Changing the Subject

I've noticed that when debating with religious apologists, they will sometimes change the subject as a way to avoid the questions they can't answer.  Here is a recent example...

#	Thread	Commentary
1	Meriam Ibrahim
2	Posted by JimC  on 3 Jun 2014 at 3:43PM
3	I was reading about the Sudanese woman, Meriam Ibrahim, who has been sentenced to death by a kangaroo court in Sudan for apostasy. (Rumour has it she will be freed - but I wouldn't bet on it.)
4	I'm reassured that humanist-minded Muslims are condemning the situation. Here is one example...
5	The Meriam Ibrahim Case
6	But in my opinion their argument is the common apologist argument about interpretation. Both sides of the argument use the same scripture to justify their contradictory opinions. The humanist Muslims ignore what their Scripture actually says: Apostates should be killed.
7	To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw... No man believes that Scripture means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.
8	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
9	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 3 Jun 2014 at 9:41PM
10	I'm glad you brought this matter up--I was about to myself. It's one of the few instances of Christian persecution that has actually been mentioned in the secularist mass media.
11	I welcome that rare voice on the part of a Muslim that rejects this travesty and offers a reasoned response. Unfortunately such a voice within Islam is rare indeed.
12	Even within Sharia law the apostate would have been Meriam's father, not her--but I agree that such law is barbarous in the first place.	Actually it was her father’s family that reported her to the authorities. But never mind.
13	To quote G K Chesterton: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."	I don’t really see what this quotation has to do with the topic, it seems random, but again, never mind!
14	Just for the record, a contemporary example of the same type of travesty--if not worse--from a state atheist regime:
15	http://northkoreanchristians.com/religion-north-korea.html#steamroller	I suppose this is sort of relevant as it is an example of people being killed for having a religious belief that an authoritarian regime considers to be “wrong”.  Raises an interesting question...
16	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
17	Posted by JimC  on 3 Jun 2014 at 9:56PM
18	That does raise an interesting question: Which is worse: Killing with a religious justification for doing so, or without?
19	My first reaction is they are both as bad as each other, but thinking about it... perhaps using a religious justification is worse.
20	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
21	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 3 Jun 2014 at 10:24PM
22	From a Christian perspective, using a "religious" justification for killing--except as an inadvertent defensive action to prevent a greater travesty from occurring--would be worse.	We share the same perspective. That’s good!
23	Should a Hitler or Stalin arise--who is hell bent on slaughtering innocents--then all efforts to dissuade or remove them from power--including lethal force as a last resort--ought to be considered. The difference in such a case is to always seek the greatest good and least harm from the overall concern, based on an objective sense in a HMFR.	How is any of that connected to the topic?
24	Only a perspective based on a belief in an objective morality would lead one to oppose such evil unless one were the direct victim of such an attack, of course. Atheism cannot provide a common basis for why another individual under attack for whatever reason should lead to their--or anyone else's-- sacrificing themselves on the victim's behalf.	Ah... I think I can see where this is going. Christians good – atheists bad. Ho hum.
25	That is why state atheism devolved quickly into totalitarianism because of the lack of a common, objectively-based morality that would have opposed such.	This is a whole new topic.
26	"Religion" of course exhibits a common moral concern rooted in a sense of objective morality. Such provides for cooperative opposition to objective evil--even at the expense of personal sacrifice.	This is another new topic.
27	Good luck to all you atheists who believe your society will survive as is--including all civil rights and guarantees to those not in power positions--once you eliminate (in one way or another) all traces of Christianity within such!	This appears to be a somewhat paranoid assumption that “all us atheists” are attempting to eliminate all traces of Christianity.  Again – a completely different topic and somewhat disengaged from reality in my opinion.   Let’s see if I can get us back to the topic. However, I don’t want to be accused of ignoring points raised, so I will need to say something about the three new topics that have been tossed into the mix.  However, when I say “new topics” that is not strictly true – they are very old topics discussed on this discussion board many, many times before.
