FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: alaric99x on June 10, 2012, 07:24:40 pm
-
We have no fear, the lord will protect us, we dance with poison snakes. I'm a believer, hallelujah!
- A "serpent-handling" West Virginia pastor died after his rattlesnake bit him during a church ritual, just as the man had apparently watched a snake kill his father years before.
Pentecostal pastor Mark Wolford, 44, hosted an outdoor service at the Panther Wildlife Management Area in West Virginia Sunday, which he touted on his Facebook page prior to the event.
"I am looking for a great time this Sunday," Wolford wrote May 22, according to the Washington Post. "It is going to be a homecoming like the old days. Good 'ole raised in the holler or mountain ridge running, Holy Ghost-filled speaking-in-tongues sign believers."
Robin Vanover, Wolford's sister, told the Washington Post that 30 minutes into the outdoor service, Wolford passed around a poisonous timber rattlesnake, which eventually bit him.
"He laid it on the ground," Vanover said in the interview, "and he sat down next to the snake, and it bit him on the thigh."
Vanover said Wolford was then transported to a family member's home in Bluefield about 80 miles away to recover. But as the situation worsened, he was taken to a hospital where he later died.
Jim Shires, owner of the Cravens-Shires Funeral Home in Bluefield, told ABC News that Wolford died Monday. Wolford's church, the Apostolic House of the Lord Jesus in Matoaka, will host a viewing Friday and a funeral service Saturday morning. Wolford will be buried at the Hicks Family Plot in Phelps, Ky.
Officials at the Panther Wildlife Management Area had been unaware of Sunday's event until they were notified by callers after the service.
"We did not know that this event was happening, and if we had known about it or if we had been asked for permission, permission would not have been granted," Hoy Murphy, public information officer for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, told ABC News.
Hoy said West Virginia state park rules prohibit animals other than dogs and cats on the property.
While snake-handling is legal in West Virginia, other Appalachian states, including Kentucky and Tennessee, have banned the practice in public spaces.
Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Wolford told the Washington Post magazine in 2011 that he is carrying on the tradition of his ancestors by engaging in snake handling.
"Anybody can do it that believes it," Wolford said. "Jesus said, 'These signs shall follow them which believe.' This is a sign to show people that God has the power."
Wolford said watched his own father die at the age of 39 after a rattlesnake bit him during a similar service.
"He lived 10 1/2 hours," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine. "When he got bit, he said he wanted to die in the church. Three hours after he was bitten, his kidneys shut down. After a while, your heart stops. I hated to see him go, but he died for what he believed in.
"I know it's real; it is the power of God," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine last year. "If I didn't do it, if I'd never gotten back involved, it'd be the same as denying the power and saying it was not real."-
-
We have no fear, the lord will protect us, we dance with poison snakes. I'm a believer, hallelujah!
- A "serpent-handling" West Virginia pastor died after his rattlesnake bit him during a church ritual, just as the man had apparently watched a snake kill his father years before.
Pentecostal pastor Mark Wolford, 44, hosted an outdoor service at the Panther Wildlife Management Area in West Virginia Sunday, which he touted on his Facebook page prior to the event.
"I am looking for a great time this Sunday," Wolford wrote May 22, according to the Washington Post. "It is going to be a homecoming like the old days. Good 'ole raised in the holler or mountain ridge running, Holy Ghost-filled speaking-in-tongues sign believers."
Robin Vanover, Wolford's sister, told the Washington Post that 30 minutes into the outdoor service, Wolford passed around a poisonous timber rattlesnake, which eventually bit him.
"He laid it on the ground," Vanover said in the interview, "and he sat down next to the snake, and it bit him on the thigh."
Vanover said Wolford was then transported to a family member's home in Bluefield about 80 miles away to recover. But as the situation worsened, he was taken to a hospital where he later died.
Jim Shires, owner of the Cravens-Shires Funeral Home in Bluefield, told ABC News that Wolford died Monday. Wolford's church, the Apostolic House of the Lord Jesus in Matoaka, will host a viewing Friday and a funeral service Saturday morning. Wolford will be buried at the Hicks Family Plot in Phelps, Ky.
Officials at the Panther Wildlife Management Area had been unaware of Sunday's event until they were notified by callers after the service.
"We did not know that this event was happening, and if we had known about it or if we had been asked for permission, permission would not have been granted," Hoy Murphy, public information officer for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, told ABC News.
Hoy said West Virginia state park rules prohibit animals other than dogs and cats on the property.
While snake-handling is legal in West Virginia, other Appalachian states, including Kentucky and Tennessee, have banned the practice in public spaces.
Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Wolford told the Washington Post magazine in 2011 that he is carrying on the tradition of his ancestors by engaging in snake handling.
"Anybody can do it that believes it," Wolford said. "Jesus said, 'These signs shall follow them which believe.' This is a sign to show people that God has the power."
Wolford said watched his own father die at the age of 39 after a rattlesnake bit him during a similar service.
"He lived 10 1/2 hours," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine. "When he got bit, he said he wanted to die in the church. Three hours after he was bitten, his kidneys shut down. After a while, your heart stops. I hated to see him go, but he died for what he believed in.
"I know it's real; it is the power of God," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine last year. "If I didn't do it, if I'd never gotten back involved, it'd be the same as denying the power and saying it was not real."-
*whoops*
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
That's "faith" for ya'll alright.
-
I can't find the exact quote right now, but there are a lot of good quotes from Nietzsche. Anyway, one quote mentioned the fact that if they believe so much in going to join their god, then why don't they all go right now?
The snake dancers went to their god a little earlier. However, might this perhaps be considered tantamount to suicide, and doesn't the bible specifically prohibit that, and doesn't the act of suicide deny you a place in heaven? So what do the christians say, those studious students of biblical verse, are the snake dancers guaranteed a place in heaven, or condemned to hell through the technicality of animal induced suicide?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/S0pix.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/S0pix.jpg)
Here's a pseudo-koan: Why does the spurious picture which 'sithjohnnie' posted look remarkably like the non-spurious ...
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
... ?
-
Is that all he ever says, "haters gonna hate?" Not exactly the height of eloquence, not what you might call a towering intellect. It might not be a bad idea if he attended some classes in preparation for his G.E.D. tests. Bon chance, mon frere!
-
I am a Christian. However, I don't believe in snake handling. The Lord gave us minds to think and doesn't expect us to engage in risky behavior. Have a great day!
-
your God actually does have ppl do dangerous activities... such as war in his name and that he backs up? also he had jesus die on the cross... also he tempted some guy to kill his son... and gives ppl diseases to battle... i would say alot of those are risky...
I'm glad you brought this up because I too am reminded of the sick Abraham and Isaac tale. Christians tend to believe this is a loving tale showing devotion to ones god, but never for a second even realize how horrific it is. Seriously, it's something you'd see in the plotline to a horror movie. A god that asks you to sacrifice anyone is completely evil by default-- especially your young son. I'm uncertain on how anyone could say different, unless you're into that whole wicked idea of sacrificing people in the name of your god (creeeeepyyyy....)
If this tale were told in order for it to actually be a loving tale with a heroic twist, Abraham would find out that it's only a demon disguised as Abe's god asking him to murder his son rather than the god he worships, and willfully rejects the command because he loves his son. The kind god then finds out and rewards Abraham for using his intelligence rather than willfully obeying an immoral plea from a demon disguised as this god. Wouldn't that make the story more appealing? The fact that I improved this fubar tale in 2 sentences shows how schlocky the OT is. And you people preach this stuff! :angry7:
-
your God actually does have ppl do dangerous activities... such as war in his name and that he backs up? also he had jesus die on the cross... also he tempted some guy to kill his son... and gives ppl diseases to battle... i would say alot of those are risky...
I'm glad you brought this up because I too am reminded of the sick Abraham and Isaac tale. Christians tend to believe this is a loving tale showing devotion to ones god, but never for a second even realize how horrific it is. Seriously, it's something you'd see in the plotline to a horror movie. A god that asks you to sacrifice anyone is completely evil by default-- especially your young son. I'm uncertain on how anyone could say different, unless you're into that whole wicked idea of sacrificing people in the name of your god (creeeeepyyyy....)
If this tale were told in order for it to actually be a loving tale with a heroic twist, Abraham would find out that it's only a demon disguised as Abe's god asking him to murder his son rather than the god he worships, and willfully rejects the command because he loves his son. The kind god then finds out and rewards Abraham for using his intelligence rather than willfully obeying an immoral plea from a demon disguised as this god. Wouldn't that make the story more appealing? The fact that I improved this fubar tale in 2 sentences shows how schlocky the OT is. And you people preach this stuff! :angry7:
There was nothing sick about this. You must understand the relationship between this event and Jesus. I don't really understand why those that do not believe in the bible and apparently haven't studied it to any degree would spend so much time speculating and making uneducated guesses about what something is or isn't or means or doesn't. Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive.
-
There was nothing sick about this. You must understand the relationship between this event and Jesus.
According to the biblical story, God commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. (Genesis 22:5 and 22:8). After Isaac is bound to an altar, the angel of God stops Abraham at the last minute, saying "now I know you fear God." At this point Abraham sees a ram caught in some nearby bushes and sacrifices the ram instead of Isaac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
If you consider this to be a truthful story or one of ancient mythology, no matter how much you try to throw technicalities in (as you did here), it still shows a god who demands sacrifice, so if you wish to go into it, let me stress emphasis on that major point. The fact that people who follow and preach this story shows a strange satisfaction with delusional and barbaric thinking. Perhaps they completely ignore the obvious immoral behavior and rather focus on the timeline of events that follow.
I don't really understand why those that do not believe in the bible and apparently haven't studied it to any degree would spend so much time speculating and making uneducated guesses about what something is or isn't or means or doesn't.
I had taken a course on religions a while back and this story was brought up while studying the OT. The teacher asked an odd question to one of the students who was a professed christian--
if he would sacrifice his sons or daughters if he had heard god tell him to. He happily replied "Of course" which followed with the majority of the class staring at him strangely. One person spoke up a few seconds later saying that his response was immoral, and I agreed completely. That's when I realized how poorly this story is constructed as far as having a good deity.
"Kill your son! lol jk! This little show is just a parallel of things to come!"
Fortunately such delusional behavior today is met with punishment-
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-03/justice/children.slain_1_deanna-laney-jury-rules-god?_s=PM:LAW
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive
The attempt at a personal attack aside, I'm a moral critic of this sort of stuff when it's brought up. If it's a tale of any sorts, I like to improve it (friends who write scripts for example). Certainly there's nothing unhealthy or unproductive of spotting immoral behavior that's being promoted, dontcha think? It makes for a good discussion.
-
I am a Christian. However, I don't believe in snake handling.
What are you implying; that pentacostals are not xtians because they do believe in snake handling?
The Lord gave us minds to think and doesn't expect us to engage in risky behavior.
Such unsupported assumptions are internally-inconsistant. Either people have "free will" and the ability to make choices or, they don't and are 'expected' to conform to the expectations of some hypothetical egregore/supernatural entity despite having "minds to think".
“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
-
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive.
The attempt at a personal attack aside, I'm a moral critic of this sort of stuff when it's brought up. Certainly there's nothing unhealthy or unproductive of spotting immoral behavior that's being promoted, dontcha think? It makes for a good discussion.
Perhaps he's unintentionally emphasizing that obsessive and compulsive bible-thumping is unhealthy and unprodictive, instead of applying more productive critical thinking skills to the dubious collection of documents.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/fulxkk.jpg)
-
There was nothing sick about this. You must understand the relationship between this event and Jesus.
According to the biblical story, God commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. (Genesis 22:5 and 22:8). After Isaac is bound to an altar, the angel of God stops Abraham at the last minute, saying "now I know you fear God." At this point Abraham sees a ram caught in some nearby bushes and sacrifices the ram instead of Isaac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
If you consider this to be a truthful story or one of ancient mythology, no matter how much you try to throw technicalities in (as you did here), it still shows a god who demands sacrifice, so if you wish to go into it, let me stress emphasis on that major point. The fact that people who follow and preach this story shows a strange satisfaction with delusional and barbaric thinking. Perhaps they completely ignore the obvious immoral behavior and rather focus on the timeline of events that follow.
I don't really understand why those that do not believe in the bible and apparently haven't studied it to any degree would spend so much time speculating and making uneducated guesses about what something is or isn't or means or doesn't.
I had taken a course on religions a while back and this story was brought up while studying the OT. The teacher asked an odd question to one of the students who was a professed christian--
if he would sacrifice his sons or daughters if he had heard god tell him to. He happily replied "Of course" which followed with the majority of the class staring at him strangely. One person spoke up a few seconds later saying that his response was immoral, and I agreed completely. That's when I realized how poorly this story is constructed as far as having a good deity.
"Kill your son! lol jk! This little show is just a parallel of things to come!"
Fortunately such delusional behavior today is met with punishment-
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-03/justice/children.slain_1_deanna-laney-jury-rules-god?_s=PM:LAW
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive
The attempt at a personal attack aside, I'm a moral critic of this sort of stuff when it's brought up. If it's a tale of any sorts, I like to improve it (friends who write scripts for example). Certainly there's nothing unhealthy or unproductive of spotting immoral behavior that's being promoted, dontcha think? It makes for a good discussion.
You don't understand the scripture. You don't see the relevance to Jesus. Was Issac sacrificed? You don't understand the scripture and its meaning and yet you readily make judgements about it and attempt to cast insults at those that do believe and understand it. You don't even care if you show your ignorance either but you still fill somehow qualified to label the event as sick and to attach such a vile interpretation on those who believe.
That was less of a personal attack than your attempts to insult and ridicule me for my beliefs. One such as you that takes nearly every opportunity to engage in such things should not wear their heart on their sleeves. I can hardly believe the hypocrisy you demonstrate here to make such a claim. Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.
-
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive.
The attempt at a personal attack aside, I'm a moral critic of this sort of stuff when it's brought up. Certainly there's nothing unhealthy or unproductive of spotting immoral behavior that's being promoted, dontcha think? It makes for a good discussion.
Perhaps he's unintentionally emphasizing that obsessive and compulsive bible-thumping is unhealthy and unprodictive, instead of applying more productive critical thinking skills to the dubious collection of documents.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/fulxkk.jpg)
Of course falcon9, the most religious person here, would have to chirp in as well. You preach more than anyone I know and yet you still have the nerve to accuse others of "obsessive and compulsive bible-thumping". That you are so blind in your faith that you cannot see what you do is the most hysterically funny thing I can imagine. You are the butt of your own joke.
-
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive ...
... the scripture ... my beliefs ... Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
{sequential semi-contextual quoting done to emphasize a previous point}
-
Of course falcon9, the most religious person here, would have to chirp in as well.
Since I don't adhere to any religion, (nor is 'atheism' presumptively a "religion", despite your disproven contentions to the contrary), you're barking up the wrong tree chasing those elusive "squirrels" of yours.
You preach more than anyone I know ...
You've mispelled the word "teach" however, neither is that my primary intention.
... and yet you still have the nerve to accuse others of "obsessive and compulsive bible-thumping".
Since there is an overwhelming amount of archived evidence to support that contention, it becomes conclusive and not merely an accusation.
That you are so blind in your faith ...
It's almost humorous of you to project your on blind faith in religion onto someone who holds no religious beliefs and therefore, no blind faith in them. If this is another example of your self-touted "superior critical thinking skills", it serves instead as evidence to the contrary.
... that you cannot see what you do is the most hysterically funny thing I can imagine. You are the butt of your own joke.
The irrational misperceptions of a blind-faither such as yourself carry no weight.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
-
Is that all he ever says, "haters gonna hate?" Not exactly the height of eloquence, not what you might call a towering intellect. It might not be a bad idea if he attended some classes in preparation for his G.E.D. tests. Bon chance, mon frere!
Actually that's all I ever say to you,since you basically do nothing but put down people of Faith without even the pretence of understanding what the heck you're talking about.That makes you simply a "hater".And if there's one thing to be learned around here.....
(http://i.imgur.com/jntmc.gif)
-
There was nothing sick about this. You must understand the relationship between this event and Jesus.
According to the biblical story, God commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. (Genesis 22:5 and 22:8). After Isaac is bound to an altar, the angel of God stops Abraham at the last minute, saying "now I know you fear God." At this point Abraham sees a ram caught in some nearby bushes and sacrifices the ram instead of Isaac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
If you consider this to be a truthful story or one of ancient mythology, no matter how much you try to throw technicalities in (as you did here), it still shows a god who demands sacrifice, so if you wish to go into it, let me stress emphasis on that major point. The fact that people who follow and preach this story shows a strange satisfaction with delusional and barbaric thinking. Perhaps they completely ignore the obvious immoral behavior and rather focus on the timeline of events that follow.
I don't really understand why those that do not believe in the bible and apparently haven't studied it to any degree would spend so much time speculating and making uneducated guesses about what something is or isn't or means or doesn't.
I had taken a course on religions a while back and this story was brought up while studying the OT. The teacher asked an odd question to one of the students who was a professed christian--
if he would sacrifice his sons or daughters if he had heard god tell him to. He happily replied "Of course" which followed with the majority of the class staring at him strangely. One person spoke up a few seconds later saying that his response was immoral, and I agreed completely. That's when I realized how poorly this story is constructed as far as having a good deity.
"Kill your son! lol jk! This little show is just a parallel of things to come!"
Fortunately such delusional behavior today is met with punishment-
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-03/justice/children.slain_1_deanna-laney-jury-rules-god?_s=PM:LAW
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive
The attempt at a personal attack aside, I'm a moral critic of this sort of stuff when it's brought up. If it's a tale of any sorts, I like to improve it (friends who write scripts for example). Certainly there's nothing unhealthy or unproductive of spotting immoral behavior that's being promoted, dontcha think? It makes for a good discussion.
You don't understand the scripture. You don't see the relevance to Jesus. Was Issac sacrificed? You don't understand the scripture and its meaning and yet you readily make judgements about it and attempt to cast insults at those that do believe and understand it. You don't even care if you show your ignorance either but you still fill somehow qualified to label the event as sick and to attach such a vile interpretation on those who believe.
That was less of a personal attack than your attempts to insult and ridicule me for my beliefs. One such as you that takes nearly every opportunity to engage in such things should not wear their heart on their sleeves. I can hardly believe the hypocrisy you demonstrate here to make such a claim. Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.
For the sake of the 2 people who can't figure out the subtext of the story of Abraham & Issac,God "tested" Abraham's faith,not because He didn't know if Abraham would obey(or for random kicks and giggles),but as a prophecy that He would offer His own Son (Jesus) as the Ultimate Scarifice for Sin.This shouldn't have been too difficult to understand to all the "scholars" we have here....
