Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Apart from oxymoron, just whut the hell is a "Secular Saint"? Would Madonna qualify, or maybe B. F. Skinner?

0 Replies

Hi, cavfancier.

It's been a while...

cavfancier wrote:

I am wondering if you also record your phone calls at this point...

Am I that good with the evidence?

Quote:

I read the post, and I think the point was Jose's humanistic motivation to help others, not born of religion necessarially.

I take it that you agree with what I say about Craven weaseling out...

Of course I get the point of Jose's case. And I'm sure it is not an isolated case (I'd question to what extent they are not religious, though - I still haven't seen an open advocate of secularism doing what Mother Teresa did and what her followers keep doing).

If you recall, we were talking about secular saints. I know neighbors, friends, family members, that do what Jose does, and more. But Mother Teresa is in another league.

Quote:

As far as comparing Jose to Mother Teresa, it's an argument of "My dad can beat up your dad" and it denigrates the good deeds on both sides.

You can now ridicule it if you will, but that was the very point of the discussion. And back then you understood the challenge and did not ridicule it (later on you claimed that you had been "sarcastic").

Anyway... I asked for a secular Mother Teresa, and you and Craven said "Of course, there are plenty of examples".

Never got one.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

maliagar,

You can use teh word "weaseling" all you want. It does not change this simple statement below:

1) You claimed that I did not substantiate a claim and did not provide evidence.

2) I asked you to provide evidence of this and I would correct it.

3) You said I did not name a secular humanist despite my "bold" contention that there has existed a secular humanist in history. You said "avoided to provide one example for your bold claim. ".

4) I demonstrated that your "evidence" is false. I provided you with a link where I provide a name.

So what do you do? You backtrack and claim I provided it while you wre busy elsewhere blah blah blah.

You claimed I provided not one example. You were wrong, I had done so and your excuse is that you were "engaged" elsewhere. Your "evidence" was false.

:wink:

0 Replies

By the way, cavfancier:

I also remember you avoiding to support your claim that I grounded my points of view on the Bible... and putting all your trust on a totally irrelevant "example" brought by Husker.

And Frankie's open admission that he didn't need to bring evidence to counter what I had brought on the relationship between church and science during the Middle Ages...

I suppose I don't need to bring the phone records...

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar,

I'd like to debate you one on one in the debate room. You game?

0 Replies

Craven, I bet maliagar "weasels" out of this one. LOL

0 Replies

Shamelessly, maliagar wrote:

And Frankie's open admission that he didn't need to bring evidence to counter what I had brought on the relationship between church and science during the Middle Ages...

Now, to just about everyone's satisfaction but yours, your assertions in that regard were blown out of the water.

0 Replies

---

Link, if you please.

Thank you.

timberlandko wrote:

Shamelessly, maliagar wrote:
And Frankie's open admission that he didn't need to bring evidence to counter what I had brought on the relationship between church and science during the Middle Ages...

Now, to just about everyone's satisfaction but yours, your assertions in that regard were blown out of the water.

0 Replies

Hey, maliagar is a fast learner; he's reverted to our tactics. LOL

0 Replies

Oh, I can do better than a link. Timber claimed that your arguments were blown out of the water to just about everyone's satisfaction but yours.

In my case he is right. I agree.

Show of hands, who disagrees?

Mal, the emptiness that will follow that question is the evidenc you need to support timber's assertion. Of course you already knew this and was just trying to give timber a bit of work to do. ;-)

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Oh, I can do better than a link. Timber claimed that your arguments were blown out of the water to just about everyone's satisfaction but yours. In my case he is right. I agree. Show of hands, who disagrees? Mal, the emptiness that will follow that question is the evidenc you need to support timber's assertion. Of course you already knew this and was just trying to give timber a bit of work to do. ;-)

maliagar wrote:

Thanks for proving my point yet one more time: speculation and reinterpretation are your only weapons... clever word play, if you will.

You're not well equipped for these discussions. You have only one set of tools, and keep pretending that everything is a nail for your flimsy hammer.

Every time you've attempted to "substantiate" your views with actual external evidence, you've put your foot into your mouth (obviously, you're not used to assessing the relative value of historical evidence - as in the Bishop Usher case)...

...weaknesses... rooted in your excessive attachment to the purely speculative approach to issues that are heavily historical...

The ability to speculate and think of different scenarios is useful, but is hardly decisive when we talk about processes, facts, and discussions that are outside (and alien to) your brain. The skeleton of naked logic needs the flesh provided by facts as well as the ability to place them in a larger interpretative framework.

It's easier to be a sniper than an architect. And to build a case you need raw materials, which are provided by the outside world... not your very own (and overworked) speculative mind. ...

...let this excercise show you the difficulties you have when it comes to bringing relevant evidence, and assessing its relative value.

0 Replies

Just another ad hom mal? Rolling Eyes

Here's to wishing you a return to your pridian style in which you actually attempted to posit arguments. ;-)

It's altogether too clear an attempt to evade having to address my arguments and avoidance of producing that "train" you once touted so proudly.

So, are you interested in a debate? Since you say my mind is so 'orrible it should be easy for you. :wink:

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

maliagar,

I'd like to debate you one on one in the debate room. You game?

Looks like you finally felt the massive two-mile train running you over and over and over... Laughing

---------------------

"It's so strange when you're down and lying on the floor

How you rise, shake your head, get up and ask for more

With nothing left to try

Thanks for all your generous love and thanks for all the fun

Standing calmly at the crossroads, no desire to run............... [Run, man, run!]

There's no hurry any more when all is said and done."

"When All Is Said And Done" - Abba

0 Replies

This guy's a expert at evasion. Proven once again.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

This guy's a expert at evasion. Proven once again.

Link?

0 Replies

good one, maliagar, but I'm not your target for a "I gotcha!" LOL

0 Replies

circular arguments never has an answer.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

good one, maliagar, but I'm not your target for a "I gotcha!" LOL

I've lost count of how many times I hit your "gotcha" target right on...

So don't ask me for the links...

Laughing

0 Replies

Yeah, sometimes it's just nice to have a question answered, but whatever....an Abba quote was an interesting choice. They read phonetically, I hear.

0 Replies

Here ya go: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=347472#347472

You didn't want to answer the question so you, as c.i. said, evaded.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know