Here is what the Crock has posted in a lame attempt to misrepresent my opinion:

Here is what the Crock has posted in a lame attempt to misrepresent my opinion:

The Crock's comments are in green.

A Lesson in Arguing with ATheist "Greasie Debaters"

Here's an exchange that is instructive. Blondie is continuing his character assignation/disinformation camp again against me. This consists of treating everything I say as though it was a doge of his previous answers, when in reality he has not answered the previous argument that I made.

posts 4, then 9-11

Originally Posted by blondie View Post

#4 is an argument against your position. There are lots of different gods and some religions have no gods at all.

Actually all of the examples are bogus. No one cane agree on what the Bible says, I have shown you dozens of times that "mystical" experiences are in no way limited to religion and deductive reasoning leads to atheism.

my answer to these which has gone unanswered:

#4 of his arguments, which he fails to mention is, "correlation with world religions." It is an answer to the question of where the knowledge of what he calls god comes from. All 5 answers are:

(1) Bible
(2) the Experience of mystics
(4) correlation with world religions
(5) deductive reasoning

Note when I say 5 I mean 4. He left out number 3.

Actually I did answer and my answer was as follows:

"I've corrected you on these issues time and time again.

You never defend them or address the objections. You just restate your bogus assertions again."

The dishonesty of the Crock has no limits. It is like he assumes no one will even click on his link to see if he is telling the truth. Because he is posting on CARM and that site has a well-known policy of letting theists lie and slander, the Crock is assuming that he can just lie at will without the protection of the biased moderators of that particular hate site.

That is the point of this blog.

He continues:

your arguments are silly and ignorant as usual.

(1) no 4 is not agaisnt my position. you refuse to listen and you can't understand it anyway. This is my position not yours. you are working from stereotypes you think in stereotypes rather than actual reasoning.

Here he seems to be making the argument that the fact that all the various religions throughout history have some similarities, and thus are classified in the same term, is somehow a source of knowledge for his bizarre new age religion.

It's the basis for Anthropocentric universalism. It's based upon the universal nature of mystical experience, the common core thesis. Take the names and references to doctrines out and just describe the experiences they are all describing the same thing.

The Crock has two arguments for his religion. One is faith healing and the other is so-calledmystical experiences. Here he is arguing for mystical experiences. People from all faith traditions have experiences. Research into them has revealed that they are not limited to religion at all. Almost everyone has peak experiences. Musicians in the zone, joggers, athletes, etc.

This is certainly no source of knowledge that would point to the Crock's particular new age version of Christianity.

(2) The assertion that one can agree no the bible that applies to all form of knowledge and every book and all ideas. pointing that out is useless. that's like saying "the lights are on in this room." So what? That's just par for the course.

Here he seems to be saying that just because no one can agree on the Bible doesn't mean he isn't the one that has really figured it out.

then he comes on talking like I didn't answer what he just said: This is the very next post.

Originally Posted by blondie

I've corrected you on these issues time and time again.

Meta
Notice no mention of what I said abobve labled (1) and (2). no mention of studies no mention of what I said at all. He starts speaking as though what I said was evasive and didn't respond in reality if you look above I answered exactly both his comments which he doesn't respond to at all!
(still speaking to him:)

You never defend them or address the objections. You just restate your bogus assertions again.

you are full fo it. all you ever do is make groundless remakes with nothing to back them up and when I site source you say "your sources are always bad and must never taken seriously" hen you don't say why you just dispense the truth from on high. you never have counter evidence and you never deal with methodology.

I just answered your crap on issue 4 you have not responded, this is not a response.

your comments are misleading becasue they imply that I somehow didn't respond when in fact you did not respond.

Of course I have responded to his argument from mystical experiences a number of times. As stated above the most obvious objection is that these experiences are not specifically associated with religion. He has never addressed this objection. He just keeps restating his bogus point over and over again.

The studies he refers to are studies of peak experience, meditation, LSD studies and the like. Somehow he imagines that this is support for Christianity.

Just the way they do it. forget the facts. Just pretend I didn't answer at all and forge ahead speaking as though your correcting something in reality it's you are didn't respond. "Forge" is a good term (forge ahead) because this the action of someone who doesn't care for truth is not concerned with learning.

This is what you must do to handle these guys. you have to coutner-assert and constantly sum up what's been said so far. cut and paste previous responses to show they have not answered it.

Hopefully he will continue to make these same bogus assertions to provide amusement for the intellectually honest.