You've likened me to a homosexual activist to illustrate my alleged ad hominem attacks;
You accuse me of begging the question when I ask for evidence other than divine revelation;
And you've used name calling in condemning my "sophomoric style".
Do you notice a trend? I think it's what the psychologists call "projection". I don't know how grey your whiskers are, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of maturity behind them.
Oh, Cheers!
You've likened me to a homosexual activist to illustrate my alleged ad hominem attacks;
Yes, because homosexuals engage in ad hominem, as do anthropogenic global warming proponents. I explained this in post #30.
Calling you out on using ad hominem is not itself ad hominem. Saying (as you did) "It's hard for me to believe anyone could be that stupid. " (post 15) or " Your Jeddi tricks won’t work on me." (post 18) ARE ad hominem.
You accuse me of begging the question when I ask for evidence other than divine revelation;
In our disputations, you have not asked me for evidence other than divine revelation. On the contrary (see for example posts 35 and 40 this thread), you continually asserted, without adducing further evidence, that the supernatural *is* made up.
When I pointed out that this was not sufficient, you did not rectify the omission.
I'm not going out of my way to argue *for* theim: I'm waiting for you to post a cogent case *against* it. And the rudiments of the case you posted to me (say in post 29) look like circular reasoning or begging the question, as in this paraphras:
"Religion is wrong, because it involves the supernatural. The supernatural is made up, because it is associated with religion. And we know already that religion is wrong."
And you've used name calling in condemning my "sophomoric style".
It is sophomoric of you to tell your opponent that "I'm sorry, but I'm not the one with an invisible friend in the sky." and consider that that is necessary and sufficient grounds to settle the matter.
Do you notice a trend? I think it's what the psychologists call "projection". I don't know how grey your whiskers are, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of maturity behind them.
I explained in Post 30 why I made the characterizations of you that I did: and I did not pretend that merely giving such a characterization rendered all of your positions null and void; I just pointed out that by relying on ad hominem you fell short of the evidentiary standards you apparently insist on from others.
I'm still waiting for you to prove that all instances of the supernatural are only human constructs.
Oh, Cheers!