-
... the subtext of the story of Abraham & Issac,God "tested" Abraham's faith,not because He didn't know if Abraham would obey,but as a prophecy that He would offer His own Son (Jesus) as the Ultimate Scarifice ...
Presumably, the mispelled word was "sacrifice", (rather than some bizarre xtian scarification practice)? Nevertheless, the entire religious concept of 'soteriology', (in context), rests completely upon the alledged basis of 'salvation' which is supposedly 'grace through faith', (wherein "faith" has no rational basis due to being bereft of evidence).
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
"When faith becomes blind it dies.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
-
[/quote]
For the sake of the 2 people who can't figure out the subtext of the story of Abraham & Issac,God "tested" Abraham's faith,not because He didn't know if Abraham would obey(or for random kicks and giggles),but as a prophecy that He would offer His own Son (Jesus) as the Ultimate Scarifice for Sin.This shouldn't have been too difficult to understand to all the "scholars" we have here....
[/quote]
This is your own thoroughly naive and simplistic interpretation of these passages, or, more likely, the interpretation as related to you by your local shaman.
Your constant repetition of hatred indicates to me that anyone who doesn't indulge in your specific type of self-delusion is then automatically a hater. Your constant obsession with hatred causes me to wonder if some form of psychological counseling might not be appropriate for you and, further, shows your exemplary character as a christian. I have no doubt you would willingly and happily sacrifice your own son.
-
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive ...
... the scripture ... my beliefs ... Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
{sequential semi-contextual quoting done to emphasize a previous point}
Do you really want to play this game with me? This isn't the first time you have misquoted me and presented it as if it was genuine, in fact I think it is the third or fourth time you have resorted to such forms of deliberate dishonesty. The only point you are presenting here is the depths you would take to formulate a lie about another -- is that really what you want everyone to learn?
I am quite sure that deliberately misquoting someone is not something allowed on these forums, and it isn't something that I will tolerate again, so take heed.
-
Of course falcon9, the most religious person here, would have to chirp in as well.
Since I don't adhere to any religion, (nor is 'atheism' presumptively a "religion", despite your disproven contentions to the contrary), you're barking up the wrong tree chasing those elusive "squirrels" of yours.
Certainly it is a religion, and your colorless cat fallacy will not work to convince me otherwise. You have never disproved that it is a religion and every scrap of evidence you presented I countered with even more and additional evidence that you could only disregard since you couldn't contest it.
You preach more than anyone I know ...
You've mispelled the word "teach" however, neither is that my primary intention.
You misspelled the word 'misspelled' lol, and you do preach here at every opportunity you can and it is only your blindness that prevents you from recognizing this -- and you call those with faith, 'blind'.
... and yet you still have the nerve to accuse others of "obsessive and compulsive bible-thumping".
Since there is an overwhelming amount of archived evidence to support that contention, it becomes conclusive and not merely an accusation.
You 'thump' your bible more than anyone here and your conduct and actions are most definitely obsessive and compulsive. A person cannot mention faith or prayer without you proving absolutely true the extent you will go to to preach and thump your religion over theirs.
That you are so blind in your faith ...
It's almost humorous of you to project your on blind faith in religion onto someone who holds no religious beliefs and therefore, no blind faith in them. If this is another example of your self-touted "superior critical thinking skills", it serves instead as evidence to the contrary.
I can only assume you misspelled 'own' above (correcting you since you corrected others rudely earlier and implied error in my correct word). You are so blind in your faith that you don't even recognize it as such. You lack the critical thinking skills necessary to follow out your conclusions to the end and to contrast and compare that to what you posit about others. In order to be able to challenge someone and claim them wrong in the manner that you do then you must know with certainty that they are absolutely wrong, and if you cannot demonstrate this then you are relying on faith.
... that you cannot see what you do is the most hysterically funny thing I can imagine. You are the butt of your own joke.
The irrational misperceptions of a blind-faither such as yourself carry no weight.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
I would wager that I am far more rational than you and there is a funny "if only you knew" part to this that I would reveal had this place been not so hostile. I don't 'pretend' my beliefs and actions and faith to be anything different than what they are. I am also not blind in my faith as you seem to only be capable of understanding such a thing as faith. I can realize your confusion about it requiring blindness, especially since you don't recognize it in yourself. That makes it even more laughable in that the way you have focused upon attacking faith so strongly in others and yet you are entirely blind in that everything you accuse and attempt to insult and belittle others of is the exact image you are presenting to everyone of yourself. I am not saying this simply to trade words with you but out of genuine sincerity. If you have someone you trust to be partisan have the evaluate your posts for you and they will most likely tell you the same thing as I just did. I take the time to tell you this as you have the dogged potential to be an achiever and a doer but you are crippling your own capabilities with this blindness and self delusion.
-
Perhaps he's unintentionally emphasizing that obsessive and compulsive bible-thumping is unhealthy and unprodictive, instead of applying more productive critical thinking skills to the dubious collection of documents
I could agree, but I honestly doubt that's the case considering what Abrupt wrote below your post. However if this is also a vague compliment, I thank thee.
Of course falcon9, the most religious person here, would have to chirp in as well. You preach more than anyone I know and yet you still have the nerve to accuse others of "obsessive and compulsive bible-thumping". That you are so blind in your faith that you cannot see what you do is the most hysterically funny thing I can imagine. You are the butt of your own joke.
Ah! The ol' "atheism is a religion cuz I say it is!" belief rears it's illogical head once more.
You don't understand the scripture. You don't see the relevance to Jesus. Was Issac sacrificed? You don't understand the scripture and its meaning and yet you readily make judgements about it and attempt to cast insults at those that do believe and understand it. You don't even care if you show your ignorance either but you still fill somehow qualified to label the event as sick and to attach such a vile interpretation on those who believe.
Ah yes. I don't understand it the way you interpret it, because I see the obvious immoral behavior of the god (and Abraham to boot) in this story and you ignore it in favor of parallels to later myths. If you fail to see the moral dilemma, I could bring up a couple of others that deal with this god committing genocide just to pound the point in. Though I imagine in your eyes I will fail to understand the scripture in those cases too, right? If so, Falcon9 was aware of the same problem when he directed the pic of the horse with the blinders your way. No matter how much you want to argue, the argument for the abrahamic god being immoral and malevolent is a very strong one even in this one story.
That was less of a personal attack than your attempts to insult and ridicule me for my beliefs. One such as you that takes nearly every opportunity to engage in such things should not wear their heart on their sleeves. I can hardly believe the hypocrisy you demonstrate here to make such a claim. Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.
Please explain how people, such as yourself, believing in and promoting a god who commands human sacrifice and a man who blindly obeys such commands is not irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous. Perhaps then you will have a valid point. It is important for all of us to question things that seem wrong. This is how our morality progresses for the better.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/YOcpt.jpg)
-
{sequential semi-contextual quoting done to emphasize a previous point}
Do you really want to play this game with me?
I was merely 'playing' the same type of misquoting game which you've plied in various previous threads for the first time, (the only difference here being that I quoted your actual posted words from a single post you made - as opposed to your fabricating things I never posted and then falsely attributing some unreferenced interpretation to something I never stated). See the difference? I didn't think so.
This isn't the first time you have misquoted me and presented it as if it was genuine ...
That was no "misquote"; those are your words, excerpted from a single recent post, in this thread. Before you harp on that "excerpted" bit, if you cannot remember your own post, scroll down through this thread and perhaps discover that it was you who initially used those words to falsely characterize an opponet's position. Since you have done this several times before, (a contention which can be supported by the archived message IDs of posts in which you did so - unlike your contention, which lacks such uninterpreted objective evidence), a one-time return-to-sender of your "deliberate dishonesty" and attempt to "formulate a lie" was posted. Unless you can produce exact quotes, in context, to
support your contention that I've done what there is evidence of you doing, that would constitute another lie on your part. Got quotes?
...in fact I think it is the third or fourth time you have resorted to such forms of deliberate dishonesty.
Prove your allegations with exact, contextual quotes and so will I, (you get to go first because you were the first to make such specious allegations).
I am quite sure that deliberately misquoting someone is not something allowed on these forums, and it isn't something that I will tolerate again, so take heed.
It may well be, (although an FC moderator would have to determine that, if applicable). As for taking "heed"; there's a sublime irony and a certain hypocrisy to your warning. Ponder it or not, xtian.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/YOcpt.jpg)
What, organised atheism? I don't belong to, nor particate in, any such thing. This is as opposed to (dis)organised "religion", which does and apparently keeps on insisting upon the logical fallacy of proving/disproving a negative assertion, (e.g., 'prove santa claus doesn't exist' would require an orbital and ice-sounding search of the entire north pole which, upon completion, would have negative results challenged by 'true believers' anyway).
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
-
Atheism has a symbol now?
*looks online and sees dozens of random ones*
I choose this one!
(http://api.ning.com/files/RO9ZrH7HPHpbL-IAc50gWuwoORL2hBm6YUWoXZvPpLkSiR2fwT-bIcTwJup5GkOvK9VUwaVXGsGhdnWTS2uIyOqYQck7koRDtGVZd2jM2Mw_/jesus_buster.jpg)
*trollface*
-
Atheism has a symbol now?
*looks online and sees dozens of random ones*
I choose this one!
(http://api.ning.com/files/RO9ZrH7HPHpbL-IAc50gWuwoORL2hBm6YUWoXZvPpLkSiR2fwT-bIcTwJup5GkOvK9VUwaVXGsGhdnWTS2uIyOqYQck7koRDtGVZd2jM2Mw_/jesus_buster.jpg)
*trollface*
That's probably a closer fit than using using this one as an 'atheist' symbol:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/29eoc48.gif)
-
http://i49.tinypic.com/29eoc48.gif
HA! I'd wager most religious folk would have to say that's what atheism represents. Me? Looks like a power-up from
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Doom_II_-_Hell_on_Earth_Coverart.png)
-
http://i49.tinypic.com/29eoc48.gif
HA! I'd wager most religious folk would have to say that's what atheism represents. Me? Looks like a power-up from
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Doom_II_-_Hell_on_Earth_Coverart.png)
In a way, it could be however, most religious adherents would be more likely to make other erroneous assumptions about teh symbol.
*chuckle*
-
{sequential semi-contextual quoting done to emphasize a previous point}
Do you really want to play this game with me?
I was merely 'playing' the same type of misquoting game which you've plied in various previous threads for the first time, (the only difference here being that I quoted your actual posted words from a single post you made - as opposed to your fabricating things I never posted and then falsely attributing some unreferenced interpretation to something I never stated). See the difference? I didn't think so.
Damn girl you are still crying about that? It has been how many months ago that you made that false claim, two, three? For likely twenty pages (if not more) we had to suffer through your tears about how you imagined yourself to be grievously wronged and never once did you provide any proof other than the degree in which your feelings were hurt. I forcibly call you a liar on this as it was you that contextualized my posts and misrepresented me then by inserting different quotes of mine following posts of yours to make it appear that statements I gave in answer to some questions were in reply to other statements or questions you had made.
Oh I see the difference and it reveals your delusions. You think that by quoting someone and strategically removing some words to form new sentences and meanings that they are actually somehow the persons 'words' simply because you used the quote button instead of typing them out yourself? That is one of the most irrational and illogical statements I have ever heard. Why don't you just quote me and delete everything and type in whatever you want then and have a conversation with yourself. You might actually manage to win a few points then instead of consistently falling short against me as you have been lately. Yes, that last line was to draw your ire and to attempt to kick you back into a real debate state (like you once displayed) instead of this petty and sad state you have sunken to. If you only could have the pride in honesty and integrity that you do in vanity and ego you would do well.
This isn't the first time you have misquoted me and presented it as if it was genuine ...
That was no "misquote"; those are your words, excerpted from a single recent post, in this thread. Before you harp on that "excerpted" bit, if you cannot remember your own post, scroll down through this thread and perhaps discover that it was you who initially used those words to falsely characterize an opponet's position. Since you have done this several times before, (a contention which can be supported by the archived message IDs of posts in which you did so - unlike your contention, which lacks such uninterpreted objective evidence), a one-time return-to-sender of your "deliberate dishonesty" and attempt to "formulate a lie" was posted. Unless you can produce exact quotes, in context, to
support your contention that I've done what there is evidence of you doing, that would constitute another lie on your part. Got quotes?
To change the meaning of what someone said is exactly a misquote. The use of leading/trailing/disjointed statements ellipses is usually considered acceptable (although some insist that you should use some form of in-quote citations in that case instead of leading or trailing ellipses), only when the meaning of what was said remains. You entirely changed the meaning of what I said and this is unacceptable and it is legally actionable. I have never done this to you and I say this without even a pause to consider as it isn't in my nature and I possess at least a measure of integrity. I call you out on this, prove it or quit crying already and admit your dishonesty.
...in fact I think it is the third or fourth time you have resorted to such forms of deliberate dishonesty.
Prove your allegations with exact, contextual quotes and so will I, (you get to go first because you were the first to make such specious allegations).
Well it is rather easy for me to prove them since I have to go no further than this post to provide one, and so here it is:
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive ...
... the scripture ... my beliefs ... Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.
Now let us see one of these you have imagined, although knowing your standard for honesty you will simply write your own and attribute it to me and even use the quote button and replace text to make it appear as if I submitted it. Let us see your proof them, no more excuses, no more lies, no more tears, let us see this proof. Failure to provide any will only prove the extent at which your delusional fantasies go to protect your pathetically fragile ego.
I am quite sure that deliberately misquoting someone is not something allowed on these forums, and it isn't something that I will tolerate again, so take heed.
It may well be, (although an FC moderator would have to determine that, if applicable). As for taking "heed"; there's a sublime irony and a certain hypocrisy to your warning. Ponder it or not, xtian.
Since it is legally actionable I am sure it is, and of course the FC moderator would have to decide that...are you seriously daft enough to imagine that I somehow think it is you that determines it? My warning was to inform you that this was the last time I would allow you to get away with such a lie, and if it occurs again I would pursue having the moderators to intervene and remove your fabrication. For as much as you are so obsessive about replying to every other post made here I am sure that is of great concern to you as it could cause you to lose such privileges, if only temporarily. You should be thanking me for my generosity towards you instead of taking a combative attitude, but I suppose your conceit is once again your stumbling block. Yes I will chose to not ponder what ever thing you have imagined behind your tears.
-
http://i49.tinypic.com/29eoc48.gif
HA! I'd wager most religious folk would have to say that's what atheism represents. Me? Looks like a power-up from
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Doom_II_-_Hell_on_Earth_Coverart.png)
http://i49.tinypic.com/29eoc48.gif
HA! I'd wager most religious folk would have to say that's what atheism represents. Me? Looks like a power-up from
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Doom_II_-_Hell_on_Earth_Coverart.png)
In a way, it could be however, most religious adherents would be more likely to make other erroneous assumptions about teh symbol.
*chuckle*
Damn, get a room already, you two.
-
It has been how many months ago that you made that false claim, two, three?
The claim was not false, as the several pages worth of substantiation were provided, despite your specious denials of that archived evidence.
For likely twenty pages (if not more)...
I didn't bother to count pages, just as you never bothered to employ any "superior critical thinking skills" to the evidence presented in those pages, (as you go on to indicate below).
... never once did you provide any proof ...
That "proof" is archived as evidence which contradicts your assertion that the "proof" wasn't proof. This is in contrast to your complete failure to provide any tangible evidence substantiating your various religious claims. No such "proofs" appear in the archived records therefore, it is your religious claims which remain as unsupported opinions.
I forcibly call you a liar on this as it was you that contextualized my posts and misrepresented me then by inserting different quotes of mine following posts of yours to make it appear that statements I gave in answer to some questions were in reply to other statements or questions you had made.
Oh, that was merely returning your previously-used tactic back to you; postage-due. Since you're manifestly weak on the concept of sequence of events, the description of "liar" initially applies to you. My reponse was an application of the "Golden Rule" under which you were treated as you treat others, (apparently you wanted what you posted to be misrepresented and are currently lamenting being hoisted by your own petard).
Yes, that last line was to draw your ire and to attempt to kick you back into a real debate state (like you once displayed) ...
Unfortunately for your weak position, you are unable to 'force' a false imposition onto the facts under discussion. To briefly reiterate them; your initial misrepresentations of several of my posts, (specifically those regarding religion), directly indicated a deliberate tactic of dishonesty within such discussion/debate. When such tactics were refuted, you ignored those refutations and dropped out of those particular discussions. When you resumed such tactics in other threads, I occasionally and subsequently modified them and returned to you under the auspices of applying the "Golden Rule", you whinged about it, (as you are now).
To change the meaning of what someone said is exactly a misquote.
I generally agree, which is why your initial use of 'reinterpreting' the meaning of what I actually posted was subsequently responded to in the manner you're objecting to now, (after first going to great lengths to articulate what was actually meant even while you tried to twist meanings - as with your attempts to characterize non-religious atheism as a religion).
... and it is legally actionable.
Although you are free to reject or accept the suggestion that you consult an attorney regarding what is actionable under "defamation, libel and slander" litigation precedents, you may find that previously engaging in such yourself tends to taint such hypothetical litigations.
...in fact I think it is the third or fourth time you have resorted to such forms of deliberate dishonesty.
Prove your allegations with exact, contextual quotes and so will I, (you get to go first because you were the first to make such specious allegations).
Well it is rather easy for me to prove them since I have to go no further than this post to provide one, and so here it is:
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive ...
... the scripture ... my beliefs ... Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.
You've successfully managed to quote me quoting you and using your own words against you. Hazzah. Since your un-excerpted post was technically "a published defamation by written or printed words", (libel), would that be "actionable" too?
Now let us see one of these you have imagined ...
... although knowing your standard for honesty you will simply write your own and attribute it to me and even use the quote button and replace text to make it appear as if I submitted it.
Is that intended to be yet another false accusation, (and defamation), arising from desparation on your part? Since you've already 'pre-rejected' the evidence, why should I now bother to produce it?
Since it is legally actionable I am sure it is, and of course the FC moderator would have to decide that...are you seriously daft enough to imagine that I somehow think it is you that determines it? My warning was to inform you that this was the last time I would allow you to get away with such a lie, and if it occurs again I would pursue having the moderators to intervene and remove your fabrication. For as much as you are so obsessive about replying to every other post made here I am sure that is of great concern to you as it could cause you to lose such privileges, if only temporarily.
Your inept attempt to threaten use of the FC moderators to silence someone who has not violated FC TOS or forum policies, (despite your assumptions concerning what is "legally actionable"), is a pathetically-tacit admission of loss of argument. Such 'threats' are, however, against FC posting policies. *whoops*
-
Damn, get a room already, you two.
There it is again ... the plantive cry of the wounded loon, oft-heard from xtians when they've shot themselves in their own feet.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
-
Damn, get a room already, you two.
