The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

[slingblade]

If people read the other thread I mentioned in post #1 of this thread they will see that the great majority of my arguments do not deal with ad populum, and of course your second sentence is false. I really don't think you believe it either.

I've read all your threads. Ad populum is one of the more common fallacies used in your arguments.

I've read the thread about the 100 most influential people. I honestly came away from that thread understanding your argument to largely be: "This guy says these 100 people are the most influential, so they are," and "Jesus is on the list, so he must be real." If there was more to what you were trying to say than that, it didn't come across.

I think most people who have followed my threads are starting to see that most of these attack posts don't paint an accurate picture of me or my posts. The good news is that my posts are out there and anyone who is willing to take the time can read them.

No, I agree. What paints the accurate picture of your posts is your posts themselves.

 

[kmortis]

But none of the above were named after someone who denied the founder to a lone woman..

And the fact that St. Peters basilica ended up in the heart of the Roman Empire far away from Jerusalem is not proof of Christianity it is just one more piece of evidence to add to the other pieces of evidence -- like the prophecy of Isaiah for example.

<kaf>

 

[kmortis]

So god hates Romans and that's why the Empire fell?

But The Empire Never Fell, this is the Black Iron Prison.

 

[kmortis]

Yes, and St. George is the patron saint of England, and England was the heart of the British Empire, and the British Empire was the largest empire the world has ever known. That doesn't mean St. George slew a dragon. What's your point exactly? Does the Parthenon prove the existence of Athena?

As per DOC logic, it obviously does.

Nono...that's just silly. We all know that Athena was just a myth. I mean, fully formed out of Zeus' head...how silly is that.

Now, a virgin birth, THAT makes sense.

 

[kmortis]

Well I was hesitant to address the (conscious or unconscious) derail attempt that occurred in post #3 of this thread because I didn't want it to sabotage the thread. Now that the thread has covered most of the main points of the thread's topic I will address some of the falsehoods.

Post 5) What I believe I said was there are no more tribal wars in the US and that no Native American has died in a tribal war in about 100 years. I also said that the cannibalism and human sacrifice in South America and Central America has ended. Obviously those who died through disease and wars with the settlers are not better off. So I did not say what you said I said.

Post 8) Don't believe I ever said Evolution is absurd. I believe I said abiogenesis (life coming from non-life over time) is absurd and has never been proved. In other words a simple living cell coming from non-living material has never been proved.

And for the last one, I never admitted my logic was faulty. I might have made a mistake or two or overlooked or misinterpreted something in my 3000+ posts but to my memory I never said my logic was faulty.

I think you should apologize for your errors in your personal (off topic) attack.

Some people need to realize that if your going to attack me personally or otherwise you better be accurate because there is a good chance your going to have to prove what you say.

Nope. You have a proven track record of not admitting faulty logic.

Besides, it's not a personal attack to point out that you're acting like a moron. Only to call you a moron. It's a "hate the sin, lover the sinner" kind of thing.

Toddle on, little man. You have managed to verify every one of the items on that list, and then some. Hell, you've actually added to it along with the alcoholism rate of the forum.

 

[DOC]

I've read all your threads. Ad populum is one of the more common fallacies used in your arguments.

I've read the thread about the 100 most influential people. I honestly came away from that thread understanding your argument to largely be: "This guy says these 100 people are the most influential, so they are," and "Jesus is on the list, so he must be real." If there was more to what you were trying to say than that, it didn't come across.

There was no thread about the 100 most influential people, so what does that say about the rest of your opinions.

 

[kmortis]

There was no thread about the 100 most influential people, so what does that say about the rest of your opinions.

See, more evidence that he's pulling an Andy Kaufman on us.

 

[DOC]

Nope. You have a proven track record of not admitting faulty logic.

Besides, it's not a personal attack to point out that you're acting like a moron. Only to call you a moron. It's a "hate the sin, lover the sinner" kind of thing.

Toddle on, little man. You have managed to verify every one of the items on that list, and then some. Hell, you've actually added to it along with the alcoholism rate of the forum.

But you said this in post #3:

I'm sure that other veterans of DOC's threads will be able to add to this list.
Now for the "finish the bottle" offenses
1) DOC admitting that his logic was faulty

This is not only a personal attack but a false one. I have not said my logic is faulty. If you choose not to apologize, you and your future posts will have no credibility.

 

[Ducky]

There was no thread about the 100 most influential people, so what does that say about the rest of your opinions.

It shows you're a freaking liar.

 

[paximperium]

This is not only a personal attack but a false one.

It is a statement of fact backed up by your own posts. Denying it is either deceitful or delusional. Take your pick.

I have not said my logic is faulty.

Which is a lie.

If you choose not to apologize, you and your future posts will have no credibility.

Nobody should listen to your "advice" concerning credibility. It is like listening to Hitler talk about "mercy".

 

[DOC]

See, more evidence that he's pulling an Andy Kaufman on us.

There was no thread about the 100 most influential people as slingblade states -- why is that funny.

 

[paximperium]

It shows you're a freaking liar.

Don't get too worked up about it. That is a well known fact.

 

[paximperium]

There was no thread about the 100 most influential people as slingblade states -- why is that funny.

And you can say that with a straight face? I'm impressed.

 

[DOC]

It is a statement of fact backed up by your own posts. Denying it is either deceitful or delusional. Take your pick.
Which is a lie.

Another post with no examples. Which post did I say my logic is faulty?

If you can't present it, an honorable person would apologize.

 

[paximperium]

Error.

 

[joobz]

So, we are no longer talking about Isaiah and the non-existant connection to Jesus?

And I wanted to learn more about Jesus and who he had sex with...

 

[DOC]

It shows you're a freaking liar.

All it shows is one post where I talk about it. Talking about something in a few posts is not a thread on the thing you are talking about. This is a perfect example at how easy some people throw out the word liar. It's sad.

 

[paximperium]

Another post with no examples. Which post did I say my logic is faulty?

If you can't present it, an honorable person would apologize.

None. I apologize, I misread that statement.

DOC never admits any mistakes or ever being wrong no matter how wrong he is or when he is caught in a lie.

That statement was part of the drinking game. If DOC ever admits faulty logic, then we should all down an entire bottle. Since he will never ever admit being wrong, we won't become too drunk.

 

[DOC]

Error.

So you don't believe it is dishonorable not apologize for calling a person a liar when you made a mistake.

 

[joobz]

It shows you're a freaking liar.

DOC, it's rather clear here that DOC is using semantics again to pretend accuracy.

His point is that there is no thread that he started with the exact title," The 100 most influential people." Obviously, you, Slingblade and others were referring to "thread" in the sense of context and what was discussed. Not in the sense of titles and OP. If DOC was honest with himself, he would use the context of the thread and admit his error.

ETA: I see DOC finally explained his game that he was playing. Oh well. Color me not-surprized.