Meta, you really need some self-criticism.
I thiink I am very self critical.
I've watched you on at least three of these forums, and I see things a little differently. You make strong statements, people start taking them apart (as they should), if they criticize an area you're not prepared for (such as your axioms instead of your logic), you throw a fit.
We sould have to go though specific posts to see what you are talking about.I am pretty sure what you are not getting is that they are saying really stupid things. Major stupid things like "why does God have to be necessary, you are just defining God into existence." anyone who really the issues involved in that would know they they are just saying things to save face because they have nothing to say. that is not a critical analytical challenge to my view it's on a par with asking why red is a color.
Also, if people question your "300 studies" or point out the flaws in those studies, you get angry.
They don't have arguments about the studies. That's why I get angry because they claim they are attacking the studies when all they are really doing is asking questions. They are not even questions related to a methodological argument. On CARM the last time this come up the question was asked 'do you have statistical tables for the studies." well no of course not, where would I get them. So the assertion was made, you can't defend the studies. But no attack was made, it was just a question.
the next time they brought it up they said' "where those studies refuted and proven to be untrue?" NOoooo they asked a questions that's all. But from then on they kep saying "your studies have disproved they were no good."
That's the kid of silly, Slip shod truth by mob rule that atheists are into.
Sometimes you use personal cases to prove a point, and people (rightfully so) request proof other than "I met a guy who..."
on occasion but only in conjunction with published data. Its' idiotic and hypocritical of you to say that because I will present tons of data. I have 300 studies. I'll post a whole buffer full of quotes and they will go "you don't have any support" and the only thing they can remember is "you told a story about someone you knew" yes, along with the 300 studies I posted published material about.
I have rarely if ever called anyone stupid. I call their ideas stupid I never say "You are stupid." I say "that's a stupid thing to say." maybe that's too close to calling the poster stupid, but I used to be very careful to never say anything like that. For years I said "you have a lack of knowledge' not "you don't have the ability to think." Of course these distinctions are just lost on people.
All one has to do is look through the archives of this blog to see posts on what the atheist get up to, the bitter personal attackers they have used to mock, deride and ridicule me. They have tried to destroy my self esteem and to destroy my very ego and sense of who I am. Atheism is a hate group. Trying to argue with them that they should not do this is like a black arguing with the KKK.
Sometimes you argue, but you rarely admit you're wrong.
I am not wrong that often. I have been so,but not that much. you know if you look at tomb of Christ exchange I admitted I was wrong. That's how accurate your theory is. I just got through saying that but you didn't because you don't care what's true do you?
It's as if you don't believe that you could make a mistake or that you're arguments are foolproof. You are intelligent and make good points, please don't get me wrong. My point is that you're not right as often as you think, and you are not open to your errors.
Yes I am. Because I know I'm wrong sometimes.
I hope you don't get upset and start screaming back here. These comments are not made with emotion, and they are meant to help not hurt. This is why I went to your blog rather than one of those forums. In fact, you can delete the comment.
O yea sure. you have my best interest at heart. That's whh it's so unbiased.
Ok well thanks for helping.
By Hello, at 10:32 AM