Replies

"I'd believe your bona fides more if you spent more time over in Londonistan, Islamabad, or Kandahar stopping people like this, rather than on a safe US-based internet forum damning Christianity with faint praise."

I find the way you square-dance onto other threads with line and snare, when the arguments made by you or your cohorts have been thoroughly vanquished, as a confirmation of the same. Imagine me putting up another well-won trophy on the shelf.

You've played this pathetic game before, and you're doing it again, now.

The Golden Rule, as always, wins. Tribal, Stone Age barbarism continues to get relegated to the dust-bins for lack of any ethical or moral value, as a result of the same.

That said, I've confronted more fanatical Muslims in all my travels around the world, including in Britain, Australia, the Middle East, the Subcontinent, the United States, East Asia and Canada, with a greater passion than I'd care for you to know about, or acknowledge. You, to put it succinctly, just don't matter.

Nice try playing this game, but as usual, reveals your weak and effeminate "tactics".

PS: What ever happened to your reply to me in that thread on laser-based weapons that your arrogance found itself painting you into a corner? Want to delve into it again... you know, to baffle me with your "brilliance"?

“the arguments made by you or your cohorts have been thoroughly vanquished, as a confirmation of the same. Imagine me putting up another well-won trophy on the shelf.”

While your atheism otherwise places your mind in a straitjacket, your imagination regarding your polemical proficiency runs wild.

Reiterating what i stated in post 109 stands, and reiterating what i said in 124 to another after you left me,

the atheists position is still only viable if their rejection of an omniscient and moral Deity commanding this is correct, and they can prove that

1. His ordaining the utter destruction of an exceedingly sinful people was unjust, or that

2. destroying the innocent with them was not to their eternal benefit, or that

3. the method of destruction was wrong, as not accomplishing good.

As you cannot, to reject this even as a possibility presumes that it is you is omniscient, and that your human reasoning is infallible.

You are making an excellent illustration of Hank Kerchief's description of ad hominem which he gave in post #39 this thread.

"Most people do not understand the difference between a well deserved insult and ad hominem. An insult is not an ad hominem, only repudiating the character or intelligence of an arguer, with the intention of repudiating his argument thereby, is an ad hominem."

Example:

Your challenge to me was posted at 1:41:49 AM on Thursday, July 22, 2010: challenging a post of mine at 1:32 AM that same day.

You then posted a "Hulloa?" to me at 1:47 AM.

By the time the next day rolled around, there were a number of posts by other people, and continuing into the weekend, which demonstrated the essential absurdity of your challenge.

So my reply was unnecessary by that point.

Cheers!