tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116440669308811458..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: On Biting Off More Than You Can ChewRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164564232611954032006-11-26T13:03:00.000-05:002006-11-26T13:03:00.000-05:00PM: I answered what you think he presented.And in ...PM: <I>I answered what you think he presented.</I><BR/><BR/>And in my judgment, your "answer" was weak and insufficient. I'm "100% okay" with this. You said you were, too, until you heard it. <BR/><BR/>PM: <I>So, now how do we judge between us?</I><BR/><BR/>I have made my judgment.<BR/><BR/>PM: <I>You just don't like me. Don't like someone making atheism look foolish. I understand.</I><BR/><BR/>You just don't like me. Don't like someone making Christianity look foolish. I understand. See, that's why people don't like dogmatism and arbitrariness.<BR/><BR/>PM: <I>I won. Look at what I presented. That's it.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm "100% okay" with you thinking this.<BR/><BR/>PM: <I>So, go snap into a slim jim, jerky.</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds tasty! I think I will!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164502453959719312006-11-25T19:54:00.000-05:002006-11-25T19:54:00.000-05:00Beef Jerky,You're in over your head, try and keep ...Beef Jerky,<BR/><BR/>You're in over your head, try and keep up.<BR/><BR/>"And I pointed to what EA has already presented."<BR/><BR/>No, you haven't. That'why I'm asking you.<BR/><BR/>What did he present?<BR/><BR/>I answered what you think he presented.<BR/><BR/>So, now how do we judge between us?<BR/><BR/>You see, you never read the discussion. You didn't havge the intellectual stamina to even read my posts, did you.<BR/><BR/>You just don't like me. Don't like someone making atheism look foolish. I understand.<BR/><BR/>I'm asking you to point out what he presented that was so devistating and how my reply didn't cut it.<BR/><BR/>You won't do that though. You can't. Because you know what you're saying isn't true.<BR/><BR/>Just know when you sleep tonight that I know that you know that you can't do what I'm asking you. <BR/><BR/>You're another atheist who's inserted foot in mouth.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think I likme your method better. The naked assertion method.<BR/><BR/>I won. Look at what I presented. That's it.<BR/><BR/>If your system works, then mine does as well.<BR/><BR/>See, that's why people don't like dogmatism and arbitrariness.<BR/><BR/>So, go snap into a slim jim, jerky.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164488361965003872006-11-25T15:59:00.000-05:002006-11-25T15:59:00.000-05:00PM: I am 100% okay with it.So am I.PM: I asked you...PM: <I>I am 100% okay with it.</I><BR/><BR/>So am I.<BR/><BR/>PM: <I>I asked you to back it up.</I><BR/><BR/>And I pointed to what EA has already presented. <BR/><BR/>PM: <I>You see, I think you're the liar. I don't think you "judged" the debate because I don't even think you read my post.</I><BR/><BR/>Think whatever you want. I'm "100% okay."<BR/><BR/>PM: <I>So how's them apples.</I><BR/><BR/>Whatever floats your boat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164477372840851722006-11-25T12:56:00.000-05:002006-11-25T12:56:00.000-05:00Beef Jerky,I am 100% okay with it.I asked you to b...Beef Jerky,<BR/><BR/>I am 100% okay with it.<BR/><BR/>I asked you to back it up.<BR/><BR/>You see, I think you're the liar. I don't think you "judged" the debate because I don't even think you read my post.<BR/><BR/>So how's them apples.<BR/><BR/>Take this and your false dichotomy and shove it in your pipe and smoke it. ;-)Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164476668922930042006-11-25T12:44:00.000-05:002006-11-25T12:44:00.000-05:00there are two types of statistics. Statistical li...there are two types of statistics. Statistical lies, and lying statistics.<BR/><BR/>Great use of both, Paul!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164476011108150642006-11-25T12:33:00.000-05:002006-11-25T12:33:00.000-05:00PM: Anyway, we both know you're posting just to di...PM: <I>Anyway, we both know you're posting just to disagree with me. Otherwise, we both know you'd actually substantiate your charges (if you want, you can even copy and past where you think exapologist argued so forcefully).</I><BR/><BR/>But earlier, you had stated: <I>I'm 100% okay with you letting people "judge" who presented the better case.</I><BR/><BR/>In my judgment, EA did a whopping better job. So either you're "100% okay" with this, or you're not, which would make your earlier statement an outright lie. Which is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164430435940247852006-11-24T23:53:00.000-05:002006-11-24T23:53:00.000-05:00Beef Jerky, Yes you're right. Exapologist did jus...Beef Jerky, <BR/><BR/>Yes you're right. Exapologist did just fine. Trashed me. His one argument:<BR/><BR/>"They have to be the same event 'cause that's the natural reading" <BR/><BR/>was extremely devistating.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, we both know you're posting just to disagree with me. Otherwise, we both know you'd actually substantiate your charges (if you want, you can even copy and past where you think exapologist argued so forcefully).