There it is again ... the plantive cry of the wounded loon, oft-heard from xtians when they've shot themselves in their own feet.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
Nope, sorry, I see it as you thinking you have won again. Instead, you just look pitiful in trying to have that last word with speaking in the same circle of words you really enjoy doing. You wouldn't know what to do if no one responded to you at all - you'd be lost with no one to scold and belittle (speaking of this towards Christians) and would get incredibly bored to tears. You thoroughly enjoy doing just what you do - everyone can see that. ;)
-
Nope, sorry, I see it as you thinking you have won again.
Since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.
Instead, you just look pitiful in trying to have that last word with speaking in the same circle of words you really enjoy doing.
"Circle of words" is it; just because you apparently have some difficulty in understanding them? Okay, 'since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.
You wouldn't know what to do if no one responded to you at all -
Why don't you try it and see what occurs? Both the FC moderator and I have recommended the use of the 'ignore button' many times. It's still an operational option.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)
-
Nope, sorry, I see it as you thinking you have won again.
Since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.
Instead, you just look pitiful in trying to have that last word with speaking in the same circle of words you really enjoy doing.
"Circle of words" is it; just because you apparently have some difficulty in understanding them? Okay, 'since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.
You wouldn't know what to do if no one responded to you at all -
Why don't you try it and see what occurs? Both the FC moderator and I have recommended the use of the 'ignore button' many times. It's still an operational option.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)
Now see, that's where there's a little problem here. You seem to think you and the moderator are the co-monitors in here and that you seem to have rights that others don't with regards to posting and/or ignoring. I remember a post from the moderator towards BOTH of US recently. That surely means BOTH and anyone else who test the rules, not just everyone else BUT you. When a fly is buzzing around irritating someone, we don't just get up and leave the room, ignoring the fly. We swat at it or slap it with a fly swatter. Same in here - you aren't going to chase people away just because you think they should hit "ignore" because they gripe about you. No, they're going to swat right back at you.
The ignore button is there for everyone, this is true. I'm tired of certain posters who think they are "in charge of" this forum and then constantly disrespect people, especially Christians, and then whine when people lash back out at them, and then the disrespectful ones start complaining that the others should use the "ignore" button. You aren't chasing me away, period. You say things and think it's non-negotiable or non-arguable because you imply Christians aren't capable. You are very wrong, falcon9.
You keep posting disrespectfully, and others will continue to stand up to your misconceptions. You want to discuss rationally with others, as a discussion of ideas and rebuttals outside of your continuous "irrational" words you constantly use, then others will do the same. Standing up to your comments is certainly not whining, and I, for one, am not going to be pushed into a corner, made to look like a coward, and pushed to hit "ignore." No way. You aren't taking my fun out of posting in this forum. I'm not trying to take yours either - but I will not sit back and watch you continually come down on Christians in particular without thinking no one will respond to you about it. Christians are not irrational and they are certainly not afraid of you enough to hit any "ignore" button because you recommend it. You don't deserve the satisfaction of being ignored - you deserve the chance to be responded to for your comments to many that are based in dislike of their belief in God.
-
It has been how many months ago that you made that false claim, two, three?
The claim was not false, as the several pages worth of substantiation were provided, despite your specious denials of that archived evidence.
For likely twenty pages (if not more)...
I didn't bother to count pages, just as you never bothered to employ any "superior critical thinking skills" to the evidence presented in those pages, (as you go on to indicate below).
... never once did you provide any proof ...
That "proof" is archived as evidence which contradicts your assertion that the "proof" wasn't proof. This is in contrast to your complete failure to provide any tangible evidence substantiating your various religious claims. No such "proofs" appear in the archived records therefore, it is your religious claims which remain as unsupported opinions.
I forcibly call you a liar on this as it was you that contextualized my posts and misrepresented me then by inserting different quotes of mine following posts of yours to make it appear that statements I gave in answer to some questions were in reply to other statements or questions you had made.
Oh, that was merely returning your previously-used tactic back to you; postage-due. Since you're manifestly weak on the concept of sequence of events, the description of "liar" initially applies to you. My reponse was an application of the "Golden Rule" under which you were treated as you treat others, (apparently you wanted what you posted to be misrepresented and are currently lamenting being hoisted by your own petard).
Yes, that last line was to draw your ire and to attempt to kick you back into a real debate state (like you once displayed) ...
Unfortunately for your weak position, you are unable to 'force' a false imposition onto the facts under discussion. To briefly reiterate them; your initial misrepresentations of several of my posts, (specifically those regarding religion), directly indicated a deliberate tactic of dishonesty within such discussion/debate. When such tactics were refuted, you ignored those refutations and dropped out of those particular discussions. When you resumed such tactics in other threads, I occasionally and subsequently modified them and returned to you under the auspices of applying the "Golden Rule", you whinged about it, (as you are now).
To change the meaning of what someone said is exactly a misquote.
I generally agree, which is why your initial use of 'reinterpreting' the meaning of what I actually posted was subsequently responded to in the manner you're objecting to now, (after first going to great lengths to articulate what was actually meant even while you tried to twist meanings - as with your attempts to characterize non-religious atheism as a religion).
... and it is legally actionable.
Although you are free to reject or accept the suggestion that you consult an attorney regarding what is actionable under "defamation, libel and slander" litigation precedents, you may find that previously engaging in such yourself tends to taint such hypothetical litigations.
...in fact I think it is the third or fourth time you have resorted to such forms of deliberate dishonesty.
Prove your allegations with exact, contextual quotes and so will I, (you get to go first because you were the first to make such specious allegations).
Well it is rather easy for me to prove them since I have to go no further than this post to provide one, and so here it is:
Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive ...
... the scripture ... my beliefs ... Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.
You've successfully managed to quote me quoting you and using your own words against you. Hazzah. Since your un-excerpted post was technically "a published defamation by written or printed words", (libel), would that be "actionable" too?
Now let us see one of these you have imagined ...
... although knowing your standard for honesty you will simply write your own and attribute it to me and even use the quote button and replace text to make it appear as if I submitted it.
Is that intended to be yet another false accusation, (and defamation), arising from desparation on your part? Since you've already 'pre-rejected' the evidence, why should I now bother to produce it?
Since it is legally actionable I am sure it is, and of course the FC moderator would have to decide that...are you seriously daft enough to imagine that I somehow think it is you that determines it? My warning was to inform you that this was the last time I would allow you to get away with such a lie, and if it occurs again I would pursue having the moderators to intervene and remove your fabrication. For as much as you are so obsessive about replying to every other post made here I am sure that is of great concern to you as it could cause you to lose such privileges, if only temporarily.
Your inept attempt to threaten use of the FC moderators to silence someone who has not violated FC TOS or forum policies, (despite your assumptions concerning what is "legally actionable"), is a pathetically-tacit admission of loss of argument. Such 'threats' are, however, against FC posting policies. *whoops*
Let us see here. You admit to the offense of misquoting and contextualizing. You have no proof to back up your lies about me where you claim I did the same thing first. You forfeit your challenge to me to show proof and where you stated you would reciprocate, and as such you are only left to admit you lied or imagined the entire thing in one of your delusions. Once again you cause your own undoing and end up playing fool for yourself. My has your skill of debate fallen to pathetic levels of late. At this rate, within a week or two, you will be reduced to simply repeating what someone says back at them like a child.
What threat are you imagining here? Since you put it this way you actually reveal your guilt to the offense you have committed and your fear from the possible actions of the moderators. You are aware that if you tell someone that if they "don't get out of your house" or some similar situation that you will "call the police" that such does not constitute a threat?
-
Nope, sorry, I see it as you thinking you have won again.
Since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.
Instead, you just look pitiful in trying to have that last word with speaking in the same circle of words you really enjoy doing.
"Circle of words" is it; just because you apparently have some difficulty in understanding them? Okay, 'since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.
You wouldn't know what to do if no one responded to you at all -
Why don't you try it and see what occurs? Both the FC moderator and I have recommended the use of the 'ignore button' many times. It's still an operational option.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)
Now see, that's where there's a little problem here. You seem to think you and the moderator are the co-monitors in here and that you seem to have rights that others don't with regards to posting and/or ignoring. I remember a post from the moderator towards BOTH of US recently. That surely means BOTH and anyone else who test the rules, not just everyone else BUT you. When a fly is buzzing around irritating someone, we don't just get up and leave the room, ignoring the fly. We swat at it or slap it with a fly swatter. Same in here - you aren't going to chase people away just because you think they should hit "ignore" because they gripe about you. No, they're going to swat right back at you.
The ignore button is there for everyone, this is true. I'm tired of certain posters who think they are "in charge of" this forum and then constantly disrespect people, especially Christians, and then whine when people lash back out at them, and then the disrespectful ones start complaining that the others should use the "ignore" button. You aren't chasing me away, period. You say things and think it's non-negotiable or non-arguable because you imply Christians aren't capable. You are very wrong, falcon9.
You keep posting disrespectfully, and others will continue to stand up to your misconceptions. You want to discuss rationally with others, as a discussion of ideas and rebuttals outside of your continuous "irrational" words you constantly use, then others will do the same. Standing up to your comments is certainly not whining, and I, for one, am not going to be pushed into a corner, made to look like a coward, and pushed to hit "ignore." No way. You aren't taking my fun out of posting in this forum. I'm not trying to take yours either - but I will not sit back and watch you continually come down on Christians in particular without thinking no one will respond to you about it. Christians are not irrational and they are certainly not afraid of you enough to hit any "ignore" button because you recommend it. You don't deserve the satisfaction of being ignored - you deserve the chance to be responded to for your comments to many that are based in dislike of their belief in God.
I think you are on to something here. He doesn't like to be challenged back and resorts to all sorts of base tactics. He wants to be ignored so that he can belabor his nonsense unchallenged.
-
Now see, that's where there's a little problem here. You seem to think you and the moderator are the co-monitors in here ...
No, the "little problem here" is that you apparently do not read posted replies. It was stated that both the FC moderator and I, (a regular FC member like you, not a mod), have recommended the use of the 'ignore button'. No claims to being an FC moderator were stated nor, implied. Your own slanted misinterpretations do not constitute accurate statements of fact, (especially when the post itself remains visible and archived).
... and that you seem to have rights that others don't with regards to posting and/or ignoring.
It's unclear where you're coming up with these random interpretations of what was actually posted. It may be that you're taking 'inspiration' from the tactics of another xtian's on these forums, (or, pulled them from some nefarious nether region of dubious smell).
I remember a post from the moderator towards BOTH of US recently. That surely means BOTH and anyone else who test the rules, not just everyone else BUT you.
Being evenhanded, the moderator warned all parties involved so as not to be partisan in his arbitration of the dispute. I deemed that fair and wise of the moderator, (especially since you were the one in specific violation and not I).
When a fly is buzzing around irritating someone, we don't just get up and leave the room, ignoring the fly. We swat at it or slap it with a fly swatter. Same in here -
Oh, that's a nice, xtian ad hominem; being compared to a "fly". Back at ya; the constant inane buzzing of proselytizing can be annoying to those who don't share the same superstitious beliefs of the blind-faithers do however, I've consistantly stood up for the same 'rights' of free speech as you'd deny to those who don't agree with you, (by these appeals to "respect", "politeness" and some tacit 'free pass').
... you aren't going to chase people away just because you think they should hit "ignore" because they gripe about you.
Using the 'ignore button' provided by FC doesn't even inherently mean people are subject to being 'chased away'. It means that they will have chosen to not see posts initiated by me, nothing more. That doesn't mean that use of the 'ignore button' includes not ignoring by continuing to post about the one supposedly being "ignored", (such would constitute a failure to understand what "ignore" means).
No, they're going to swat right back at you.
You mean "buzz" if the metaphor is inverted to apply to xtians, (as a matter of persepctive).
The ignore button is there for everyone, this is true. I'm tired of certain posters who think they are "in charge of" this forum ...
There's another false assumption on your part; no one suggested any such thing, (your misperceptions aside).
... and then constantly disrespect people, especially Christians, and then whine when people lash back out at them, and then the disrespectful ones start complaining that the others should use the "ignore" button.
Your "whine" reminds me of a child who tearfully-complains to a parent that their sibling has committed some 'grevious offense' against them while omitting the pertinent part of the complaint where that child committed the initial offensive behaviour. That is, many of you xtians were here proselytizing and bible-thumping long before my arrival on FC. Several other members who preceded my arrival posted in opposition to such, (that much is archived). Now, how is it possible for me to arrive on scene - with all of that already on-going - and "suddenly" become the one who committed the 'first offense'? That was rhetorical; it isn't possible and is as much of an irrational contention as your mischaracterization of events now.
You aren't chasing me away, period.
The suggestions for using the 'ignore function' aren't intended to chase anyone away since they remain able to post and read other posts, (just not the ones initiated by those set on "ignore"). Your premise is therefore flawed.
You say things and think it's non-negotiable or non-arguable because you imply Christians aren't capable. You are very wrong, falcon9.
While future events aren't necessarily predicated upon past performance, such capability is still swaiting, (however, not with baited or held breath).
You keep posting disrespectfully, and others will continue to stand up to your misconceptions. You want to discuss rationally with others, as a discussion of ideas and rebuttals outside of your continuous "irrational" words you constantly use, then others will do the same.
Before you dig an even deeper specious 'hole'; exactly which words that I've used, (in context), have been "irrational"? Find a sample of such and quote it in context or be dishonest in making false accusations.
I will not sit back and watch you continually come down on Christians in particular without thinking no one will respond to you about it.
Any old response is one thing, (like resumed b-thumping or tangential "complaints"); xtians replying to the content and context instead is a rarer event.
Christians are not irrational ...
When it comes to their religious beliefs, they are, (at minimum), selectively-rational. How's that?
... and they are certainly not afraid of you enough to hit any "ignore" button because you recommend it.
Doubtless the FC moderator didn't recommend use of the 'ignore button' out of 'fear' and neither have I. See, that's at least three times in a single post you've made baseless and unwarranted assumptions, (e.g., the premise they were based upon was invalid), and yet you wonder why a deficient ability to reason has been inferred. Still, if you choose not to use the provided 'ignore button', then you implicitly accept that any invalid premises, assumptions, declarations, assertions, pronoucements, random opinions you choose to post aren't somehow "sacrocinct".
You don't deserve the satisfaction of being ignored - you deserve the chance to be responded to for your comments to many that are based in dislike of their belief in God.
Excellent. Responses to what is actually posted, (rather than some irrationally-based misinterpretations), would be a refreshing change.
-
He doesn't like to be challenged back and resorts to all sorts of base tactics.
Conversely, the enormous number of archived posted exchanges of back-and-forth challenges invalidate such conclusions. Even you same old fabrication tactic remains invalid, (specify the actual "base tactics" you're accusing me of - not the ones stemming from an irrational imagination).
He wants to be ignored so that he can belabor his nonsense unchallenged.
On the contrary, if too many members ignore my posts, I might have trouble making the 30 minimum per/month for that bonus. Thanks to all of those who don't ignore them, my posting frequency went "platinum" last month.
:o
-
Let us see here. You admit to the offense of misquoting and contextualizing.
No, I specified that such a response was in response to those same tactics of yours.
You have no proof to back up your lies about me where you claim I did the same thing first.
Since your previous reply indicated a strong likelihood of your disregarding such evidence, I reconsidered going through the trouble of locating it. Though, since such evidence is archived, I suppose I could get around to it later.
My has your skill of debate fallen to pathetic levels of late.
Coincidentally, I had been prepared to inquiry as to whether or not you'd recently experienced severe head trauma of late ... perhaps from a car accident, or self-inflicted by a heavy biblical tome?
What threat are you imagining here?
It only takes scrolling down thread, not any imagination, to see the remarks you posted concerning "actionable" legal threat and your attempts to bring the moderator in on a debate in your behalf.
You are aware that if you tell someone that if they "don't get out of your house" or some similar situation that you will "call the police" that such does not constitute a threat?
That's a false parallel since the FC forums are neither your, nor my private residences/domains. These forums 'belong' to FC and as guests here, it would be inappropiate for you to 'threaten' to bring in the "police", (FC moderator), because this isn't your "house", (or mine). I'm surprised such a simple concept escapes you and that this 'dumbing-down' was apparently required, (though doubtless it wasn't down far enough if you continue failing to grasp the concept).
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again,the worst punishment falcon could have is if all his detractors put him on ignore.He's a diva that craves attention.Take that away from him and after two or three days of he and his cohorts patting each other on the back,he'd leave from sheer boredom.
If you go into the D&D area you can expect to get your nose bent.I can except that.The problem then,is his following people around from thread to thread to ,
A. try to get the all importaint "last word".
or
B. Harass some profession of religious beliefs.
The Admin has made it clear as crystal that this behavior will continue to be tolarated.Arguing with him to leave "off topic" subjects like Daily Bible Verse or Prayer requests alone,simply will cause the mods to move the thread to the D&D. ::)
He acts like he's daring people to ignore him,like he doesn't care.Call his bluff.Ignore him.It's his Kryptonite.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again,the worst punishment falcon could have is if all his detractors put him on ignore.
Is that what you're suggesting, circle the wagons? Give it shot if wished.
He's a diva that craves attention.Take that away from him and after two or three days of he and his cohorts patting each other on the back,he'd leave from sheer boredom.
Your misguided projection?
If you go into the D&D area you can expect to get your nose bent.I can except that.The problem then,is his following people around from thread to thread to ...
... to reply to which posts I choose to reply to. This isn't "following" per se; it's responding to prior posts. That happens in discussion forums, (whether or not that's a novel concept for you).
A. try to get the all importaint "last word" or ...
Or, raise an eyebrow at the 'tainted' typo for "important" ...
B. Harass some profession of religious beliefs.
If challenging some specious proselytizing is deemed as 'harassing', I'm going to have to deem the specious proselytizing as harassing too. Seems fair, nyet?
The Admin has made it clear as crystal that this behavior will continue to be tolarated.
Only as long as I, (or any otehr member of FC), complies with the TOS. Content on these forums is not normally censored, (as a few xtians would have it), except for *bleep* words.
Arguing with him to leave "off topic" subjects like Daily Bible Verse or Prayer requests alone,simply will cause the mods to move the thread to the D&D.
Requesting censorship gets denied by the FC moderators - and this astounds the ones requesting such censorhip? Once a thread becomes 'contentious', there's a chance the mods will move it to "Debate & Discuss" if they feel that's a more appropriate venue.
He acts like he's daring people to ignore him,like he doesn't care.Call his bluff.Ignore him.It's his Kryptonite.
