Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Atheist Prayer Argument Is A Dull Generalisation Predicated On INEXPERIENCE
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 1 of 55 (912158)
08-18-2023 3:17 PM

Black swans are found in south Australia and Tasmania.
Atheists; "I don't know anyone that has seen a black swan in New York, none of my friends do. Indeed if I ask many people from all over the world who I know online they also don't know of any and don't know anyone that does, therefore they don't exist."
This is the atheists general argument for prayer.
The usual argument goes something like this with many of the popular atheist speakers; "children get bad illnesses, parents are praying all over the world, if prayer is real show some scientific proof of it. The truth is prayer doesn't work." (or something like this as an argument)
What is the problem with the argument? Well it depends on the silent-assumption that God is a being made in the image of human reason, that should and would do everything a human being says God should and would do. (not a person filled with biases please note, like if you argue for answered prayer as a believer.)
So yes, if your beliefs are a sort of general theism where God is just a nice guy then you are right, generally prayers are landing on deaf ears.
However, if God is the Lord God of the bible, then we are made in God's image and we are told it's a sinful, fallen world and we have a sinful, fallen nature. Under this scenario, like with the black swan, you only really get pockets of true died-in-the-wool believers that truly have God's spirit being born again spiritually as Jesus mentioned, and these are the people that do get their prayers answered, I can testify to.
However they are not answered under the assumptions of a general theism. Jesus said for example, "in this world you will have trouble, but do not fear I have overcome the world."
So when an atheist says to us, "God hasn't cured cancer, God hasn't fixed the world", they are labouring under the delusion that God wants to fix the world. In fact it says in the New Testament that this, "world and it's desires are passing away but he that does the will of God will abide forever." (see how assumptions change if we don't just go with atheists that don't open the bible?)
So under Christianity at least, God isn't going to employ large-scale fixes, because Jesus didn't come and die on the cross to save the earth but the eternal soul, hence the person will abide forever but the world will, "pass away".
Is the atheist general prayer argument one of the most annoying? Yes, because of their inconsistent behaviour. Because if we get an answered prayer then according to atheists we are fallible fools that commit post hoc reasoning and confirmation bias and are riddled with all sorts of foibles. But when it comes to prayer not getting answered we are supposed to believe humans are all of a sudden NOT these fallible, bias-ridden creatures but are all of a sudden making perfect judgements about what God would or should do if God exists.
You can't win.
Conclusion; so we are basically uselessly inept fallible apes if our prayers are answered but if we say they're not we're perfect morally-pure all-knowing Einstiens that know how God should exactly behave.
If you instead want to be an informed atheist that is consistent, you have to look into what you preach. You preach humans are fallible and make all sorts of mistakes and can't be trusted, which means this would not place you in a good position to judge an all-knowing God. Nor would your subjective moral-commands be regarded logically as anything more than favourite flavour of icecream. (arbitrary and baseless, as evolved apes)
Get over yourself. Inexperience doesn't count as experience, if a witness sees Jack the ripper it doesn't matter if most people didn't, so no, we don't have to conclude that the majority of people are correct in saying that the ripper doesn't look like what the witness reported them to have looked like.
Disclaimer; I am not trying to provide a persuasive argument for prayer being real. As far as I am concerned the correct people already know God answers prayer being of a noble conscience and honestly seeking the true answers according to God's will, in a position of integrity. I am not covering the philosophical, "problem of evil and suffering" as it is known.
I am also NOT invalidating atheist concerns when it comes to genuinely being puzzled as to why God would allow the suffering of innocent children for example. I am NOT saying that this is not a legitimate concern. ALL PEOPLE struggle with the negatives that exist, and the questions are honestly asked. That isn't the issue.
The issue is this; does it make rational sense to argue limited humans could ever compete with understanding these matters on an omniscient level? Does it make logical sense to see human atheists as the standard? Well if you are really rational would would say, "no, because an all-knowing God can have reasons only they can fully understand rather that what just seems like truisms to us, which may in fact only represent simplified concepts on our own inferior level."
After all we can't really compete in any other areas can we? For example do you know any atheists have have invented any contraflow lungs or a brain or metamorphosis? But these would all be attributable to God's level of understanding under the biblical worldview.
Conclusion; It doesn't matter how wide and far ignorance extends, it cannot be counted as experience and knowledge. Black swans simply exist.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 08-18-2023 5:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 08-18-2023 5:57 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 25 by Tusko, posted 08-24-2023 4:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2023 12:19 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 50 by driewerf, posted 09-20-2023 6:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 2 of 55 (912159)
08-18-2023 3:36 PM

