^If you are ignorant, then go and read a bit about the issue and get yourself informed.

Enigma:

^If you are ignorant, then go and read a bit about the issue and get yourself informed.

Still running from your assertions I see. For some reason, you seem to find it difficult to take to corrections. This is why I pointed out to you that you generally make blind and unsupported assertions. You now desire that I do your work for you. Get off your bottom and support your own claims.

^^^And you are still as duplicitous and dishonest as ever. If you want to know about the god that Antony Flew believed in, go and read up on it; how many things do you want me to teach you? First, it was basic comprehension, then about Antony Flew's beliefs -- what next?

Enigma:

^^^And you are still as duplicitous and dishonest as ever. If you want to know about the god that Antony Flew believed in, go and read up on it; how many things do you want me to teach you? First, it was basic comprehension, then about Antony Flew's beliefs -- what next?

It seems you've now moved up to directly making false claims. If you're having some problems recalling what it is that you've presented, simply go back and read your previous posts. They show that you are actually unable to understand your own statements not to speak of understanding mine and that you're yet to identify Antony Flew's God. Note that I never asked about his beliefs just about his God.

^^^ Whether it is Antony Flew's "beliefs" or his god or the god he believed or even his belief in god (whichever is simple enough for you to understand) that you want to learn about, I refuse to be your teacher. With the poor comprehension that you have displayed you will make a poor student (of mine) anyway; I suppose that is one of the reasons why you refuse to perform the simple task of going to read up on the subject. You may turn to one of your fellow evangelical atheists; perhaps they'd be willing to accept you as a student?

Meanwhile, here is a sample of why, as a result of your poor comprehension and/or dishonesty, you cannot be a student of mine and I refuse to be your teacher.

Your original question:

thehomer:

Which God did Anthony Flew believe in?

In a different form:

thehomer:

I wasn't aware that he believed in any particular God. Your post seemed to indicate otherwise. So which God was it? . . . .

And again:

thehomer:

Assume I'm ignorant, why don't you simply point out the God he believed in?

And you are not ashamed to say (or lie bold-faced) that you were not asking me about his "beliefs"?

thehomer:
. . . . Note that I never asked about his beliefs just about his God.

In fact there is no need for me to assume that you are ignorant as you requested earlier; you have by yourself confirmed your ignorance, poor comprehension as well as, for that matter, duplicity abundantly. You simply cannot be a student of mine, so I will continue to refuse to teach you that which you want to learn. 

Enigma:

^^^ Whether it is Antony Flew's "beliefs" or his god or the god he believed or even his belief in god (whichever is simple enough for you to understand) that you want to learn about, I refuse to be your teacher. With the poor comprehension that you have displayed you will make a poor student (of mine) anyway; I suppose that is one of the reasons why you refuse to perform the simple task of going to read up on the subject. You may turn to one of your fellow evangelical atheists; perhaps they'd be willing to accept you as a student?

I'm not asking you to teach, I'm simply asking you a single question whose answer will show your false statements. The question is simply "which God did Anthony Flew believe in"? This is why you've been trying to duck and dodge. Note that it is a single question. This is a well known and popular tactic called the Socratic method (simply follow the link). Your evasions only show that your statements are false and you've noticed this thereby causing you to try to obfuscate the issue.

Enigma:

Meanwhile, here is a sample of why, as a result of your poor comprehension and/or dishonesty, you cannot be a student of mine and I refuse to be your teacher.

Your original question:

In a different form:
And again:
And you are not ashamed to say (or lie bold-faced) that you were not asking me about his "beliefs"?
In fact there is no need for me to assume that you are ignorant as you requested earlier; you have by yourself confirmed your ignorance, poor comprehension as well as, for that matter, duplicity abundantly. You simply cannot be a student of mine, so I will continue to refuse to teach you that which you want to learn. 

Wow. You really are a case study of fallacies. I asked you a single question, you kept evading rather than doing what an honest person would do which is to provide the answer. Note that you made a claim to knowledge and I was only trying to find out if you could back up that claim.