"Acts like?" I've simply reiterated the FC moderator's advice to make use of the 'ignore button' they've provided. Are you tacitly suggesting that the FC mods are "daring" people too? The suggestion is sincere; it's no "bluff" however, such posts as this which engage in not-ignoring after repeated claims to have used the ignore button are extremely disingenuous. Either the meaning of the word "ignore" elludes those who do that, (like the person I'm posting a reply to), or it is an intentional "trolling"/calling-out by name/'nym. If the former; ignorance is it's own "punishment". If the latter, the FC moderator has already issued more than one warning about "calling out". Proceed at your own risk.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again,the worst punishment falcon could have is if all his detractors put him on ignore.
Is that what you're suggesting, circle the wagons? Give it shot if wished.
He's a diva that craves attention.Take that away from him and after two or three days of he and his cohorts patting each other on the back,he'd leave from sheer boredom.
Your misguided projection?
If you go into the D&D area you can expect to get your nose bent.I can except that.The problem then,is his following people around from thread to thread to ...
... to reply to which posts I choose to reply to. This isn't "following" per se; it's responding to prior posts. That happens in discussion forums, (whether or not that's a novel concept for you).
A. try to get the all importaint "last word" or ...
Or, raise an eyebrow at the 'tainted' typo for "important" ...
B. Harass some profession of religious beliefs.
If challenging some specious proselytizing is deemed as 'harassing', I'm going to have to deem the specious proselytizing as harassing too. Seems fair, nyet?
The Admin has made it clear as crystal that this behavior will continue to be tolarated.
Only as long as I, (or any otehr member of FC), complies with the TOS. Content on these forums is not normally censored, (as a few xtians would have it), except for *bleep* words.
Arguing with him to leave "off topic" subjects like Daily Bible Verse or Prayer requests alone,simply will cause the mods to move the thread to the D&D.
Requesting censorship gets denied by the FC moderators - and this astounds the ones requesting such censorhip? Once a thread becomes 'contentious', there's a chance the mods will move it to "Debate & Discuss" if they feel that's a more appropriate venue.
He acts like he's daring people to ignore him,like he doesn't care.Call his bluff.Ignore him.It's his Kryptonite.
"Acts like?" I've simply reiterated the FC moderator's advice to make use of the 'ignore button' they've provided. Are you tacitly suggesting that the FC mods are "daring" people too? The suggestion is sincere; it's no "bluff" however, such posts as this which engage in not-ignoring after repeated claims to have used the ignore button are extremely disingenuous. Either the meaning of the word "ignore" elludes those who do that, (like the person I'm posting a reply to), or it is an intentional "trolling"/calling-out by name/'nym. If the former; ignorance is it's own "punishment". If the latter, the FC moderator has already issued more than one warning about "calling out". Proceed at your own risk.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
Wow! You raise an eyebrow at his "tainted" typo, yet some of your words are misspelled or have typos. I make it a practice not to pick on people for their spelling, punctuation, etc., because no one is perfect and makes mistakes, and some do not know the English language enough yet to spell correctly some of their words, but couldn't help myself this time. You raise an eyebrow at his so I guess it's alright to raise eyebrows at yours. Just sayin'...
You are really hung up on the "calling out" issue. He said nothing about calling you out - he said to "call his bluff." That is not "calling out," especially as in making a new thread to call you out. Chill. He's speaking of calling your bluff with wanting people to actually "ignore" you so you wouldn't have opportunity to bash anyone's belief in God. You need to stop "looking" for an opportunity to try and trip someone up so they hopefully get in trouble with the moderator. Also stop threatening the moderator on someone just because he or she challenges your comments. It doesn't do anything for you.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 01:54:56 pm
Now see, that's where there's a little problem here. You seem to think you and the moderator are the co-monitors in here ...
Quote from: falcon9:
No, the "little problem here" is that you apparently do not read posted replies. It was stated that both the FC moderator and I, (a regular FC member like you, not a mod), have recommended the use of the 'ignore button'. No claims to being an FC moderator were stated nor, implied. Your own slanted misinterpretations do not constitute accurate statements of fact, (especially when the post itself remains visible and archived).
You are the one who keeps combining yourself with the moderator like you and he are the co-moderators of this forum. That's exactly what is coming across through your words. You act as if you will not get into any trouble for your actions, yet everyone else will when they stand up to you. Stop using the "moderator" as your shield and stand on your own 2 feet. As for "archived" posts, you aren't the only one who archives posts - you are just the one who continually likes to remind people of it. Keep up the good work there, as will others.
-
Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 01:54:56 pm
I remember a post from the moderator towards BOTH of US recently. That surely means BOTH and anyone else who test the rules, not just everyone else BUT you.
Quote from: falcon9:
Being evenhanded, the moderator warned all parties involved so as not to be partisan in his arbitration of the dispute. I deemed that fair and wise of the moderator, (especially since you were the one in specific violation and not I)
Careful, there. You don't want to be accused of calling the moderator a liar - he said BOTH not just me. Yes, you would deem it fair and wise of the moderator thinking he wasn't scolding you as well. His words were aimed at both. You were in just as much specific violation as you accuse me of being. The report button is there for a reason. However, it apparently can't be used against you, in your eyes. He said both sides were abusing that report button.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again,the worst punishment falcon could have is if all his detractors put him on ignore.He's a diva that craves attention.Take that away from him and after two or three days of he and his cohorts patting each other on the back,he'd leave from sheer boredom
"Remind the people..to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people."
Titus 3: 1-2
Damn, dude! You outright suck at this Christian thing. Oh, but I probably took this verse out of context, didn't I? Convenient! lol
Anyways, I guess the original argument kinda got derailed. Ah well. If it returns, I'll jump back in.
-
Maybe falcon is a frustrated English professor in real life.lol It's funny how people like waterbearer are exempt from ridicule when it comes to typos and misspelled words (and lets face it,he's one of the biggest offenders.) Might there be a double standard there,somewhere?
In any case,mocking people over typos is the hight of childishness,not that I'd expect less from falcon and his ilk.
-
Wow! You raise an eyebrow at his "tainted" typo, yet some of your words are misspelled or have typos. You raise an eyebrow at his so I guess it's alright to raise eyebrows at yours. Just sayin'...
Oh, I wasn't raising an eyebrow at the misspelling itself; that arched brow was for the subtle "tainted" part in that context. As you pointed out, I often make typos, (sometimes even as unintentionally-humorous as JJ's). Although mine are generally due to fast typing speed and mild dyslexia, (the later often accompanies those with very high I.Q.s), though you can raise all three of your eyebrows at mine if wished.
You are really hung up on the "calling out" issue. He said nothing about calling you out - he said to "call his bluff." That is not "calling out," especially as in making a new thread to call you out.
There was no bluff and the "calling out" occurred within this existing thread, not a new thread, (nothing precludes a calling-out from originating from a single or more post within any thread - that's your assumption based upon the moderator stating that such intentionally-titled threads were not going to be permitted).
He's speaking of calling your bluff with wanting people to actually "ignore" you so you wouldn't have opportunity to ...
As I stated, it wasn't a bluff. The reason it was stated was/is because JJ has repeatedly demonstrated a distinct inability to actually ignore me after claiming to use the ignore button. Since you speculated about why I would recommend using the ignore function, (an incorrect conclusion, btw), I'll give that a whirl too. It could be that JJ has used the ignore button but, has had it sloooowly dawn on him that when others quote my posts in reply, (and he doesn't have those others on ignore), he still sees some of those "ignored" posts. Further, he doesn't even need the sight of those "ignored" posts to keep engaging in non-ignoring 'gossip' which specifically names me, (the pseudo-ignored member). By naming me specifically, he's both trolling me and calling-out by 'nym.
Also stop threatening the moderator on someone just because he or she challenges your comments. It doesn't do anything for you.
Where have I threatened someone with the moderator? The mod is not some sort of partisan forum weapon as you seem to imply there. The only previous times I've reported something, (not "threatening" to do so), were when a few of you xtians submitted false reports of what never happened in a previous thread/forum. The moderator's warning went out to all involved, not because I was engaging in the same reporting behaviour as you few but, so as to not take sides. I agree with his nonpartisan not taking sides while at the same time realizing that you few tians were desparately hoping he would in siding with your false reports. Essentially, the mod stated that he was being 'flooded' with reports to the moderator, (I sent one or two - not exactly a "flood" while you xtians sent who knows how many false reports in order to constitute a flood).
-
In any case,mocking people over typos is the hight of childishness,not that I'd expect less from falcon and his ilk.
Now there's an "ilk"? Soon there'll be a 'swarm', or maybe a 'plethora', (no wait, JJ would have to look that last one up - disregard). I've got mild dyslexia; what's the reason for your errors; are you an idiot-savant, sans the savant part?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)
-
I remember a post from the moderator towards BOTH of US recently.
Quote from: falcon9:
Being evenhanded, the moderator warned all parties involved so as not to be partisan in his arbitration of the dispute. I deemed that fair and wise of the moderator, (especially since you were the one in specific violation and not I)
Careful, there. You don't want to be accused of calling the moderator a liar - he said BOTH not just me.
Nothing of what I posted accused the mod of lying. See, it just that sort of twisted twisting of the meanings of the words which were posted which was meant by your submitting false reports to the mod, (even though he's perfectly capable of reading the actual words posted here as we are). In this instance, those actual words were "the moderator warned all parties involved", (and the violation referred to was not for submitting reports to the moderator since that is not a specified violation - being instead something the mod told all involved to stop doing excessively - the violation was for another xtian involved specifically trolling by name).
-
You really do think awfully high of yourself - sorry, it doesn't impress others when you admit to nothing towards anyone. That is really sad. The scolding was indeed applied to all involved, including you, and including me, and including whoever else. He said both sides. You were on the other side of things. I, and many others, will continue to say something (dissenting view) as you like to call it, in response to your disrespect toward Bible verses by posters (dissenting view) as you call it. You want to discuss the verses, posters will be more than happy to, with respect both ways. Your "bible-bashing" picture and your disparaging remarks are not "debating" and "discussing" anything - they are rude. Period.
-
The scolding was indeed applied to all involved, including you, and including me, and including whoever else.
As you remarked in an earlier post, that had to do with submitting multiple reports to moderator. Since I submitted 1-2 such reports in that regard, while you xtians submitted multiple reports, the "scolding" referred to all involved in that manner.
-
The scolding was indeed applied to all involved, including you, and including me, and including whoever else.
As you remarked in an earlier post, that had to do with submitting multiple reports to moderator. Since I submitted 1-2 such reports in that regard, while you xtians submitted multiple reports, the "scolding" referred to all involved in that manner.
And as I said, it included you, me, and the others - all that submitted reports.
-
The scolding was indeed applied to all involved, including you, and including me, and including whoever else.
As you remarked in an earlier post, that had to do with submitting multiple reports to moderator. Since I submitted 1-2 such reports in that regard, while you xtians submitted multiple reports, the "scolding" referred to all involved in that manner.
And as I said, it included you, me, and the others - all that submitted reports.
Yes, and as mentioned above, those constituted multiple reports, which was what precipatated the moderator to tell all parties to knock it off. Since my 1-2 reports aren't a multitude, one can reasonably deduce that the mutitude occurred upon the onslaught of reports submitted by more than one xtian whining about stuff that didn't violate FC's Terms of Service when at least one of those xtians did violate the TOS. See the difference? I didn't think so.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
-
Let us see here. You admit to the offense of misquoting and contextualizing.
No, I specified that such a response was in response to those same tactics of yours.
And I called your accusations a lie and you a liar for making them. You have repeatedly failed to show any proof after I have called you out on this probably a dozen times. You even gave me a challenge to show proof and indicated you would respond with yours, and yet when I immediately did you were unable to once again show any. I repeat so that you understand just what I am saying -- you are a LIAR in this matter and thus in likely much more and to steal some words from one of my favorite quotes I add "And is because, boy, your words are feeble, and twisted as an old woman's!"
You have no proof to back up your lies about me where you claim I did the same thing first.
Since your previous reply indicated a strong likelihood of your disregarding such evidence, I reconsidered going through the trouble of locating it. Though, since such evidence is archived, I suppose I could get around to it later.
My reply indicates that there is no evidence of this imagined offense you indicate, and for as much as we have had to hear you cry about this across many pages you have yet to demonstrate it.
My has your skill of debate fallen to pathetic levels of late.
Coincidentally, I had been prepared to inquiry as to whether or not you'd recently experienced severe head trauma of late ... perhaps from a car accident, or self-inflicted by a heavy biblical tome?
Yes, I do see the coincidence in that such a question from you would indicate the degree of sadness of your skill. Thank you for honestly admitting your weakness for a change instead of just showing it and denying it.
What threat are you imagining here?
It only takes scrolling down thread, not any imagination, to see the remarks you posted concerning "actionable" legal threat and your attempts to bring the moderator in on a debate in your behalf.
How is that a threat? My you must be awfully thin skinned. That was an indication that the likelihood of such things not being allowed here was in high probability since the offense you have committed is considered one that is actionable. If you had been familiar with many forums that offer a quote key you would be aware of this and the reasons they give for having the rules they place on modifying quoted posts.
You are aware that if you tell someone that if they "don't get out of your house" or some similar situation that you will "call the police" that such does not constitute a threat?
That's a false parallel since the FC forums are neither your, nor my private residences/domains. These forums 'belong' to FC and as guests here, it would be inappropiate for you to 'threaten' to bring in the "police", (FC moderator), because this isn't your "house", (or mine). I'm surprised such a simple concept escapes you and that this 'dumbing-down' was apparently required, (though doubtless it wasn't down far enough if you continue failing to grasp the concept).
Don't be such a simple child, the parallel wasn't to the offense but to the warning and it is absolutely an apt comparison to that. I suppose it is going to be necessary for me to dumb things down so that you can comprehend what I am saying since you are having continuous difficulty following me even though I am speaking to you as I would a child. You seem to have this habit of trying to consistently speak as if you somehow represent FC or the moderators, but you do not and we all very well know it so you can quit this "they got my back" routine already.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again,the worst punishment falcon could have is if all his detractors put him on ignore.He's a diva that craves attention.Take that away from him and after two or three days of he and his cohorts patting each other on the back,he'd leave from sheer boredom.
If you go into the D&D area you can expect to get your nose bent.I can except that.The problem then,is his following people around from thread to thread to ,
A. try to get the all importaint "last word".
or
B. Harass some profession of religious beliefs.
The Admin has made it clear as crystal that this behavior will continue to be tolarated.Arguing with him to leave "off topic" subjects like Daily Bible Verse or Prayer requests alone,simply will cause the mods to move the thread to the D&D. ::)
He acts like he's daring people to ignore him,like he doesn't care.Call his bluff.Ignore him.It's his Kryptonite.
While you are probably right in this matter, it is for the people that might be new and continue to see his disrespect and insults towards Christians that I will not do this and instead hold him to the challenge. I have always taken a great pleasure in dealing with bullies such as him. I will think about this more, though, and whether it might ultimately be better to simply ignore him as the lying child that he is.
-
Maybe falcon is a frustrated English professor in real life.lol It's funny how people like waterbearer are exempt from ridicule when it comes to typos and misspelled words (and lets face it,he's one of the biggest offenders.) Might there be a double standard there,somewhere?
In any case,mocking people over typos is the hight of childishness,not that I'd expect less from falcon and his ilk.
He often makes repeated typo's in his posts to me and I only once replied about it as he was accusing one of my correctly spelled words as being spelled wrong and he actually wrote that I "mispelled" it, and yes he really misspelled 'misspelled'. I couldn't resist that one and had to point it out. Now he wants to fall back on claiming dyslexia or some other excuse he will likely fabricate later on.
I do notice that that he is very tolerable of what those that tend to give him but pat posts, and it reminds me of a group of blue haired old women that flock together to casts insults about other women's hair.
-
And I called your accusations a lie and you a liar for making them. I repeat so that you understand just what I am saying -- you are a LIAR in this matter ...
As I've stated before, I'm not a clinical or diagnostic psychiatrist and am therefore unable to determine whether or not your penchant for lying is pathological or, compulsive. For that, you'd need a trained professional.
hth
-
... it is for the people that might be new and continue to see his disrespect and insults towards Christians ...
There is no specific requirement regarding "respect" or "disrepect" for xtian, islamic, jewish, hindu, shintu or wiccan believers.
I have always taken a great pleasure in dealing with bullies such as him.
Your manifest penchant for projection, (for instance, being a "bully" and then calling others "bullies" or, lying and then calling others liars), is indicative of extreme immaturity and irrationality. It is not indicative of your boasted "superior critical thinking skills".
I will think about this more, though, and whether it might ultimately be better to simply ignore him ...
Given that you've just engaged in 'talking about' someone to "ignore" with another xtian who claims to have used the ignore button to not-ignore, the highly-probably outcome of 'not-ignoring ignoring' can be extrapolated.
-
The scolding was indeed applied to all involved, including you, and including me, and including whoever else.
As you remarked in an earlier post, that had to do with submitting multiple reports to moderator. Since I submitted 1-2 such reports in that regard, while you xtians submitted multiple reports, the "scolding" referred to all involved in that manner.
And as I said, it included you, me, and the others - all that submitted reports.
Yes, and as mentioned above, those constituted multiple reports, which was what precipatated the moderator to tell all parties to knock it off. Since my 1-2 reports aren't a multitude, one can reasonably deduce that the mutitude occurred upon the onslaught of reports submitted by more than one xtian whining about stuff that didn't violate FC's Terms of Service when at least one of those xtians did violate the TOS. See the difference? I didn't think so.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/do7885.jpg)
It matters not how many each did - what matters is that they came from BOTH sides, as indicated by the moderator. You were just as involved as anyone else and deserved the scolding just as much as everyone else involved.
-
If his father died from a snake bite, maybe this man should have learned from his father's mistake. :BangHead:
-
There was nothing for him to learn, his father's death was an inspiration, not a warning. His interpretation of the bible was that he could play with snakes and god would protect him. Well, his interpretation was obviously a little imperfect and the bite of the snake killed him, but that's only because god decided that it was time for him to come to heaven and sit beside god on his heavenly throne, not because he was some kind of confused idiot stupidly playing around with a poisonous snake in order to try to impress some self-delusional believers in a specific interpretation of christian doctrine. amen....
-
And I called your accusations a lie and you a liar for making them. I repeat so that you understand just what I am saying -- you are a LIAR in this matter ...
As I've stated before, I'm not a clinical or diagnostic psychiatrist and am therefore unable to determine whether or not your penchant for lying is pathological or, compulsive. For that, you'd need a trained professional.
hth
I haven't lied, but I have easily and repeatedly proven your lies.
-
... it is for the people that might be new and continue to see his disrespect and insults towards Christians ...
There is no specific requirement regarding "respect" or "disrepect" for xtian, islamic, jewish, hindu, shintu or wiccan believers.
Nor is there any requirement for other types of beliefs, such as yours. Your deliberate picking and choosing and then your proclamation suggesting you only conform exactly as you are required (which interestingly is suggestive of your inability to think for yourself) reveals everything. Do you ever consider what you say before you say it? You are so guarded and fearfully cautious that I find it comical that you reveal so much without ever realizing it.
