LightGigantic's Defense Thread

[Crunchy Cat]

Don’t you understand?!!!!
His “common sense” and his regurgitated criticisms only apply to others.

Words like ‘epistemology’ and ‘ontology’ are his new discoveries. Discoveries he now uses to turn the tables on those he cannot argue against in any other way.
...
...
...

All too well. The amazing thing about this meme is the effort that people will go to circumvent reality. All for the purpose of sidestepping the issue of an utter absence of supportive evidence and a presence of contradictory evidence.

 

[KennyJC]

Princes James: I don't know if I confused his name with someone elses name that began with 'P'... but I appear to have confused him with a certain someone on this forum whose name beang with 'P', who happened to post lengthy reasoned posts.

Certainly, since I became properly aware of him since this thread, it has become clear he wasn't who I thought he was. Only an utter fool could see any logic in LG's wishful thoughts (which he tries to portray with equal relevance as science).

 

[lightgigantic]

It explains any holy book and believers.

Actually it indicates the stalemate of arguments based on ad homs

 

[lightgigantic]

Princes James: I don't know if I confused his name with someone elses name that began with 'P'... but I appear to have confused him with a certain someone on this forum whose name beang with 'P', who happened to post lengthy reasoned posts.

Certainly, since I became properly aware of him since this thread, it has become clear he wasn't who I thought he was. Only an utter fool could see any logic in LG's wishful thoughts (which he tries to portray with equal relevance as science).

ad hom ad infinitum

 

[S.A.M.]

In the true tradition of the Sophists, our "learned majority" has expressed disdained for LightGigantic. Implying that he is crazy, his beliefs bullshit, and otherwise attack him, not from reason, but purely in ad hominem arguments. Few, if any, have attempted to provide rational critiques of Lightgigantic, and even our moderator has seen fit to reduce himself to ad hominem nonsense.

So thus I ask: Why? If LightGigantic's beliefs are flawed - which indeed, I too hold - why do you insist on merely disparaging instead of disproving? Can it be that we are faced with what can be construed as an Atheistic Fundementalism, which hides beyond popular pretenses of absurdity, instead of rigorous philosophic disproof?

Yet what is most disturbing is not merely the individual, but the group nature of such disparaging. It has become a popular, group-oriented thing, which has even made the moderator's turn a blind eye to the actions of many.

If any of you wish to rationally attack LightGigantic's beliefs, do so. He is wonderfully willing to debate anyone on his beliefs, even to the extent where it can take hours to finish one post. I know, as I have been so involved in conversations with him. But if not, why even post? You are simply lowering the level of the discourse here and showing both your intellectual ineptitude and cowardice.

Ironic that your opening post has had no effects on any of above, has in fact passed by those posting in this thread.

 

[KennyJC]

ad hom ad infinitum

I don't even give a crap if you cry 'ad hom' anymore. The more irrational a person is, the more attention they pay to ad homs... which is interesting.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't even give a crap if you cry 'ad hom' anymore. The more irrational a person is, the more attention they pay to ad homs... which is interesting.

Funny

I thought that the more irrational a person was the more likely they were to supply ad homs

 

[KennyJC]

That has nothing to do with irrationality/rationality.

 

[Cris]

Sam,

Ironic that your opening post has had no effects on any of above, has in fact passed by those posting in this thread.

That's because the statements aren't particularly accurate or relevant to the real issue.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam,



That's because the statements aren't particularly accurate or relevant to the real issue.

You mean "In defense of lightgigantic" is code for "let's 'av a go at 'im lov"?

 

[Cris]

sam,

You mean "In defense of lightgigantic" is code for "let's 'av a go at 'im lov"?

Interesting how you've twisted "inaccurate statements" into "let's beat him up". I think you demonstrate the real issue quite well.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

Interesting how you've twisted "inaccurate statements" into "let's beat him up". I think you demonstrate the real issue quite well.

Interesting how you do the same yourself.

 

[lightgigantic]

That has nothing to do with irrationality/rationality.

The abiltity to control oneself has everything to do with rationality - ever heard of a mental patient being released on the grounds of their talent for ad homming?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sam,



That's because the statements aren't particularly accurate or relevant to the real issue.

and what is the real issue

(given that its a theistic thread and one party tends to spill into an emmotional display of mob mentality techniques it seems quite obvious to many here ...... even atheists, as evidenced by the OP)

 

[Cris]

sam,

Interesting how you do the same yourself.

For example?

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

For example?

Few, if any, have attempted to provide rational critiques of Lightgigantic, and even our moderator has seen fit to reduce himself to ad hominem nonsense.

Yet what is most disturbing is not merely the individual, but the group nature of such disparaging. It has become a popular, group-oriented thing, which has even made the moderator's turn a blind eye to the actions of many.

These describe it pretty well here.

 

[Cris]

sam,

How do those statements demonstrate your claim that I twist statements out of context?

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

How do those statements demonstrate your claim that I twist statements out of context?

They don't. They indicate how you demonstrate the "real" issue here.

 

[Cris]

sam,

They don't. They indicate how you demonstrate the "real" issue here.

Oh no don't change the topic because you screwed up. I showed that you twisted the issues and you said I did the same thing but now you can't find any examples.

Support your claim or apologise.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

Oh no don't change the topic because you screwed up. I showed that you twisted the issues and you said I did the same thing but now you can't find any examples.

Support your claim or apologise.

I'm not responsible for your reading incomprehension.

You said I demonstrate the real issues here quite well.

And I said you do the same (demonstrate the "real issues here" being the issues addressed by the opening post)

And I gave the examples from the opening post (hint hint).

Do you expect me to apologise for your lack of comprehension? :bugeye: