1. "So, I'm just curious, are you willing to stop the emotionally immature juvenile antics and have one of those "intellectually honest" conversations that you speak of or not?"

2. "I take that as a "no". "

3. Show me where or stop lying about answering them.



You should just let it go....

1. That's not an ad hom. It wasn't part of my argument, let alone my argument. An ad hom is an argument that is based upon a personal attack. My arguments here are not. To quite the contrary, your name calling and avoidance of answering questions is, on my view, emotionally immature juvenile antics. I expect those sorts of things from my teenagers.

2. My bad.

3. Go look for yourself, the answers are there.

"I've always been willing. When you can respond by answering my questions without lying, deflecting or name-calling, it will continue"


I can't prove a negative, so you will have to be more precise as to what your answers to my questions were. No more lying please...

Peter, What does it take for a statement to be true?

It's intellectually dishonest for a speaker to hold a listener to a behavioral criterion during discourse that the speaker does not hold to themself. That is clearly the case at hand. Some call that a glaring sign of intellectual hypocrisy, others call it the "do as I say not as I do" mentality. I find that it is common among Christians that I know coming directly as a result of having to accept that God does not have to follow his own rules. That being said...

The above quote clearly implies, granting honest testimony, that you believe that I have lied, deflected(from something important I presume), and called you names.

I have not lied.

"Deflecting" presupposes avoiding relevant things. You've been afforded the opportunity to explain the importance of the alleged questions. I continued by adding that if you would ask a question and explain/show it's relevance, then I would answer. That offer still stands. I have already shown how the questions were irrelevant - without due attention on your part. I've already shown how others are based upon false presupposition(s) to begin with. I've already shown how some of your claims cannot possibly be true. In short, I've placed the reliability of your testimony in question.

I've not called you a name once. You, however, began overtly focusing upon my person rather than the claims immediately after I thoroughly dismantled the flimsy answer to the question I initially posed. This can still be seen by looking our first two exchanges beginning on page 9. Your focus upon my person is clearly shown in the post made on Mon 03/12/12 @ 11:30 AM. The fallacious approach has since been relentlessly riddled with appeal to ridicule, ad hom., appeal to emotion, red herring, to name a few - not to mention the name-calling that you engaged in. You openly refused to answer relevant questions in the meantime. Ironically enough, in the end, it turns out that you do not know what it takes for a statement to be true. That is because your epistemic criterion(your personal standard for belief) is insufficient, and that has already been logically proven as well.

I can. "The cup is not red" is a negative. To prove that negative, all I need to do is show you a blue one.



I think that you mean to say that one cannot prove that something does not exist. Thus, your claim about my lying is indefensible because I cannot prove that lies do not exist in my testimony. It is also of no value. No one can. Knowing that that is the case helps keep the conversation on intelletually honest grounds by avoiding such trite claims. I also cannot prove that invisible unicorns with pink and black fairy dust do not exist, and that does not matter either.

The precision you claim to seek can be found by looking at the answers themselves...

Do you own home-work. Go look.

My 1st question:
"Simple... Do you think that killing an animal or a human to "atone" for your sins is divine?"


Your answer:
"Some do and some don't Pan. That is my point. What I, or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. It cannot be both, divine and not divine. If it is human thought that determined divinity, then the verses would be both... divinely inspired and not divinely inspired, which is impossible. A verse cannot be both, for one is the negation of the other. Do you understand that? "

= deflection


My 2nd question:
"If you are going to claim that Hitler passed the "heart" test, you will have to testify that you agree with his actions."


Your answer?
"This makes no sense whatsoever, I already explained why. Perhaps it wasn't understood, for some reason. So, let me state it simply...

Hitler's actions were judged right by his own heart(conscience), not mine. It does not follow that I must agree with his actions."


= deflection



Both together equals your lies about answering my questions.



Look, you've got nothing of substance to offer, so just let it go...

Now, to justify my own claim.
Check what you wrote here Morning Song.

"God of this world system."

YOU USED GOD AS A TITLE.

Signed.
And.
Sealed.

for the person that wrote this...

"Hitler's actions were judged right by his own heart(conscience), not mine. It does not follow that I must agree with his actions."
-------------------------------
and the one that calls it
"= deflection"...

It is not a 'deflection' but rather a misunderstanding of the process of judgement.

Hitlers actions were judge by his heart (before he got to God).

Hitler choose suicide rather than face judgement...

Ergo his 'heart(conscience)' judged him harshly and he took his own life.

Even he did not agree with his actions (when death was close upon him).

You'll have to explain what you mean by "deflection". That is a term usually employed in order to indicate that someone is attempting to avoid something or other. If that is what you mean, then I would agree that that could be rightfully called a "deflection". That rings a hollow victory however, for what I'm attempting to deflect is irrelevance. My focus is truth, and I'm unapologetic about it. That being said...

I gave an answer. Right there it is. In that answer I showed how your answer(posed as a question) to my question cannot possibly be true. To appease your demanding nature none-the-less, I later answered with a more direct "no". I mean we agree on that, but that agreement is irrelevant. The irony here is that that particular question(the one I supposedly "deflected") was given as a response to one of my introductory questions. So, once again, you've not met your own criterion, but yet you'll hold another to it as if everyone else must abide by that which you, yourself, do not.




That is not a question first of all. Secondly, I showed how your claim is false. That is anything but a deflection. It's called a refutation.



Both are answers. You're disapproval does not change that.

--

You'll have to do much better than this Pan.

That's a lie right there...

you said:
"If that is what you mean, then I would agree that that could be rightfully called a "deflection". "


What you gave was a response...
I suggest you look up the definition of an answer.




Silly, unintelligent, juvenile, emotionally immature "answers" will just be laughed at in the future...

Have a look.

What is a lie?

We use "deflection" in slightly different ways. I'm just acknowledging your usage. I personally avoid nonsense and irrelevance, if you want to call my doing that "deflection", then I'm ok with that.

Say something relevant.

That's another lie. You deliver nonsense and irrelevance consistently.


An answer is a response to a question, not a response to avoid the question. Are you really that thick that I would have to specify a yes or no answer? Yeah, you probably are...







Just let it go....

Your argument has been reduced to this? But you stand proud as if you've accomplished something worth while? What a wonderful example of one's own heart at work and on display.

---

Well... uh... er... uh...

I can call you names and laugh. I can make fun of you and that makes me right. Look, see... I'm doing it and I'm right. That proves that I'm right. I can make claims that I do not back up. I can use the same words you do in those claims. That makes me right. You're too thick, and I'm right. I can predict the future. Go look, it's on page 10. I'm right and you're wrong. You're a liar. See look, that's a lie. I know that you're lying because I do not know what makes that claim true. I can soundly judge what is or is not divinely inspired, even though I do not know what makes a statement true. I can... I can...

I can call you names... you're schizophrenic, and I'm not. My saying that makes me right. I can predict the future. Prove me wrong.





Wear your badge Pan, and wear it proudly... you've earned it.

Peterpan I think you are the person who should "just let it go."