Outlaw are you dismissing the topic without being willing to grasp what the topic actually is?
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Simon
Please can we now stop the non-constructive debate about some other deceased forum - we don't want whatever bad feeling was allowed to kill that site to be brought over here.
-
adamah
Viviane said-
Adamah, for one who loves the accuse others of logical fallacies with giant cut-n-paste sessions (and do so falsely, sometimes), you just jumped to Ludicrous Speed with your hyperbole accusing Cofty of thinking he has single handedly killed Christianity. Should I cut-n-paste your own text about the fallacy of the excluded middle, a strawman or appeal to emotion with your loaded language?
Reading comprehension not your forte? Cofty just repeated his assertion again:
Natural evil is a fatal blow to christian theism unless theists can explain how drowning a quarter of a million people is an act of perfect love.
WHAT do those words mean to you, Viviane?
It's pretty easy to defeat theism when you're the one who gets to play the role of judge, deciding which arguments you'll allow, etc, which can be dismissed out of hand as absurd, etc, since Cofty ultimately decides which are logical and hence admissable, as if he is the atheist World's version of the Holy See.
Cofty was likely an arrogant and dogmatic know-it-all elder who got satisfaction from exercising power over 'sheep', and the dogmatic attitude ("my way or the highway") has persisted even after he lost his belief in God.
Everyone has the RIGHT to believe or NOT believe, although if he's a rational and skeptical as he might think, he'd recognize that you cannot force beliefs by royal edict and the horses can only be led to water, but can't be forced to drink.
Adam
-
cofty
Simon it all happened during the night UK. Tammy and Outlaw have made a moutain out of a molehill and Outlaw is still banging on about it.
Hopefully it is back on topic now.
-
OUTLAW
There was no problem. Strypes was a member of the now defunt JWS forum. Tammy manipulated you to cause trouble as usual.....Cofty
Yes there was a Problem..
Hummingbird100 made it quite clear she had a problem..
She was also confused about her claims,as to which forum Strypes was spewing Vitriol from..
Tammy had nothing to do with any of it..
I did My Job and Cleared Up any Problems between the two forums I`m involved with..
Laying this in Tammys lap is totally unfair..Your making Things Up to Make her Look Bad..
.
Cofty..Seriously man..
You need to take a Good Look at your Behaviour with Tammy..It`s Unacceptable..
I think your capable of doing better..
...........................................................
...OUTLAW -
cofty
Being called arrogant by Adam is funny.
Nobody thinks they can argue a theist out of their irrational beliefs. Discussions of this sort are for the benefit of others.
When you examine christian theism with logic, facts and reason its flaws quickly become apparent to all but the indoctrinated.
-
-
Viviane
Reading comprehension not your forte? Cofty just repeated his assertion again:
Personal attack fallacy on your part.
Reading comprehension not your forte? Cofty just repeated his assertion again:
Natural evil is a fatal blow to christian theism unless theists can explain how drowning a quarter of a million people is an act of perfect love.
Exactly, he said there IS a death blow, not that he single handedly dealt a death blow. Straw man fallacy on your part.
It's pretty easy to defeat theism when you're the one who gets to play the role of judge, deciding which arguments you'll allow, etc, which can be dismissed out of hand as absurd, etc, since Cofty ultimately decides which are logical and hence admissable, as if he is the atheist World's version of the Holy See.
Strawman fallacy, loaded language and personal attack and middle ground fallacy on your part.
Cofty was likely an arrogant and dogmatic know-it-all elder who got satisfaction from exercising power over 'sheep', and the dogmatic attitude ("my way or the highway") has persisted even after he lost his belief in God.
Personal attack and composition fallacy on your part.
If you thought that pretending you were the fallacy police and could hush people up by listing (sometimes erroneously) logical fallacies would protect you from having the multiple logical fallacie you commit from being pointed out, you were wrong.
Acting condescending and like you are smarter than everyone else here probably won't work out for you. There are plenty of people here at least as smart as you that can debate just as well.
-
Hummingbird001
I feel I am being deliberately misrepresented here.
I did not bring up the other forum beyond inquiring about the identity of a certain poster, and if the person was the same as from the other site.
She then denied being the same person. A lie.
I recognised the same, "repent, sinners or suffer the wrath of god!" and snarky style and concluded the person WAS the same. I never said the person bashed JWN over there, I don't know where Outlaw got that from, probably leaping to conclusions. Or receiving misinformation.
I think Outlaw made a simple situation more complicated, wiith meddling last night.
-
flamegrilled
Adam
You have been very fair in noting the limitations of Cofty's so-called argument.
I would just like to comment on ...
The claim is actually an 'appeal to ignorance', following the general form of, "humans don't know X (which in some cases IS true), but THEREFORE we should do Y".
... since it was directed at my point of reason.
I don't think that is an accurate way of presenting the way most of us Theists are motivated.
We do Y because of Z (which is not part of this discussion), and at the same time acknowledge that we may not know X. Nevertheless the evidence of Z is so compelling (to us) that we are prepared to reserve judgement on X and not allow an absence of information in this area to lead us to conclusion Q in spite of Z.
Cofty's argument is that we must reach conclusion Q based upon his interpretation of X. No allowance can be made for Z, and an admission that we may not know X is to be scorned rather than acknowledged.
...OUTLAW