You finally ended your post by quote mining my post. You took my quote out of context thereby distorting the implication. That is a tactic done by dishonest people and ignorant people. That too is known as the fallacy of quoting out of context.

thehomer:

Enigma link=topic=715030.msg8796667#msg8796667 date=1311723880:

^^^And you are still as duplicitous and dishonest as ever. If you want to know about the god that Antony Flew believed in, go and read up on it; how many things do you want me to teach you? First, it was basic comprehension, then about Antony Flew's beliefs -- what next?

It seems you've now moved up to directly making false claims. If you're having some problems recalling what it is that you've presented, simply go back and read your previous posts. They show that you are actually unable to understand your own statements not to speak of understanding mine and that you're yet to identify Antony Flew's God. Note that I never asked about his beliefs just about his God.

When my statement is placed in context as shown above, it becomes clear that I was only asking you about the God Anthony Flew believed in and not his other beliefs. So, I was only asking about a single belief of his which you claimed knowledge to and not his other beliefs which you seemed to think I asked for and I clarified that I wasn't asking about. Yet, you misunderstood what I said? Talk about failure of language comprehension.

thehomer:

I'm not asking you to teach, I'm simply asking you a single question whose answer will show your false statements. The question is simply "which God did Anthony Flew believe in"? This is why you've been trying to duck and dodge. Note that it is a single question. This is a well known and popular tactic called the Socratic method (simply follow the link). Your evasions only show that your statements are false and you've noticed this thereby causing you to try to obfuscate the issue.

Show us that you are not ignorant or duplicitous; provide the answer to your own question and then prove that I made a false statement. If you were a decent student paying enough attention, you would have noticed that that was essentially my first response to you (as far back as post # 37). 

thehomer:


Wow. You really are a case study of fallacies. I asked you a single question, you kept evading rather than doing what an honest person would do which is to provide the answer. Note that you made a claim to knowledge and I was only trying to find out if you could back up that claim.

Now you are showing yourself to be the liar that you are; set out the "claim to knowledge" that I made ---- or accept the appellation liar.

thehomer:
You finally ended your post by quote mining my post. You took my quote out of context thereby distorting the implication. That is a tactic done by dishonest people and ignorant people. That too is known as the fallacy of quoting out of context.

Your words speak for themselves, mate! 

thehomer:

When my statement is placed in context as shown above, it becomes clear that I was only asking you about the God Anthony Flew believed in and not his other beliefs. So, I was only asking about a single belief of his which you claimed knowledge to and not his other beliefs which you seemed to think I asked for and I clarified that I wasn't asking about. Yet, you misunderstood what I said? Talk about failure of language comprehension.

Now here you confirm what I have been saying that you cannot be my student because of your poor comprehension. You'd better take my advice and ask one of your fellow evangelical atheists to be your teacher. Anyway, read the post of mine #66; in fact for once I'll simplify it for you since your comprehension is that poor.

Enigma:

^^^And you are still as duplicitous and dishonest as ever. If you want to know about the god that Antony Flew believed in, go and read up on it; how many things do you want me to teach you? First, it was basic comprehension, then about Antony Flew's beliefs -- what next?

And you dare talk about "context" when you are unable to discern the usage of a word in context in a single extremely short (edit: i.e. one sentence) paragraph!

Enigma:

Show us that you are not ignorant or duplicitous; provide the answer to your own question and then prove that I made a false statement. If you were a decent student paying enough attention, you would have noticed that that was essentially my first response to you (as far back as post # 37). 

Still showing your problem with  English comprehension of an English Wikipedia article. Read that article. It is to show that you are the one to answer the question that shows your contradiction.

Enigma:

Now you are showing yourself to be the liar that you are; set out the "claim to knowledge" that I made ---- or accept the appellation liar.

My my. You've forgotten so soon the claim you made? Follow this link to where you made the claim.

Enigma:

Your words speak for themselves, mate! 

Of course they do. They show clearly your fallacies.