Imagine we have a theory that in one billion bags in a warehouse there are only red balls.
If you find 500 million red balls, it will not matter if the following ball is blue, the theory is false.
In the same way logically speaking if one true miracle occurs on earth beyond question, this would negate the absence of forty two million billion zillion miracles.
If prayers are not answered generally, this is NOT an impressive argument that God does not exist.
Even Darwin knew and employed this logical thinking when he said that if there were to be just one anatomy that could not be explained by evolution his theory could be counted as false.
So what atheists may believe is a good reason to dismiss God, may for others just lead them to another question, that question being; then why the rarity?
It makes consistent sense that if the bible is true and we do have a sinful nature, that you don't get the gift without the giver.
God is not a friend with benefits, or a Santa claus you can take gifts from then on boxing day say, "now phuck off, we just want the gifts".
No being likes to be used. Can you name one intelligent person that wants to be treated with disrespect and have people be mean to them?
Look at J.K.Rowling. They want her creation but they want to divorce her from it. "give us the Harry Potter, but cut J.K out of Harry Potter!"

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2023 5:16 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 08-19-2023 9:22 AM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 28 of 55 (912310)
08-25-2023 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tangle
08-24-2023 4:59 AM

Tangle writes:
Looks like Micky's post was another fire and forget.

This is excellent troll work.
Sorry if I give that impression a few things are at play.
1. I don't like confrontation. As I said recently, I am more of a writer than a fighter. It just seems a forum like this was geared more towards fighting.
2. I try to be an interlocutor as best I can, rather than taking the role of an adversary. You may have misunderstood my intentions because they may appear troll-like.
3. I write in the hopes there are types of people, readers and lurkers, that will be more open-minded, rather than the old crowd that have their minds firmly made up.
4. I have OCD. The less of this stuff I do, the less my brain will torture me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 08-24-2023 4:59 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2023 6:19 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 08-25-2023 7:50 AM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 30 of 55 (912312)
08-25-2023 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
08-19-2023 9:22 AM

