Doogie - After this response I will take up no more of your thread with this discussion - I'm sorry also that I do so now in my last rebuttal, but I feel angered enough not to let this pass.
Frank Ernest said:
Deflection ploy #1. Change the subject.
You made a sweeping statement about a group of people that you failed to back up, so I called you out on it.
Deflection ploy num. 1 - Attempt to make it look like Hugh's changing the subject.
All atheists/agnastycs, especially the liberal ones, have that problem.
Unbacked assertion presented as truth.
Deflection ploy num, 2 - Attempt to brand an entire group with a dishonesty label, thereby sneakily attacking the credibility of the person you're arguing with.
Let me see. This is deflection ploy #44 or thereabouts. Don't answer to the argument. Question the credibility of the arguer.
Deflection ploy num. 3 - Attempt to make it appear that original accusation was unfounded by attacking the motives of the arguer.
You're being so now with personal attacks.
Allow me to remind you that calling me a lie-beral and ag-nasty-c are examples of attack upon my credibility via unsupported assertions. I am simply questioning your intent or intellect based on the quality of your arguments, not anything else.
Was what sarcastic or not? Have you lost the thread so soon?
Deflection ploy num. 4 - Attempt to come off superior so that people feel you have the upper-hand.
Were you being sarcastic in saying 'sure' to my assertion that I lave my parents very much and vice versa?
:darwinsm: Truth is a word no atheist/agnastyc should ever use.
Deflection ploy num. 3 again.
On what grounds?
Deflection ploy #45. Claim the arguer believes what he believes only because he alone believes it. (PC version is called "Isolation.")
Deflection ploy num 5 - Strawman approach.
On the contrary, I was saying you were unpersuadable by reason. Quite different.
Original statement did not address What Christians do here. Your deflection ploy #1 - change the subject.
Deflection ploy num. 2. I did also say that your sweeping generalisation was unfounded, so I addressed both the subject and the implications of it.
The only omission from your damning criteque was christians - an obvious ploy to try and make all non-Christians look bad.
Rude ad hominem. You're being both unreasonable and vicious.
Deflection ploy num. 6 - Point at opposing party and yell HE DID IT.
Im not being unreasonable, and you are simply acting provocatively. It was merely a logical question, given the standard of your argument thus far.
:darwinsm: Deflection ploy #46. Try to elicit an emotionally defensive response. If successful, that will totally obscure the original subject and eliminate any discussion of it.
Of course not. I wish only to ponder your motivations.