(June 12, 2013 at 2:48 pm)ronedee Wrote: Look for one, your motives are as transparent as glass. 2, you wouldn't be challenging me or talking to me if you thought I were stupid, (we're all liars to some degree).
You were busted re-using an argument that you were already advised was a logical fallacy. Not only that but you smugly referenced it as if it were some kind of slam-dunk. So you tell me what I'm supposed to conclude about you.
Quote:And lastly you had no rebuttal to "hard scripture" except to make fun of it
What is "hard scripture"? What I made fun of (the part you referenced) was the vapid appeal to an imaginary authority (a double fallacy since it's both a bare assertion and an appeal to authority).
Quote:If you want a conversation, or argument lets go at it! No one wants to be treated like yesterdays trash! Not even us Christians.
I'm still waiting patiently for you, John V, Frodo or that new Panda guy to offer me a coherent argument that can't be immediately identified as a logical fallacy. So far all you've offered are bare assertions and vapid appeals to ridicule.
You get the respect you earn. Time for you to start earning some.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