Percy writes:
For validation of miracles you need an interrupted chain of evidence and repeated and replicated analyses. Lacking that the miracles are articles of faith, not science.
That there is no general science to validate miracles pretty much doesn't touch anything that I said.
I did not accept by neurotic agreement with you that I must validate miracles. I was arguing that the atheists I have heard and come across have argued from their own ignorance of them, their own inexperience.
You are trying to get me to score through a goal hoop which is solid and can't be scored through.
Percy writes:
If the reality is that prayers are not answered generally, then there can't be many answered prayers to offer as evidence. But if someone wants to believe their prayers have been answered what's wrong with that? Their belief isn't forcing anyone else to believe, although it is a bit tedious listening to a proselytizer testifying to God's presence in their life and how He has answered their prayers.
It follows there can't be many answered prayers as evidence but like you said in your verbose responses of which I cannot address all, it depends who you are praying too.
In the NT it says the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. It makes it pretty clear that God only answers those who genuinely believe and seek in truth.
Hebrews 11 is it? Where it says, "He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those that seek Him."
It would seem unlikely that God would ever put Himself forward as a guinea pig for arrogant people like you demanding scientific evidence. You are merely a human being, nothing more.
Percy writes:
How do you tell the difference between a miracle and something science can't explain yet?
You really seem to be trying hard to get me to make a case for miracles.
But this sounds like an appeal-to-the-future fallacy.
In a way you can always answer by making this appeal. It can seem the only way you can get some things for example is by design, and a designer ticks all the boxes but you could just say, "how do you know it's something science can't yet explain?"
The point is at what stage does "coincidental beyond what chance would allow" become silly.
Just as a hypothetical. If God says, "go to this place" which is a certain location. Then He says, "go to this shop", where beforehand you are looking for answers for why your goods were stolen from your property and were angry at God, if you then enter the shop and your stolen things are for sale, was it just something science has no answer for yet?
In that sense, you can never have an answered prayer. You would be a sort of stubborn idiot PRETENDING science always took precedent.
(taken from the testimony of Andrew Owen, iirc)
I have written a few more from memory, you can read them here;Bot Verification
(there may be more in that thread that might satisfy some of your responses, I don't know.)
Remember my emphasis is upon atheists I have genuinely heard argue the things I complained about in the opening message.
Even on an atheist-talk day the speaker made the argument that God doesn't answer prayer, he used the analogy of an email spam box with too many emails to handle for one person. It is a well known argument, but the assumptions of this popular argument do the very thing you mentioned is a problem; they amalgamate many mutually exclusive religious faiths.
You're a smart boy, figure it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 08-19-2023 9:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 08-25-2023 4:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 31 of 55 (912313)
08-25-2023 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tangle
08-25-2023 6:19 AM

Tangle writes:
You have history here Mick, we know you. 4,726 posts here and another 5,937 at your very own site so don't give us that crap.

If you open a thread here you know that you're supposed to discus and defend your position not shoot and drive on.

This is a discussion and debate site, if you just want to preach, find a pulpit or start a blog.
My explanation was given to show that I am not deliberately dumping stuff here with the intention to walk away and never come back.
That seemed to be your complaint, but since I have now returned to answer any post with content then it would seem if that is the reason by which I am indictable, I shouldn't be indicted.
Since you only seem to be a member and not an administrator, then if an administrator takes further issue with me then so be it. As for you, I am not obliged to answer to a member pertaining to my conduct as a member.
At EvolutionFairytaleForum, one of our rules is that nobody is obliged to respond. I am not saying that is a rule or guideline here, but it seems to make sense for people to have the freewill freedom to choose to what extent they will participate unless they are being a 100% troll.
If I was a 100% troll then logically 100% of my posts should be found to be new topics where I did not respond, or close to 100%.
I have nothing further to say about it. Take it up with admin or go away.
(why you see everything as a combative competition where someone loses or wins etc....I have no idea. Don't force me to become the strawman mike that only exists in your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2023 6:19 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2023 6:59 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2023 8:06 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 32 of 55 (912314)
08-25-2023 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by mike the wiz
08-25-2023 6:36 AM

