Spademan, on Wednesday, April 27th, 2011, 10:35 PM, said:
Ok. I'm not being flip here, and I am not attempting to subvert your argument here, but I need to ask you a question before I even respond to this post (which I would respond to in the "to the reader" way). I want you to answer me seriously here.Are you trolling? Like, one of the greatest trolls ever? Is this a serious post, and are you really using that as a citation that "explains everything easily", is a scholarly peer-reviewed work, uses even the slightest standard of evidence and reflects objective research into biblical issues and history?Are your italicized phrases a deftly created play on the cargo cult phenomenon:Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of material. When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behaviour that they had observed of the military personnel operating them.
That is to say, are you trolling an incredibly subtle joke like, "When he describes my fallacies with the terms it brings power to his argument. I shall find (irrelevant) phrases and italicize them and add them to my post, thereby stealing his magic word power!"?PM me if about it if you have to, because if you are trolling, which I strongly suspect given this post, we wouldn't want to out it.
I actually never troll. That was an assertion made falsely by dutch in the bracket thread.What I do is respond in kind.If you go to the beginning, Randy made unabashed accusations with no scholarly peer-reviewed work
. Brv and I responded in kind.You are the one who now holds our posts to higher standards than the OPYou did this by your propaganda debate definitions. Which really did not apply, since the post you were applying these too was never meant to be an exhaustive response, or a dodge for lack of evidence.I clearly pointed out how you also post like we did in the politics section when you discarded one of my posts by stating that 'this has been covered' ibid.I found this propaganda definition
site years ago and used it to defeat crow who has left leaving me the clear victor ( #12 Unsupported Claims )So no, I am not trolling.And to be honest I am not playing fair either.Randy has obviously just read a book/found a website with a clear bias and is passing it off as fact. I get his enthusiasm, but as in the last thread he started trying to make Job prove that God was a bad guy, it is just the current trend amongst atheist selling books. I know because now the current trend in apologetic book stores
is the rebuttal to these arguments.I am comfortable in my faith, I do not fear questions, but I also do not enjoy reading post by people, like you, who mock and degenerate God for the sole reason of being shocking. Shock and Awe ( George Bush term ) works better when capturing a town then capturing an honest debate.Therefore I do not waste my time being honestly challenging, which is probably wrong of me, and Brv will point it out like the last time I was failing in my duty to 'defend the faith' I have no excuse for being lazy in this, but I took you off ignore a month ago, so I must be a glutton for punishment.I have a dream of finding an atheist web site and trolling it like you guys troll this section by constantly pointing out how they are going to hell etc. But I am not arrogant enough I guess.