Enigma:

Now here you confirm what I have been saying that you cannot be my student because of your poor comprehension. You'd better take my advice and ask one of your fellow evangelical atheists to be your teacher. Anyway, read the post of mine #66; in fact for once I'll simplify it for you since your comprehension is that poor.

Here again, you refer me to the post of yours in which you claimed I asked you for more than identifying Flew's God. I'm not asking for a teacher, but simply using the Socratic method to show you that you have made a false claim. Here's a suggestion, why don't you read the article I linked to in my last post?

Enigma:

Enigma:
^^^And you are still as duplicitous and dishonest as ever. If you want to know about the god that Antony Flew believed in, go and read up on it; how many things do you want me to teach you? First, it was basic comprehension, then about Antony Flew's beliefs -- what next?

And you dare talk about "context" when you are unable to discern the usage of a word in context in a single extremely short (edit: i.e. one sentence) paragraph!

This is indeed laughable. You're unable to even count the number of sentences in your own paragraph. If you're making such basic mistakes, I guess I shouldn't expect much from you.
You're starting to bore me like you did before. Oh well I guess I should have expected such from one of your ilk.

thehomer:

Still showing your problem with  English comprehension of an English Wikipedia article. Read that article. It is to show that you are the one to answer the question that shows your contradiction.

What Wikipedia article is that then for goodness' sake? Well, I won't be surprised if Wikipedia is the beginning and end of your knowledge on a given subject; in fact it seems to show in how uninformed you are. 

thehomer:
My my. You've forgotten so soon the claim you made? Follow this link to where you made the claim.

Set out the claim --- or you dare not for fear of being shown up? If you can set out any claim and which you allege to be false, prove it false --- unless again you are afraid of being shown up! 

thehomer:
Of course they do. They show clearly your fallacies.

Self-deceit is bad for your well being, mate! 

thehomer:
Here again, you refer me to the post of yours in which you claimed I asked you for more than identifying Flew's God. I'm not asking for a teacher, but simply using the Socratic method to show you that you have made a false claim. Here's a suggestion, why don't you read the article I linked to in my last post?

Socratic method kọ, Zico method ni! Or is it Platonic, maybe Aristotelian? Bottom line you are suffering from foot and mouth disease; you put your foot in your mouth with your falsehood and now you don't know how to get it out. It can be honourable to withdraw false claims, you know. Anyway, I suppose it is not even right to associate honour with you. 

thehomer:
This is indeed laughable. You're unable to even count the number of sentences in your own paragraph. If you're making such basic mistakes, I guess I shouldn't expect much from you.
You're starting to bore me like you did before. Oh well I guess I should have expected such from one of your ilk.

Yeah, my bad (hurried edit); you score oh! So I redraft:

And you dare talk about "context" when you are unable to discern the usage of a word in context in a single extremely short paragraph!

Enigma:

What Wikipedia article is that then for goodness' sake? Well, I won't be surprised if Wikipedia is the beginning and end of your knowledge on a given subject; in fact it seems to show in how uninformed you are. 


Set out the claim --- or you dare not for fear of being shown up? If you can set out any claim and which you allege to be false, prove it false --- unless again you are afraid of being shown up! 


Self-deceit is bad for your well being, mate! 


Socratic method kọ, Zico method ni! Or is it Platonic, maybe Aristotelian? Bottom line you are suffering from foot and mouth disease; you put your foot in your mouth with your falsehood and now you don't know how to get it out. It can be honourable to withdraw false claims, you know. Anyway, I suppose it is not even right to associate honour with you. 

Yeah, my bad (hurried edit); you score oh! So I redraft:

And you dare talk about "context" when you are unable to discern the usage of a word in context in a single extremely short paragraph!

Oh well. I guess I shouldn't have expected much from you. Usually when I engage in discussions, I try to actually find out what the other person thinks. But in this case, you seem to see it as a game of cat and mouse trying to hide and evade even when asked direct questions, presented with logical reasons for the questions and the validity of the questions with satisfactory references showing the plain reasoning behind them.
You have managed to bore me so I see no reason to continue this discussion any longer.

Good luck to you.