Percy you can't surprise me with things because the chances are I will know them already.
You're not springing anything on me I haven't heard before.
Here is a short explanation about the problem I have with skeptics. This isn't the only problem of course, I have many observations of them now and they all commit similar fallacies;
:// (this is a link to the post I wrote)
Or if you want the post shown here, then here it is;
The Problem With Sceptics.
My problem with sceptical people/unbelievers, is that they have already concluded nothing happened before they even hear the testimony. That is because they work from a list of generalised principles. They then apply those generalised principles to everyone ubiquitously meaning in a very real sense it doesn't even matter what the event was they have already chosen a preconceived conclusion that the explanation is natural, that the person in question is mistaken in some way even if they aren't.
In other words they IMPLY a false dichotomy of; "only we the sceptics are never mistaken, anyone that isn't like us and experienced something paranormal is automatically mistaken."
This is when scepticism becomes an unhealthy philosophical position of condescension towards anyone that experiences something that doesn't fit within the sceptic's ideology of unbelief in everything except natural cause.
How should we really treat a sceptic?
We should treat sceptics the same way we would treat all the people that didn't witness the murder.
That is to say, back in the day certain witnesses saw Jack The Ripper and they all gave fairly similar descriptions. Imagine if in answer to this we argued thus; "No, humans are filled with bias and errors, you didn't really see anything and none of the rest of us saw that man acting out a crime."
This would be a truly absurd objection, for what type of ignorance is it when people don't witness something? It is just ignorance of itself, it is just bare ignorance.
Experiencer; "I got wet, it started to rain."
sceptic; "I didn't see any rain." (mike; so what.)
Another example;
Experiencer; "I saw a black swan."
Sceptic; "I didn't see any black swan." (mike; so what.)
Another example; (this time from my own life, it happened to me the other month)
I saw someone go into the pharmacy, so according to covid rules I waited outside. Someone came up to me (a sceptic) and asked, "there is nobody in there why aren't you going in?" I looked and he was right, but I said, "but someone did go in there." But I could see he didn't believe me from a supreme look of incredulity on his face so I opened the door and a man got up from a chair where he was hidden from us. We both laughed a little of course. No big deal, but illustrates my point perfectly; his comments meant nothing logically because he didn't experience the event, I did.
In this instance, why would anyone care about what the sceptic thought since he didn't experience the event?
Another example;
Lisa sees someone commit a crime.
Sceptic; "Sorry, but nobody else saw that person commit that crime."
CONCLUSION; We all know that the bare ignorance that comes from not experiencing something simply doesn't count as anything.
Nobody would care what someone that didn't witness a crime says about not witnessing it because their ignorance comes from pure ignorance in and of itself. (a lack of the experience)
Yet sceptics seem to think that they are in a better position to judge, like that man at the pharmacy thought he knew better, and nothing I could say would change his mind he had to see it for himself. So then ultimately there is an arrogance that comes with sceptics, they genuinely seem to think they are the only ones qualified to judge a matter. Even look how Goku acted the same here in his questions, he genuinely believes only he and atheists can know things and anyone that experiences something is instantly put under the "delusion" category or, "mistaken by human bias."
But how do you know that? You don't even know the intelligence someone may apply to his experiences, it may exceed your own scepticism.
For example I watched a ghost video on utube, and I debunked pretty much all of them. I knew the natural answers. My sister even got angry at me once for not believing one of these videos and I told her how it was done and she later confessed I was correct.
Conclusion; just because someone experiences something and believes it as a genuine paranormal event doesn't mean it follows they don't know how to apply a proper sceptical criteria. A healthy scepticism is within reason and is perfectly fine but to jump to conclusions a person is automatically wrong in and of itself is more of an incredulity from unbelief, it comes across as more of an agenda.
For example I noticed Goku didn't apply any scepticism to his own paranormal experiences, he didn't offer up all the mistakes he could have made but because I am a Christian and my ideology is against his he did apply those things to me. (double standard) I also note that when he gave those experiences a while back I deliberately held my tongue even though it was a perfect opportunity for me to be sceptical towards his personal experiences.
If a person can be sceptical like I can and also experiences something paranormal, he has the edge on a mere sceptic because a mere sceptic with a sceptical ideology where s/he will only accept a natural answer before you even tell them the experience is an ignoramus of the event from bare ignorance. Their opinions on human bias and so forth are all they can offer as generalisms and thus are applied fallaciously as non-sequiturs if they didn't experience if they were actually indulged, for they cannot evaluate the experience having not experienced it making them poor witnesses that should largely be ignored despite their supercilious attitude problem whereby they think they are the only ones that can think correctly.
If anything they are POOR critical thinkers if they think no event is beyond what natural chance coincidence would allow because that implies a poor understanding of probability where you allow super-coincidences to be acts of random chance way beyond what chance could perform to the point you could even give clear teleology a natural cause such as saying, "it's a coincidence that it says please help me written in the sand."
But in practical terms nobody would believe it a coincidence. People of normal intelligence know when something out of the ordinary occurs because it juxtaposes itself against the fact those things don't generally occur and thereby creates a stark contrast.
No, I am not saying you can't win the lottery by chance but I am a good critical thinker so I know that it can be by chance because of the numbers, but if the numbers are not there and yet you hit something that's 1 in a thousand or whatever, you did not have one thousand bites at the cherry. This is then multiplied if it happens consecutively, by itself. So then if you get two events consecutively that are 1 in 1000, it becomes 1 in 10002 = 1 in a million.
But I didn't have a million attempts, I had two attempts. Meaning by what standard do you measure the point where there is a line whereby random chance alone cannot cross? For an ideological sceptic like Goku the proof is in the pudding, there is no line, no matter what the incident it is a coincidence.
But ask yourself this, if you email someone and they keep emailing back intelligible, accurate answers what are the chances this is a person or persons genuinely answering you back? At what point do you say, "God is answering."? It would seem Goku's answer would be, "that point never comes".
That doesn't make sense. If someone is answering, they are answering and as an atheist you simply don't want to ever infer or even allow it to be possible they are answering so you forever fall back on just name-tagging it, "coincidence" and flippantly discarding it. (cognitive dissonance)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2023 6:36 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 08-25-2023 1:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 33 of 55 (912315)
08-25-2023 7:16 AM

