“God is dead.”

George Vreeland Hill

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163810/Gay-couple-sue-Christians-barring-hotel-bed.html

thought you might find this interesting..

“I disagree, I think that in general, people should be more concerned with the fact that what a guy is saying is a bunch of transparent bullshit, and less concerned with whether he says them in a pleasant tone or a confrontational one”
I agree to some extent. People should be more concerned with the meaning that with the way to express a sentence. I also don’t think that your exemple applies in anyway to the confontation between brgulker and aor. And my opinion is that Aor has been unfair with brgulker.

I do really appreciate that a reasonable christian can express his opinions in this website, and accusing him repeteadly of lying or being hipocritical is not the way I would choose to react -unless he deserved it, and again, my humble opinion is that this was not the situation.

Not willingly, but since you’re both levelling the exact same accusations at each other and it’s gone on for days on this thread alone, if it was me I’d have called it quits by now and just expended my energy on something else. I do think (and please don’t take offense, I’m just being honest) that your tone with gulker is generally confrontational from the outset, and that doesn’t leave much chance that he won’t get offended. I have to say that from my point of view he’s one of the few reasonable theists I’ve ever debated.

I disagree, I think that in general, people should be more concerned with the fact that what a guy is saying is a bunch of transparent bullshit, and less concerned with whether he says them in a pleasant tone or a confrontational one.

We got a lot of this during the beginning of the Iraq War, when it was suddenly perfectly acceptable to say all kinds of horrible, disgusting things like supporting genocide, and take all sorts of inhumane positions, like torture is OK, as long as you do so politely. But calling these polite people out on their positions became out of bounds because everyone is entitled to spout off a bunch of nonsense as long as they do so politely.

It’s just a stealth way of injecting irrational bullshit into a discussion to sidetrack it. I’m nice and polite to people who deserve it, it’s a meritocracy.

Now, he’s answered my point in a thoughtful way which has clarified the discussion for me – and on that point he’s quite right, there is a significant difference in the way we as a group have reacted to the two incidents, because the two incidents were very different and we were reacting to different elements of each story – a point gulker has already accepted.

So if he ‘accepted’ it, then what the hell was his point in the first place? His entire premise was that people were treating two *similar* situations differently, because one incident pro-atheist and one was anti-atheist, and they were being biased. Once you realize that the two situations weren’t similar at all, then his entire silly premise evaporates.

I’ll give you an example from my own comment above. I was addressing gulker about the disparity between the two articles he referred to, and you said:

I think he understands the difference, but as usual he is unwilling to admit it because it would weaken his overall position.

You’ve pre-empted gulker’s response in a very confrontational manner, which I personally didn’t see any call for, especially as gulker’s actual reply to me was:

Good point. That’s something I didn’t consider. I wouldn’t have had you not pointed that out… I think if you read my comments… you’ll see that I’m not trying to conflate the seriousness of the two events. Rather, I’m simply comparing how UF readers/authors have reacted to the two events.

Now, he’s answered my point in a thoughtful way which has clarified the discussion for me – and on that point he’s quite right, there is a significant difference in the way we as a group have reacted to the two incidents, because the two incidents were very different and we were reacting to different elements of each story – a point gulker has already accepted.

Bottom line: You’re both wound up at each other and doing the classic blog-arguing thing of seeing each others faults at times when those faults aren’t actually on display.

Chillax, dudes.

Of course you have no interest. I ask you questions that make you want to lie rather than answer honestly. Why would you want to keep being put in a position where you have to lie? You lied about me on this very thread. I challenged you to back up your claims, and you lied to cover up your lie, again. This is predictable behavior from you. When you get challenged, when someone you don’t like makes a point you can’t deal with.. you lie. You accuse me of hypocrisy and when challenged to back it up, you play your little bullshit games.

You can play the victim all you like, but its not convincing.

I have already referred to the hypothetical about the Maya, where you played your little games. If you want me to link to that post I’m sure I could do that easily enough. On the other hand, you don’t seem to want to provide some example of my hypocrisy.. a real example, not another of these self serving lies of yours.

Yeah, I know you won’t respond. That is because you are smart enough to know when you have been caught in a lie, but not honorable enough to admit to it. This, again, is why I come down you regularly.. you are a cowardly liar who refuses to back up his claims.