^^^You always had nothing sensible to say and now you are running away because you know that you are about to be exposed.

Your question asked in an arrogant manner has a very simple answer as you should know (but maybe you are really ignorant) with the answer coming from the mouth of Flew himself in a range of sources. In fact, even one of your fellow evangelical atheists, unprompted, tried to answer your very question on another thread, albeit his attempt was inadequate as to be expected. You can turn to him to be your teacher; I won't be.

However, when the dust of this thread has settled down I might actually one day open a separate thread dealing with Anthony Flews' "beliefs" including his god.

@the homer.
Forget it, the guy is like Olaadegbu's twin. Look how repeats evangelical atheist like a mantra. It's active self deception. Same thing when they say, "you need faith to accept evolution."

It's like being the sane doctor in an asylum and the patients swear you're the crazy one!! F-cking christians, they'll swear the sky is purple instead of blue to protect their delusions.

Ah, the putative teacher shows up but asks his prospective student to run because he had failed here just like the teacher himself had failed miserably on the other thread. The blind leading the blind. All good.

Martian:

@the homer.
Forget it, the guy is like Olaadegbu's twin. Look how repeats evangelical atheist like a mantra. It's active self deception. Same thing when they say, "you need faith to accept evolution."

It's like being the sane doctor in an asylum and the patients swear you're the crazy one!! F-cking christians, they'll swear the sky is purple instead of blue to protect their delusions.

Yeah. It is quite sad to see them in such states. I usually have high hopes when dealing with people like them but when a discussion that could get serious turns into one of consistent fallacies without rectification, evasions and an inability to defend their own assertions. Thus there really is no need to continue. Since they've thus shown themselves to be unteachable and serve as a poor teaching aid (except of course as demonstrations of fallacies in action).

Well, good riddance to the parade of intellectually dishonest evangelical atheists; they are like bullies and, as is the case with bullies sometimes, when you stand up to them they soon prove themselves to be much weaker than they portray after all. The case of the evangelical atheists is particularly pathetic; they have certain stock arguments, are usually obtuse (deliberately or indeliberately) and have certain dishonest methodologies that are easily recognisable by discerning people. In the final analysis, they are usually empty barrels. How do they say in some western parts of America? "They are all hat and no cattle". Well, let's use a description from nearer home in Nigeria:

Breeze5000:
. . . . A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes,  Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. [/b]Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and [b]I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . . .

thehomer:

Yeah. It is quite sad to see them in such states. I usually have high hopes when dealing with people like them but when a discussion that could get serious turns into one of consistent fallacies without rectification, evasions and an inability to defend their own assertions. Thus there really is no need to continue. Since they've thus shown themselves to be unteachable and serve as a poor teaching aid (except of course as demonstrations of fallacies in action).

Seconded. The poor guy even fancies himself as a teacher,LOL. The phrase Evangelical Atheist is just hilarious. It is just like militant atheist whatever that is supposed to mean. But I suppose if you say enough times it will eventually mean something. I figured it was a matter of time before you became tired of it.

PS. Uh oh. I can already hear the clattering of a distant keyboard in response. Oh no it is just more of the same empty assertions, fallacies, Evangelical Atheist taunts. Wait he probably even going to copy this sentence and changing only few words around too.

Idehn:

Seconded. The poor guy even fancies himself as a teacher,LOL. The phrase Evangelical Atheist is just hilarious. It is just like militant atheist whatever that is supposed to mean. But I suppose if you say enough times it will eventually mean something. I figured it was a matter of time before you became tired of it.

PS. Uh oh. I can already hear the clattering of a distant keyboard in response. Oh no it is just more of the same empty assertions, fallacies, Evangelical Atheist taunts. Wait he probably even going to copy this sentence and changing only few words around too.

Yeah. I've shown him the errors of his ways but he simply refuses to accept correction. One can only do so much before giving up on some types of intellectual discussions with certain characters.

Oh, the evangelical atheists are still here whining!

OK, here again one more time:

Breeze5000:
. . . . A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes, Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. [/b]Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and [b]I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . . .