DOC's Proof of Christianity Through Irrelavent Fact Attrition

[joobz]

DOC,
First off DOC, I thank you for actually coming to this thread and starting what I hope will be an interesting conversation. I apologize for labeling you as an intellectual coward. I hope you will continue to be willing to actually discuss points.

The very title of this thread could be considered a falsehood, so that told me a little what to expect.

What are you implying by "Falsehood". That I lied or that I am wrong? Are you trying to say that I'm intentionally missleading? There is a difference. In truth I hope you prove me wrong. However, I can tell that you hadn't read my OP or had not understood it. Becuase I made that point quite clear in the OP.

I wish to start this thread by presenting my believe[sic] as to what DOC's goal/view is here. I think it may provide interesting discussion and will hopefully shortcut further digressions down nonsensical paths.

I believe DOC is attempting to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because...[snip]

It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for.

It is with the belief that by presenting enough small facts, these will add up to a large fact. This is obviously an example of either argumentum verbosium or fallacy of the consequent. But I would like for DOC to have a chance to prove me wrong.[/quote]
If you read this OP, you would have seen that I directly asked you to prove me wrong.

So very simply, Please answer the question.

Doc, why are these small "facts" relavent?
to what are they relavent?
and why I am wrong?

------------------------------

"Docs Proof of Christianity" through Irrelevant "Fact Attrition". What the heck is fact attrition? A google search of "fact attrition" came up empty with those words used in that manner.

Use the context and you'll understand it's meaning.
To me, it appears that you simply wish to wear down non-christians with a barage of small points and hope that it equals a big truth.
------------------------------

Anyway I never said the facts I present are "Proof" of Christianity.

There is evidence out there, though, that points to the truth of Christianity -- without a doubt. Historical evidence, evidence of many people's personal experiences (e.g. healings complete life changing experiences), and even logical evidence. Much of this evidence, I haven't even gotten into yet. I've dealt mostly with historical evidence so far, though.

This is off topic and as a result I will not comment.
-------------------------------

Some of the facts I have presented are historical facts dealing with Christianity and I said several times what you do with them is your business. The very fact someone took the time to put up a thread about them shows there is some importance to them.

This is again not an answer, but a dodge.
You had (in another thread) answered more honestly when you said "I don't know why."
-------------------------------

There are several other false statements that have been made and if I get the time I'll go into them.

I request you state which and I'll adjust accordingly. You'll notice that I have always adjusted my arguments to fit with the facts. That I have always thanked you, and apologized when it was called for. I do not think you have ever returned that courtesy to anyone in this forum.

But in any event, you are again missing the context. I think I am starting to see why you post your "facts" and why you think the quotes you provide prove your take on history. You seem incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that everything has context and that context can change the meaning and intent of the person's statement. This would explain why you are willing to take random, infrequent quotes from people and use those quotes to justify your view. Even if the actions of those people and, indeed, their entire life contradict your claims.


As a simple test:
"I am happy you got shot. I liked how the blood slowly oozed out of the hole. Does it hurt when I touch it? good.."
or
"I am happy you got shot. I mean, you are allright. You'll heal fine without any long term damage, and now we have reason to put that madman away."

Do you believe that the two persons saying the bolded same sentence mean the same thing?

 

[JoeEllison]

That's pretty generous, actually.

I wouldn't call "giving someone just enough rope to hang themselves with" being generous.

He's done that already. I'm just curious what new games he comes up with.

New and interesting tactics? We can only hope...

 

[strathmeyer]

"Docs Proof of Christianity" through Irrelevant "Fact Attrition". What the heck is fact attrition? A google search of "fact attrition" came up empty with those words used in that manner.

Why are you guys trying to have a conversation with someone who lacks the mental fortitude to put two words together to form an idea? Methinks you have been trolled.

 

[slingblade]

Because some people make good test dummies (special emphasis on "dummy").

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Actually "fact attrition" is precisely what DOC has been engaged in. He has a list of things he wishes to assert as "facts" and they have gradually attritted away as each one has been debunked or shown to be a distortion or irrelavency.

 

[kmortis]

Actually "fact attrition" is precisely what DOC has been engaged in. He has a list of things he wishes to assert as "facts" and they have gradually attritted away as each one has been debunked or shown to be a distortion or irrelavency.

Considering who we're talking about, wouldn't "a-twit-ed" be more appropiate?

 

[wollery]

 

[joobz]

DOC,
First off DOC, I thank you for actually coming to this thread and starting what I hope will be an interesting conversation. I apologize for labeling you as an intellectual coward. I hope you will continue to be willing to actually discuss points.

I must retract this apology. It was made under the assumption that he actually was going to discuss his reasons for the fact abuse. In the rome thread, he had stated that 'he didn't know why.." I thought he was refering to why he was posting all his threads, which to me was an honest and forthright answer.


