Moderated Infinity!!!

[Doubt]

You very evidently have not read this one... because your argument is arrant codswallop... as evinced by *snip*

None of your post addressed anything I said. And that pretty much made my point.

 

[8enotto]

Leamas, what do you think the rest of us are doing wrong that we keep reading you insightful and well researched posts wrong?

Now answer that again understanding that the base premise of this thread is wrong, as well explained by another.

 

[Leumas]

None of your post addressed anything I said. And that pretty much made my point.

There was nothing in your post to address... just errors upon errors all stemming from... very evidently... not having read the OP or any of the other posts in this thread.

If you are not going to read the OP or any other posts and just handwave errors and bare assert falsities... all in the name of defending Christian apologists... then there is nothing to address... only just say a definitive... QED!!!

 

[junkshop]

Leumas, could you show an example of someone "defending Christian apologists" in this thread? I only ask because you keep claiming that this is happening, but I can't see any occurrences of this behaviour.

 

[Steve]

Lemaus, could you show an example of someone "defending Christian apologists" in this thread? I only ask because you keep claiming that this is happening, but I can't see any occurrences of this behaviour.

Edited by sarge: 

removed moderated content

Oh my.....? No rational discussion to be had here then.

 

[junkshop]

Leumas, could you show an example of someone "defending Christian apologists" in this thread? I only ask because you keep claiming that this is happening, but I can't see any occurrences of this behaviour.

Here is just one particularly fallacious example... out of many

Sir, lay down the thesaurus and disengage the hyperbole. There's no reason we can't all get home safety tonight, as long as we can keep our heads.

Please highlight the 'defending of Christian apologistists' in the post you quoted (by the by, critiquing your mode of address does not equate to supporting the windmills you relentlessly tilt against).

ETA: apologies for the misspelling of your name, I think I fixed them all now.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Please highlight the 'defending of Christian apologistists' in the post you quoted (by the by, critiquing your mode of address does not equate to supporting the windmills you relentlessly tilt against).

ETA: apologies for the misspelling of your name, I think I fixed them all now.

It must be similar to the way some Christians would say that another Christian criticizing Kirk Cameron's crocoduck is equivalent to "defending Satan's lies". So in this case, disagreeing with Leumas amounts to a sort of atheist blasphemy. Leumas is so critical to the fight against religious dogma that just not agreeing with him about everything is like the Crusades, the Inquisition and Michael W. Smith all rolled together.

 

[Leumas]

Oh my.....? No rational discussion to be had here then.

So far you have not tabled even a single iota of one...

 

[Leumas]

It must be similar to the way some Christians would say that another Christian criticizing Kirk Cameron's crocoduck is equivalent to "defending Satan's lies". So in this case, disagreeing with Leumas amounts to a sort of atheist blasphemy....

Disagreeing with anyone requires that you in fact know what they said to then disagree with it whether rationally or not..

But repeatedly and incessantly refusing to read what they say and then to incessantly and indefatigably carry on concertedly devising strawmen out of what you did not read and then hurling slander and other falsities and ad hominems all so as to waft mephitic red herrings about... is neither irrational nor rational disagreeing...

Rather... it is sabotage... deliberate and egregious and malicious sabotage of what they are trying to say... and in this particular case... which is just one out of numerous threads where you indefatigably and concertedly are concerned to do that... it happens to be so arrantly in the name of defending Christian Apologists.

But hey.... your concerted consternations in empathy with Christian Apologists are a delightful addition to... well... QED!!!

 

[Leumas]

Please highlight the 'defending of Christian apologistists' in the post you quoted (by the by, critiquing your mode of address does not equate to supporting the windmills you relentlessly tilt against).

ETA: apologies for the misspelling of your name, I think I fixed them all now.

Pretending that Christian Apologists are "windmills I am tilting against" is yet another attempt at defending Christian apologists... and like the previous post, is a fallacious ad hominem not a "critique" by any rational meaning of the term... QED!!!

 

[junkshop]

Pretending that Christian Apologists are "windmills I am tilting against" is yet another attempt at defending Christian apologists... and like the previous post, is a fallacious ad hominem not a "critique" by any rational meaning of the term... QED!!!

You claimed this post:

Sir, lay down the thesaurus and disengage the hyperbole. There's no reason we can't all get home safety tonight, as long as we can keep our heads.

was a "particularly fallacious example" of people defending Christian apologists. Please explain how.


ETA: I've just noticed the typo - it should be 'safely', not 'safety'.

 

[Leumas]

Pretending that Christian Apologists are "windmills I am tilting against" is yet another attempt at defending Christian apologists... and like the previous post, is a fallacious ad hominem not a "critique" by any rational meaning of the term... QED!!!

You claimed this post:
....
was a "particularly fallacious example" of people defending Christian apologists. Please explain how.

ETA: I've just noticed the typo - it should be 'safely', not 'safety'.

You need to start reading posts you reply to and even quote, more intently and more carefully...

Had you read the post you quoted carefully you would have noticed how? Read it again.

 

[Steve]

So far you have not tabled even a single iota of one...

In that regard my few posts have been quite typical of the thread.



Oh yeah........"QED......"

 

[junkshop]

Leumas, could you show an example of someone "defending Christian apologists" in this thread? I only ask because you keep claiming that this is happening, but I can't see any occurrences of this behaviour.

Here kunjshop... look at this particularly fallacious one... out of many

Sir, lay down the thesaurus and disengage the hyperbole. There's no reason we can't all get home safety tonight, as long as we can keep our heads.

Please highlight the 'defending of Christian apologistists' in the post you quoted (by the by, critiquing your mode of address does not equate to supporting the windmills you relentlessly tilt against).

ETA: apologies for the misspelling of your name, I think I fixed them all now.

