Posted: Feb 15, 2011 2:06 am
I would like to comment on these two points:-
and:-
I've noticed the same mode of behaviour also.
My first introduction to on-line religious debating, was on a massive thread in the Australian broadband forum called whirlpool. The thread was always referred to as the "what god?" thread and went on for ages. Unfortunately, whirlpool no longer allow religious debates. I suspect they caused too much work for the mods. There's no point linking to it, because it's in the "In the News" section and you can only access it after being a member for a while. Any Aussies here remember or participate in it?
What I noticed from that debate, is that when the supernaturalist doesn't have a comeback (or they are proven to be dead flat wrong), is that they will invariably obfuscate. They will say anything to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. That observation has been proven correct time and time again on RDF and here.
I suspect it's because they realise they have nothing, so the only defence is to make it appear that there's "doubt and debate" on the rationalist side. All the while using the fruits of the scientific method to post their pathetic arguments.
Sad really.
The Plc wrote:
I just gave you a description of a sample of the all ways religion is imposed and forced upon people all the world today. You did quote it, but didn't address it, even though you quoted it.
and:-
The Plc wrote:
Lion never responded to any of this, or anybody's post on the topic, but continued to post in the thread about a different issue. Is it not reasonable then to assume that he had no answer to it? That he had no justification for his original assertion? That he knows himself that he was wrong? If otherwise, why didn't he post a serious rebuttal? This is why I think he can't genuinely believe what he writes, as his intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency is so palpable. He shouldn't assert the truth of something he's failed to demonstrate when given ample opportunity.
I genuinely don't understand the rest of Lion's post and the point he's trying to make about people being pushed off cliffs because the language and grammar seems so odd to me. I find it too difficult to parse.
I've noticed the same mode of behaviour also.
My first introduction to on-line religious debating, was on a massive thread in the Australian broadband forum called whirlpool. The thread was always referred to as the "what god?" thread and went on for ages. Unfortunately, whirlpool no longer allow religious debates. I suspect they caused too much work for the mods. There's no point linking to it, because it's in the "In the News" section and you can only access it after being a member for a while. Any Aussies here remember or participate in it?
What I noticed from that debate, is that when the supernaturalist doesn't have a comeback (or they are proven to be dead flat wrong), is that they will invariably obfuscate. They will say anything to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. That observation has been proven correct time and time again on RDF and here.
I suspect it's because they realise they have nothing, so the only defence is to make it appear that there's "doubt and debate" on the rationalist side. All the while using the fruits of the scientific method to post their pathetic arguments.
Sad really.