Now he has made it clear that that wasn't his intent. Since I'm honest with my statements and will take people at thier word, I must then state that he has not ever answered the "So What" question.

I am again forced to consider him a dishonest (in his deliberate missinterpretations of my posts0 intellectual coward.

 

[DOC]

The Many False Statements in this Thread

1)the very title of the forum is false because I never said the facts I give are "Proof of Christianity".

2)the statement "it is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for".

3)the statement "The validity of any of these claims (the facts I present) are not important to him."

4)"ACLU Lawyer" Leo Pfeffer and Justice Hugo "KKK" Black invented the phrase separation of church and state "out of thin air" in 1947.

5)the statement "any" attempt at refutation is "attacking the messenger".

I am adding several more so please don't respond for 15 minutes.

#6) the statement I said Indians are better off on reservations.

#7) the statement, the "so what" question goes unanswered.

#8) the statement that the list you made is an "exact" representation and summary of "all" of DOC's points. This has to be the weirdest statement of them all.

Isn't libel against the law?

 

[joobz]

1)the very title of the forum is false because I never said the facts I give are "Proof of Christianity".

2)the statement "it is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for".

3)the statement "The validity of any of these claims (the facts I present) are not important to him."

4)"ACLU Lawyer" Leo Pfeffer and Justice Hugo "KKK" Black invented the phrase separation of church and state "out of thin air" in 1947.

i see you are completely incapable of addressing context.

I hold that you are still trying to validate your religion throught These Facts.

you haven't offered any proof otherwise expect your assertion.
Please, prove me wrong.

 

[JoeEllison]

 

[DOC]

i see you are completely incapable of addressing context.

I hold that you are still trying to validate your religion throught These Facts.

you haven't offered any proof otherwise expect your assertion.
Please, prove me wrong.

Well I asked that people not respond for 15 minutes. I guess you couldn't wait. Maybe thats why there are so many falsehoods in here -- your in a rush.

#6 falsehood) the statement I said Indians are better off on reservations.

#7 falsehood) the statement, the "so what" question goes unanswered.

#8) the statement that the list you made is an "exact" representation and summary of "all" of DOC's points. This has to be the weirdest statement of them all.

Isn't libel against the law?

 

[joobz]

Well I asked that people not respond for 15 minutes... [snip foolishness]

Note that my quote does not contain your request of 15 minutes. that was added after I posted...check your edit time stamp and you'll see this is the case.

do not dare claim I was doing anything deliberately wrong.

Anyway, I stand by my statement.

i see you are completely incapable of addressing context.

I hold that you are still trying to validate your religion throught These Facts.

you haven't offered any proof otherwise expect your assertion.
Please, prove me wrong.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

1)the very title of the forum is false because I never said the facts I give are "Proof of Christianity".

Until you learn that a "thread" is different from a "forum" you will not be taken seriously.

 

[Roboramma]

1)the very title of the forum is false because I never said the facts I give are "Proof of Christianity".

You may not have said so explicitly, but the rest of us are capable of understanding context. When you post all of these threads about various odd facts, what exactly are you trying to do, if not to prove christianity?

2)the statement "it is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for".

Considering the quality of your arguments, one can only hope that joobz is right. If you were actually going for quality, you failed even worse than I had thought.

3)the statement "The validity of any of these claims (the facts I present) are not important to him."

While it's difficult for us to know what is and is not important to you, there are ways that you demonstrate that to us. One of the ways that you demonstrate that you don't care about the validity of the claims you make is by failing to consider the arguments made by others, to change your mind when you've been shown to be wrong or when new evidence presents itself, etc.
From these, the conclusion that the validity of your claims is not important to you is entirely valid.

 

[DOC]

Until you learn that a "thread" is different from a "forum" you will not be taken seriously.

I give 8 falsehoods in this thread and yet you worry about minor things. As I said before I spent a lot of time on another medium (as I am I relative newcomer to computers) where the word forum was constantly used to describe the discussions.

This thread can also be considered a forum (open discussion). Look in any dictionary.

 

[I less than three logic]

1)the very title of the forum is false because I never said the facts I give are "Proof of Christianity".

As far as I can tell, Joobz never stated that you actually said the facts are proof of Christianity. It appears to be a generalization of the reason for your spamming of threads with these nonsense "facts". If that reason is incorrect, state the actual reason then. I think thats kind of the point of this thread to begin with.

2)the statement "it is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for".

All the evidence points to the contrary. You've made numerous threads containing these "arguments". Each of them, as far as I can tell, have been thoroughly addressed by other posters. Then, instead of sticking to your argument to improve its quality, you make a new thread centered on a new irrelevant "fact". Thus suggesting you favor quantity over quality.

3)the statement "The validity of any of these claims (the facts I present) are not important to him."

