Der Trihs Your argument by assertion is not compelling in an honest debate. I am done giving you attention. You have not provided any evidence for anything.
Huh. Didn’t see THIS happening…
Is THIS really what the dope is? Really? A bunch of people who enjoy being angry and bashing people’s misunderstood statements? And then when it happens back, calling it a strawman?
Being so mad you can’t actually even converse fairly? The OP is drivel. The OP looks hateful or resentful. A tree is known by its fruits.
How Goth. Nietzche is heavily influenced by Christianity. Being reactionary to is being influenced by.
Really? It’s better to argue with those who are insisting I said something I didn’t say than to argue with the person who understood what I was getting at?
:rolleyes: And mswas goes for the “You are not WORTHY !” defense again.
And considering all the “arguments by assertion” you make, without a shred of evidence, you are hardly in a position to complain that someone else is doing so.
I am having trouble reading this. It’s meaning is anomalous.
I asked you for cites multiple times. You came back with nothing. No, you aren’t worthy.
LOL.
Point made - I’ll continue posting in the pit.
Never did really miss kindergarten…
Damn! You’ve got me pegged.
Influenced by, yes. Underpinned by, no. And it’s the latter you’re asserting. If your “hypothetical” worked out, then even if there is no God, the things done in counter to that still stand - you can’t have it both ways - if removing god erodes religious morality, how can it also it erode anti-religious morality? Surely it must strengthen it?
Yes.
It’s kind of difficult to argue with people who aren’t even on the same page that you are. Sorry.
Although I typically agree with you, I do not agree that Christianity ‘defines’ my morality. I also know of no evidence to suggest that my moral reasoning differs meaningfully from someone living in Asia.
This isn’t EASY Debates, you know. You’ve got to REPRESENT, you know what I’m saying? We don’t want some slack soft-pedalling shit up in here. We want the Master Debaters. Master the Debate, don’t let the Debate Master you.
Yeah, but when I clarify my position you accuse me of lying. Doesn’t leave much wiggle room does it?
You: You’re implying this!
Me: No I’m not!
You: Yes you are, now support your argument!
Me: But that’s not the argument I’m making!
You: Support it!
This is of course completely at odds with the empirical evidence, which strongly indicates that the DSM definitions of mental disorders hold across cultures and countries.
And in the 120th minute to boot.
Anyway, you win. See you in hell!
Well done my friend. 
I see. So how do you explain the child that has ADHD in one environment but is fine in another?
Not in this thread I haven’t.
Why’d you need to wiggle?
I have made no such style of argument here. I’ve attacked your stated premises, like the central religious basis for morality and the view that atheist arguments are necessarily emotionless.
What I’ve said in the Pit about your debate style is for the Pit. The only remarks I made here were about dodging the hard questions/stubborn opponents. You don’t win even Devil’s Advocate debates by throwing your hands up in the air and going “AAARGH!”
I don’t recall you asking for cites at all.
I responded directly to several of your posts. So I don’t know what you are talking about.
Wait a sec… does this boil down to “every atheist is different” or not?
If so, then if mswas thinks he can be the atheist sociopath… let him.
How about I explain it as an irrelevant anecdotal comment until you post some cites?