Why do atheists care. [rhet]

Originally posted by twhitehead
Furthermore you said it was a generalisation yourself at one point a couple of pages back. A generalisation but not proven I think you said.

Yes, I did say that. I have since said that I appear to have misunderstood the meaning of 'generalization'. I can be wrong and can admit it, unlike you apparently.

OK, so at last we agree that you were wrong and that the sentence in the OP is a generalisation. Thank you for admitting it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way are they exclusive? I am fairly sure that both could be true (except neither is).

[b]The post is written as a generalisation supported by only one piece of evidence.
Not true.

Let me be clear also:
I accept that googlefudge was not intending to generalise. It's semantics. It's not even poor grammar, just a careless sentence co ...[text shortened]... my claim is based solely on the example.
3. my claim is a generalization based on the example.

You have just admitted in your previous post that you were wrong and had the humility to admit it. You need to make your mind up.

Originally posted by divegeester
You have just admitted in your previous post that you were wrong and had the humility to admit it. You need to make your mind up.

I can't quite believe that you've been arguing for nine pages over whether the O.P. contains a generalization or not.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I can't quite believe that you've been arguing for nine pages over whether the O.P. contains a generalization or not.

It is astonishing.

Originally posted by divegeester
You just quoted it!

He's saying if he said "many" prefixed to his actual sentence then it's not a generalisation. I fully agree with him. But that is not what he did.

Furthermore you said it was a generalisation yourself at one point a couple of pages back. A generalisation but not proven I think you said.

No that is not at all what I was saying.

I was trying to cover all my bases and make my point absolutely clear...
apparently that just added a new point of confusion 🙁

The prefix 'many' is not a requirement for the statement not to be a generalisation.

Originally posted by divegeester
OK, so at last we agree that you were wrong and that the sentence in the OP is a generalisation. Thank you for admitting it.

No, you just misread his post.

He was saying he was wrong about what the word generalisation meant, and that with
the new definition of generalisation, the sentence in the op did not contain a generalisation.

So you have his meaning backwards.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I can't quite believe that you've been arguing for nine pages over whether the O.P. contains a generalization or not.

I can. It's typical 'moderate' theist/Christian behaviour when an atheist criticises extremists of their religion.

Rather than simply join in condemning the extremists, the moderate will instead attack the atheist, providing
cover and support for the extremist they apparently disagree with. But only ever say so as an afterthought.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No that is not at all what I was saying.

I was trying to cover all my bases and make my point absolutely clear...
apparently that just added a new point of confusion 🙁

The prefix 'many' is not a requirement for the statement not to be a generalisation.

Well why don't we agree to park the dead horse for now then, as neither of us are going to back down and the exchange is becoming increasingly convoluted and unedifying 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
OK, so at last we agree that you were wrong and that the sentence in the OP is a generalisation. Thank you for admitting it.

Blatant lies will get you nowhere and only expose the fact that you know you are wrong. I admitted no such thing and you know it.

Originally posted by divegeester
Well why don't we agree to park the dead horse for now then, as neither of us are going to back down and the exchange is becoming increasingly convoluted and unedifying 🙂

For you certainly.

Originally posted by divegeester
You have just admitted in your previous post that you were wrong and had the humility to admit it. You need to make your mind up.

Yes, I admitted that I was wrong about the meaning of the word 'generalization'. I did not admit I was wrong about what you have now claimed I admitted being wrong about, which makes you either a poor reader or a liar.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I can. It's typical 'moderate' theist/Christian behaviour when an atheist criticises extremists of their religion.

Rather than simply join in condemning the extremists, the moderate will instead attack the atheist, providing
cover and support for the extremist they apparently disagree with. But only ever say so as an afterthought.

You're generalising again! (joke) Besides I told you at least 3 times that I accepted you did not intend to generalise and that I agreed with your OP.

The rest of your post is total made-up crap. I'm not like that all, you should read my other posts/threads.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I admitted that I was wrong about the meaning of the word 'generalization'. I did not admit I was wrong about what you have now claimed I admitted being wrong about, which makes you either a poor reader or a liar.

Or you a poor communicator.

Originally posted by divegeester
Well why don't we agree to park the dead horse for now then,

Not a chance. Be man enough you admit you are wrong or forever join the flat earthers club. (freaky, sonship, robbie and a few more that would rather look utter fools than admit they are wrong about something.).

Originally posted by googlefudge
For you certainly.

Suit yourself. If i thought that I would have back out immediately.

You generalised in your OP, you've defended it poorly with miscommunication (as you've just admitted to), poor examples like "humans frequently write stories" and you lack the humility to admit you are wrong.