Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- As I said. I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have been. :D Though, while I can't expect to convince the opposing lawyer or his colleagues, I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.
Click to expand...

Wow the very possibility that you are just wrong simply will not stick with you will it?
 
Humots said:
Jabba.


He's clearly implying that expecting us mere humans to understand his arguments is like asking a chicken to do math.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I must have missed it as I was looking back at posts made by Jabba in response to Loss Leader.
 
Loss Leader said:
I'm not much for Jabba's shell game.
Click to expand...

it differs little from his Shroud thread, in which he admitted defeat but qualified it by saying he lost only because his critics wouldn't accept speculation and question-begging as evidence. Then he went off and edited his own version of the debate, a version in which he won. And just like we here had the splinter thread of whether anecdotal evidence could be probative, we had a splinter thread there about how circumstantial evidence is considered probative.

Dollars to donuts Jabba will soon be telling us again how we're all "analytical" thinkers while he's a "holistic" thinker and therefore much better at reasoning.
 
JayUtah said:
Then he went off and edited his own version of the debate, a version in which he won.
Click to expand...

And he's never hidden the fact that is exactly his intent here as well.

This isn't an argument or debate by any standards. It's the internet message board hybrid version of obvious quote mining and clumsy attempts at push polling.

Jabba's entire, admitted goal is and always has been to trick us into saying things he can take out of context and rewrite into what amounts to a fictional story where he, the lone iconoclast, triumphs over the group of stodgy skeptics that he can post somewhere else as evidence of him beating us.

I've said it before. We're all characters in Jabba's self insert fan fiction.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
it differs little from his Shroud thread, in which he admitted defeat but qualified it by saying he lost only because his critics wouldn't accept speculation and question-begging as evidence. Then he went off and edited his own version of the debate, a version in which he won. And just like we here had the splinter thread of whether anecdotal evidence could be probative, we had a splinter thread there about how circumstantial evidence is considered probative.

Dollars to donuts Jabba will soon be telling us again how we're all "analytical" thinkers while he's a "holistic" thinker and therefore much better at reasoning.
Click to expand...
Yeah, interesting in a way, isn't it? With the Shroud, the carbon dating is pretty much the only evidence needed to disprove any sort of authenticity, yet every other aspect, when analyzed, also shows evidence that there's no blood, shape of the body resembles art and not human anatomy, religious practices of the alleged time period, and so on are also fatal to the theory of this blanket being a covering of Jesus; and as you've succinctly and comprehensively laid out, not only is his Texas sharpshooter fallacy front and center and fatal to his immortality theory, all the rest are individually fatal too.

His (literal) sophomoric fantasies are the only thing driving his pathetic "theories" and therefore, he does everything he can to ignore reality.

It's certainly unbecoming a man of such advanced years as he to grasp so tightly to illusions of immortality.
 
JayUtah said:
it differs little from his Shroud thread, in which he admitted defeat but qualified it by saying he lost only because his critics wouldn't accept speculation and question-begging as evidence.
Click to expand...


Negative twenty-five internets for JU for failing to include a chicken pun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom