John from San Jose, I agree with you totally. Neil, I always appreciate your succinct comments and it always helps to read your comments to cut right to the chase of what a thread is all about. I'll skip lots of other comments, but I do look forward to yours. Keep up the good work.
Neil's obvious gift of articulation and brevity are much apprecieated by me. From previous posts I can tell he's a well-read reformed Baptist, techie, histroy-military buff, and logician, among other things.
His are some of the first posts I look for because I know I can get the gist of what's going on in a particlar long thread from what HE says.
Maybe I should quit with the praise now, lest Brother Neil become "puffed-up", as some on this site seem to think he is.
“Neil,” I’m only curious what motivates your fallacy fetish that permeates many of your posts, not credentials as if trying to determine qualifications for your assignment. Any “credentials” I have or don’t have are irrelevant to the information that has been requested of you. I need “credentials” to ask for the sources of your statement? (Not asking anymore though, I‘m content with your answer)
Off topic clarification: My last typed sentence at 1:46pm is actually part of the response at 1:34pm, thus making it one post or one message. Sermon Audio guy had rudely cut me off, but kindly allowed me to finish speaking via Daniel2.
“…but professed Christians who make wild claims.”
You mean those who don’t believe what you do.
Sure, puff yourself up and “refute” others while sliding in your own “wild claims.”
Readers consider, they’re not all obvious like Billy Graham and Rick Warren. Of course there can never be a confession by those wise, subtle agents of Rome, just keep in mind the Jesuit oaths when dealing with professed Christians wherever they may be.
I cannot say for sure that this individual or person know as “Neil” is a dissembler or not, but he’s undoubtedly very suspicious, “a person of interest” if you will. Be careful.
I apologize then; the sarcasm was not directed towards you. I was frustrated over Luke's personal attacks & refusal to answer my simple questions on the IHOP thread, so I was actually grateful you provided a simple response. Notice I did not dispute the validity of your URL's claims, as I have not yet considered it in detail.
I am still awaiting reciprocal information about Daniel's credentials, and why mine are somehow inadequate. It is a strange thing, to be pressed on credentials by a Fundamentalist. I thought credentials only mattered to secularists.
BTW, I do not know who Eric the Mormon is. But I do not play games; truth matters.
Neil: Yes I agree that the remark was intentionally rude and sarcastic, and unlike Mike I am curious for those sources.
Your tone reminds me of Eric the Mormon Madsen who boasts of his expertise in neurolinguistic programming. I have gleaned from his discussions with others that he really doesn't know what to do when someone plays the same game he is. It's like he goes haywire and just keeps repeating the same things over and over, though worded differently at times.
I think Vigilante can decide for himself whether I was sarcastic.
Sure I learned much on the Internet, esp. from "gurus" at this site, so I admit the charge of being a kind of amateur. My ancient secular college degree has little to do with this. Do you have more respectable intellectual credentials?
Logic happens to be a powerful tool for refuting not just atheists, but professed Christians who make wild claims.
I notice that like Yamil, you changed your moniker to evade the site's restrictions on multiple posts. Situational ethics here?
Since I was a little late, I had read with interest at your latest attempt of practicing your hobby with Luke the physician, but since the thread seemed to be at an end, I figured to just let it go. (Though he sure could have used my assistance and encouragement) I do agree with Luke and it seems we have much in common, and I guess you can say we are related in Christ as it appears Luke believes the true gospel. From reading his past responses I gather he drops in for a short while then goes away for a time, kinda like doctor Wade.
I've been commenting and lurking on here longer than Luke so I'm familiar with your agenda and your stubbornness. I do wonder if you're an individual or possibly a person, a group of individuals, simply using the single name of Neil. Either way, it appears that "Neil" has an assignment.
Your statement to Vigilante was sarcastic and you know it. BTW, I think the issue is about the existence of HIV. For those that believe the virus is real, the other issue regards whether or not it causes "AIDS" or any other disease. Essentially, do germs/viruses/demons, whatever the latest terminology may be, cause disease.
But more importantly "fallacious" Neil, the readers are curious for the sources of your previous statement.
"Daniel" (are you related to "Luke the Physician"?), please read more carefully. Just because I used the word "fallacy" here does not mean I was disputing Vigilante. Actually, I had not heard of that reward before & was curious about who is offering it and why they do so. I didn't know that there are prominent researchers who dispute the HIV/AIDS connection.
I see "fallacious" Neil is still trying to practice his new hobby of trying to "win the argument." Are you fresh out of college Neil? Did you attend some "art of argumentation/persuasion" seminar recently that motivates you to exercise your new "skill" of labeling everything a fallacy except your own beliefs? Or maybe you're just spending too much time on Wikipedia or following the techniques of some guru on the Internet? Is fallacy your favorite word because you sure do use it alot?
Quickly on this point, you asked for the source for the $20,000 reward and Vigilante listed it, but then rudely implied that it isn't a fact.
Regarding your statement: "if we're sick, we don't want to sit around waiting to die just because we don't trust science, do we?"
You need more practice buddy. You criticize everybody else with their "fallacious" statements and then go and provide one yourself!
What you claim is this: 1. Sickness is something bad 2. If we are sick and do nothing, we will die. 3. The "science" mentioned is supposedly accurate but "we" just don't trust it, therefore making "us" the problem.
Other allusions in this clever statement could also be listed, though not really necessary at the moment. With that said, please provide the sources for your claims.
Please provide sources for that claim. Like US gov't NIH, CDC, etc. (since you gave a dollar amount).
Of course the causal fallacy is a problem for *any* scientific hypothesis. Nonetheless, if we're sick, we don't want to sit around waiting to die just because we don't trust science, do we?
Even if the HIV/AIDS connection is a myth, it still violates two Commandments (6 & 7) to try to infect people by fornication.
Infecting others with "HIV" is impossible because the alleged disease-causing virus has never been isolated, and I believe the $20,000 reward is still available for anyone that can find the missing virus.
2
There are a total of 21 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
christopher000 from rhode island: "thanks for helping me to make some sense of..."