28	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
29	Posted by JimC  on 3 Jun 2014 at 10:52PM
30	I've yet to see anyone trying to justify the killings you refer to in North Korea. But I see lots of attempted justifications for religiously motivated killings throughout history and in the present day. I think such justification adds an extra dimension of hypocrisy (and potentially encouragement) to the evil killing, hence my opinion of which is worse.
31	Regarding the other topics you've just introduced...
32	The solution to totalitarianism, religious or otherwise, in Sudan or N Korea or anywhere else, is democracy, as previously explained
33	The atheism/morality misconception has also been dealt with previously
34	Your comment that "atheism cannot provide a common basis for..." is a fallacious argument known as a category mistake, again explained previously
35	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
36	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 3 Jun 2014 at 11:23PM
37	Again, I have no objection to your exposing hypocrisy on the part of those who have--historically speaking--professed Christianity yet who have acted contrary to actual Christian principles. Of course your references often refer to the middle ages, when secular powers sought to falsely rationalize their exalted and privileged positions in Christian terms.	Modern day Islam is the equivalent of Christianity in the middle ages, in my opinion.
38	So let us examine your alternative world. Ignoring for the moment the actual judgement against those who falsely portrayed Christ, and their ultimate fate, you again argue for a world devoid of an objective sense of morality. Unless you are in an extremely powerful and privileged position--which perhaps you are since you have admitted that there are people who serve you--your progeny will perhaps fall outside such protection by the new oligarchs, devoid of any objective moral concerns in your worldview.	Er... what?  My alternative world? People who serve me?  Arguing for a world devoid of an objective sense of morality?    The discussion has truly entered the twilight zone. I really can’t decide if this is deliberate avoidance of the topic or just a habitual reaction in the face of an awkward argument.
39	My belief in Jesus the Christ is another matter. I realize that such is unlikely to convince committed atheists, even though I pray for your recognizing objective, God-given truth and the basis for such! For starters, all I can offer is a scenario of a world without such!	Evangelising.  Not helpful! The topic is officially lost, presumed dead. One more try to revive it...
40	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
41	Posted by JimC  on 3 Jun 2014 at 11:37PM
42	I'm struggling to connect what you're saying to the topic - seems you prefer to talk about me instead. A shame to avoid the topic so soon IMHO. Anyhoo...
43	When you refer to people who serve me... what on earth are you talking about?!
44	And when did I "argue for a world devoid of an objective sense of morality"?
45	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
46	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 4 Jun 2014 at 12:00AM
47	When did I ever reference you personally regarding the subject at hand? Isn't the honest truth that you have on the other hand constructed elaborate tautologies that slander me and my viewpoint through specific misrerpresentations? I have exposed a few of such, to which you have no honest answer. Of course you haven't responded on topic to such either. Smiling	Try lines 27 and 38.   And now we have this line too!
48	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
49	Posted by JimC  on 4 Jun 2014 at 12:08AM
50	You made several references to me personally - two of which I've asked you to explain. And now you're adding more to the list!
51	At least give the topic a decent burial if you're going to kill it!
52	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
53	Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 4 Jun 2014 at 12:33AM
54	Jim, I've exposed your tautologies for what they are. They slander me personally and misrepresent my views. Please don't pretend that any exposition on my part that contradicts such on topic is a "personal attack" on you. You are actually the king of personal attacks and misrepresentation of views opposed to yours!	Oh good – more comments about me!!!  And what’s this about slander? I assume he means libel. I wonder if falsely being accused of libel is libellous?!   Should I take the time to explain the meaning of the words tautology, slander and libel? (No).
55	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
56	Posted by JimC  on 4 Jun 2014 at 12:38AM
57	You still haven't explained the two most recent personal comments I asked you to explain, but never mind!
58	I'm now wondering whether this is the start of a 100 post explanation of the difference between slander and libel.
59	Bonkers!
60	Re: Meriam Ibrahim
61	Posted by A Pantheist  on 4 Jun 2014 at 6:02AM
62	and another topic bites the dust Sad	Yes, a shame that the torture and killing of an innocent woman is used as an advertisement for Christianity.