<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I've read a lot of Amill material. If it suits you, I'm an optamistic amil. If you're a postmill, I'll tell you I'm postmill.<BR/><BR/>I've read Poythress, Johnson, Riddlebarger, etc.<BR/><BR/>I just think the gospel will have a broader effect than my amill brothers. <BR/><BR/>I wrote this post to critique an atheist, who now sees he needs to stick to critiquing libertarians and arminians. Keep his nose out of my business. Or, study. Anyway, I don't really have the desire to use T-blog for the purposes of critiquing fellow believers on this issue. Not worth my time. I'm not a frothing at the mouth postmill/reconstructionist/etc. I have other interests. Hopefully other talents. Don't feel like spending my limited time critiquing a position some of the smartest and godliest men in history have held to.<BR/><BR/>~PaulErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164427495803069032006-11-24T23:04:00.000-05:002006-11-24T23:04:00.000-05:00Paul,I presume that your are a postmillennial reco...Paul,<BR/><BR/>I presume that your are a postmillennial reconstructionist.<BR/><BR/>Have you read this article?<BR/><BR/>http://www.prca.org/articles/amillennialism.html<BR/><BR/>It is basically an attempted refutation of Postmill reconstruction and an explanation of one form of the amill position. <BR/><BR/>Another good book on the amill postion is "A Case for Amillennialism by Kim RiddlebargerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164422674496897252006-11-24T21:44:00.000-05:002006-11-24T21:44:00.000-05:00Paul,Maybe if you weren't such a stinking liar (as...Paul,<BR/><BR/>Maybe if you weren't such a stinking liar (as you readily admit) people wouldn't jump to such hasty conclusions aobut the "anonymous" posters on here.<BR/><BR/>Plus...<BR/><BR/>you said:<BR/><BR/>"Considering that 99% of all atheists admit I beat Dan Barker in our debate"<BR/><BR/>Can I see your polling data for this? You know how those evil unbelievers always like their data to back up statements like that.<BR/><BR/>Or, should we be taking this statement symbolically, or as allegory perhaps? Is it "poetic" language, or is a plain-text reading realistic?<BR/><BR/>:::SNIZZZ!!!:::Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164420216163664722006-11-24T21:03:00.000-05:002006-11-24T21:03:00.000-05:00PM: Considering that 99% of all atheists admit I b...PM: <I>Considering that 99% of all atheists admit I beat Dan Barker in our debate</I><BR/><BR/>Not sure what your debate with Dan Barker has to do with anything in this thread, but if you want to believe what 99% of all atheists believe, then be my guest.<BR/><BR/>PM: <I>Anyway, I'll ask you what I asked exapologist. Care to substantiate your assertion?</I><BR/><BR/>No need to - exapologist did just fine already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164419728439827472006-11-24T20:55:00.000-05:002006-11-24T20:55:00.000-05:00Beef Jerky,Considering that 99% of all atheists ad...Beef Jerky,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Considering that 99% of all atheists admit I beat Dan Barker in our debate, what does that say about him? Ouch, poor guy. You must really think low of Barker.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'll ask you what I asked exapologist. Care to substantiate your assertion?Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164419213144569152006-11-24T20:46:00.000-05:002006-11-24T20:46:00.000-05:00Isn't being anonymous great, Paul?I think you are ...Isn't being anonymous great, Paul?<BR/><BR/>I think you are THE BEST!!!<BR/><BR/>Great apologetic my friend!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164418394828515982006-11-24T20:33:00.000-05:002006-11-24T20:33:00.000-05:00I understand this is completely irrelevant and the...I understand this is completely irrelevant and the people who fall into this trap are stupid and deserve everything they get. But there has been alot of folks hurt by fake "promises" of Jesus' return. Again it has no meaning because basically people are irrelevant in these issues but just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164417261019506102006-11-24T20:14:00.000-05:002006-11-24T20:14:00.000-05:00But even tho Paul's points are conjecture, wishful...But even tho Paul's points are conjecture, wishfull thinking, and naked assertions, Paul is really really trying not to be a complete jerk anymore.<BR/><BR/>Isn't that worth something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164416470749329592006-11-24T20:01:00.000-05:002006-11-24T20:01:00.000-05:00PM: As I said, I'm 100% okay with you letting peop...PM: <I>As I said, I'm 100% okay with you letting people "judge" who presented the better case.</I><BR/><BR/>Hands down, exapologist prevailed as the indisputable winner, in argumentation, substance, honor and diction. In each category, Paul was left in the dust clenching his teeth in dispair. We've seen this in just about every exchange Paul takes part in with non-believers. The guy simply cannot assemble a worthy argument, and he comes across as bratty 14-year-old to boot.<BR/><BR/>Good going, EA!