I have always taken a great pleasure in dealing with bullies such as him.
Your manifest penchant for projection, (for instance, being a "bully" and then calling others "bullies" or, lying and then calling others liars), is indicative of extreme immaturity and irrationality. It is not indicative of your boasted "superior critical thinking skills".
There is no projection involved here. I have ever the tendency to be civil and even extend latitude beyond the norm towards others. Even in your case I sometimes feel sorry for you that I have to be so direct for you -- if I knew positively that this was all that you had (which I suspect at times) then I would leave it to you for you to enjoy -- but I don't know this and your rudeness and bullying actions directly call for one such as me to take matters in my own hands and the challenge to you. For all of your high minded delusions and self appreciation, you are not unique at all and are actually quite common. Your fear and insecurity and low self esteem prompt you to act with whatever you consider your strongest suit, and that seems to be for you cowardly anonymous repetitive post sniping. That I effectively handle you so well is a great burden to your ego -- so much so that you had to deliberately go through the labor of quoting me and then falsifying the quoted material to make it appear to say something other than what it said. Then you lie and deny even this although the proof is here for all to see? Then you make the childish desperate claim of "you did it first" and when challenged you couldn't produce a damned thing to back up your lies. It is rather obvious for all to see as to what is the truth here and who is doing what, and considering your awareness of the frequency of you being ignored you should maybe develop your "critical thinking skills" to at least a remedial level and realize the significance of that.
I will think about this more, though, and whether it might ultimately be better to simply ignore him ...
Given that you've just engaged in 'talking about' someone to "ignore" with another xtian who claims to have used the ignore button to not-ignore, the highly-probably outcome of 'not-ignoring ignoring' can be extrapolated.
Extrapolate these nuts, squirrel. I engaged in your pattern of "talking about" someone to judge your reaction. It is exactly as I expected one that annoys you to no end. I noticed you frequently do this with others about another and I wondered about the significance, but now I know. Regardless, there is absolutely no basis for you to determine any outcomes from such a conversation by trying to predict my actions based upon your opinions of his. A basic understanding of probability and statistics and differentiation could prove useful to you in that understanding.
-
I feel really sorry for that preacher who handled the snake, got bit, and died. I also feel sorry for his followers who are so decieved with that kind of religious practice, that they continue to this day.
-
As I've stated before, I'm not a clinical or diagnostic psychiatrist and am therefore unable to determine whether or not your penchant for lying is pathological or, compulsive. For that, you'd need a trained professional.
hth
I haven't lied, but I have easily and repeatedly proven your lies.
No, you've merely lied, (either complusively or, pathologically), again and this accomplishes nothing.
-
Maybe falcon is a frustrated English professor in real life.lol It's funny how people like waterbearer are exempt from ridicule when it comes to typos and misspelled words (and lets face it,he's one of the biggest offenders.) Might there be a double standard there,somewhere?
In any case,mocking people over typos is the hight of childishness,not that I'd expect less from falcon and his ilk.
He often makes repeated typo's in his posts to me and I only once replied about it as he was accusing one of my correctly spelled words as being spelled wrong and he actually wrote that I "mispelled" it, and yes he really misspelled 'misspelled'. I couldn't resist that one and had to point it out. Now he wants to fall back on claiming dyslexia or some other excuse he will likely fabricate later on.
I do notice that that he is very tolerable of what those that tend to give him but pat posts, and it reminds me of a group of blue haired old women that flock together to casts insults about other women's hair.
He misspelled 'misspelled'.That's a classic! ;D
-
Nor is there any requirement for other types of beliefs, such as yours.
Exactly what "beliefs" are being falsely attributed to me, other than projections of yours?
That I effectively handle you so well is a ...
That's merely another of your self-proclaimed self-delusion and is disregarded as such.
... considering your awareness of the frequency of you being ignored you should maybe develop your "critical thinking skills" to at least a remedial level and realize the significance of that.
Your inept ad hom has no significance other than the minor one of emphasizing the insignificance of your sub-remedial critical thinking skills.
“So atheism is a religion? No, I`m afraid not, no more than being completely healthy is just another kind of disease."
-– David Horton
-
I feel really sorry for that preacher who handled the snake, got bit, and died. I also feel sorry for his followers who are so decieved with that kind of religious practice, that they continue to this day.
Why the pity in that particular instance when the followers of other religious sects are just as "decieved"? Is that some kind of selective blind faith?
“Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
-– Ambrose Bierce
-
I feel really sorry for that preacher who handled the snake, got bit, and died. I also feel sorry for his followers who are so decieved with that kind of religious practice, that they continue to this day.
I agree.
-
Nor is there any requirement for other types of beliefs, such as yours.
Exactly what "beliefs" are being falsely attributed to me, other than projections of yours?
Your beliefs, unless you are going to pretend that you don't belief anything at all (which would be a lie in itself for obvious reasons).
That I effectively handle you so well is a ...
That's merely another of your self-proclaimed self-delusion and is disregarded as such.
I have schooled you in your own game. You put up many challenges and you only end up failing at your own with me passing them unhindered. I have proven you a liar and you have also proven yourself a liar. Being so discredited multiple times and from multiple sources has effectively eliminated any respect or regard you might have once held. It becomes clear now why you require absolute proof about anything and that is because you are, at your root, a liar and as such would certainly have no trust for anyone else. Through your own deceit and dishonesty you become nothing but a pathetic little whine.
... considering your awareness of the frequency of you being ignored you should maybe develop your "critical thinking skills" to at least a remedial level and realize the significance of that.
Your inept ad hom has no significance other than the minor one of emphasizing the insignificance of your sub-remedial critical thinking skills.
“So atheism is a religion? No, I`m afraid not, no more than being completely healthy is just another kind of disease."
-– David Horton
That is not ad hominem because it is the truth. You don't possess the capacity to realize just how well that qualifies as an obvious reason. I mean it is so obvious that I used the word 'remedial' to clue you in that it was exactly that obvious. Instead of wising up, though, you took the path of the dumber even more and accused it of being ad hominem. That is really really poor of you to lack even that much capability to observe and discern.
"Atheism is most certainly a religion. It is just as much as the color of a black cat is black and not colorless. Even though black as a light source is an absence of photons and thus colorless, black as a pigment is molecular and thus a color"
-- Abrupt Falconslayer
-
Nor is there any requirement for other types of beliefs, such as yours.
Exactly what "beliefs" are being falsely attributed to me, other than projections of yours?
Your beliefs, unless you are going to pretend that you don't belief anything at all (which would be a lie in itself for obvious reasons).
Here, I'll dumb that down even further for you, (since you insist upon being an idiot); what ... precise ... beliefs?
I have schooled you in your own game.
That's merely another of your self-proclaimed self-delusions and is disregarded as such.
“So atheism is a religion? No, I`m afraid not, no more than being completely healthy is just another kind of disease."
-– David Horton
"Atheism is most certainly a religion. It is just as much as the color of a black cat is black and not colorless. Even though black as a light source is an absence of photons and thus colorless, black as a pigment is molecular and thus a color"
-- Abrupt Falconslain
“So atheism is a religion? No, I`m afraid not, no more than being completely healthy is just another kind of disease."
-– David Horton
“Calling ‘Atheism’ a religion is like calling ‘bald’ a hair color.”
~ Don Hirschberg
-
Nor is there any requirement for other types of beliefs, such as yours.
Exactly what "beliefs" are being falsely attributed to me, other than projections of yours?
Your beliefs, unless you are going to pretend that you don't belief anything at all (which would be a lie in itself for obvious reasons).
Here, I'll dumb that down even further for you, (since you insist upon being an idiot); what ... precise ... beliefs?
I have schooled you in your own game.
That's merely another of your self-proclaimed self-delusions and is disregarded as such.
“So atheism is a religion? No, I`m afraid not, no more than being completely healthy is just another kind of disease."
-– David Horton
"Atheism is most certainly a religion. It is just as much as the color of a black cat is black and not colorless. Even though black as a light source is an absence of photons and thus colorless, black as a pigment is molecular and thus a color"
-- Abrupt Falconslain
“So atheism is a religion? No, I`m afraid not, no more than being completely healthy is just another kind of disease."
-– David Horton
“Calling ‘Atheism’ a religion is like calling ‘bald’ a hair color.”
~ Don Hirschberg
"Claiming 'Atheism' isn't a religion is like claiming 'bald' isn't a hair style."
-- Abrupt Falconslayer
-
We have no fear, the lord will protect us, we dance with poison snakes. I'm a believer, hallelujah!
- A "serpent-handling" West Virginia pastor died after his rattlesnake bit him during a church ritual, just as the man had apparently watched a snake kill his father years before.
Pentecostal pastor Mark Wolford, 44, hosted an outdoor service at the Panther Wildlife Management Area in West Virginia Sunday, which he touted on his Facebook page prior to the event.
"I am looking for a great time this Sunday," Wolford wrote May 22, according to the Washington Post. "It is going to be a homecoming like the old days. Good 'ole raised in the holler or mountain ridge running, Holy Ghost-filled speaking-in-tongues sign believers."
Robin Vanover, Wolford's sister, told the Washington Post that 30 minutes into the outdoor service, Wolford passed around a poisonous timber rattlesnake, which eventually bit him.
"He laid it on the ground," Vanover said in the interview, "and he sat down next to the snake, and it bit him on the thigh."
Vanover said Wolford was then transported to a family member's home in Bluefield about 80 miles away to recover. But as the situation worsened, he was taken to a hospital where he later died.
Jim Shires, owner of the Cravens-Shires Funeral Home in Bluefield, told ABC News that Wolford died Monday. Wolford's church, the Apostolic House of the Lord Jesus in Matoaka, will host a viewing Friday and a funeral service Saturday morning. Wolford will be buried at the Hicks Family Plot in Phelps, Ky.
Officials at the Panther Wildlife Management Area had been unaware of Sunday's event until they were notified by callers after the service.
"We did not know that this event was happening, and if we had known about it or if we had been asked for permission, permission would not have been granted," Hoy Murphy, public information officer for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, told ABC News.
Hoy said West Virginia state park rules prohibit animals other than dogs and cats on the property.
While snake-handling is legal in West Virginia, other Appalachian states, including Kentucky and Tennessee, have banned the practice in public spaces.
Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Wolford told the Washington Post magazine in 2011 that he is carrying on the tradition of his ancestors by engaging in snake handling.
"Anybody can do it that believes it," Wolford said. "Jesus said, 'These signs shall follow them which believe.' This is a sign to show people that God has the power."
Wolford said watched his own father die at the age of 39 after a rattlesnake bit him during a similar service.
"He lived 10 1/2 hours," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine. "When he got bit, he said he wanted to die in the church. Three hours after he was bitten, his kidneys shut down. After a while, your heart stops. I hated to see him go, but he died for what he believed in.
"I know it's real; it is the power of God," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine last year. "If I didn't do it, if I'd never gotten back involved, it'd be the same as denying the power and saying it was not real."-
Amen!
-
"Claiming 'Atheism' isn't a religion is like claiming 'bald' isn't a hair style."
-- Abrupt Falconbeaten
No matter how you illogically twist and turn, you remain unable to convert atheism into a "religion". Repetitions of such an unsubstantiated opinion don't acheive such a conversion, ad hominems don't do it and neither does blind faith put atheism into the same sinking boat as religion.
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a g-d. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the g-d question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
-- John McCarthy
-
"Claiming 'Atheism' isn't a religion is like claiming 'bald' isn't a hair style."
-- Abrupt Falconbeaten
No matter how you illogically twist and turn, you remain unable to convert atheism into a "religion". Repetitions of such an unsubstantiated opinion don't acheive such a conversion, ad hominems don't do it and neither does blind faith put atheism into the same sinking boat as religion.
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a g-d. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the g-d question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
-- John McCarthy
And yet I have demonstrated it to be a religion quite soundly without any twisting/turning/ad hominem, and all you have done is deny and lie and quote other atheist's who say it isn't. You resist so greatly in admitting this because if you did you would have to face the hypocrisy of your actions. Because you are a self-demonstrated liar as well as a proven one I don't see what you hope to gain by your continued denial and accusations. Continue to preach your religion all you wish to, but don't expect the rest of us to not recognize it for what it is.
Also that now makes three times on this thread alone that you have quoted me and then modified my words (even though I advised you not to do it again) and I have asked for moderator correction in this matter.
-
"Claiming 'Atheism' isn't a religion is like claiming 'bald' isn't a hair style."
-- Abrupt Falconbeaten
No matter how you illogically twist and turn, you remain unable to convert atheism into a "religion". Repetitions of such an unsubstantiated opinion don't acheive such a conversion, ad hominems don't do it and neither does blind faith put atheism into the same sinking boat as religion.
And yet I have demonstrated it to be a religion quite soundly
No, you merely keep claiming that you have. There's a vast difference. Since "atheism" is not a religious belief, it's not a religion. Your continued insistance that it is, (sans valid evidence), is irrational.
... twisting/turning/ad hominem, and all you have done is deny and lie and quote other atheist's who say it isn't.
Your lies don't fly; more than simply quoting others, the line of reasoning which demostrates that "atheism" does not qualify as a "reglion" has been presented previously. Instead of attempting to refute that reasoning, you selected some bizarre sophist and illogical arguments, (by quoting the 'arguments' of others), which never succeeded in demonstrating your contention. They did demonstrate your inferior critical thinking skills, however.
... you would have to face the hypocrisy of your actions.
Conversely, you've been so desparate in trying to force-fit "atheistic" viewpoints into a strawman argument so that you can conclude hypocrisy where there is none. Logic and the ability to reason do not constitute a "religion" since these are not religious beliefs. The religious shoe doesn't fit, you'll have to keep wearing it, fundie hypocrit.
Because you are a self-demonstrated liar as well as a proven one
Your false accusations constitute a violation of the xtian admonishment against "bearing false witness". Now you'll have to seek sanctuary under the 'witless protection program'.
Continue to preach your religion all you wish to, but don't expect the rest of us to not recognize it for what it is.
Since I have no religion, it isn't possible to "preach" it. I cannot, with any degree of accuracy, determine whether or not you're a moron or simply stupid.
Also that now makes three times on this thread alone that you have quoted me and then modified my words (even though I advised you not to do it again) and I have asked for moderator correction in this matter.
If you're self-delusional enough to believe that you can post lies about me and that I must somehow accept those lies, go for it.
-
Wow! The word "moron" seems to be a popular name-calling word in the Bible threads today. I've seen it on both sides, too. Good grief...
-
Wow! The word "moron" seems to be a popular name-calling word in the Bible threads today. I've seen it on both sides, too. Good grief...
Although the xtian who brought the word out initially tries to dodge that by characterizing who did something first as "childish", this is a false 'argument'. The sequence of events establishes the chain of action and reaction. These are not equivalencies. What's "childish" is attempting to downplay the sequence in order for the actual instigator to attempt escaping the consequences of their initial actions.
That means, if some xtian is going to call a non-xtian a "moron" simply because they don't hold the same specious religious beliefs as that xtian does, then the instigating remark was 'moronic'.
-
Wow! The word "moron" seems to be a popular name-calling word in the Bible threads today. I've seen it on both sides, too. Good grief...
Although the xtian who brought the word out initially tries to dodge that by characterizing who did something first as "childish", this is a false 'argument'. The sequence of events establishes the chain of action and reaction. These are not equivalencies. What's "childish" is attempting to downplay the sequence in order for the actual instigator to attempt escaping the consequences of their initial actions.
That means, if some xtian is going to call a non-xtian a "moron" simply because they don't hold the same specious religious beliefs as that xtian does, then the instigating remark was 'moronic'.
Well, gee, that was a lengthy explanation. I actually didn't agree with the name-calling from the other poster (in the other thread, that is...) since that will get nowhere with the other issues, not to mention calling someone that because of not believing the same beliefs. It will certainly not help in the long run, and will actually give a bad name for other believers who don't do that.
-
Well, gee, that was a lengthy explanation. I actually didn't agree with the name-calling from the other poster (in the other thread, that is...) since that will get nowhere with the other issues, not to mention calling someone that because of not believing the same beliefs. It will certainly not help in the long run, and will actually give a bad name for other believers who don't do that.
C'mon now, you've personally seen some of my really lengthy explanations in other threads and the one here was fairly brief in contrast.
:o
-
Well, gee, that was a lengthy explanation. I actually didn't agree with the name-calling from the other poster (in the other thread, that is...) since that will get nowhere with the other issues, not to mention calling someone that because of not believing the same beliefs. It will certainly not help in the long run, and will actually give a bad name for other believers who don't do that.
C'mon now, you've personally seen some of my really lengthy explanations in other threads and the one here was fairly brief in contrast.
:o
Well, ookkaayyy.... you're right.... ;D
-
Well, gee, that was a lengthy explanation. I actually didn't agree with the name-calling from the other poster (in the other thread, that is...) since that will get nowhere with the other issues, not to mention calling someone that because of not believing the same beliefs. It will certainly not help in the long run, and will actually give a bad name for other believers who don't do that.
C'mon now, you've personally seen some of my really lengthy explanations in other threads and the one here was fairly brief in contrast.
:o
Well, ookkaayyy.... you're right.... ;D
Eh, everyone slips every now and again.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
:o
-
And yet I have demonstrated it to be a religion quite soundly
No, you merely keep claiming that you have. There's a vast difference. Since "atheism" is not a religious belief, it's not a religion. Your continued insistance that it is, (sans valid evidence), is irrational.
Every scrap of supporting claims you made ins support of your contention that atheism is not a religion I have successfully countered with identical evidence and often stemming from the same sources. Additionally I have shown further evidence in support of it being a religion beyond what you provided or could counter. Furthermore The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment. So, if atheism is protected under the freedom of religion clause and given equal protection to other religions then it is by such fact a religion -- since if it were not a religion it could not afford thus considerations. You can cry and whine all you want to but the ruling of the courts is rather clear here (i.e. they don't care what you call it, but it is a religion).
... twisting/turning/ad hominem, and all you have done is deny and lie and quote other atheist's who say it isn't.
Your lies don't fly; more than simply quoting others, the line of reasoning which demostrates that "atheism" does not qualify as a "reglion" has been presented previously. Instead of attempting to refute that reasoning, you selected some bizarre sophist and illogical arguments, (by quoting the 'arguments' of others), which never succeeded in demonstrating your contention. They did demonstrate your inferior critical thinking skills, however.
All you ever do is make claims and accusations without a shred of evidence. I have proven your lies, heck even you proved your lies. There are no lies proven to belong to me, though, and I once again challenge you to show a single one.
... you would have to face the hypocrisy of your actions.
