meanwhile, although I cannot say I have respect for you, I do attempt to treat you as a peer for discussion purposes.

If you do not want to treat me like an adult, but talk down to me like one of your kids, don't cry when I do the same thing back.

Already responded to.

:sigh:

How many times will you avoid answering a simple question?

That you do not like the answer is not my concern, Crystal. I have now answered your question multiple times. You aren't going to get a different answer since that IS my answer. If you insist on assuming I am avoiding, or dodging, or spinning, or playing games, there is nothing I can do about that. You have asked. I have answered. If you want a different answer, ask a different question. :shrug:

The 'answer displeases' me because it contradicts your claims. If you think the Bible shouldn't contain anything more then it contains, how can you say that was is in it is not of a divine origin?

Since I did not say that what is in the bible is not of divine origin, I have no answer. But it is becoming clear to me that your correct answer before was a fluke. You still do not understand either the premises OR the conclusion. :shrug:

And what is in the Bible clearly brings your claim into question. Does the OT talk about Jesus hundreds of years before his birth? Does this question or answer displease you? Explain why you don't think that counts. In other words, DEFEND your argument.

Already responded to.

Which each and every time, you have missed the point. Too bad. :frown:

Already responded to.

And what is your existing knowledge? What could they of written and not written? Is it really that hard to ask you to support your argument?

This question is applicable to my argument. The people of the ANE varied widely because the period of authorship spans close to a millennium. Some were nomadic, some semi-nomadic, and some not nomadic at all. Their grasp of the sciences were rudimentary. They could have adequately described their surroundings for functional purposes, would have known a great deal about their own culture and surrounding cultures, would have had access to stories of their own history. Initially these would have been verbal, but eventually taking written form. They would also have had some knowledge of the histories of the lands around them. They could have spoken to many things having to do with animal husbandry, trading, smelting, crop (and other food) production, war strategies, the mythologies of surrounding cultures, and their own faith history.

They could NOT have known about advanced technologies and sciences (e.g., atomic theory, the four forces, string theory, the Big Bang, etc), future events or people, or the Americas, to name a few things.

Then show how.

Show how they will have a hard time? Sorry Crystal, I've already indicated why I believe the so-called "prophecies" of the OT fail to meet the tests for a valid prophecy. Someone is going to have to demonstrate how they actually DO meet those tests for me to accept them as prophecies.

And what are you going to do to debate this specific argument? What do you think about these people? Is it really that hard for you to give some specifics?

Already responded to.

In other words, you have not a clue and thus you really have not much to talk about.

No, in other words, so far, I have had nothing to defend it from since your questions have not been germane to my argument. You asked me what I believed SHOULD be in the bible. I have no position on that and have made no argument about it.

And I think your behavior demonstrates a lot about you. I am not a child, you treat pretty much everyone you deal with like some kind of child. If you don't want people to talk to you like they do, I would advise that you stop treating them like children.

Already responded to.

Of course, that still remains unshown. Keep treating me like a 4 year old.

Already responded to.

Reflected back right again and again. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

Already responded to.

Keep showing that talking down attitude. :thumb:

Already responded to.

Yes you did! You are saying the bible contains NOTHING of divine origin. Then what would it take to show you that it does?

Again, you have mis-stated my argument. :shrug:

You cannot refute (or discuss) something you do not understand, Crystal. And every assertion to the contrary does nothing but assert. You can, once again, either assume I'm trying to trick you, or you can take me at my word that what you are claiming is my argument is actually NOT my argument and you have missed the point.

Which you do depends on what you want from this discussion. If your goal is to "win win win" (as I suspect it is), then you will continue to assume I'm trying to trick you. If your goal is to understand and discuss, then you will try to see where you are not getting the argument so we can actually discuss the argument I have made, and not the one you are so convinced I am making.

Ummm, that is what I was getting at the entire time. If you do not believe that prophecy proves otherwise. Is there a point in trying?

I have been through all of our exchanges, Crystal, and I do not find a reference to prophecy anywhere before the last few threads. Would you like to show me where you made this point and I missed it? Link or post # please.

And I was asking for some specifics that you think works or doesn't work. Is there a point in trying if you will not accept it anyway?

Already responded to.

Yes you were dodging.

When you assume the worst from the people you talk to, you will typically manage to find what you are assuming. :shrug:

In point of fact, I have never "dodged." You asked, and I answered - even when the question was not relevant to my argument. That you do not like the answer is not my concern. That you consider me disingenuous in my discussions with you is not my concern. I know I am not, and that is enough for me. What you believe is up to you. :shrug:

You could of just said, "What about this..." And we could of covered if that is possible or not. Is there a reason you want to be hard to have a discussion with?

I don't.

Everything else has been answered and addressed.

Indeed.

Michel