- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I am not saying I agree with anyone here, but my opinion is that when people have to dig up dirt on people, it is because they can't fault the logic or win against the person.
Stu, do you remember when the National Pary looked like they were going to win the previous election? What did Labour do after all their attemps to stop National's popularity? They hired a/some detectives to go through John Keys rubbish bags.
Are you now at the stage of going through Bod's rubbish bags to try and find something incriminating? Because if that is the case, then I guess we can take for granted that you have lost the ability to debate him on the facts.
My 2 cents + 15% GST worth.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 26 2010,17:51) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2010,16:09) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 26 2010,14:19) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2010,13:30) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 25 2010,09:59) I told you before that some use dishonesty and manipulation and mistake it for reasonableness.
Like they told you at RD.net:“Bodhitharta, you're dishonesty is really incredible. That you accuse other posters of dishonesty is ironic in the extreme.”
and
Bodhi, you truly are … the most dishonest poster I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
So it isn't just us then.
Stuart
They wrote it so it must be so?It is also written: Jesus wept. But you don't believe that, do you?
These other people find your posting habits dishonest, we find them dishonest, so it is true that it is not just us who find you dishonest. That is all I claimed and it is definitely true that it is what we find.I think the words that others put in Jesus's mouth after his death would be more than enough cause for him to weep. If he were alive.
Stuart
Just because they said they thought I was being dishonest does not mean that is what they actually thought it simply means that is what they said. They could not have actually “thought” I was being dishonest and neither do you actually think it. It is simply a technique to try to discredit someone though Dishonest tactics using “ad populum” although you discredited that method your self.But for the sake of argument can you give me a single example of me being dishoest?
No ad populum here. I never said you were dishonest because of lots of people saying you are, I just said that several people have said they find you dishonest. In fact I explained that to you, but you seem not to have the ability to comprehend such things.An example is that you claimed to have proved that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth.
You did no such thing by any honest use of the word proof.
Stuart
t8
Quote I am not saying I agree with anyone here, but my opinion is that when people have to dig up dirt on people, it is because they can't fault the logic or win against the person.
I agree that dirt has no part to play in any civil discussion but I don’t think anyone has had to dig dirt on anyone in order to make a point of argument. It was because a particular member here has a debating style that is patently dishonest and defamatory, and he has a track record of doing that on websites across the world. This thread is not for his reading really, it is for others to understand his tactics and explain how non-members have reacted to them, although it does also make specific points about a particular claim, that he has stated that islam should be heading towards unity while he has also started a cult.Quote Stu, do you remember when the National Pary looked like they were going to win the previous election? What did Labour do after all their attemps to stop National's popularity? They hired a/some detectives to go through John Keys rubbish bags.
And you know what they found when they did something similar in the election before that? Evidence of the Exclusive Brethren attempting (pathetically) to buy an election. I think I would rather know about that kind of thing than have it covered up by a major political party that is now in government.Quote Are you now at the stage of going through Bod's rubbish bags to try and find something incriminating? Because if that is the case, then I guess we can take for granted that you have lost the ability to debate him on the facts.
One of the things the thread points out is that BD will engage people in discourse, and at a seemingly random moment proclaim some kind of victory, which it appears to me is followed by him boasting to others that he has converted people to islam by debating them. I personally think that brings this forum into disrepute, just like the Exclusive Brethren brought the Nats into disrepute.I think very few people would agree that BD has made much of a logical case about anything to anyone, so to have him leave here and go on to misrepresent us as he has misrepresented others would be an abuse of people posting here.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2010,20:32) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 26 2010,17:51) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2010,16:09) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 26 2010,14:19) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2010,13:30) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 25 2010,09:59) I told you before that some use dishonesty and manipulation and mistake it for reasonableness.
Like they told you at RD.net:“Bodhitharta, you're dishonesty is really incredible. That you accuse other posters of dishonesty is ironic in the extreme.”
and
Bodhi, you truly are … the most dishonest poster I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
So it isn't just us then.