Conversely, you've been so desparate in trying to force-fit "atheistic" viewpoints into a strawman argument so that you can conclude hypocrisy where there is none. Logic and the ability to reason do not constitute a "religion" since these are not religious beliefs. The religious shoe doesn't fit, you'll have to keep wearing it, fundie hypocrit.
I haven't tried to force anything. It is your own words and actions that demonstrate the truth of atheism being a religion. One wouldn't jump into a threat talking about favorite types of drinking container and claim you prefer an LED light over a mug for illuminating a room as it would have no relevance, you might say you prefer to use your hands as a drinking container, though, and thus by inference your hands are a drinking container (in addition to their other uses). Your problem in understanding lies in fault of your limited critical thinking skills and weak capacity for understanding. Your weakness and your blind faith in atheism have concealed rationality and reason from your dim eyes. This is the most comical part of your tragedy -- you are judge/jury/prosecutor over your own self and delivering the most savage verdict possible without every realizing you are also the defendant.
Because you are a self-demonstrated liar as well as a proven one
Your false accusations constitute a violation of the xtian admonishment against "bearing false witness". Now you'll have to seek sanctuary under the 'witless protection program'.
There is nothing false about what I said. The proof rests in this thread for all to see -- proof provided by not just me but also by you and in your own words.
Continue to preach your religion all you wish to, but don't expect the rest of us to not recognize it for what it is.
Since I have no religion, it isn't possible to "preach" it. I cannot, with any degree of accuracy, determine whether or not you're a moron or simply stupid.
You doth protest too much, methinks. I am quite sure that with your limited capacity to reason that you would have great difficulty determining anything unless it were told to you, but take your pick of who you chose to be repeatedly bested by and then determine if I am such then what does it make you?
Also that now makes three times on this thread alone that you have quoted me and then modified my words (even though I advised you not to do it again) and I have asked for moderator correction in this matter.
If you're self-delusional enough to believe that you can post lies about me and that I must somehow accept those lies, go for it.
I have posted no lies about you, but you have posted lies about me that I have repeatedly called you on and proven. Unlike you, I am not weak or a coward. I don't have to fabricate and falsify to participate in debate. I once again challenge you to show a single lie I have posted about you. I will make it easy on you -- there are not any (unlike the lies I proved that you posted on me).
-
And yet I have demonstrated it to be a religion quite soundly
No, you merely keep claiming that you have. There's a vast difference. Since "atheism" is not a religious belief, it's not a religion. Your continued insistance that it is, (sans valid evidence), is irrational.
Every scrap of supporting claims you made ins support of your contention that atheism is not a religion I have successfully countered
No, you merely keep claiming that you have. There's a vast difference. Since "atheism" is not a religious belief, it's not a religion. Your continued insistance that it is, (sans valid evidence), is irrational.
Furthermore The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment. So, if atheism is protected under the freedom of religion clause and given equal protection to other religions then it is by such fact a religion -- since if it were not a religion it could not afford thus considerations.
Your self-vaunted "superior critical thinking skills" have failed you once again, (and in the same way, since you've merely repeated your invalid non-reasoning). Once again, being afforded the same "protections" as a religion do not equate to recognising "atheism" as a "religion." Such continued insistance on force-fitting a court ruling regarding legal protections 'as if' atheism were a religion like xtianity isn't confering religious 'status' upon atheism. If that distinction remains too 'subtle' for you to comprehend, (as it seems from your irrational insistence), then one must conclude your self-applied adjective of "superior" was a typo for 'inferior'.
... twisting/turning/ad hominem, and all you have done is deny and lie and quote other atheist's who say it isn't.
Your lies don't fly; more than simply quoting others, the line of reasoning which demostrates that "atheism" does not qualify as a "reglion" has been presented previously. Instead of attempting to refute that reasoning, you selected some bizarre sophist and illogical arguments, (by quoting the 'arguments' of others), which never succeeded in demonstrating your contention. They did demonstrate your inferior critical thinking skills, however.
All you ever do is make claims and accusations without a shred of evidence. There are no lies proven to belong to me ...
If you're done admonishing yourself in your mirror and projecting your own transgressions onto others, we can proceed.
... you would have to face the hypocrisy of your actions.
Conversely, you've been so desparate in trying to force-fit "atheistic" viewpoints into a strawman argument so that you can conclude hypocrisy where there is none. Logic and the ability to reason do not constitute a "religion" since these are not religious beliefs. The religious shoe doesn't fit, you'll have to keep wearing it, fundie hypocrit.
I haven't tried to force anything.
The archived evidence of contrary posts you've made contradict your claim. Although I've seen your transparent tactic used before, (e.g., counting on replies being so lengthy and going back so far that no one will bother to go look ... which fails when someone does look and requotes your words intact). Bummer for you, eh?
It is your own words and actions that demonstrate the truth of atheism being a religion.
Really? Which intact, contextually quotes of any of my previous posts demonstrate such that nonsensical claim of yours? That burden of proof is on you for making that claim. Call or fold.
One wouldn't jump into a threat talking about favorite types of drinking container and claim you prefer an LED light over a mug for illuminating a room as it would have no relevance, you might say you prefer to use your hands as a drinking container, though, and thus by inference your hands are a drinking container (in addition to their other uses).
Assuming you meant, "jump into a 'thread'", rather than a "threat", (as amusing a Freudian slip as that was), your attempt at drawing a parallel between that jumble of a non-parallel and posting in threads regarding religious subjects does not logically follow. Remarks can be and have been made by non-religious posters in religious threads. Such opposing positions do not confer 'religiousity' upon the dissenters, (whether they are atheist or non-religious in other regard). Your pseudo-parallel inaccurately generalizes discussion of subject matter by conflating it with those discussing a subject. This is an obvious logical fallacy, which is probably why you used it.*
Your problem in understanding lies ...
On the contrary, I have no difficulty understanding your lies. This is not the case for you since great difficulty in doing so has been adaquately demonstrated by your continued denials in the face of overt contradictory evidence. Once again, I am not trained to sufficient degree in psychiatry to diagnose either clinical pathologic or, compulsive lying on your part and make no claims regarding either.
Because you are a self-demonstrated liar as well as a proven one
Your false accusations constitute a violation of the xtian admonishment against "bearing false witness". Now you'll have to seek sanctuary under the 'witless protection program'.
Continue to preach your religion all you wish to, but don't expect the rest of us to not recognize it for what it is.
Since I have no religion, it isn't possible to "preach" it. I cannot, with any degree of accuracy, determine whether or not you're a moron or simply stupid.
I have posted no lies about you
You keep posting that false claim so, you'll get the same response; once again, I am not trained to sufficient degree in psychiatry to diagnose either clinical pathologic or, compulsive lying on your part and make no claims regarding either.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
-
Furthermore The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment. So, if atheism is protected under the freedom of religion clause and given equal protection to other religions then it is by such fact a religion -- since if it were not a religion it could not afford thus considerations.
Your self-vaunted "superior critical thinking skills" have failed you once again, (and in the same way, since you've merely repeated your invalid non-reasoning). Once again, being afforded the same "protections" as a religion do not equate to recognising "atheism" as a "religion." Such continued insistance on force-fitting a court ruling regarding legal protections 'as if' atheism were a religion like xtianity isn't confering religious 'status' upon atheism. If that distinction remains too 'subtle' for you to comprehend, (as it seems from your irrational insistence), then one must conclude your self-applied adjective of "superior" was a typo for 'inferior'.
You obviously didn't read their briefs and comments as you would have not asked this question. In addition you don't understand law very well or you would not have asked this question. You only reveal your ignorance here, much as you have the tendency to do. Remember, that the judicial branch cannot create laws and they cannot expand laws to cover areas that are not indicated, so for atheism to be so afforded these protections it must actually fall within whatever is covered as being protected. Also remember that this is the intentional result of an atheist suit for freedom of religion for his religion of atheism, and that the courts concluded that atheism was Mr. Kaufman's religion.
Why is it that you become so angry and irrational when your beliefs are put to test? I have scarcely challenged your religion at all and you had to resort to lies and posting false quotes that you attributed to me. You love to make your boast about simple challenges to other religions and often state that your insults are not attacks but simply such innocent challenges but when even less of a test is put to you it results in your blowing up and becoming hostile. It is a shame that you are so blinded by your religion that you cannot see this, but for the rest of us we can smile and point to your hypocrisy and ask "isn't this the guy that accuses others of having 'blind' faith?".
Since you have this tendency to be overly critical of misspelled words and typos let us be fair and apply the same to you: Did you mean recognizing instead of 'recognising', insistence instead of 'insistance', conferring instead of 'confering'?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/YOcpt.jpg)
Just thought it was worth bringing this back again.
Atheism isn't a religion? ::)
-
Atheism isn't a religion?
It's not. My favorite example to illustrate is the stamp collector. Let's just say you have a hobby of collecting stamps, and I don't have a hobby of collecting stamps. Does that mean I have a hobby of not collecting stamps? Atheism is a single term which is simply a disbelief. If you're trying to state that a disbelief is a belief (or rather an entire belief system...), that's an oxymoron.
-
You obviously didn't read their briefs and comments as you would have not asked this question.
I didn't pose a question in my reply, your specious position was refuted without asking one. Obviously, you are as unable to discern the difference between a question and a statement as you are the difference between religion and non-religious "atheism".
In addition you don't understand law very well or you would not have asked this question.
Again, no question was asked in my reply to your nonsense about creating a legal precedent. Unless you have a degree in law, (and a functioning ability to discern the difference between "treated as if it were ... " and declaring "atheism to be a religion), such arguments are without merit.
I have scarcely challenged your religion at all ...
That's not much of a feat when I have no religion to challenge, is it?
It is a shame that you are so blinded by your religion that you cannot see this ...
Your continued insistance of imputing that a non-religious viewpoint constitutes a "religion" remains irrational. Such irrational arguments have been refuted by rational ones although it remains your personal choice to cling to specious irrationality and religious beliefs.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
-
You obviously didn't read their briefs and comments as you would have not asked this question.
I didn't pose a question in my reply, your specious position was refuted without asking one. Obviously, you are as unable to discern the difference between a question and a statement as you are the difference between religion and non-religious "atheism".
In addition you don't understand law very well or you would not have asked this question.
Again, no question was asked in my reply to your nonsense about creating a legal precedent. Unless you have a degree in law, (and a functioning ability to discern the difference between "treated as if it were ... " and declaring "atheism to be a religion), such arguments are without merit.
I have scarcely challenged your religion at all ...
That's not much of a feat when I have no religion to challenge, is it?
It is a shame that you are so blinded by your religion that you cannot see this ...
Your continued insistance of imputing that a non-religious viewpoint constitutes a "religion" remains irrational. Such irrational arguments have been refuted by rational ones although it remains your personal choice to cling to specious irrationality and religious beliefs.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
You used an implied question and it becomes quite obvious that you have no idea what such is, nor how to recognize it.
No degree in law is required to be capable of discerning and participating in legal processes. I have personally filed writs and motions and won favorable judgments in every such case. It is only necessary to understand the language of law and such simple concepts of standing and jurisdiction, scope, precedence, and basic procedure. Atheism cannot be afforded the protections provided under the freedom of religion clause unless it is considered to have the exact properties of a religion. You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling. The other area you have trouble understanding on such legal proceeding is 'damage' -- they cannot act on their own and make a decision about a subject unless damage is shown, and only then can they rule on that area and they cannot go beyond that as such behavior becomes activism.
-
Atheism cannot be afforded the protections provided under the freedom of religion clause unless it is considered to have the exact properties of a religion.
False. The court's ruling regarded treating atheist meetings in prison the same way religious meetings are treated in order to afford prisoners the freedom of choice to attend them, (keeping in mind such secular and "religious" meeting in prisons are sometimes merely opportunities for prison-gangs to meet and plot as well). The court did not specifically or implicitly rule that atheism is a "religion".
Seemingly, you remain unable to distinguish the difference between "treated as if" and 'ruled as being a religion'.
You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.
Quote the unaltered determination by the court which explicitly and unambigiously states that "atheism was the man's religion".
-
Well, I read the story/news about the man handling a rattlesnake, getting bit, and dieing.....all in the name of the Lord and such. Whether you believe in God or not is beside the point. This pastor played with fire and got burned. I am sorry, but anyone dumb enough to play with a rattlesnake whatever the reason will eventually get bit. It is a wild animal, plain and simple, even if someone was keeping it as a pet or what not. Where did he get the snake from in the first place is what I would like to know? People need to learn to leave wild life alone. Unless they have studied how to handle wild animals, like Jeff Corwin and those kinds of people, and know what they are doing they shouldn't be handling wild animals. Period!
-
Again for the benefit of the 3 people who can't interpret the Bible worth a brass farthing,The verse in question Mark 16:18 " they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all;" is meant to represent the children of God and their dealing with unbelievers and false doctrines.And how they will walk among such without having their Faith fail them.
-
Again for the benefit of the 3 people who can't interpret the Bible ...
That's just the point; presenting a specious faith-based interpretation still leaves it as an interpretation. That's why some of JJ's fellow fundies play with snakes - different delusional interpretations being applied.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2rxihbn.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/VXDEc.jpg)
-
Atheism cannot be afforded the protections provided under the freedom of religion clause unless it is considered to have the exact properties of a religion.
False. The court's ruling regarded treating atheist meetings in prison the same way religious meetings are treated in order to afford prisoners the freedom of choice to attend them, (keeping in mind such secular and "religious" meeting in prisons are sometimes merely opportunities for prison-gangs to meet and plot as well). The court did not specifically or implicitly rule that atheism is a "religion".
Seemingly, you remain unable to distinguish the difference between "treated as if" and 'ruled as being a religion'.
Afford prisoners freedom of choice???? You seriously overestimate what rights a prisoner has -- remember not even all typical rights such as freedom of speech are retained within a prison. You could
read more on the Geneva Convention and the Prisoners Bill of Rights to get a better understanding. They absolutely did rule that atheism was Mr Kaufman's religion. I understand quite well the subtle variations on considering things and equating them with others, but what you fail to understand is that legal rulings are not based on 'fairness' or any such equivocations. You could no more apply a law that covers protection of religion to something that wasn't religions as you could a law that covers protection of women to include protection for men.
You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.
Quote the unaltered determination by the court which explicitly and unambigiously states that "atheism was the man's religion".
Oh, this one you mean? "Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry
-
Again for the benefit of the 3 people who can't interpret the Bible worth a brass farthing
Why can't you follow your beliefs and be kind and avoid quarreling? I thought Christians were into that sort of thing.
-
They absolutely did rule that atheism was Mr Kaufman's religion.
An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court or court of appeals, or appeal court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. The 7th district court of appeals is not the supreme court/final arbitrator.
Adjudicator "opinions" of an appellate court do not constitute a final "ruling", appellate courts are bought in on appeals. Their opinions and rulings can be overturned by a supreme court. Regardless, there are some more contextual exerpts from the transcripts than the ones you cherry-picked, (which gives a tacit okay to 'cherry-pick' counter-arguments).
You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.
"Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry
"The officials concluded that Kaufman's request was not motivated by “religious” beliefs. Accordingly, rather than evaluating the proposal under the state's relatively more flexible policy for new religious groups, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.61, they considered it under the procedure for forming a new inmate activity group, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.365. Applying the latter standard, they denied the request, stating that they were not forming new activity groups at that time."
- See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, *4 (W.D.Wis. Feb.9, 2004)
"The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns."
- See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
- See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003)
"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions ... but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion ... a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”
- See Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680
-----------------------------------
The key terms which directly apply are extracted as; "... recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment",
"... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion" and "... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
That "for the purposes of the First Amendment" protections part does not conflate atheism with being a "religion". It treats that antithesis of religion as "equivalent" only for First Amendment protection purposes, (again, not to establish atheism as a "religion" in violation of the Establishment Clause).
-
They absolutely did rule that atheism was Mr Kaufman's religion.
An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court or court of appeals, or appeal court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. The 7th district court of appeals is not the supreme court/final arbitrator.
Adjudicator "opinions" of an appellate court do not constitute a final "ruling", appellate courts are bought in on appeals. Their opinions and rulings can be overturned by a supreme court. Regardless, there are some more contextual exerpts from the transcripts than the ones you cherry-picked, (which gives a tacit okay to 'cherry-pick' counter-arguments).
I understand quite well the various levels involved within the legal system, and where relief and finality lies. I didn't cherry pick anything, I posted what was relevant and that is all. You, though, were unable to successfully navigate the material to get to the pertinent parts and actually cited prison administrative decisions -- which have no bearing.
You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.
"Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry
"The officials concluded that Kaufman's request was not motivated by “religious” beliefs. Accordingly, rather than evaluating the proposal under the state's relatively more flexible policy for new religious groups, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.61, they considered it under the procedure for forming a new inmate activity group, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.365. Applying the latter standard, they denied the request, stating that they were not forming new activity groups at that time."
- See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, *4 (W.D.Wis. Feb.9, 2004)
This is finding of the prison administration and it has no part in legal authority and was included in the ruling as part of evidentiary discovery -- case law can be seemingly complex though and often difficult to easily follow so such confusion is understandable.
"The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns."
- See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
- See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003)
"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions ... but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion ... a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”
- See Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680
-----------------------------------
The key terms which directly apply are extracted as; "... recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment",
"... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion" and "... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
That "for the purposes of the First Amendment" protections part does not conflate atheism with being a "religion". It treats that antithesis of religion as "equivalent" only for First Amendment protection purposes, (again, not to establish atheism as a "religion" in violation of the Establishment Clause).
Remember, as was discussed before, there is no agreed upon definition of what the word 'religion' means, and in fact there are definitions that could be described as contradictory. This word has had contested definitions for thousands of years and is not going to be settled by us. Such is the reason that the courts do not attempt to define religion as they are well aware of the contentions, but it is worth note that they did conclude that "atheism is Kaufman's religion". Some of the oldest reference to the use of atheism were when Christians were labeled as Atheists. Some of the court opinion has been much like when it was applied to 'pornography' with statements such as it not being something that can be readily defined, but it is certainly something that you would know when you see it. I also stated before that I didn't like to put much weight into legal decisions regarding such matters (I most certainly would not take their definition if it went against my thinking and I absolutely extend the same resistance to you) and I merely used this as evidence in the court of public opinion to counter your claims and quotes and to go beyond what you provided. I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.
-
"The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns."
- See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
- See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003)
"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions ... but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion ... a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”
- See Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680
-----------------------------------
The key terms which directly apply are extracted as; "... recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment",
"... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion" and "... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
That "for the purposes of the First Amendment" protections part does not conflate atheism with being a "religion". It treats that antithesis of religion as "equivalent" only for First Amendment protection purposes, (again, not to establish atheism as a "religion" in violation of the Establishment Clause).
