A Stone At Sloan

[Tassman]

Before Tassman starts the inevitable whining about people commenting on him, he should remember that he's insistent in making himself the subject of this thread. If he doesn't want people to talk about him, he should develop better social skills and realise that his particular brand of snide comments are unwanted here.


If he has read the more recent threads Nick has posted in his forum, he would realise that Nick is very strong on having beleifs based on reason and evidence rather than 'blind faith'.

One of Tassman's problems is that he is unable or unwilling to see that other people may be quite reasonable and rational to hold a position that he disagrees with. It is apparent in almost everything that he posts that he believes that they just must be acting irrationally, if not plain deluded.

Added to that Tassman is quite persistent in putting the worst possible interpretation on any Christian's belief. If a Christian says that he believes that the Bible is reliable, or something along those lines, Tassman seems determined to conclude that that means that the Christian is a one-dimensional Bible idolater, insistent that every word in the Bible is literally true, someone who makes Geisler and KJY onlyists look reasoned and nuanced. His insistence on lumping all Christians in to one stereotype, and his inability to listen to what people are saying that they actually believe make a real dialogue with him almost impossible.

Hence we ignore him.

Oh - the snide comments about 'inerrantists', smears on 'apologists' and general tone of intellectual and moral superiority (both unfounded) that Tassman don't help either...

Well, Max, at the risk of being accused of “inevitable whining about people commenting on him” - not that you are being snide here are you Max - It is you who is joining the mob and making me the denigrated center of the thread rather than sticking to the topic. Namely, the views on inerrancy of Geisler vis-à-vis Licona.

And I don’t feel “intellectually and moral superior” to you Max (not that you are being snide of course). Perhaps the problem is that you feel “intellectually and morally inferior" to me.

Furthermore Max, common courtesy dictates that you address items concerning me or my views to me rather than pontificating your patronizing and incorrect notions about me in the third-person to your multitude of fans - as you have in this post. It’s a bad habit of yours.

[Adrift]

Why, because, as an atheist, I am likely to disagree with you?

No, because as a person, you've proved over and over again that you're a waste of my time interacting with. And you've done a great job proving that once again.

[Sparko]

tassman.jpg

[lilpixieofterror]

No! Why would you think that? All that bothers me are the thirty posts of Christian evasions to my question posed in post number #3. But that reflects badly on the Christians, not me.

Or they just think you're a waste of time bothering with and just poke you for their own entertainment, but whatever helps you feel better about yourself.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

When Adrift gets heavy-handed with Tassy-Wassy, it's really time that Tassy considered he could actually be wrong on not being a threat. Yeah. It'll kill his ego, but you gotta learn sometime. Admitting the problem is the first step to recovery!

[Tassman]

No, because as a person, you've proved over and over again that you're a waste of my time interacting with. And you've done a great job proving that once again.

But you cannot “interact” with anyone who does not share your worldview. You are an apologist – so “interaction” with an atheist is not possible unless you at least consider the possibility you could be wrong. Typically, as an apologist you ask me to change my evidenced-based belief system but you are adamant that you will not change your faith-based beliefs, because you believe you have the “truth.”

Full marks for attempting to respond to the issue of inerrancy, but all you did was present a faith-based personal testimony. This is the only argument apologists have and unsurprisingly neither I, nor many others, find this sort of personal testimony convincing.

Thus you have typically lapsed into attacking those who disagree with you which ALL too common among the Christian spammers and flamers around here! Their nonsensical assumption seems to be that if the atheist was rational and well intentioned then he or she would agree with the apologist.

In fact the opposite is true as is evidenced by the decline of religion in general and the decline of belief in biblical inerrancy in particular which poor Nick was lamenting in his scarcely visited (except when I post) Deep Waters Forum. Nick should be grateful I actually generate interest in his futile attempt at Christian outreach - but he will have to do without me for a while. Some of us have a full-time occupation and I'm busy.

[ikaika777]

poor Nick was lamenting in his scarcely visited (except when I post) Deep Waters Forum. Nick should be grateful I actually generate interest in his futile attempt at Christian outreach - but he will have to do without me for a while. Some of us have a full-time occupation and I'm busy.

And you wonder why nobody likes you. You're such a fool.

[Adrift]

But you cannot “interact” with anyone who does not share your worldview. You are an apologist – so “interaction” with an atheist is not possible unless you at least consider the possibility you could be wrong. Typically, as an apologist you ask me to change my evidenced-based belief system but you are adamant that you will not change your faith-based beliefs, because you believe you have the “truth.”

I interact with non-Christians on this forum regularly, and often enjoy doing so.
Though I think I can offer good apologetics, I do not consider myself an apologist.
I often consider the possibility that I am wrong, and often state that belief in my interaction with others.
I don't ever remember asking you to change any of your "evidence-based" beliefs, doing so I know would be useless.

The reason I find interaction with you futile is because you are an unpleasant person who desperately and obnoxiously craves attention, and are absolutely incapable of holding your attention on one topic at a time. Your approach to anti-theistic apologetics is an "everything and the kitchen sink" method that makes discussion sloppy and pointless, and you purposely and knowingly use things like the genetic fallacy or favorite talking points that have been refuted long ago in order to push your agenda. You're an angry prideful person, and I simply don't have the time or desire to entertain folks like you anymore.

This is my last post to you on this thread. You don't deserve any of the attention that you're pulling from the OP with your silliness, and the best way to get rid of folks who are trolling for attention is to starve them.

[ikaika777]

It's time we all block the fool. Ignore on.

[Tassman]

When Adrift gets heavy-handed with Tassy-Wassy, it's really time that Tassy considered he could actually be wrong on not being a threat. Yeah. It'll kill his ego, but you gotta learn sometime. Admitting the problem is the first step to recovery!

I will resist the urge to respond in kind with “Nicky-Wicky” except to note that this belittling attitude in lieu of substantive argument is typical of what passes for debate around here.

The pages of irrational hysteria in this thread say a lot about the religious insecurity of the theists who have responded to me with a sustained genetic fallacy and personal abuse.

Nick's OP, namely Geisler vis-à-vis Licona was built on the assumption of biblical inerrancy. But without establishing the truth of inerrancy as a premise, the OP argument based on it is an empty argument - hence my querying of it. But what a hornets’ nest that’s turned out to be!

Adrift provided a “take-it-or-leave-it” faith-based personal testimony” which I responded to, but was told that I’m “a waste of my time interacting with”.

In short, the only conclusion which can be reached is that some Christian assumptions, such as inerrancy, are held by some Christians to be inviolable and NOT open to discussion. This is a ludicrously high-handed approach for supposed discussion web-site and it has not gone unnoticed by the many visitors to this site whom TWeb is desirous of reaching.

And you wonder why nobody likes you. You're such a fool.

Another typical example of the scintillating standard of debate around here! Need one wonder why religion is in decline given the vindictiveness of Christian spokespersons like this? He may as well admit outright that the role of apologists is to shut-up opponents by whatever means with whatever it takes.