In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Standard Curtis context-shifting. He can't respond to my point, so he shifts the context and claims it's a "straw man" (even though he had insisted on precisely what I addressed).
C: No it is either your misread or my imprecision of language. But rest assured that I think he is presenting the elements of classical theism just fine. It is his conclusion about them and his use of them as a club O' Bullshittery for atheists that I object to. Ordinarily this clarification on my own meaning would be enough. But not on the crazy train! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : -In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : For the record, Feser's "position on classical theism" is not significantly different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd. C: I already said his summation of the position was a good one. What is absurd is your attempt of making a straw man out of it. But Feser does deserve some personal attention for other reasons. The way he is using this argument for his conservative agenda. That is where I singled him out personally, not for the content of the standard classical ideas themselves. Curtis (quoted below): "So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need to address..." All of a sudden now it's not his position on classical theism as the strongest argument for theism that's absurd, but his conservative agenda. Obviously I don't agree with his "conservative agenda." What I've been promoting as the strongest argument for theism has nothing to do with whether or how someone uses it to support an agenda other than theism. Of course keeping those two things straight is not in your interest is it? Looks like you who is having trouble keeping them straight. J:Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've experienced far too much of your dirty debating tactics to be willing to go another round with you. C: That word choice is soooo familiar...can't place it though. Your debating tactics haven't changed. Why should my description of them change?.. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons... you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both of us... then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU. Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date. Even your insults are parroted from someone else. To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. Kids were out this week. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as "dirty." You're dirty, Curtis. But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