Stuart
They wrote it so it must be so?It is also written: Jesus wept. But you don't believe that, do you?
These other people find your posting habits dishonest, we find them dishonest, so it is true that it is not just us who find you dishonest. That is all I claimed and it is definitely true that it is what we find.I think the words that others put in Jesus's mouth after his death would be more than enough cause for him to weep. If he were alive.
Stuart
Just because they said they thought I was being dishonest does not mean that is what they actually thought it simply means that is what they said. They could not have actually “thought” I was being dishonest and neither do you actually think it. It is simply a technique to try to discredit someone though Dishonest tactics using “ad populum” although you discredited that method your self.But for the sake of argument can you give me a single example of me being dishoest?
No ad populum here. I never said you were dishonest because of lots of people saying you are, I just said that several people have said they find you dishonest. In fact I explained that to you, but you seem not to have the ability to comprehend such things.An example is that you claimed to have proved that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth.
You did no such thing by any honest use of the word proof.
Stuart
STU,If you look back at the posts you will find that I said that “Virgin Birth” was possible and there is no doubt that that was made evident.
The very “Honest” point I made was Virgin Birth can and does happen, you then said it can't happen in humans, I then pointed out “Honestly” albeit also cleverly that Virginity and Pregnancy are not mutually exclusive terms as in the fact that sex is not needed to impregnate any woman at all, virgin or not.
So the fact is VIRGIN BIRTH is certainly possible, now if Mary had Jesus without being pregnant you would certainly have me over a barrel there but that was not the “Moot” as you would say.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2010,20:47) Quote This thread is not for his reading really, it is for others to understand his tactics and explain how non-members have reacted to them, although it does also make specific points about a particular claim, that he has stated that islam should be heading towards unity You see it is really you that are being dishonest, are you a defender of Islam now?
Quote while he has also started a cult. Can you show me a single thread or post anywhere on the entire worldwide net where I am telling people to join anything? If not, why say what is not true? Is Atheism a cult?
Of course not! Don't misguide others with nonsense Religious people would call you an Infidel, right? So why would it be wrong to call someone that is considered pious “Asana”=One made gracious by God?Quote And you know what they found when they did something similar in the election before that? Evidence of the Exclusive Brethren attempting (pathetically) to buy an election. I think I would rather know about that kind of thing than have it covered up by a major political party that is now in government. And what did you find with me? Only that I have been consistent worldwide, I'm glad you made the thread, it was good to see all those older threads and remember those debates I actually was able to find some very good points that I had made before so thanks!
Quote One of the things the thread points out is that BD will engage people in discourse, and at a seemingly random moment proclaim some kind of victory, You mean at the point of victory? Everything seems random to you Atheists If I claimed victory it's because it was clear there was a victory, just like what T8 did to you, he clearly defeated you and Kejonn in that debate and although you will say you didn't participate you still lost by not answering the challenge and yet continuing to do what he asserted that you were doing which was unreasonable, unjustly and biasly assert that God does not exist.
Quote which it appears to me is followed by him boasting to others that he has converted people to islam by debating them. I actually have never said that, I said there have been people who have been converted into believing in “GOD”
Quote I personally think that brings this forum into disrepute, just like the Exclusive Brethren brought the Nats into disrepute. Did you forget you were an Atheist or something? Are you now concerned with the integrity of a God fearing/Believing site when you have spewed vile things against GOD HIMSELF?
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!Quote I think very few people would agree that BD has made much of a logical case about anything to anyone, so to have him leave here and go on to misrepresent us Misrepresent us? What does that even mean, this is not an Atheists site.
Quote as he has misrepresented others would be an abuse of people posting here. Can you show me one example where I misrepresented someone?
