>>>"I showed you how easy it would be to refute a true
Straw Man argument by simply showing the factual errors in the premise. Clearly you would have done so by now if you could have so It's safe to assume you can't."
I did my best to show you what I believe to be wrong with the premise and you have completely ignored it. I actually think you do see the problem and are afraid to admit it. God knows why, I sure don't. I do know you ignore direct encouragement from me that might further the discussion.
Me: "I get the impression that he wants me to think, if you don't bow to his authority you are to be classified as foolish, irrational, unstable, contentless, moral-less, people void of conscience." If you think that characterisation false then declare here and now what is flawed about that characterisation and I will consider it."
It seems now you are off on this tangent of trying to prove some technicality regarding what qualifies and what does not qualify as a strawman. That is about as impressive as looking for spelling errors and typos but I'm not sure you even know what I mean by that.
------------------
>>>"You can't rescue your own bad argument by constructing yet another one that's even worse. Two bad arguments don't somehow make a good one. You are getting ever more ridiculous with every post.
Greg?
I thought it was obvious that I was using the very same method your preacher did in that article. I also think you know that and for some strange reason (religionism maybe?) you can't deal with it honestly. Of course it was a bad argument. I said so my self at the conclusion. It was a horrible and unjust characterization of Christianity and of Christian groups. I did, however, exactly what your preacher did. I used specific doctrine, which can not be denied by Religious Authorities. I portrayed historic events accurately, then I tied it all together in a way that no Christian would accept as a fair representative of their beliefs, principles, or outlook on life.
It was horrible and it would be wrong to present it as an fair accounting of Christianity, I said so my self. "But I wouldn't do that because I think it is bigoted, hateful, and wrong. Who, in their right mind, would do such a thing? And there in lies the irony behind what you religionists do."
>>>"You are every bit the fundamentalist that you accuse others of being "
1. You were better of trying to make me into a pantheistic monist, which you also failed at.
2. How am I fundamentalist Greg... or are you just making stuff up ... again?
3. When have I ever accused others (plural?) or even one person of being a fundamentalist Greg? What's up with that???
"(and much more intolerant)"
Your opinion/namecalling based on nothing that has been discussed here. Who are these people you are refering to, yourself, and others like you? Clarify please. I doubt you've thought it through much but I admit to being intolerant of dishonesty and hypocrisy, of bigotry, of corrupt coercive authority, of oppression, and brutality. That probably wasn't what you meant which is why the comment probably doesn't rise above name calling.
"with one exception: that being you are blatantly dishonest about it. Are your pants on fire?"
I never lie. You only dishonor yourself further with these attempts to misrepresent my comments as lies ... tsk |
