Toni can't be blamed for misunderstanding my views because (s)he hasn't the time to read my posts but can't be accused of not being in a position to understand my posts since (s)he's totally read them. But I'm probably wrong here since I don't understand how these sites work. I have the quaint notion that views ought to be consistent across posts and days.

" the tedious little twat" Toni.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” So Crates.

___________________________________________________

Davidf,

Its like playing Whac-A-Mole. davidf comes up with his latest anti-Christian rant, I refute it, he goes back to his list of '101 reasons to hate Christianity' and comes up with his latest anti-Christian rant, I refute it, he goes back to his list of '101 reasons to hate Christianity'.....

Now he's gone full Godwin. Apparently the Church wasn't sufficiently anti-Hitler for david's liking. They should have excommunicated Adolph which would have achieved precisely nothing. But the warm inner glow of linking the church to the Nazis is too good to pass up. By the way, weren't lots of Christians killed trying to stop the Nazis? I guess that didn't count.

Meanwhile, many leaders of Islam (you know, that religion david thinks is superior to Christianity) were fully supportive of Hitler....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-004-09A%2C_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg

but that's different because.....

_________________________________________________________________

AJP is now in the face saving phase. Having previous ridiculed the idea that the deity can't be disproven he's now brack-tracking with declaration like "[only] some deities that can be disproven.”.

So how to square the circle. Now it seems that disproving 'any' type of deity is the same as disproving 'the' deity.

This'll go on for a while with AJP trying to find a form of words that allows him to deny his initial error and in a few months he'll declare that he totally disproved the existence of 'any' deity and provide copious links to this discussion knowing that (1) if people followed the links they'd see the opposite and (2)people won't follow the links. The more things change....

I see you’re still not willing to specify to what exactly “the deity” refers, mhaze.

<<Having previous ridiculed the idea that the deity can't be disproven he's now brack-tracking with declaration like "[only] some deities that can be disproven.”.>>

No, I had originally said:

“The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit [or disprove] using logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

My position has remained consistent throughout the entire discussion.

<<Now it seems that disproving 'any' type of deity is the same as disproving 'the' deity.>>

Apparently not. I feel embarrassed for you.

<<… in a few months he'll declare that he totally disproved the existence of 'any' deity …>>

I have never once claimed to have disproven 'any' and all gods. Nor have I ever inaccurately recalled a past discussion. Your accusation is unfounded.

(Watch now has he engages in equivocation with the word 'any'.)

<<… and provide copious links to this discussion knowing that (1) if people followed the links they'd see the opposite and (2)people won't follow the links.>>

A rather bold lie there, given that I often provide quotes as well.

Try pointing to one example where I have linked back to a past debate where the opposite happened to what I had claimed...

*Crickets chirping*

Do you really believe the lies you tell, or are they consciously contrived? I'm starting to find it difficult to believe that anyone, without some sort of serious personality disorder, could possibly be this mendacious.

Ad hominem and character assassination are all you have left now, aren't they? You've made such an ass of yourself with the whole omnibenevolence business you figure that if you're going down anyway, then you may as well try to take me down with you. Is that it?

It's all reasoned argument and pretence until you cross swords with people who are able to cut through your BS and poke holes in your arguments, then the real mhaze shows - a vindictive and mendacious person who will lie about anything if it means trashing someone else's reputation.

You're disgusting.

mhaze,

Since you’re having so much difficulty keeping up, I’ll recap the discussion in as simple terms as I possibly can.

You claimed that no god could be disproven:
“The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251950)

I gave an example of a god that COULD be disproven (i.e. at least one god can be disproven):
“The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit [or disprove] using logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

You said none, I said at least one.

Now, to make it look like I’ve had to concede something by changing my position, you’re pretending that my original claim was that all gods can be disproved.

This isn't the first time you've pulled this sort of trick, is it mhaze? It seems to be a common tactic of yours.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247607

When you can't win a debate, just recount the events in a way that makes your opponent look like some sort of a bumbling fool, and hope no-one actually remembers what happened.

Dear mhaze,

An unpleasant fact about Christianity is that most of the German churches supported Hitler, and their Christianity did not prevent them doing so. Attacking me for pointing that unpleasant fact out will not change that fact. It is much easier and apparently more satisfying to you to attack me than to confront that unpleasant fact.

There are many unpleasant facts about Christianity. They all can be dealt with by attacking those who point them out, but that doesn't make Christianity any better.

davidf,

"An unpleasant fact about Christianity is that most of the German churches supported Hitler"

It might be unpleasant but its not a fact. eg "With burning concern" from Pius XI or the Barmen Declaration. It is a fact that the church sought ways to continue to minister within Nazi Germany, but they didn't actively seek its support - unlike that other religion starting with I and ending with slam.

I'm gunna leave you alone now david. I can only battle so much historic ignorance.

____________________________________________________________

AJ,

"You claimed that no god could be disproven"

Nup...untrue...Never thought it, never said it, never wrote it.

....in fact said the opposite. ("That’s true if you assume that the deity sees evil/suffering in the same way as you do. So then you’ve ‘disproven’ the existence of a God that has the same values as you ie you’ve discredited that type of God.")

But don't let mere truth get in the way of your attempts to find a way to rationalise your original errors.

davidf, doesn't read the background to the Christian attempts to smuggle Jews out of Germany. He just reads the regular historians claims.