I hope I did not scare you away tackattack. In any case, don't take this personal. I am sincerely trying to play the ball here, though my wording may seem brute.

Quote:I don't really see where trust falls into this I'm asking for everyone else's view not defending mine as most apologists do, but I am not in the least disingenuous

My cynicism comes from previous experience with self- identifying Christians on this forum.Those people almost invariably have an agenda and are incapable of independent thought. A hint is a broad question without stating a position.The question itself often reveals some basic ignorance. In your case a lack of understanding of the term 'atheist'.

Then,after having a few teeth extracted the apologist will present its own position, invariably heavy on authority and dogma and light on science and logic.

When pressed,the apologist will attempt to provide a scientific explanation for its position and fail badly. Perhaps THE most popular apologist cliche is an appeal to the Second Law Of Thermodynamics.The explanation given invariably shows a profound ignorance of that law.

Your posts have followed a tediously predictable pattern.I neither resile from nor apologise for my initial cynicism.


Bored now

Padraic,

I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer too! Alyson Hannigan made a sexy vampire! Or maybe you were just bored and not quoting pop culture.

Rhizo

(December 4, 2009 at 8:11 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Padraic,

I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer too! Alyson Hannigan made a sexy vampire! Or maybe you were just bored and not quoting pop culture.

Rhizo

Umm,when? I hate Buffy I think I've seen it twice.(in case I was mistaken about how appalling it was; I wasn't) I quite like Alyson's character what's- her-- name,but I fell in lust with Miss This--one-time and her creative flute playing in American Pie.

These days my tastes are arguably a bit more sophisticated.---currently I lust for three TV characters; Abby Sciuto in NCIS( Pauley Perrete has a Master's in Criminal Science in real life, turned 40 this year and is also rather eccentric) Dr Temperance Brennan in Bones and Ziva David in NCIS.(for the true thrill seeker)

Rhizo picked up on "Bored now" It's what Vampire Willow said a lot.

(December 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm)padraic Wrote: Your posts have followed a tediously predictable pattern.I neither resile from nor apologise for my initial cynicism.

Bored now

Oh come on now, give the guy a break, he has made 6 postings so far. Do you think your posts follow no pattern?

Quote:Oh come on now, give the guy a break, he has made 6 postings so far. Do you think your posts follow no pattern?

Tu quoque.

---

Quote:Oh come on now, give the guy a break, he has made 6 postings so far. Do you think your posts follow no pattern?

Tu quoque.

Let him stand up for himself.

---

(December 5, 2009 at 2:19 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Rhizo picked up on "Bored now" It's what Vampire Willow said a lot.

Oh.
I was just bored,really. (I didn't even realise she was a vampire. I thought she was just Buffy's far more interesting and attractive friend.)

off-topic, but Willow was a witch in the series. and in the third season she encountered her vampire counterpart form an alternate dimension. That was also the stage were her lesbianism was written into the series.

(December 5, 2009 at 8:29 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:Oh come on now, give the guy a break, he has made 6 postings so far. Do you think your posts follow no pattern?

Tu quoque.

---

Quote:Oh come on now, give the guy a break, he has made 6 postings so far. Do you think your posts follow no pattern?

Tu quoque.

Let him stand up for himself.

---

Looks a pattern to me...

Quote:Looks a pattern to me...

I really don't understand your point. Are you just taking the piss or being deliberately thick? I will assume the latter.


Do you actually understand what 'Tu quoque' means?

Just in case you don't:

Quote:Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, from Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]

As I neither engage in flame war nor suffer fools, I have nothing further to say on this matter.