tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post3387071718479886092..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Great Hittite Wars, Part IV: Lying Christian Egyptologist M. G. Kyle? / "DagoodS" Disputes Sir A. E. Wallis Budge's Hittite SkepticismDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-39100088286523021652011-01-26T12:21:20.480-05:002011-01-26T12:21:20.480-05:00I linked at the end of the post to DagoodS' pa...I linked at the end of the post to DagoodS' parting shot. Here was my summary:<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />(relentless misrepresentations of my arguments, repeating dumb things back that have been clarified 3, 4, 5 times or more, compete with numerous personal attacks and additional falsehoods: "many Christians [including me] embrace non-truths to sustain their belief without researching. . . . persecution complex. . . . tenuous rationalization . . . claiming you didn’t mean lying when you said lying . . . name-calling, bad arguments, long-winded posts, rudely insistent on having the last word . . . dunderheads [myself and other apologists] . . . my position misrepresented, the quote-mining, the strawpeople and the refusal to clarify . . .")<br /><br />Sadly typical atheist behavior, once they have been shown to be in error . . . but this characteristic is not confined to atheists by any means. Human pride is so pervasive that folks of any belief-system are prone to fly off the handle and rationalize when they are wrong about anything, and shown to be so (especially if it is in public).<br /><br />That is the bane of apologetics and trying to attempt dialogue. One tries to be content with any true dialogue that can be had at all. Once in a while it occurs . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43331421105388951132011-01-25T19:06:27.355-05:002011-01-25T19:06:27.355-05:00More stuff added at 7 PM EST on Tuesday.
The mai...More stuff added at 7 PM EST on Tuesday. <br /><br />The main insight we have gotten from these is:<br /><br />1) DagoodS never intended to dialogue from the outset.<br /><br />2) DagoodS regards me as a liar, uninterested in truth. <br /><br />I asked him about the second thing straight out and he replied "yep." He volunteered the info. in #1. It explains a lot about his condescending behavior and ignoring of most of what I say, doesn't it?<br /><br />I then asked mutual friend and atheist Jon if he thought I was a liar, too, and he said, "I do not think you are dishonest."<br /><br />I got a kick out of the fact that:<br /><br />A) "Barefoot Bum" thinks all Christians are liars; therefore I am. <br /><br />B) DagoodS thinks some Christians are honest, but I am not among them. <br /><br />C) Jon thinks I actually honestly seek after truth, though we disagree on everything.<br /><br />At least one can attempt to dialogue with a guy like Jon, who grants good faith. Discussion in any meaningful sense is clearly impossible with the other two, with all that baggage and nonsense, coming in.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-38557727722831286982011-01-24T16:09:05.345-05:002011-01-24T16:09:05.345-05:00I've added a few more little exchanges. Dagood...I've added a few more little exchanges. DagoodS flatly admits he has no interest in dialogue with me (which I've been saying for some time now). I'm through with this, having spent more than enough time on it already.<br /><br />As always, I'm happy to let readers read my side and the opposing arguments, and make up their own minds. It's not a full-fledged dialogue, since DagoodS never intended to do that from the outset, but I have included all of his comments on my blog, so that people can hear his side: at least as much as he wants to explain of it.<br /><br />The latest additions to the post were added at 4 PM EST on Monday.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24694953225186199462011-01-23T15:36:00.939-05:002011-01-23T15:36:00.939-05:00DagoodS has made a few dinky, obscurantist comment...DagoodS has made a few dinky, obscurantist comments in his combox and I responded: added to the end of the post at 3:30 PM EST Sunday.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-55682159451876140852011-01-21T19:13:02.376-05:002011-01-21T19:13:02.376-05:00http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/83445/Si...http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/83445/Sir-Wallis-BudgeConfiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-89291149594536265812011-01-21T19:11:42.381-05:002011-01-21T19:11:42.381-05:00DagoodS is really flailing about in desperation no...DagoodS is really flailing about in desperation now. Methinks he senses the battle has been lost.<br /><br />By the way, as a pedantic point of style, it's "Sir Ernest," or "Sir Wallis," or "Sir E.A.T. Wallis," but never "Sir Budge." Budge was his family's surname, but his proper names were Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis. Out of courtesy one would address him as Sir Ernest, but since he usually went by the name "Wallis Budge," or more extensively "E.A.T. Wallis Budge," the proper form of address would be "Sir Wallis." That's because it is the individual, not his family, upon whom the knighthood is bestowed.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.com