He didn't make a straw man argument because he didn't represent anyone's views falsely in the post I responded to. He simply stated that there is a such thing as evidence of conversion. Which is really interesting, because you say you believe in it, then went on a angry tirade asking how I could agree with him. Um. LOL!!!!!!!!
No, you're angry. So angry in fact that you went off for me agreeing with something a person said which you say you actually believe yourself. You're so angry as soon as he speaks you tear into him before knowing what he really said.
Hmm. Straw man? You clicked "disagree" on my post that stated I believe in evidence of conversion, then went on a tirade of what I said, disagreeing with me on it, obviously blind to what I said.
So, since you disagreed with my entire post which was in its entirety defending evidence, you made it apparent you were against it.
That would make my response a reflection of you disagreeing with evidence of conversion. Or, you're just so angry you click disagree, and aren't seeing what I say, and that we both agree (allegedly) with evidence of conversion.
It appears you're going on callow tirades without reading what I said or comprehending it.
Nope, not all agree.
Oh, but you did imply it right here, so no, I didn't misrepresent you. You responded to my post with this. It doesn't address anything I stated, and is a complete straw man. No need to say "God doesn't need evidence" in response to me because it was never implied, thus your retort was out of context. The fact is that you're not actually reading what is stated, and are just going off on tangents:
8
2
