There is no ad-hominem. Asking who doesn't have a bias isn't an attack on you, it isn't accusing you of anything.
Correct. But you specifically said "You are tainted with an atheist bias." That is not a question. It's an attacking statement designed to undermine the credibility of my arguments. It's an ad hominem attack. Out of context quote and now ad hominem...tsk tsk zannahdoll. One might begin to wonder why you have to resort of such obvious fallacious debate tactics.
I can dig you up real people who didn't start off Catholic who believe in the Marian Apparitions.
Sure. Go for it. I can dig up Catholics that rape little boys. Imaginary friends that listen to silent invisble sky people come in all sorts.
The examples you gave are still based on "overwhemloing physical, repeatable evidence" but did not show that that evidence was regardless of faith.
Of course it was. The sun rises regardless of your faith or lack thereof. Jump off a building and gravity will still work regardles of faith . Done. Evidence provided. Next.
Just saying that it is regardless of faith doesn't make it so.
No shit. That's what the evidence is for. See above examples.
Here is a perfect example of taking what I said out of context instead of the whole concept:
Also, I proved that not all things that atheists "take" need "proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence" - an example you gave me of this is you wearing a pink shirt.
I never argued that personal experience = reality.
Except that you haven't shown how that's out of context quote mining. You just quoted yourself, not me. I am not sure how you quoting yourself somehow in your head proves I quoted you out of context in a blatant attempt to change the meaning of the original, as you so blatantly, dishonestly and obviously did with me.
What I am saying is that what an atheist, using your words "takes" to know reality isn't always on all this provable, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, etc... blah blah blah evidence
You can say whatever you like. That doesn't make it so, no matter how much you quote out of context or use personal attacks. Besides which, no one ever said it was "always" based on anything. What you were saying is that atheists based their ideas on just as much faith as jesusy people do on their invisible sky friend. That is not so at all no matter how much you want to be so.
The one point/concept I make is the same, has not changed once:
I agree. It hasn't changed. It is still wrong, however.
I also cut and paste from wiki that the problem with evidence is our limited knowledge.
Like when you try to argue about falsifiability without knowing what it means.
Okay, I'm getting off the merry-go-round because I can't imagine anything new you have to say except that you will continue to put me down saying "how cute" I am for putting you down or misquoting you - now that is an implied ad hominem because you are being sarcastic.
Oh, you don't know what an ad hominem attack is? It's when I try to make your argument seem weak by attacking you as a person or implication that calls your judgement into question. I never did that. I pointed out when you were ignorant of things like falsfiabilitly and the basic tenets of the scientific method, but pointing out where you are factually wrong is not an ad homimen. When you quote people out of context, argue about subjects you later admit complete ignorance ... why the heck would I need to call you as a person into question? You did that for me.
Oh, I never imply sarcasm. I am pretty direct about it most of the time.
If you met me in person you might think I am cute without the sarcasm.
Probably. I dig crazy chicks :)
Still friends? We can TOTALLY disagree on this thread but on another one I might be your staunchest advocate.