Remember, as was discussed before, there is no agreed upon definition of what the word 'religion' means, and in fact there are definitions that could be described as contradictory. This word has had contested definitions for thousands of years and is not going to be settled by us. Such is the reason that the courts do not attempt to define religion as they are well aware of the contentions ...
"Religion" is either a belief system, which relies entirely upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence), or it is not. Obviously, "theist"-based belief-systems are religions in that sense and atheism is "not" theism. Atheism is not a belief system, (since it specifically involves the antithesis of "belief" and eschews the "faith"-basis of belief. Defining atheism as a belief system would be one of those, (internally inconsistant), contradictory definitions. Again, treating atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes is not equivalent to redefining atheism as a religion for the purposes of making an invalid generalisation in an online debate.
I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.
If so, you'd be able to indicate which parts of logical "atheistic" challenges presented qualify as beliefs based upon faith. Are you implicitly suggesting that "logic" is based upon "faith" or, that rationality is a "belief" for instance?
-
Remember, as was discussed before, there is no agreed upon definition of what the word 'religion' means, and in fact there are definitions that could be described as contradictory. This word has had contested definitions for thousands of years and is not going to be settled by us. Such is the reason that the courts do not attempt to define religion as they are well aware of the contentions ...
"Religion" is either a belief system, which relies entirely upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence), or it is not. Obviously, "theist"-based belief-systems are religions in that sense and atheism is "not" theism. Atheism is not a belief system, (since it specifically involves the antithesis of "belief" and eschews the "faith"-basis of belief. Defining atheism as a belief system would be one of those, (internally inconsistant), contradictory definitions. Again, treating atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes is not equivalent to redefining atheism as a religion for the purposes of making an invalid generalisation in an online debate.
You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even. Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required. You are also equivocating the definition you use of atheism with the description of your methodology as 'atheism' and such is fallacious. It is as much as a man can call himself a Christian and never display any characteristics of a Christian and then another will try and take this man's traits and define Christianity by them. This is often done and suggested here and I find the inherent dishonesty in such things very obvious and telling. The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes. If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this -- and such is done legislatively and not judicially regardless of any sense of 'fairness' or reason to expedite.
I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.
If so, you'd be able to indicate which parts of logical "atheistic" challenges presented qualify as beliefs based upon faith. Are you implicitly suggesting that "logic" is based upon "faith" or, that rationality is a "belief" for instance?
I would not have to qualify any such position as you propose to comply with defining atheism as a religion -- since you are purposely picking a definition that you would be unable to define in such a way and equivocating it. I can do this though, and in fact I have demonstrated the fundamentals of such early on in one of our other debates. Your later question reveals the blindness of your thinking. Your question suggest that you see yourself as some grand device of logic and rationality, and that any who fail to agree with you entirely on everything would be illogical and irrational and thus could not be atheists. Think about that deeply and you will see the folly of your query. If every single self-described atheist doesn't exactly agree upon every single position and preference (even into the mundane and material) then only one of them could ever be an atheist. Such is the way of the logic and rationality that you propose. Logic hinders progress and blinds people of the truth (yes I realize quite well the implications of such a statement).
You see, people can only actively think logically. It is in such considerations that when someone displays a habit of consistently being dishonest that certain tendencies in body language and psychological characteristics are revealed. Such a discussion is more complex than I have the time to cover here. The brain is a logical computational device that also has emotional/chemical conditioners/modifiers as well as experience factoring. The root of all thought of the human brain (including the conscious logical portion) actually originates from the emotional wielding sub conscious. It is only though such that we are able to effectively perform because if we solely relied upon logic we would be shackled into inactivity and caution. Logic cannot utilize the mechanisms of probability or statistics or historical data and can only qualify known states. Logic 'knows' that the only known states are purely fanciful and imagined and that any interpretations of the physical senses rely upon 'faith' in such senses being accurate (logic knows that there is no guarantee for such and is well aware that the sub conscious can deliberately manufacture any sensation/imagery/sound/smell/taste 'it' desires without explanation). There is so much more I could say on the matter, but I fear such expansion would be purposeless if one cannot grasp the gist of what I have said here.
-
Such is the reason that the courts do not attempt to define religion as they are well aware of the contentions ...
"Religion" is either a belief system, which relies entirely upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence), or it is not. Obviously, "theist"-based belief-systems are religions in that sense and atheism is "not" theism. Atheism is not a belief system, (since it specifically involves the antithesis of "belief" and eschews the "faith"-basis of belief. Defining atheism as a belief system would be one of those, (internally inconsistant), contradictory definitions. Again, treating atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes is not equivalent to redefining atheism as a religion for the purposes of making an invalid generalisation in an online debate.
You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.
If these are "cherry-picked", are you contending that religion is not a belief system or that it doesn't rely upon "faith"? You have contended that atheism is a belief system which relies on faith however, you have not delineated what those unspecified "beliefs" are nor, what any alleged "faith" is in. Go cherry-pick another strawman non-response to that.
Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.
That justification is apologetic and circular; it inherently 'suggests' that "faith" is an asserted claim somehow, (since it's not specified how), exempt from the burden of proof requirements of making an extraordinary claim. Further, "faith" itself does not make suggestions, faith-holders do and apparently they make specious and irrational ones, (going by yours, for instance).
You are also equivocating the definition you use of atheism with the description of your methodology as 'atheism' and such is fallacious.
Since the partial definition, (as you implied with your continued "cherry-picked" remarks), was not intended as an all-inclusive definition of "atheism", no equivocal fallacies are inherent in my comments. On the other hand, you have equivocated the defintion of religion to conflate it with non-religious atheism. Your attempted justifications for doing so have proved to be logically-invalid prevarications.
It is as much as a man can call himself a Christian and never display any characteristics of a Christian and then another will try and take this man's traits and define Christianity by them.
Conversely, we have seen self-declared xtians display bits and pieces of what's loosely described as xtianity and then try to exclude other self-declared xtians such as Jim Jones, the Crusaders or the Inquisitioners from the same religious club.
This is often done and suggested here and I find the inherent dishonesty in such things very obvious and telling.
I agree but, endeavor to address the dishonest claims made by xtians more than any personal dishonesty of xtians themselves, (unless the xtians themselves are unable to separate their own specious beliefs from who they are and conflate the two).
The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.
So, you're implicitly suggesting that the courts can rule on what is, or is not, a "religion"? You might check with an actual attorney on this because if that were so, there are several 'lawyered-up' groups and individuals ready to bring ruinous class-action suits against organized religions for making false claims.
If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this --
Consult an attorney about that point, you don't even play an 'internet lawyer' well enough to argue a kangaroo court case. The 7th district court of appeals did not establish a legal precedent with the prison case you're deriving this "atheism is a religion" syllogism from. An appellate court doesn't do that and supreme courts would rather not, (otherwise xtianity would probably not withstand a rigorous legal test). What the appellate court did rule by legal opinion was that, for the purposes of an inmate gathering in prison, an atheist discussion group could be considered as a "religious gathering" and thus, not be prevented by the prison administration. This appellate decision was case-specific and does not extend beyond prison walls. The supreme court(s) nominally establish legal precedents. Much like your "belief" that atheism is a religion does not extend beyond the walls your own irrationality nor convert a-theism into a religious belief system.
I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.
If so, you'd be able to indicate which parts of logical "atheistic" challenges presented qualify as beliefs based upon faith. Are you implicitly suggesting that "logic" is based upon "faith" or, that rationality is a "belief" for instance?
I would not have to qualify any such position as you propose to comply with defining atheism as a religion --
Logic hinders progress and blinds people of the truth (yes I realize quite well the implications of such a statement).
It's always amusing whenever someone ineptly attempts to use logic to disparage logic. I know you fail to see irony in that however, your illogical opinions don't carry any weight with me.
You see, people can only actively think logically.
That's a demonstrably-false claim. There are daily examples of people thinking emotionally/irrationally which don't qualify as logical thinking.
What usually occurs is a selective usage of logic and illogic in their thinking process. Some of this is conscious and some, unconscious. Some people have more illogical aspects to their thinking processes than others. Some selectively apply rational/critical thinking to particular concepts while eschewing them when it comes to specious religious beliefs, (perhaps because they are aware such would not withstand logical inquiry and that strawman arguments need be propped-up in reason's stead).
-
You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.
If these are "cherry-picked", are you contending that religion is not a belief system or that it doesn't rely upon "faith"? You have contended that atheism is a belief system which relies on faith however, you have not delineated what those unspecified "beliefs" are nor, what any alleged "faith" is in. Go cherry-pick another strawman non-response to that.
No. Correct. Sure, why not as such would be your objection contrary to whatever I submitted -- that or you would simply rewrite what I submitted and precede as if such an action had relevance.
Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.
That justification is apologetic and circular; it inherently 'suggests' that "faith" is an asserted claim somehow, (since it's not specified how), exempt from the burden of proof requirements of making an extraordinary claim. Further, "faith" itself does not make suggestions, faith-holders do and apparently they make specious and irrational ones, (going by yours, for instance).
It isn't at all. There is an obvious distinction between the claims that you seem incapable of distinguishing. I suspect this is simply from no other reason than to attempt to belittle the other. Oh my on your last statement. Is it now necessary to explain all literary devices to you? For a man that so boasts his knowledge and intellect for you to be caught so blindly and unaware of such things 'suggests' that you should broaden your intellect and familiarity in said area.
You are also equivocating the definition you use of atheism with the description of your methodology as 'atheism' and such is fallacious.
Since the partial definition, (as you implied with your continued "cherry-picked" remarks), was not intended as an all-inclusive definition of "atheism", no equivocal fallacies are inherent in my comments. On the other hand, you have equivocated the defintion of religion to conflate it with non-religious atheism. Your attempted justifications for doing so have proved to be logically-invalid prevarications.
The fallacies are plainly clear for all to see from the definitions you use and your described interpretations of said definitions to your application of such a label upon yourself and your habits and statements. This is text book equivocation. There was no equivocation on my part (do you understand the meaning of that word -- I must wonder indeed at this point). I haven't tried to justify anything and if I had the logic used would be sound and superior to this trifling amateur hour prose of yours.
It is as much as a man can call himself a Christian and never display any characteristics of a Christian and then another will try and take this man's traits and define Christianity by them.
Conversely, we have seen self-declared xtians display bits and pieces of what's loosely described as xtianity and then try to exclude other self-declared xtians such as Jim Jones, the Crusaders or the Inquisitioners from the same religious club.
I can only assume that xtian means atheist, and particularly those athiest's that are only anti Christian. Other than that I am unsure of what you are trying to say here as it sounds like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe.
The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.
So, you're implicitly suggesting that the courts can rule on what is, or is not, a "religion"? You might check with an actual attorney on this because if that were so, there are several 'lawyered-up' groups and individuals ready to bring ruinous class-action suits against organized religions for making false claims.
No I actually pointed out that they don't take such positions of irrelevance. You might check with an optometrist on this because you are reading things that are not written or implied. If the optometrist fails you then maybe try a shrink.
If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this --
Consult an attorney about that point, you don't even play an 'internet lawyer' well enough to argue a kangaroo court case. The 7th district court of appeals did not establish a legal precedent with the prison case you're deriving this "atheism is a religion" syllogism from. An appellate court doesn't do that and supreme courts would rather not, (otherwise xtianity would probably not withstand a rigorous legal test). What the appellate court did rule by legal opinion was that, for the purposes of an inmate gathering in prison, an atheist discussion group could be considered as a "religious gathering" and thus, not be prevented by the prison administration. This appellate decision was case-specific and does not extend beyond prison walls. The supreme court(s) nominally establish legal precedents. Much like your "belief" that atheism is a religion does not extend beyond the walls your own irrationality nor convert a-theism into a religious belief system.
What are you going on here about? You do not even address the post you quoted in your insult laden rant of a reply. I sometimes wonder what great wrongs you imagine in your head when you formulate your answers. Furthermore I do not have to consult an attorney to comprehend the separation of powers -- but apparently you do and from your statements, have yet to take your own advice. Until you do this you should refrain from guessing answers to your imagined questions -- or do so and continue to look as foolish as you typically do.
I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.
If so, you'd be able to indicate which parts of logical "atheistic" challenges presented qualify as beliefs based upon faith. Are you implicitly suggesting that "logic" is based upon "faith" or, that rationality is a "belief" for instance?
I would not have to qualify any such position as you propose to comply with defining atheism as a religion --
Logic hinders progress and blinds people of the truth (yes I realize quite well the implications of such a statement).
It's always amusing whenever someone ineptly attempts to use logic to disparage logic. I know you fail to see irony in that however, your illogical opinions don't carry any weight with me.
No I see the irony of your statement quite well, but I bet you don't since you have a penchant to use the word 'irony' incorrectly.
You see, people can only actively think logically.
That's a demonstrably-false claim. There are daily examples of people thinking emotionally/irrationally which don't qualify as logical thinking.
What usually occurs is a selective usage of logic and illogic in their thinking process. Some of this is conscious and some, unconscious. Some people have more illogical aspects to their thinking processes than others. Some selectively apply rational/critical thinking to particular concepts while eschewing them when it comes to specious religious beliefs, (perhaps because they are aware such would not withstand logical inquiry and that strawman arguments need be propped-up in reason's stead).
People don't actively think emotionally, and nobody thinks 'irrationally'. To think irrationally is an impossibility, even if the outcomes were irrational and that includes deliberate or incidental. You have a poor understanding of the human mind and thought process and you constantly seem to believe that if people don't behave and act exactly as you would that it somehow means they are doing so in an irrational manner. Even 'mob/pack' mentality is not irrational, nor is confirmation bias or various other similar conditions. I would have thought you to be a student of military deception, but it is quite obvious that you are unfamiliar with it from your weak understanding of how people decide and discern.
-
You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.
If these are "cherry-picked", are you contending that religion is not a belief system or that it doesn't rely upon "faith"? You have contended that atheism is a belief system which relies on faith however, you have not delineated what those unspecified "beliefs" are nor, what any alleged "faith" is in. Go cherry-pick another strawman non-response to that.
No. Correct. Sure, why not as such would be your objection contrary to whatever I submitted -
You continue to prevaricate, which is your choice, rather than simply answer the challenge above. Duly noted.
- that or you would simply rewrite what I submitted and precede as if such an action had relevance.
On the contrary, you're demonstrably more adept at building strawman agruments which you can more easily pretend you're 'defeating', rather than confront my actual arguments and challenges to your specious beliefs head-on. What's for you to fear here, ego-damage?
Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.
That justification is apologetic and circular; it inherently 'suggests' that "faith" is an asserted claim somehow, (since it's not specified how), exempt from the burden of proof requirements of making an extraordinary claim. Further, "faith" itself does not make suggestions, faith-holders do and apparently they make specious and irrational ones, (going by yours, for instance).
It isn't at all.
Bland denials don't refute your attempt to dodge the burden of proof requirement for making the initial claims. They do emphasize your dodging once again, however.
I can only assume that xtian means atheist, and particularly those athiest's that are only anti Christian. Other than that I am unsure of what you are trying to say here as it sounds like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe.
Ironically, your assumption "that xtian means atheist" comes across "like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe" since my position is that atheism is neither a religion nor, a version of xtianity.
The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.
So, you're implicitly suggesting that the courts can rule on what is, or is not, a "religion"? You might check with an actual attorney on this because if that were so, there are several 'lawyered-up' groups and individuals ready to bring ruinous class-action suits against organized religions for making false claims.
If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this --
Consult an attorney about that pointas well, you don't even play an 'internet lawyer' well enough to argue a kangaroo court case. The 7th district court of appeals did not establish a legal precedent with the prison case you're deriving this "atheism is a religion" syllogism from. An appellate court doesn't do that and supreme courts would rather not, (otherwise xtianity would probably not withstand a rigorous legal test). What the appellate court did rule by legal opinion was that, for the purposes of an inmate gathering in prison, an atheist discussion group could be considered as a "religious gathering" and thus, not be prevented by the prison administration. This appellate decision was case-specific and does not extend beyond prison walls. The supreme court(s) nominally establish legal precedents. Much like your "belief" that atheism is a religion does not extend beyond the walls your own irrationality nor convert a-theism into a religious belief system.
What are you going on here about?
If you've lost track of your own strawman, it could be set on fire again for easier detection.
-
You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.
If these are "cherry-picked", are you contending that religion is not a belief system or that it doesn't rely upon "faith"? You have contended that atheism is a belief system which relies on faith however, you have not delineated what those unspecified "beliefs" are nor, what any alleged "faith" is in. Go cherry-pick another strawman non-response to that.
No. Correct. Sure, why not as such would be your objection contrary to whatever I submitted -
You continue to prevaricate, which is your choice, rather than simply answer the challenge above. Duly noted.
This isn't prevarication, it is simply boredom with your small minded irrelevant questions that I have answered numerous times already. If you could demonstrate a point to your requiring an answer I would probably entertain you, but I will not simply reply to every childish question you propose for the purpose of your fishing expedition. You really should take notes, and not just notes of the voices you seem to be imagining within your head. Your inability to focus is becoming a great hindrance on the debate, and although I initially found your lack of concentration comical it has long since become nothing but tedious and simply obfuscation.
- that or you would simply rewrite what I submitted and precede as if such an action had relevance.
On the contrary, you're demonstrably more adept at building strawman agruments which you can more easily pretend you're 'defeating', rather than confront my actual arguments and challenges to your specious beliefs head-on. What's for you to fear here, ego-damage?
Why don't you show proof of such claims then? I understand how damaging it can be to your ego that I so easily defeat your arguments that you would imagine these strawmen as much as you imagine all of these other strange oddities you consistently bring up. Consider my free lessons to you, though, and imagine the immunity you can build up after all of these spankings you are taking. Perhaps it is already to the point that you have begun to enjoy them and thus you continue to beg for them -- much as you just did above? Is that it? Do you fancy the S&M treatments or something (if only it were a gag ball...).
Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.
That justification is apologetic and circular; it inherently 'suggests' that "faith" is an asserted claim somehow, (since it's not specified how), exempt from the burden of proof requirements of making an extraordinary claim. Further, "faith" itself does not make suggestions, faith-holders do and apparently they make specious and irrational ones, (going by yours, for instance).
It isn't at all.
Bland denials don't refute your attempt to dodge the burden of proof requirement for making the initial claims. They do emphasize your dodging once again, however.
I can only assume that xtian means atheist, and particularly those athiest's that are only anti Christian. Other than that I am unsure of what you are trying to say here as it sounds like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe.
Ironically, your assumption "that xtian means atheist" comes across "like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe" since my position is that atheism is neither a religion nor, a version of xtianity.
The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.
So, you're implicitly suggesting that the courts can rule on what is, or is not, a "religion"? You might check with an actual attorney on this because if that were so, there are several 'lawyered-up' groups and individuals ready to bring ruinous class-action suits against organized religions for making false claims.
