The Stage is Yours.

[Reforged]

I think I'll be able to point to the posts in this thread where fr0d0 gave his 'answers' to the questions that you guys are asking him.

But, I will do that in the next two or three days because right now I'm not at my house. I've been on a vacation with my family for the past week. Hence my short intermission.
Fr0d0, I have a few more things to say in response to your last reply to me. I'll post it when I get back.

Thanks, this idiots being intentionally evasive.
Scanned through the debate you had with him as well as the rest of the thread and as far as I can tell he doesn't seem to actually explain or elaborate on his original answer to the OP at any point but maybe you can find something I missed.
After all, it was your debate. Thanks again.

[fr0d0]

Oh it's "scanned" now. so poor Eld here is basing his precise accusation on a rough glance you took? Nice.

I have no interest in being evasive. If you have a question, ask, and I'm pretty much guaranteed to answer, such is my disposition.

It's a deplorable fallacy that you guys use this "running away" bullshit, when you yourselves fail to address most questions.

[Reforged]

Oh it's "scanned" now. so poor Eld here is basing his precise accusation on a rough glance you took? Nice.

I have no interest in being evasive. If you have a question, ask, and I'm pretty much guaranteed to answer, such is my disposition.

It's a deplorable fallacy that you guys use this "running away" bullshit, when you yourselves fail to address most questions.

Don't you worry, it wasn't a "rough glance". I did it quite diligently. Not a word escaped. If you want to prove me wrong all you need to do is come up with a quote of the explanation to your original statement you claim to of typed.
Here is the statement:

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

The proposition that empiricism alone can inform a world view is a contradicting metaphysical claim.

We're all waiting with bated breath. :-)

[ElDinero]

Oh it's "scanned" now. so poor Eld here is basing his precise accusation on a rough glance you took? Nice.

I have no interest in being evasive. If you have a question, ask, and I'm pretty much guaranteed to answer, such is my disposition.

It's a deplorable fallacy that you guys use this "running away" bullshit, when you yourselves fail to address most questions.

How fucking dare you, you little cunt. How dare you even suggest that I haven't asked a direct question? How dare you imply that I've been somehow unclear in what I'm requesting, or that you've ever asked me a question that I have declined to answer? Is that seriously what you're saying? If that's what you're saying I've done, I'm going to embarrass you, in a severe way. Find a time I've ever failed to address a question of yours. This isn't a rhetorical challenge, go and do it.

You're a little fuckface, as you know, who evades questions constantly and will never give a straight answer. But despite your slippery manner, I won't have you accuse me of being indirect in my questioning, which for a year now has been most blunt.

You know exactly what you're doing, you take joy in it, you love gaining this kind of reaction from people and whether or not you believe in the God you claim to worship, you're a twat. Answer the question, you cunt, or shut up and fuck off. I'm going to start reporting your posts, every single time I see you being evasive or vague, in the hope that you get banned for constant derailing of threads, which is all you do.

Feel like I've been indirect now, you little tosser?

[Reforged]

Oh it's "scanned" now. so poor Eld here is basing his precise accusation on a rough glance you took? Nice.

I have no interest in being evasive. If you have a question, ask, and I'm pretty much guaranteed to answer, such is my disposition.

It's a deplorable fallacy that you guys use this "running away" bullshit, when you yourselves fail to address most questions.

How fucking dare you, you little cunt. How dare you even suggest that I haven't asked a direct question? How dare you imply that I've been somehow unclear in what I'm requesting, or that you've ever asked me a question that I have declined to answer? Is that seriously what you're saying? If that's what you're saying I've done, I'm going to embarrass you, in a severe way. Find a time I've ever failed to address a question of yours. This isn't a rhetorical challenge, go and do it.

You're a little fuckface, as you know, who evades questions constantly and will never give a straight answer. But despite your slippery manner, I won't have you accuse me of being indirect in my questioning, which for a year now has been most blunt.

You know exactly what you're doing, you take joy in it, you love gaining this kind of reaction from people and whether or not you believe in the God you claim to worship, you're a twat. Answer the question, you cunt, or shut up and fuck off. I'm going to start reporting your posts, every single time I see you being evasive or vague, in the hope that you get banned for constant derailing of threads, which is all you do.

Feel like I've been indirect now, you little tosser?

Its fine Dinero, hes only shooting himself in the foot. People will read through this thread and they'll make their own minds up. I'm unsure if theres a rule against it but its definitely not remotely close to what the rules of a debate are. Responding with insults and deflections is nothing less than a shameless mockery that should be exposed for what it is when it is attempted.

I'm of the opinion that if someone lets anyone doing this get away with it, it validates it. The alternative is to repeat the question clearly and plainly demonstrate why his answer is a clear deflection and state he has a choice. Answer, retreat or continue to insult the intelligence of the readers with further deflection. If he attempts another insulting deflection then repeat until he gives a direct answer or he retreats. Don't let up, patience is a virtue. If he retreats then at least you get a neat little trophy for your signature.
In one thread Fr0d0 actually responded with an answer when I presented this proposition repeatedly after de-constructing each individual deflection which presents the potential for further debate as opposed to running around in circles. This is in stark contrast to the previous two threads this was used in where he eventually went into a full retreat veiled by insults. I'd like to take this as a sign of progress in that he is maturing and learning that insults and deflection aren't a legitimate means by which to debate with but I remain a realist and realize that it will probably take a few more years of this before he comes to terms with this simple fact.
Thats ok though, I am a very patient man.
By the way, have you seen my signature? :-)

[fr0d0]

lmao @ Eld. You embark on a rule breaking, personal insult fest, with the purpose of reporting me for... ooh possibly suggesting you don't answer questions.