P.S. You lose again
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 27 2010,03:44) If you look back at the posts you will find that I said that “Virgin Birth” was possible and there is no doubt that that was made evident. The very “Honest” point I made was Virgin Birth can and does happen, you then said it can't happen in humans, I then pointed out “Honestly” albeit also cleverly that Virginity and Pregnancy are not mutually exclusive terms as in the fact that sex is not needed to impregnate any woman at all, virgin or not.
So the fact is VIRGIN BIRTH is certainly possible, now if Mary had Jesus without being pregnant you would certainly have me over a barrel there but that was not the “Moot” as you would say.
Demonstrating that something is possible (which you have not established in either the case of a virgin birth of Jesus by IVF or parthenogenesis – heck you have not even established that Jesus existed!) is not the same as proving something happened.You have provided no evidence for any of this in the case of Jesus. All you have claimed is that your definition of virgin birth includes IVF treatment, a medical intervention that would have been a blind guess in ancient Palestine, and in any case hardly more than a technical difference theologically from the usual means of conception (who are you trying to impress? IVF is not miraculous! It is like Macbeth being not of woman born – a technical, not supernatural point). How was Jesus conceived, according to you BD?
Here is how you have misrepresented me: I said that parthenogenesis is impossible in humans. I did not say what you claim I said.
Here is how you have been dishonest: You have not said how you think Jesus WAS born of a virgin, yet you have claimed to have “proved” it.
You make it very easy for me to demonstrate the points I was making in reply to t8's very reasonable concerns about whether I have been “digging dirt” on you. Actually you bring more of that dirt inside here with no digging by others required.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2010,20:47) And you know what they found when they did something similar in the election before that? Evidence of the Exclusive Brethren attempting (pathetically) to buy an election. I think I would rather know about that kind of thing than have it covered up by a major political party that is now in government.
Wasn't that in the Don Brash era?BD
Quote You see it is really you that are being dishonest, are you a defender of Islam now?
Obviously not. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying islam should be heading towards unity while starting a pseudo-islamic cult where people chant the first name of the leader.Quote Can you show me a single thread or post anywhere on the entire worldwide net where I am telling people to join anything? If not, why say what is not true?
Did I say you were telling people to join? No.Quote Is Atheism a cult?
Not according to my dictionary.Quote Don't misguide others with nonsense Religious people would call you an Infidel, right? So why would it be wrong to call someone that is considered pious “Asana”=One made gracious by God?
I don’t know. You tell me.Quote And what did you find with me? Only that I have been consistent worldwide, I'm glad you made the thread, it was good to see all those older threads and remember those debates I actually was able to find some very good points that I had made before so thanks!
You have been consistently dishonest and defamatory. That is your track record.Quote You mean at the point of victory? Everything seems random to you Atheists If I claimed victory it's because it was clear there was a victory, just like what T8 did to you, he clearly defeated you and Kejonn in that debate and although you will say you didn't participate you still lost by not answering the challenge and yet continuing to do what he asserted that you were doing which was unreasonable, unjustly and biasly assert that God does not exist.
If it is unreasonable for me to assert that there are no gods, then it is unreasonable for you to assert that there is a god. If you knew anything about philosophy, which is the commonly accepted set of rules thatStu: which it appears to me is followed by him boasting to others that he has converted people to islam by debating them.
Quote I actually have never said that, I said there have been people who have been converted into believing in “GOD”
OK, I stand corrected. I presume you didn’t mind if they converted to judaism then. Well done for admitting the bit about boasting about conversions. You seem to have a particular bent for boasting about converting atheists. Was it three? Statistically, probably 2 ¼ of those people have since left islam.Quote Did you forget you were an Atheist or something? Are you now concerned with the integrity of a God fearing/Believing site when you have spewed vile things against GOD HIMSELF? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!
Love the people, hate the delusion that makes them say silly things about the special powers of their Imaginary Friends.Quote Misrepresent us? What does that even mean, this is not an Atheists site.