Pretending that Christian Apologists are "windmills I am tilting against" is yet another attempt at defending Christian apologists... and like the previous post, is a fallacious ad hominem not a "critique" by any rational meaning of the term... QED!!!

You claimed this post:

Sir, lay down the thesaurus and disengage the hyperbole. There's no reason we can't all get home safety tonight, as long as we can keep our heads.

was a "particularly fallacious example" of people defending Christian apologists. Please explain how.


ETA: I've just noticed the typo - it should be 'safely', not 'safety'.

You need to start reading posts you reply to and even quote, more intently and more carefully...

Had you read the post you quoted carefully you would have noticed how? Read it again.

The windmills I referred too are not Christian apologists, rather they are the defenders of Christian apologists that you rail against.

You keep accusing other posters of 'defending Christian apologists', I asked you for an example, and you quoted a post of my own that gently mocked your histrionic (IMV) style of posting.

There was no defending of apologism that I can see in my post, and so I asked you to identify it.

I ask you again, how did my post defend Christian apologists?

 

[Leumas]

In that regard my few posts have been quite typical of the thread.

So you concertedly sabotage a thread ... as usual... and then express concern by complaining that there is no rational discussion.

And when told that you have not done any... you point to the concerted sabotage and use that as an excuse for your irrational sabotage.

Your ability to twist... is uncanny. I stand (well, sit) in awe!

 

[Leumas]

....rational discussion....

Evidently GDon will not do so.... maybe you would like to RATIONALLY DISCUSS some answers to the questions he will never dare answer...

Yes... they do... which you and others denied that they do... so I guess thanks for proving it for yourself... despite the numerous posts in which I cited other Christian Liars for Jesus doing the same....(here and here)

But... do you know what a "potential infinity" is and what an "actual infinity" is and what is the difference if you think there is one and can define either?
Here is Craig denying the "actual infinite" exists



And here he denies it again

 

[Foster Zygote]

Disagreeing with anyone requires that you in fact know what they said to then disagree with it whether rationally or not..

Since I've quoted the text with which I disagree, it should be self evident that I've read it. Here it is again:

Christian and other apologists and casuists keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality.

This is the foundation of your argument at which most people are stopping and disputing. It's not that I haven't read your OP. (It's only 248 words, after all. And if you knew how to write in paragraphs, it would be much more compact.) It's that there's no point addressing anything else since the opening premise is false. You've posted it on a forum filled with people who are quite familiar with religious apologetics, and many people have rejected your above claim on the grounds that very few religious apologists actually reject the concept of infinity out of hand. Since you specifically mentioned Christians, and relegated all additional religions to the category of "other", it's fair game to concentrate of Christianity. And the fact is that most Christians are indoctrinated with the concept of infinity. It's central to their beliefs about the nature of their god and its creation. And even the handful of apologists you've Googled who seem to reject infinity have been shown to be a sub-set of apologists, with gDon proving examples of Christian apologists criticizing atheists as the ones who reject infinity.

But repeatedly and incessantly refusing to read what they say and then to incessantly and indefatigably carry on concertedly devising strawmen out of what you did not read and then hurling slander and other falsities and ad hominems all so as to waft mephitic red herrings about... is neither irrational nor rational disagreeing...

• I have read all of your posts in this thread.
• I challenge you to point out any strawman characterizations of your "arguments".
• I challenge you to point out any libel (or slander, for that matter), false foods or ad hominem attacks.

Rather... it is sabotage... deliberate and egregious and malicious sabotage of what they are trying to say... and in this particular case... which is just one out of numerous threads where you indefatigably and concertedly are concerned to do that... it happens to be so arrantly in the name of defending Christian Apologists.

One doesn't need to sabotage an airplane that crashed on takeoff because an amateur tinker constructed it out of cardboard boxes and McDonald's napkins.

But hey.... your concerted consternations in empathy with Christian Apologists are a delightful addition to... well... QED!!!

This whole "defending Christian apologists" shtick is pathetic. It's right up there with flat earthers calling anyone who can do 6th grade geometry a "paid shill". You're just flailing because your abuse of a thesaurus hasn't successfully masked the incompetence of your arguments.

 

[Leumas]

Since I've quoted the text with which I disagree, it should be self evident that I've read it. Here it is again:

No you have not... you misrepresented it and strawmanned it and it is only the first line of the the OP that you did not manage to read correctly and thus failed to reperesent correctly.

<snip ad hominems and straw man fallacies along with falsities>

Uhuh... ....

Thanks for the above emotional and fervent fallacies... in furtherance of your defenses on behalf of Christian Apologists while vehemently denying it QED!!!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Evidently GDon will not do so.... maybe you would like to RATIONALLY DISCUSS some answers to the questions he will never dare answer...

Again, before you provided any examples, I pointed out that you could certainly find some examples of religious apologists denying the concept of infinity. You're trying to triumphantly prove something everyone already knows.

Your argument started with a claim that religious apologists "keep telling" us they reject infinity, implying that it is a common, even orthodox, position. But as GDon showed, there are also religious apologists who do the opposite - who accuse atheists of denying infinity.

Again, had you started with some examples already collected, and had you opened with a sentence more like, "some religious apologists reject the concept of infinity", presented examples, then asked what others think, this could have been a much different thread.

 

[Leumas]

Again, before you provided any examples,

I provided examples long before you posted anything not pure fallacies in the thread... along with more examples to rebut your fallacious falsity that I did not.

You falsely slander me of not having provided examples of Liars for Jesus... and when I point you to the ones I did before you falsely slandered me... and provide further examples... you come back and say the examples are not enough because you baselessly bare assert decrees that they are not.

Wow... relentless consternated concerns to defend Liars For Jesus.... QED!!!