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164413951393743152006-11-24T19:19:00.000-05:002006-11-24T19:19:00.000-05:00Just a friendly spelling and grammatical check for...Just a friendly spelling and grammatical check for Paul's latest comment:<BR/><BR/>1.<BR/><BR/>"rendering fo the passage."<BR/><BR/>should be:<BR/><BR/>"rendering of the passage."<BR/><BR/>2. <BR/><BR/>"Receive an amswer."<BR/><BR/>should be:<BR/><BR/>"Receive an answer."<BR/><BR/>3.<BR/><BR/>"Merely assert that since there is similar language, then the two events are the same. No supporting argument given."<BR/><BR/>First sentance is sloppy. Second sentance is not a complete sentance.<BR/><BR/>4. <BR/><BR/>"As I said, I'm 100% okay with you letting people "judge" who presented the better case."<BR/><BR/>"Judge" shouldn't be in quotes. You use those too much. Kind of like Tommy Boy.<BR/><BR/>Plus, if you're "100% okay" with exaplogist, then why are you still talking, and wreaking havoc with the English language?<BR/><BR/>Your Friend,<BR/><BR/>English 101 TeacherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164413517895561752006-11-24T19:11:00.000-05:002006-11-24T19:11:00.000-05:00Exapologist,You should note that these guys pin *a...Exapologist,<BR/><BR/>You should note that these guys pin *any* anonymous comment on me, if it's not hostile to my post.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter if the "time stamp" is 2 minutes or two days later.<BR/><BR/>If you'd like a recap of our debate, here it is:<BR/><BR/>EA: Make an assertion.<BR/><BR/>Run up against a preterist rendering fo the passage.<BR/><BR/>Cite Craig and hope the partial preterist runs in fear.<BR/><BR/>Receive an answer.<BR/><BR/>Cite Craig again.<BR/><BR/>Receive an amswer.<BR/><BR/>Merely assert that since there is similar language, then the two events are the same. No supporting argument given.<BR/><BR/>Have your opponent use the Bible to interpret the Bible, showing a theme throughout both testaments, which support his conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Assert that his view is ad hoc (even though my interpretation of many of these passages has been around for thousands of years).<BR/><BR/>As I said, I'm 100% okay with you letting people "judge" who presented the better case.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164412088701644772006-11-24T18:48:00.000-05:002006-11-24T18:48:00.000-05:00exapologist...welcome to the Paul Manata "watch me...exapologist...welcome to the Paul Manata "watch me post as multiple people" marathon.<BR/><BR/>Note the timestamps...always a good clue with Paul, and his multiple personalities.<BR/><BR/>WWJD?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164411112684908652006-11-24T18:31:00.000-05:002006-11-24T18:31:00.000-05:00Oh brother...Oh brother...exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164410281863530592006-11-24T18:18:00.000-05:002006-11-24T18:18:00.000-05:00"Hi Paul,Thanks for your reply. I'm content to let..."Hi Paul,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your reply. I'm content to let my previous posts speak for themselves with respect to your latest reply, and let others judge for themselves which position is the most plausible and less ad hoc on this matter.<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>exapologist"<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B><BR/><BR/>Exapologist,<BR/><BR/>IOW, "Paul, this is how a Ph.D. student bows out of a debate. We're too smart to know when we can't win."<BR/><BR/>KEITH<BR/><BR/>P.S. Smart move exapologist.<BR/><BR/></B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164410167071749532006-11-24T18:16:00.000-05:002006-11-24T18:16:00.000-05:00"Hi Paul,Thanks for your reply. I'm content to let..."Hi Paul,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your reply. I'm content to let my previous posts speak for themselves with respect to your latest reply, and let others judge for themselves which position is the most plausible and less ad hoc on this matter.<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>exapologist"<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>In other words, "Paul, this is how Ph.D. students bow out of debates. We're smart enough to know when we can't win."<BR/><BR/>KEITH<BR/><BR/>P.S. I think you've made a wise move exapologistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164409718684837222006-11-24T18:08:00.000-05:002006-11-24T18:08:00.000-05:00Am I reading right? Did exapologist just come in ...Am I reading right? Did exapologist just come in and <I>assert</I> that your post had problems, while never showing it, again?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1164409522685204702006-11-24T18:05:00.000-05:002006-11-24T18:05:00.000-05:00Hi Paul,Thanks for your reply. I'm content to let ...Hi Paul,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your reply. I'm content to let my previous posts speak for themselves with respect to your latest reply, and let others judge for themselves which position is the most plausible and less ad hoc on this matter.<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>exapologistexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.com