Like I say I am a writer, which means I waffle on.
But there is a point I want to pinpoint.
It's the ignorance at play when I hear these celebrity atheists argue these things. (like on the video Ken Ham addressed with Stephen Fry, unfortunately I have lost the link in my history on utube).
There is this universal, shared assumption that God if He exists can only be made in the image of human-kind, and would only proceed how humans say he should.
On Yahoo, one article says, "a list of celebrities that are atheist" and it gave the comment, "If God existed he wouldn't have allowed this to happen to me". etc....(all the usual self-indulgent sophistry)
But here is the point; Jesus not only preached trouble in this world, but allowed it to happen. He allowed the tower of siloam to fall while He was on earth, He allowed John the Baptist to be executed.
So how can the worlds ills be a problem for the God of the bible existing when even Jesus said, "in this world you will have trouble, but do not fear I have overcome the world."
And He said that even to believers; that we would experience the problems that come from evil and suffering, even predicting an apostle's death.
So I have to ask, with all these popular and tedious repetitions going around, pertaining to what God should do. What God?
Where does it say in the bible that this earth evolved and suffering is part of life and evil is part of what God evolved and cancer is good too?
The concept you all have is that of a non-biblical, SECULARISED God.
But according to the bible, there is a problem with this world. There is a problem with people. (sin nature).
Sorry, but the assumptions of an argument affect the conclusions you are allowed. If the bible proclaims the ills of the world are deliberately allowed by God for reasons of the fall of humans, etc....then logically it makes no sense to say that such ills mean Jesus can't exist, "otherwise He would have saved John the Baptist and stopped the tower from falling".
But that isn't what the bible says. The bible says He did allow those things and those things didn't stop Him from existing. He also suffered as part of God's plan.
"It's too hard to take".
yes......that's closer to the truth isn't it? It's too hard to believe.
"EASY is the path that leads to destruction.".....and, "DIFFICULT is the way and narrow" that leads to salvation, and, "few there be that find it"
Now even if you believe none of this, the point here is that nothing is happening in the world that is inconsistent with what the bible preaches.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2023 7:29 AM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 34 of 55 (912316)
08-25-2023 7:26 AM

The god made in the image of human beings is a sort of liberalised breeder of hedonistic snowflakes. He sits above the circle of the earth with a zen smile on his face only thinking about "happy happy, joy joy thoughts". - Renegade underground vagrant from, "Demolition Man". (the one with Slyvester Stallone)
Is an omniscient God really going to prioritise human happiness, or does it seem a nad more likely that there may be some big ass plans afoot?

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 36 of 55 (912318)
08-25-2023 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
08-25-2023 7:29 AM

Tangle writes:
I'll grant that you waffle on. So why not stop waffling and give us some actual evidence? You seem to claim that prayer works and that miracles happen, so prove it.