You have misrepresented believers and skeptics alike. If you don’t like it that there are atheists here you could always lobby t8 to have us banned. Of course at the rate you are being banned from other sites, you will have even less access to atheists in order to boast about your conversions. Think carefully now.Quote Can you show me one example where I misrepresented someone?
Where to start…Well, see above for the most recent one.
Quote P.S. You lose again
As they told you at RD.net:
Is that what this is all about for you? Is this all a game? This approach smashes out any chance of learning anything from others. The best way any of us can learn from each other, is to be willing to learn from each other. Free exchange of ideas cultivates the global landscape. Why some people approach this as a game, a fight, or a battle, is beyond me.Stuart
Oops forgot to finish this bit:
If it is unreasonable for me to assert that there are no gods, then it is unreasonable for you to assert that there is a god. If you knew anything about philosophy, which sets down the commonly accepted set of rules that people the world over accept as a way to make a robust argument, then you would understand why.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,08:46) Oops forgot to finish this bit: If it is unreasonable for me to assert that there are no gods, then it is unreasonable for you to assert that there is a god. If you knew anything about philosophy, which sets down the commonly accepted set of rules that people the world over accept as a way to make a robust argument, then you would understand why.
Stuart
My 2 cents + GST.It is unreasonable to assert there is no extra-terrestrial life. It is reasonable to assert that there is, if you have come into contact with them.
Please see this statement for the point. I am not saying that ET exists or not.Quote (t8 @ Feb. 27 2010,08:10) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 26 2010,20:47) And you know what they found when they did something similar in the election before that? Evidence of the Exclusive Brethren attempting (pathetically) to buy an election. I think I would rather know about that kind of thing than have it covered up by a major political party that is now in government.
Wasn't that in the Don Brash era?
Yes, John Key's rubbish was not involved in that incident.Probably the whole Brethren thing initially slipped under Brash's radar and then came back to bite him later, when it transpired that the Brethren were releasing material associating him with their wacky political ideas.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 27 2010,08:49) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,08:46) Oops forgot to finish this bit: If it is unreasonable for me to assert that there are no gods, then it is unreasonable for you to assert that there is a god. If you knew anything about philosophy, which sets down the commonly accepted set of rules that people the world over accept as a way to make a robust argument, then you would understand why.
Stuart
My 2 cents + GST.It is unreasonable to assert there is no extra-terrestrial life. It is reasonable to assert that there is, if you have come into contact with them.
Please see this statement for the point. I am not saying that ET exists or not.
It is unreasonable to assert that you have come into contact with them when you cannot show with any conviction that you actually have. Especially when there are much simpler explanations for the experience you attribute to ETs, which there usually are.When you hear the sound of hooves in the night, why think of zebras?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,07:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 27 2010,03:44) If you look back at the posts you will find that I said that “Virgin Birth” was possible and there is no doubt that that was made evident. The very “Honest” point I made was Virgin Birth can and does happen, you then said it can't happen in humans, I then pointed out “Honestly” albeit also cleverly that Virginity and Pregnancy are not mutually exclusive terms as in the fact that sex is not needed to impregnate any woman at all, virgin or not.
So the fact is VIRGIN BIRTH is certainly possible, now if Mary had Jesus without being pregnant you would certainly have me over a barrel there but that was not the “Moot” as you would say.
Quote Demonstrating that something is possible (which you have not established in either the case of a virgin birth of Jesus by IVF or parthenogenesis – heck you have not even established that Jesus existed!) is not the same as proving something happened. STU,
The original “moot” in this case was “Virgin Birth” possible, you can look up the original post I made regarding it. My method was simple: Get you to admit that “Virgin Birth” was possible. It was my purpose to get you to accept that the first premise was true before I presented you with the second premise.
Quote You have provided no evidence for any of this in the case of Jesus. The premises would stand regardless.
