RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
July 16, 2013 at 4:33 pm
(July 16, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Probably because they didn’t find your arguments convincing...in which case, they should have left the arguments up there for people to read and laugh at. Just like how I quote you in my signature. When the other side makes a bad argument, you don't censor it. You copy and paste it for others to read. You celebrate it as an epic failure by the other side. You only delete, censor and try to hide arguments that are so devastating that censorship is your only recourse.
Quote:No, that’s called allowing an argument to stand un-refuted, and is a good way to lose the debate, as you seem to like to do. Bad arguments are easy to refute, sound arguments are impossible to refute which is why you ignore them and pretend they are “not worthy of reply”.
Some arguments are so bad, you don't refute them but proudly quote them. Others are so nonsensical that you can't offer an argument against it but leaving it un-refuted does nothing for the other side.
For example, if a Christian apologist were to ever offer this argument (hypothetically) as a proof for Jesus:
1. Zwooop bing icky xan dun kopw quing nuuuugggggggg
2. No one has ever refuted point #1
3. Therefore, Jesus.
I would not think such an argument needs to be "refuted" as it was nonsensical and proves nothing. That's how I see your presuppositional apologetic argument for Jesus.
I also get tired of saying, "Bare assertion; prove it. Bare assertion; prove it. Bare assertion; prove it." Your last post that I left un-refuted only offered a list of bare assertions that you call "proof". Everyone can see that, so no rebuttal is needed.
But you go ahead and confuse you wearing me down with ad neuseum claims with "victory". I shall not spoil your celebration.
Quote:Perhaps, or they hold their posters to a higher standard of respect and personal conduct that you do not measure up to.As you know from me, I very rarely cuss and I do not personally attack my opponent. My posts were repeatedly deleted for "bashing Christianity" (they didn't like how I quoted the Bible and pointed out how scripture contradicts itself and contradicts modern understandings of how the universe works). I replied to the admins that censorship is the last resort of dishonest people who know they're wrong. I was then banned as a "troll".
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