It should be really easy to do, why haven't you done it instead of waffling on with your pseudo-philosophical points?
Gee it wasn't at all predictable for you to quote-mine the, "waffle" part.
I don't claim prayer works in the context of debate, which is different. The point of the topic isn't to try and perform something impossible.
The events of my life can't be repeated. You're right, anything that can't be tested or repeated or directly evidenced if fantastical as a claim makes poor science. Exhibit A; macro evolution/abiogenesis.
PERCY, I understand why you would like to photograph the black swan and show it. Of course I have argued they exist but we both know why you show it; to say that you can picture one but you can't picture God.
But I would never argue a fallacy of false equivalence by directly comparing a black swan with God because one is natural and extant and observable by science whereas one is supernatural and transcends nature.
You really ought to know the difference.
So that's really an implicit strawman fallacy you are laying upon me because that isn't the point of using the black swan as an analogy. The point was to show that many, many sceptics would conclude something obscure or rare or unobservable was false based on their lack of experience of it.
An experience of God is strictly spiritual. The natural man has no access we are told. This is a tacit admission by God that He will only reveal Himself to those of noble hearts that are truly believers or seeking the truth of His existence.
My hands are tied, I cannot prove that which God makes it impossible to prove. Any man God puts before me I can refute and have always found that the case, but the one person I can never refute no matter how hard I try, is God.
I would not put forward my personal testimonies as an official claim. Personal proof only has relevance to me. I was the one to receive it because I was able to receive it. Many are able to receive the same, but many more are not.
Your view is to basically say that something is only true if scientifically verified but you still believe things never verified by science, such as bat-transitionals they have never found, or insect-wing intermediates. Or any hint abiogenesis is true.
You are a bullshitter and a snob. You bullshit yourself, because phantasticus axioma means that there isn't the least impressive evidence to match the claims of your so called, "science" yet you pretend it is science-fact.
Don't give me the usual standard crap about science. I see right through it. You just appeal to it as an authority so as to look strong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2023 7:29 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2023 8:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 38 of 55 (912320)
08-25-2023 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
08-25-2023 7:50 AM

Percy writes:
I wish I had the time to research this, too, but I don't. But to the best of my recollection, the way you see yourself likely diverges greatly from the way others see you.
What a silly error to believe the small portion of words and actions on forums would be an accurate measure of me.
How others see me is irrelevant, they don't see me. They don't know me. Why is it about me?
Why do you feel the need to say all these personal things when we were just discussing my posting activity?
I am expressing honest things about myself. You can't refute things about people that live out things of which you are not even aware. You don't know the issues of my life.
I was saying that it may APPEAR that if I write a topic then go away I am trolling, but that isn't my intention. I then gave reasons for it.
Percy writes:
The title is your opportunity to characterize your thread, and you used it to cast an insult. No atheist had even said anything in the thread yet, and already you're insulting them. Pretty confrontational, don't you think?
How is that insulting? OBVIOUSLY I was talking about the general experience of atheism we get online. Where is the insult? They don't have experience of prayer and it is a generalisation.
You propose debate should include snowflakism. Debate can be a hard and tough thing, you seem to be overly sensitive here.....indeed, the rhetorical device, PLAYING IT UP comes to mind since you even take issue with the thread name I gave.
What a REACH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 08-25-2023 7:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 08-25-2023 10:21 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 39 of 55 (912321)
08-25-2023 8:04 AM

Percy your style was always subtle. You make insinuations a lot. You're fairly docile but you are still indulging the ad-hom attack because when creationists come here you always allow them to get chewed up and spat out in terms of personal attacking.
That's why you're not the worlds most objective admin, because you should know that the debate shouldn't be about the person. You should have noticed as an admin that Tangle's posts were both contentless and personal and that a lot of his posts seem to only exist to incite fighting.
Why don't you notice this? Perhaps you need me as an admin.

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 08-25-2023 10:28 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024