Pat Robertson on natural disasters

And you're engaging in idiocy in repeating these nonsense arguments. I've already proved this to be nonsense. If there wasn't something that Jazzns shared with Robertson, they wouldn't be using the same term to describe their religious affilitation. I've never claimed to consider myself Canadian. I said that I might lie about it in certain circumstances.In other words, I take the responsibility that you and Jazzns refuse to - I consider all the connotations my audience is going bring when I identify with words that make me part of a group. And yet, the fact that you share a group identity with Robertson proves that you're not diamtrical opponents on every concievable issue. On one issue at least - "hey, what country do I want to be a part of?" - you're in complete agreement.

See almost any one of my previous posts that had any substantial content. I gave the criteria for calling ones self a Christian. Quit saying I never addressed these things. I did! I am not gonna repost it for you.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Fine, if you believe that then quote me. Be careful, that might require you to go back and read my posts.{ABE - added quote for context}{ABE again}To clarify. I never said that the word Christian has no meaning. I certainly did say there was no such thing as a Christian Club or Group which I did back up with specific argument that has yet to be addressed.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 10-22-2005 02:42 PMThis message has been edited by Jazzns, 10-22-2005 02:43 PM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

It's been in the subject of every subsequent post - your belief that there's no such thing as a "consensus of Christians."Well, every group has a consensus, by definition. And its your belief that there's no such thing as the group "Christianity".Thus, you don't believe that the word has meaning. It's very simple logic. I don't have to quote you; it's the inescapable consequence of your argument.

Can you point me toward the definition that does this? Inquiring minds want to know.

"Group" - more than one person.

quote:

---

Can you point me toward the definition that does this?

​

"Group" - more than one person.

---

You sure took that out of context, crashfrog.Let's restore the context:

quote:

---

crashfrog writes:

​

Well, every group has a consensus, by definition.

Can you point me toward the definition that does this?

---

I would still like an answer to this question. The definition you just gave for "group" says nothing whatsoever about consensus.I'm not looking for a definition that you make up on the spot. I am looking for a reference to a commonly accepted definition of "group" where the definition clearly specifies that a consensus is involved.

I guess I don't understand the question. You don't understand what is meant by "consensus", or what?

quote:

---

I would still like an answer to this question. The definition you just gave for "group" says nothing whatsoever about consensus.

​

I guess I don't understand the question. You don't understand what is meant by "consensus", or what?

---

You are being evasive, crashfrog.In Message 139 you made an assertion that I believe to be false. That assertion was: I have twice asked you to back up your assertion. The first time you quoted part of my message out of context such as to distort the meaning of what was asked. The second time you tried changing the subject to whether I understand the meaning of "consensus".Just provide the evidence to backup your assertion, crashfrog. Either that, or withdraw your assertion.

And you're employing ad hominem when you should be clarifying your question. The evidence is in the statement, in the meaning of "group", like I said. If you don't understand how having a group of people means that they have a property called "consensus" that you can refer to, then you don't understand the meanings of those words.The statement is self-evident. If you don't see that then you need to explain to me what you don't understand, so I can try to explain it to you.

quote:

---

You are being evasive, crashfrog.

​

And you're employing ad hominem when you should be clarifying your question.

---

There was no ad hominem. Perhaps you need to lookup the meaning of "ad hominem". Check here for the wikipedia entry on ad hominem.You made an assertion of truth by definition. If you really don't know what that entails, then you shouldn't be making such assertions. You can find an explanation of truth by definition toward the beginning of this web page.

quote:

---

The evidence is in the statement, in the meaning of "group", like I said. If you don't understand how having a group of people means that they have a property called "consensus" that you can refer to, then you don't understand the meanings of those words.

---

You have been debating holmes and Jazzns over whether there is a consensus. Given that both holmes and Jazzns disagreed with you, it should be clear that the meaning of "group" does not establish that there must be a consensus.In any case, that's just another evasion. You clearly asserted that there was a consensus by definition. You need to either support that assertion with evidence, or withdraw it.

quote:

---

The statement is self-evident. If you don't see that then you need to explain to me what you don't understand, so I can try to explain it to you.

---

That's yet another attempted evasion. You claimed proof by definition. Show us the definition from which the truth can be derived, or withdraw your claim.

Why? Simply because a point is contested doesn't make it untrue. Moreover, Holmes and Jazzns reject the idea of a Christian consensus because they reject the idea of a Christian group. That doesn't speak to the fundamental truth of my point. The evidence is the definition of "group", as I said in the statement. If you're not aware of how these words are defined then the appropriate course of action for you is to consult a dictionary, not level spurious charges of evasiveness.Regardless, we're done here.

quote:

---

Given that both holmes and Jazzns disagreed with you, it should be clear that the meaning of "group" does not establish that there must be a consensus.

​

Why? Simply because a point is contested doesn't make it untrue. Moreover, Holmes and Jazzns reject the idea of a Christian consensus because they reject the idea of a Christian group. That doesn't speak to the fundamental truth of my point.

---

That's really beside the point.You claimed truth by definition. It is up to you to support your claim.

quote:

---

You clearly asserted that there was a consensus by definition. You need to either support that assertion with evidence, or withdraw it.

​

The evidence is the definition of "group", as I said in the statement. If you're not aware of how these words are defined then the appropriate course of action for you is to consult a dictionary, not level spurious charges of evasiveness.

---

No, crashfrog. It is up to you to consult a dictionary, and to provide the reference to a definition of "group" that supports your dubious claim.

quote:

---

Regardless, we're done here.

---

No, crashfrog, we are not done here, although perhaps you are done for The rules of EvCforum state (rule 4): You have given a bare assertion. Now it is up to you to support it with evidence (if you can).-----------You know crashfrog, we all make mistakes. As the saying goes, "To err is human." Sometimes it is better to admit you were wrong, instead of repeatedly attempting to defend an indefensible assertion.

Asked and answered. If you don't know what words mean it's not my job to do your homework for you.

No, crashfrog, it has not been answered.You were wrong crashfrog. You made a false statement. And all we have seen from you since then is several rounds of bluster.The proper and decent thing for you to do is to admit your mistake.The dishonorable way out is to walk away and to pretend that you have answered the challenge.Which is it going to be, crashfrog - decent or dishonorable?