* fr0d0 looks for evidence of that and sees none

Calm down dude! I'm putting you on block right now so you can rest assured anything more you say I won't see. I hope that helps you to get over it.

[ElDinero]

I'm vindicated by the knowledge that anyone reading this thread will see fr0d0 evading and being a little pussy, as ever.

[Reforged]

lmao @ Eld. You embark on a rule breaking, personal insult fest, with the purpose of reporting me for... ooh possibly suggesting you don't answer questions.

* fr0d0 looks for evidence of that and sees none

Calm down dude! I'm putting you on block right now so you can rest assured anything more you say I won't see. I hope that helps you to get over it.

Hey didn't you do that to me on this thread already? But then you replied to my retort despite having blocked me... and then you were confronted by various reasonable and intelligent people who had witnessed your retreats and unprovoked insults... oh and then you tried to justify yourself and blame me for your behavior... then when that didn't work you claimed you had misread the situation.

Is this like a similar situation with ElDinero?
Because this shit has irony and de ja vu written all over it what with you blocking the person who brought this discrepancy to light.

Anyway, ElDinero has a right to be angry. He called it right and you chastised him for it and repeatedly attempted to inspire anger and resentment in him with an insulting demeanour. People only need to look back at your posts to see this clear as day. You have not explained your original statement in response to the OP and even if you had it would be a simple matter of copying and pasting your own quote. Instead of doing this you have attempted to evade his question and engage in an insulting retreat, there can be no rational explanation for this behaviour unless the answer is that you did not explain it and have no wish to.
I as a spectator have observed this and I'm fairly certain anyone else reading this will have too.

This was your response to the OP:
"The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

The proposition that empiricism alone can inform a world view is a contradicting metaphysical claim."

If you would be so kind; copy and paste the explanation to this statement you obviously didn't provide from its non-existent post, provide an explanation now, retreat or carry on trying to deceive the intelligent members of this forum with Bill O'Reilly tactics.
Your choice.

---

I only recently discovered this; https://atheistforums.org/thread-13979-page-7.html
It would seem fr0d0 has no qualms about blocking anyone he cannot evade or deflect. I hope this alerts everyone to the content of fr0d0s character and his style of "debating".

I also hope that the post where I presented tactics on how to counter such brazen and insulting deflection will prove of use to those he has not yet blocked:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-13659-page-19.html

... 'Nough said. :-)

[fr0d0]

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

Out of interest, since I don't want to have to trawl through the entire thread, has fr0d0 offered up any further justification for his first post in this thread? Obviously the above 'answer' simply raises more questions, but rather than just elaborate on the statement at the time, dear fr0des needs to have his hand held. He knows the next question is obviously 'Why is it the only reasonable conclusion?' but he likes to be deliberately evasive, you see.

So fr0d0, be a dear and either point me in the right direction, or elaborate, sil vous plait.

Here are the answers that I've given so far to my opening statement in this thread, as Raphael has thoroughly, scanned, and read carefully yet not seen, and Eldinero accuses me of never answering the question based on Raphaels say so:

ergo God because of the positive reason. The disproof proves nothing besides that which is disproven

I didn't provide details, no. It is my assertion that all conclusions lead back to god. They don't lead back to no god. I'm not condemning any other world view there, just laying down the criteria. If you believe that your own view works out, and I hope you do, I haven't found that.

Well I believe I made one in my 1st post in this thread. Meaning and purpose are all bound up in metaphysical thinking and it is what informs our world view. For materialists this is a complete non starter and a huge unresolved conflict they somehow live with.

"All conclusions lead back to god." <- Well, that seems like a very vague critera unless you specify what are some of those conclusions and demonstrate how they "necessarily" imply that only the Chrisitian God is real.

It's not vague. It's just not dealing with the minutae. The detail is just that, very detailed. For anything to make sense metaphysically, it is my contention that the christian god is the only satisfactory answer. I work that out continually. Why should I act positively? Because it makes sense in the wider scheme of things that positivity is life. Any question you pick makes sense including God. Minus God it fails to make sense.

I logically deduce my own position and find it to be the only one that satisfies my enquiries; and those enquiries are constnatly ongoing.

1. How does meaning and purpose all lead back to Christianity, though?

It leads back to the Christian description of God. It's how and why Christianity came about - to describe meaning and purpose, as it is the reason for most religious endeavour. I believe that the Christian model answers that perfectly, where other endeavours do not. Straight away (I think) you and I would dismiss those endeavours that have god as a destructive force. So it goes on and we find what makes sense for us. I don't know what you've concluded on that, or if you've ever considered it. It doesn't predicate belief so there's no reason why you should IMO.

It (But that) doesn't logically imply that only the Christian God nor Allah are necessarily true. Afterall, there are many other religions that encourage you to act positively.

Quite so. I'm not claiming exclusivity on that.

So, you should have more than just "meaning and purpose" as an argument for Christianity because the same argument can be made for any other religion.

Meaning and purpose as the raison detre of all religious endeavour I said. Nothing about justification for only christianity.

And you should also be able to explain to me why you think that the Christian model of God is only model that answers everything perfectly which you still haven't done yet.

See my answer above. Also, this is way to big a question, and one I'm not qualified to answer. I could try and put it all together for you, but it would fail scrutiny because I am no expert. See any studies on the summa theologica by Thomas of Aquinas. I'm sure someone like Ryft could be far more exacting for you if you require sources.

[ElDinero]

That's what passes for evidence in fr0d0's world. Hilarious. The Christian God is the only logical conclusion because it's the only logical conclusion.

A circular argument is the best kind because it has no holes.