So they are important to you? Funny, because you seem to be ignoring them.

4)"ACLU Lawyer" Leo Pfeffer and Justice Hugo "KKK" Black invented the phrase separation of church and state "out of thin air" in 1947.

Where did the "out of thin air" come from? You did however claim he helped coin the phrase.

Well if that is true than Justice Hugo Black, the man who was so important in giving us the legal term "Separation of Church and State" was wrong to believe it.

Apparently our friend Justice Hugo "KKK" Black who helped give us the legal term "Separation of Church and State" thought secular humanism is a religion.

You do realize that every post you've made here is saved and can be searched... right?

5)the statement "any" attempt at refutation is "attacking the messenger".

I'll believe you think this is wrong when you've shown you actually know what it means first.

#6) the statement I said Indians are better off on reservations.

Right, you've never said they are better off on reservations. However, you've said numerous times that the Native Americans are better off now then before European settlers came.

Yes, but the Church has a history of learning from its mistakes. If the quasi-Christian explorers never came to the Western Hemisphere I have a feeling things wouldn't be as peaceful in the Western Hemisphere as they are today.

And cannibalism would probably be going on too. I don't know about the human sacrifice.

Actually the Christian Pilgrims had a good relationship with the Indians. And there are several very rich tribes out there because of Indian Gaming. So not everything turned out so bad. It's certainly more peaceful now on the North American Continent than before the Europeans came.

Which, unless you're talking about some alternate reality, amounts to about the same thing.

#7) the statement, the "so what" question goes unanswered.

There is a difference between a response and an answer. You've responded to many of those "so what" questions, but never answered any. You just give an equally irrelevant answer that simply warrants another "so what".

#8) the statement that the list you made is an "exact" representation and summary of "all" of DOC's points. This has to be the weirdest statement of them all.

This has to be the most pointless one on this this list, but you're right. Joobz may have been a little to definitive here, especially when taking into account that the one he's witting about has shown no capacity for interpreting context and seems only able to read text completely literally.

Isn't libel against the law?

Sure, but why, have you seen any?

 

[joobz]

I give 8 falsehoods in this thread and yet you worry about minor things. As I said before I spent a lot of time on another medium (as I am I relative newcomer to computers) where the word forum was constantly used to describe the discussions.

Your "falsehoods" are minor quibblings. I've asked you to prove me wrong, rather than just claim that I am wrong. So far, nothing I have said can be considered false in context.

This thread can also be considered a forum (open discussion). Look in any dictionary.

In context, you are wrong. You are on the internet, not an open forum in a town hall. Please realize that context matters. It seems to be one of your biggest failings.

 

[I less than three logic]

This thread can also be considered a forum (open discussion). Look in any dictionary.

Does it bug anyone else when people refer you to a dictionary to prove the meaning of their term. I apologize in advance for the rant that follows.

You do understand what a dictionary is don't you, DOC? They are not and were never intended to be a authority on any and all meanings of words. They simply contain some of the popular definitions for words at that time, but not necessarily all definitions of any giving word or even the the most accurate definition for a given context. Words are given meaning by our mutual agreement on what the meaning of that word is going to be, not by dictionaries. Here on the internet we have a general agreement that "forum" refers to the site as a whole, "thread" refers to a topic on the forum, and "post" refers to comments made by members in a thread thats on the forum regardless of what any dictionary might tell you otherwise.

 

[DOC]

You may not have said so explicitly, but the rest of us are capable of understanding context.

Yes, but somebody new to the forums might read the deceptive title of the thread and be and be influenced by its falsity and then not even bother to go into a thread because of it. That's why there are libel laws on the books.

When you post all of these threads about various odd facts, what exactly are you trying to do, if not to prove christianity?

Well, inform people about things like the "bad history" (as Rehnquist called it) of the legal term "Separation of Church and State". (see Jefferson thread)

Inform people that hey maybe the founders like Washington and Jefferson weren't such Deists after all.

Inform people that the ACLU has a definite agenda and is responsible for things like getting the boy scouts kicked out of lease agreement they had for 90 years, and giving people the mindset that led to 2 students who were praying at a flagpole to end up handcuffed in the back of a police car. (see Jefferson thread)

Inform people that a lot of history we've has been taught has been packaged by secularists. For example, how many Americans do you think knew that the Viking Leif Erickson preached the gospel in Greenland or that Columbus said he got the inspiration for his voyage from the Holy Spirit and wrote a book called the "Book of Prophesies". Or that Jefferson was a frequent Church goer who attended Church services in a government building.

My threads are about informing. And as I've said before, what you do with the information is your business. But one has to wonder why a guy who is mostly just putting information out there is being attacked so much. If someone tells me info that I never knew about in a thread, I'd be more likely to thank them than attack them.