Quote All you have claimed is that your definition of virgin birth includes IVF treatment, a medical intervention that would have been a blind guess in ancient Palestine, and in any case hardly more than a technical difference theologically from the usual means of conception (who are you trying to impress? You still miss the point, you said it was not possible. Do you now say that “Virgin Birth” is possible?
Also, you said you didn't believe in Absolutes so how can you be Absolutely sure that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin anyway?
Quote IVF is not miraculous! It is like Macbeth being not of woman born – a technical, not supernatural point). How was Jesus conceived, according to you BD? Jesus was conceived by the Power of God and I am Absolutely sure of it.
Quote Here is how you have misrepresented me: I said that parthenogenesis is impossible in humans. I did not say what you claim I said. Yes, you said that but I never said you didn't say that. I said you still continue to deny “Virgin Birth” and initially you denied all Virgin Birth until I showed you the parthogenetic accounts and then you shifted to saying “in humans” which is when I shifted to obliterate your whole context by pointing out that Virginity and Pregnancy are not mutually exclusive terms
Quote Here is how you have been dishonest: You have not said how you think Jesus WAS born of a virgin, yet you have claimed to have “proved” it. I have PROVED that “Virgin Birth ” is possible in animals and humans, you simply won't admit it.
Quote You make it very easy for me to demonstrate the points I was making in reply to t8's very reasonable concerns about whether I have been “digging dirt” on you. Actually you bring more of that dirt inside here with no digging by others required. Then why dig?
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,08:59) It is unreasonable to assert that you have come into contact with them when you cannot show with any conviction that you actually have. Especially when there are much simpler explanations for the experience you attribute to ETs, which there usually are. When you hear the sound of hooves in the night, why think of zebras?
Stuart
I was going to reply here, but thought it better to make it a separate debate.Asana Bodhitharta
…I won’t be chanting it I’m afraid…
Quote The original “moot” in this case was “Virgin Birth” possible, you can look up the original post I made regarding it. My method was simple: Get you to admit that “Virgin Birth” was possible. It was my purpose to get you to accept that the first premise was true before I presented you with the second premise.
You really are very limited and easily entertained, aren’t you. Shame you have no understanding of the philosophy that you are blundering ignorantly through.Stuu: You have provided no evidence for any of this in the case of Jesus.
Quote The premises would stand regardless.
You have provided no evidence for any of this in the case of Jesus.Quote You still miss the point, you said it was not possible. Do you now say that “Virgin Birth” is possible?
I said parthenogenesis is not possible in humans. That is still true, although you seem to think Jesus was a shark.Quote Also, you said you didn't believe in Absolutes so how can you be Absolutely sure that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin anyway?
I can’t be sure that Jesus was born at all. Neither can you.Quote Jesus was conceived by the Power of God and I am Absolutely sure of it.
Why don’t you get back to us when you have your story straight.Quote Yes, you said that but I never said you didn't say that. I said you still continue to deny “Virgin Birth” and initially you denied all Virgin Birth until I showed you the parthogenetic accounts and then you shifted to saying “in humans” which is when I shifted to obliterate your whole context by pointing out that Virginity and Pregnancy are not mutually exclusive terms
How about you get back to us when you can spell parthenogenesis?Actually, how about you not bother getting back to us on any subject? You generally rely on others to correct you before you then tell them they are idiots for not knowing what they just taught you.
Stuart
Dug up this dirt here:
If an atheist truly believes that death is the end, then he must also consider that having children from an atheistic perspective is causing those children to die. If an atheist has a child he is directly responsible for the death of that child.
Nasty.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:13) For our American friends, watch this and you will understand the meaning of the term irony! Stuart
Hi Stuart,I watched the video, but missed his point.
Who is the suto-intellectual?
Ed J
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,22:14) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:13) For our American friends, watch this and you will understand the meaning of the term irony! Stuart
Hi Stuart,I watched the video, but missed his point.
Who is the suto-intellectual?
Ed J
I believe that is pseudo intellectual Ed.
It means a false intellectual.Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
