(November 11, 2013 at 7:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Catfish would rather reinterpret the motivations of people he's never even met, than debate the topic at hand.

And see, I knew this would happen, because it's the exact same argument that was used the last time this happened: if you can't excuse the behavior of your own side, the christian response seems to just get aggressive and try to smear everyone else, as though dragging others down to their level excuses the behavior of their own side.

King strawman to the rescue!

---

(November 11, 2013 at 7:27 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 7:14 pm)catfish Wrote: Oh, you spoke to them?

I didn't need to. The Christians ended the arrangement.

You made a claim : "If the atheist organization cared more about eradicating Christianity, they would have made the break."

You claimed to know their motivations of why they didn't make the break. It would seem more advantageous for the dissenter(s) to work from within, not from without. Your reasoning seems dumb.

(November 11, 2013 at 7:27 pm)catfish Wrote: King strawman to the rescue!

Oh, I'm sorry, have you met these people? Are you telepathic, qualified to judge their motivations?

No, of course not. You're just being your usual hostile, arrogant self, targeting any diversion you can find to avoid having to deal with a topic you have no satisfying answer for. Call it a strawman all you like, we can all see the pattern, and not just in your behavior too; I had this exact same argument with John V when a similar situation happened in South Carolina, and he did pretty much the same thing as what you're doing: rather than talking about the christian group at the center of this and why they would turn down free help, you both go on the warpath regarding atheist groups whose only crime was wanting to help out, and maybe correct the vicious misrepresentation that ideological bigots from the christian side find so useful in the bigging up of their religion.

Good thing catfish will always be there to stand up for lies and bigotry, so long as it suits his agenda of having the biggest argument possible in any given thread.

John 12:1-8 Wrote:1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

(Bold added by me)

In the words of Jesus the narcissist, his own image is more important than feeding the poor. Why should we be surprised by this?

(November 11, 2013 at 7:27 pm)catfish Wrote: You made a claim : "If the atheist organization cared more about eradicating Christianity, they would have made the break."

You claimed to know their motivations of why they didn't make the break. It would seem more advantageous for the dissenter(s) to work from within, not from without. Your reasoning seems dumb.

Unless you know that the atheist organization was actually entertaining the idea of making a break, what's dumb is trying to assign reasons why the group didn't do something they had no apparent intention of doing in the first place. Neither did the Christian organization accuse the atheists of being undercover proselytizers. They simply told them to fuck off and refused to explain why.

Who's claiming to know motivations, now?

(November 11, 2013 at 7:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 7:27 pm)catfish Wrote: King strawman to the rescue!

Oh, I'm sorry, have you met these people? Are you telepathic, qualified to judge their motivations?

No, of course not. You're just being your usual hostile, arrogant self, targeting any diversion you can find to avoid having to deal with a topic you have no satisfying answer for. Call it a strawman all you like, we can all see the pattern, and not just in your behavior too; I had this exact same argument with John V when a similar situation happened in South Carolina, and he did pretty much the same thing as what you're doing: rather than talking about the christian group at the center of this and why they would turn down free help, you both go on the warpath regarding atheist groups whose only crime was wanting to help out, and maybe correct the vicious misrepresentation that ideological bigots from the christian side find so useful in the bigging up of their religion.

Good thing catfish will always be there to stand up for lies and bigotry, so long as it suits his agenda of having the biggest argument possible in any given thread.

First a strawman and then poisoning the well?
You're so full of fallacious arguments, I don't know why I bother sometimes except for the amusement of some of your ideas.

(November 11, 2013 at 7:40 pm)catfish Wrote: First a strawman and then poisoning the well?
You're so full of fallacious arguments, I don't know why I bother sometimes except for the amusement of some of your ideas.

Better full of what you perceive as fallacies than full of shit, Fish.

If you don't have anything useful to say, next time, maybe just stay quiet. Must be alien to you, not saying whatever comes into your head, but maybe it'll do you good.

I do notice, however, that you aren't even getting close to the issue at hand, now. Your stabs at diversions are just getting wider and wider.

He's an unrepentant attention whore, Esquilax.

(November 11, 2013 at 7:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 7:40 pm)catfish Wrote: First a strawman and then poisoning the well?
You're so full of fallacious arguments, I don't know why I bother sometimes except for the amusement of some of your ideas.

Better full of what you perceive as fallacies than full of shit, Fish.

If you don't have anything useful to say, next time, maybe just stay quiet. Must be alien to you, not saying whatever comes into your head, but maybe it'll do you good.

I do notice, however, that you aren't even getting close to the issue at hand, now. Your stabs at diversions are just getting wider and wider.

Whole sheetload of hand waving?
Is that the best you got?

(November 11, 2013 at 7:46 pm)catfish Wrote: Whole sheetload of hand waving?
Is that the best you got?

Handwaving would imply some content to your post that I was ignoring. You haven't said a single thing of any worth in this entire thread, except for showcasing the depths of christian dishonesty.

Pretty much par for the course, for you.

(November 11, 2013 at 7:49 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...You haven't said a single thing of any worth in this entire thread, except for showcasing the depths of christian dishonesty.

Proof of claim? Or was that simply a lie that you cannot back with evidence?