If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this --
Consult an attorney about that pointas well, you don't even play an 'internet lawyer' well enough to argue a kangaroo court case. The 7th district court of appeals did not establish a legal precedent with the prison case you're deriving this "atheism is a religion" syllogism from. An appellate court doesn't do that and supreme courts would rather not, (otherwise xtianity would probably not withstand a rigorous legal test). What the appellate court did rule by legal opinion was that, for the purposes of an inmate gathering in prison, an atheist discussion group could be considered as a "religious gathering" and thus, not be prevented by the prison administration. This appellate decision was case-specific and does not extend beyond prison walls. The supreme court(s) nominally establish legal precedents. Much like your "belief" that atheism is a religion does not extend beyond the walls your own irrationality nor convert a-theism into a religious belief system.
What are you going on here about?
If you've lost track of your own strawman, it could be set on fire again for easier detection.
I have made no strawman here, it is your unfamiliarity with legal procedures that is hindering your ability to perceive what is relevant and meaningful. Remember the single point that entirely refutes and dismantles your insane "legal examination" of what the court ruled: "Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.". Even your limited ability to reason and comprehend should have little difficulty in understanding that, and it clearly proves how incorrect your amateur analysis was.
-
This isn't prevarication ...
Just because you say it isn't, whereas the prevaricating responses, (in your own posted words in this thread alone), are somehow not evidence of prevarication? Uh-huh. Have you looked up the meaning of that word or, just made up your own like you've tried doing with "atheism"?
... it is simply boredom ...
With what, your simplistic strawman fallacy "arugments" of attempted diversions?
... these strawmen ...
I snipped them because they bore both of us.
I have made no strawman here ...
Your previous "arguments" regarding the subject consisted entirely of straw. They were set on fire and no longer appear here, (except as ashes down-thread).
That penchant you have for 'declaring victory from out of the ashes of defeat; is nearly amusing. Have you wrestled your nuts back from those 'atheistic' squirrels in your yard yet or, do they vex you still?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/dftll.jpg)
-
This isn't prevarication ...
Just because you say it isn't, whereas the prevaricating responses, (in your own posted words in this thread alone), are somehow not evidence of prevarication? Uh-huh. Have you looked up the meaning of that word or, just made up your own like you've tried doing with "atheism"?
I know your mental capacity is limited and you cannot comprehend much information at one time, but if you would consider the entire sentence and thought process I posted instead of just a very small introductory portion you might find your confusion to be somewhat reduced. I know it can be difficult for someone like you (one that has poor comprehension skills), but if you keep at it you will eventually be able to understand entire sentences with ease, and thin you can move on to paragraphs.
... it is simply boredom ...
With what, your simplistic strawman fallacy "arugments" of attempted diversions?
How is me letting you know that you bore the hell out of me considered a strawman or a diversion? What sort of paranoid conspiracy have you imagined here?
... these strawmen ...
I snipped them because they bore both of us.
You have successfully answered a question that only you are aware of. You do realize that talking to yourself can often be considered unhealthy?
I have made no strawman here ...
Your previous "arguments" regarding the subject consisted entirely of straw. They were set on fire and no longer appear here, (except as ashes down-thread).
That penchant you have for 'declaring victory from out of the ashes of defeat; is nearly amusing. Have you wrestled your nuts back from those 'atheistic' squirrels in your yard yet or, do they vex you still?
(http://i45.tinypic.com/dftll.jpg)
You are seemingly unaware of what a strawman is, because if you were you would know that I haven't utilized them. When you learn a word, you should also pay attention to learn the meaning and usage of it as you continue to look foolish to those of us that actually do know the definitions of words -- and I seriously doubt you impress those that don't either. I declare victory when fittings. Unlike you I have patterned myself to view both sides of debate and develop points and contingencies from both sides. Through such methods you learn the vulnerabilities and ambiguities and weak points. While it is true that one can never singularly be assured of a victory without surrender from the other, one can be assured of something close enough to it with the other high tails it to a place of hiding, such as your habitual obfuscation.
Why do you keep talking about nuts? Particularly my nuts? You first went on about me with my shirt off and then you wanted a picture and now you keep bringing up my nuts. Is there something you are wanting to share here with the rest of us?
-
I know your mental capacity ...
No, you don't. As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster. I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
-
I know your mental capacity ...
No, you don't. As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster. I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently. You seem to think that your close guardedness and frequent attacks seem to afford you some secrecy, but you fail to realize they actually spotlight you and highlight your weaknesses.
You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious. Speaking of trolls I found a video about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg
Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your specious diatribes and claims and attacks. My religion does not blind me, it actually makes me aware of far more than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.
-
Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.
No, you don't. As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster. I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
You seem to think ...
Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.
You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious.
Perhaps so however, your posting of family videos merely confirms your status as a troll.
Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...
... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religiosu claims.
My religion does not blind me ...
That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such? Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.
... it actually makes me aware of far more ...
"Aware of far more" what, exactly? Specious religious precepts? Dubious superstitious attributions of effects to some religiously-based cause? Be specific, even though that runs contrary to your usual vageness and tangential diversions.
... than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.
The "mind" of a religious adherent is constricted by their specious religious beliefs where a mind unrestrained by such superstitions is the opposite of closed.
“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
-
Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.
No, you don't. As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster. I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
Me posing flames? You would try to sell that lie here? Every time someone who is in pain and grieving posts a request for prayers and support your miserable little self rushes in to attack and insult them and to try to make them feel worse. You would accuse me, quite pathetic -- even for someone as miserable as yourself. Once again you are welcome to speculate all you wish to, although it is doubtful you would derive anything of value from your attempts since your limited reasoning skills have thus far betrayed you repeatedly.
You seem to think ...
Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.
Predictable misrepresentation of my quote. Really is this all you are capable of -- falsifying someones post and then attacking the fabricated strawman? This is even a bit too remedial for someone like yourself.
You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious.
Perhaps so however, your posting of family videos merely confirms your status as a troll.
Well I didn't realize this was one of your family videos. Honestly I just found it on the internet and thought the troll reminded me a great deal of you (even though he seemed to have more of an imagination than you did), but how was I to know that it actually was you -- what a coincidence.
Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...
... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religiosu claims.
And your irrational hate is quite evident here, along with your poor ability to formulate your own words and ideas without having to steal from another's. Yawn...
My religion does not blind me ...
That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such? Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.
I don't have to support it as it is your contention that I am blind and thus the burden of proof would rest upon you to demonstrate that -- since this is your favorite claim an demand. While you certainly do claim quite frequently that faith is blind, you have never given any proof of this claim. You rely on your own interpretations of definitions of what faith is, and yet when given a definition from someone of religion that has faith you discount that definition. You don't possess the faith so how do you honestly think you would understand it and what is revealed by possessing it. You are exhibiting a "flat world" philosophy in your claims and it would be completely comical if it were not so sad.
... it actually makes me aware of far more ...
"Aware of far more" what, exactly? Specious religious precepts? Dubious superstitious attributions of effects to some religiously-based cause? Be specific, even though that runs contrary to your usual vageness and tangential diversions.
Aware of why those such as you must engage in your attacks. Aware of culture and history and the weaknesses and vanities of men. Aware of why someone such as yourself that hears of something they cannot understand has to describe it as 'magical' or 'supernatural' out of your paranoid fear and limited ability to comprehend and understand and reason. There is also so much more I could share, if only I thought it would be of help to you.
... than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.
The "mind" of a religious adherent is constricted by their specious religious beliefs where a mind unrestrained by such superstitions is the opposite of closed.
“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
My mind is far more open than yours is. I both accept and question my religions beliefs -- such as is given man to be curious in that way and such is expected of us to explore. You are rigid in your beliefs and to such a degree that if you do not understand it then you dismiss it and declare it as false or 'magical' or some other silly way. You would readily leap into the arms of some obscure pseudo-scientific theory such as "emergent phenomena" because you can reason the small steps of its introductory thoughts without every scoping the relevance it exhibits in an empty set. You don't see that it is its own Achilles Heel -- you cannot think well enough to realize why it disproves itself in the form it is written and what would be necessary to qualify it.
-
Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.
No, you don't. As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster. I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
Me posing flames? You would try to sell that lie here?
Posting, not "posing", (although you've displayed aspects of being a poseur). It's not a lie since the archived evidence of your use of 'flaming insults' exists in your own words across various threads, (including this one).
Every time someone who is in pain and grieving posts a request for prayers and support your miserable little self ...
See, that last ad hominem would be one of those 'flames' you deny, (and proceed to post, or pose). Once again, I'm not qualified to diagnose your lies as compulsive or, pathological since that would take a first year clinical psychiatry student - at least.
... rushes in to attack and insult them and to try to make them feel worse.
No, I've posted in opposition to such superstitious magical intercessory rituals themselves and not any particular individual. The archived evidence of my posts exists in contradiction to your lie.
You would accuse me ...
On the contrary, your own archived words betray your lies. Pointing your lies out is less an accusation than indicating the evidence to support that contention.
You seem to think ...
Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.
Predictable misrepresentation of my quote.
Your quote was merely cut-off in mid-ad hominem to reply to your posted words in order to emphasize your lack of critical thinking skills, (much less, "superior" ones as you've egotistically and falsely claimed).
Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...
... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religious claims.
And your irrational hate ...
If you're going to keep evading that burden of proof requirement for asserting your specious claims via attempted diversions, you merely emphasize your contended prevaricating.
My religion does not blind me ...
That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such? Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.
I don't have to support it as it is your contention that I am blind and thus the burden of proof would rest upon you to demonstrate that -- since this is your favorite claim an demand. While you certainly do claim quite frequently that faith is blind, you have never given any proof of this claim
You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation. I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence'). The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it. Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.
You rely on your own interpretations of definitions of what faith is ...
Those aren't my "interpretations"; they're the standard definitions, (which you still don't get to cherry-pick or redefine).
... and yet when given a definition from someone of religion that has faith you discount that definition.
That's because religious adherents, (who inherently hold blind faith, otherwise they'd have supporting evidence), don't get to redefine words to suit their religious beliefs.
You don't possess the faith so how do you honestly think you would understand it and what is revealed by possessing it.
Your logical fallacy fails. I don't need to own and drive a Tesla Roadster to understand that it's a car and neither does one need to 'experience' blind faith to know that it's a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence, (because none has been presented).
... it actually makes me aware of far more ...
"Aware of far more" what, exactly? Specious religious precepts? Dubious superstitious attributions of effects to some religiously-based cause? Be specific, even though that runs contrary to your usual vageness and tangential diversions.
Aware of why those such as you must engage in your attacks. Aware of culture and history and the weaknesses and vanities of men.
Those remain vague speculations rather than delineating any specific awareness citing specific examples. Proceed to speculate why you 'believe' that I engage in posting viewpoints which dissent from religious beliefs, (speciously designated as "attacks" when they are all in responsive reply - at most, as 'counter-attacks' to the numerous frontal attacks of religious proselytizing). If you choose to do so, I'll choose whether or not to refute your probable specious speculations.
Aware of why someone such as yourself that hears of something they cannot understand has to describe it as 'magical' or 'supernatural' ...
What's so difficult about "prayer" that you falsely accuse me of not understanding? It's an evocation to a hypothetical supernatural entity and as such, qualifies as a magical intercessory ritual by definition. I'm previously aware of your penchant for eschewing standard definitions and wanting to make up your own to support your blind faith however, that's not how it works unless you're delusionally-narcisstic or out of some "fear" of ego damage.
... limited ability to comprehend and understand and reason.
Right, I'd omitted your "limited ability of comprehend and understand and reason" from your failed attempt to make "prayer" so complex that not even a primative goat-herder could understand it, (let alone someone with more intelligence than a sack of sand). Thanks.
... than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.
The "mind" of a religious adherent is constricted by their specious religious beliefs, where a mind unrestrained by such superstitions is the opposite of closed.
“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
My mind is far more open than yours is. I both accept and question my religions beliefs --
Yet, you've failed to demonstrate either of your claims thusfar; arguing instead such irrationalities as "atheism is a religion" and not questioning that religious beliefs rely upon faith which relies upon not having substantive evidence, (in an inherently illogical contradiction).
You are rigid in your beliefs ...
I'm neither "rigid" nor flexible in something I don't have. The ability to accurately reason is not a "belief"; it's either functional or not, independent of any "belief". What's the functional utility of specious religious beliefs? A false sense of "comfort" from fears?
You would readily leap into the arms of some obscure pseudo-scientific theory such as "emergent phenomena"
No, I'd rather continue to leap into the arms of my girlfriend however, neither weather phenomenon nor chaos theory nor fluid dynamics are "pseudo-scientific" theories because they are functional emergent phenomenon theories.
... because you can reason the small steps of its introductory thoughts without every scoping the relevance it exhibits in an empty set.
I merely presented some of the introductory steps of emergent theory because it's complexities were preceived to extend beyond the scope of an FC forum. Your assumption that characterizes that as all I know about emergent theory is false and it does not exhibit "an empty set", (since emergent phenomenon aren't especially restricted to a von Neumann universe of pure sets). Regardless, it's a theory with some mathematical basis, (unlike a 'g-d' theory, which has no basis other than baseless faith and a mathetically-insignificant probability of validity).
-
Me posing flames? You would try to sell that lie here?
Posting, not "posing", (although you've displayed aspects of being a poseur). It's not a lie since the archived evidence of your use of 'flaming insults' exists in your own words across various threads, (including this one).
You finally got me on something. I misspelled posting. Damn you win, do you want to know what your prize is? Flaming insults? Coming from you -- a person that actively tries to insult and injure on every occasion -- I suppose is meant as a compliment? Unlike yourself, though, I am direct in my manner and I do not hide behind deniability as I find such cowardice common and rather petty.
Every time someone who is in pain and grieving posts a request for prayers and support your miserable little self ...
See, that last ad hominem would be one of those 'flames' you deny, (and proceed to post, or pose). Once again, I'm not qualified to diagnose your lies as compulsive or, pathological since that would take a first year clinical psychiatry student - at least.
That is not ad hominem. If you are going to use words such as those, do try to know what they mean. I haven't lied once here, unlike you who has been caught repeatedly lying and fabricating.
... rushes in to attack and insult them and to try to make them feel worse.
No, I've posted in opposition to such superstitious magical intercessory rituals themselves and not any particular individual. The archived evidence of my posts exists in contradiction to your lie.
If you don't understand the results of your actions then you are more of a fool than most of us think. How could you be that ignorant if you are honest in your statement? If you are dishonest, as I suspect based upon your habit of being so, then you are as I called a miserable sort that only wishes to inflict injury and suffering. So which one are you then, a fool or an *bleep* as there is no other option available. Also, because something is beyond your limited understanding you don't have to label it as 'magical'. If everything you don't understand is magical then truly you are the most superstitious person I have ever met.
You would accuse me ...
On the contrary, your own archived words betray your lies. Pointing your lies out is less an accusation than indicating the evidence to support that contention.
Show this proof, don't be shy with these weak accusations such as "archived words". You honestly think that anyone would take your word over mine (or anyone else for that much)? Your word is worthless here and if you cannot prove what you say then it is as meaningless as you are.
You seem to think ...
Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.
Predictable misrepresentation of my quote.
Your quote was merely cut-off in mid-ad hominem to reply to your posted words in order to emphasize your lack of critical thinking skills, (much less, "superior" ones as you've egotistically and falsely claimed).
Once again, that isn't ad hominem, but at least you foolishly admitted to misrepresentation of my quote. Your debate skills are even worse than your critical thinking abilities. If you are going to play the game, please try to be somewhat of a challenge.
Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...
... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religious claims.
And your irrational hate ...
If you're going to keep evading that burden of proof requirement for asserting your specious claims via attempted diversions, you merely emphasize your contended prevaricating.
Evading what? You post part of my statement (because seemingly your weak mind can only ingest so much at a time) and accuse me of evading some imagined requirement of yours. Shall I start addressing each of your words one at a time so that you can maybe keep up? I know it is exceedingly difficult for you but for your sake at least pretend to the readers that you are at least remedial in your capabilities.
My religion does not blind me ...
That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such? Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.
I don't have to support it as it is your contention that I am blind and thus the burden of proof would rest upon you to demonstrate that -- since this is your favorite claim an demand. While you certainly do claim quite frequently that faith is blind, you have never given any proof of this claim
You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation. I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence'). The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it. Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.
I have never failed to meet any burden of proof that was warranted. You used a single definition as your burden of proof and I countered with multiple definitions in my favor -- including a definition for faith from the very book that the faith is used in. Considering that my source definition automatically trumps yours means that you have failed to show burden of proof -- and once again your pride and ignorance betray you. Are you so stupid as to ignore a definition provided by the original source in favor of one from another source that would be in disagreement of the original one (even knowing that the source you used also provided some that agreed with the original. Talk about being blind you are entirely blind to not realize the foolishness of that. That is another reason I am starting to think you really are just a common troll, as JediJohnnie suggested, because nobody could be as stupid as you seem to demonstrate.
You rely on your own interpretations of definitions of what faith is ...
Those aren't my "interpretations"; they're the standard definitions, (which you still don't get to cherry-pick or redefine).
They are interpretations and you even revealed that before when you indicated that not all of the definitions from the source you used said the same thing and so you 'interpreted' which was correct.
... and yet when given a definition from someone of religion that has faith you discount that definition.
That's because religious adherents, (who inherently hold blind faith, otherwise they'd have supporting evidence), don't get to redefine words to suit their religious beliefs.
You are begging the question, using circular logic, and ad hominem (yes this is actually ad hominiem you are using so try and remember it if you can so that you will actually know it the next time you use the word since you failed the last 200 times or more here). These source definition comes from the very book of this religion and as such it 'owns' the word in its usage. It wouldn't even matter if it were redefined in its recording (it wasn't as it was well before your source definition was ever dreamed up) as it stipulates the meaning of the word and that makes it incontestable (and you the fool for trying to challenge what it means when it is told to you what it means).
You don't possess the faith so how do you honestly think you would understand it and what is revealed by possessing it.
Your logical fallacy fails. I don't need to own and drive a Tesla Roadster to understand that it's a car and neither does one need to 'experience' blind faith to know that it's a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence, (because none has been presented).
It is you that has presented a logical fallacy. For you cannot reveal how the wheel of the roadster feels beneath your fingers or anything about the experience. This is what is expected from you and your limited reasoning skills -- you can only see the basics and generalities and you cannot explore into the experience and meaning of things. You would pretend to know the taste of steak from looking at a cow or other similar nonsense and never realize just what you are missing from such a petulant position.
... it actually makes me aware of far more ...
"Aware of far more" what, exactly? Specious religious precepts? Dubious superstitious attributions of effects to some religiously-based cause? Be specific, even though that runs contrary to your usual vageness and tangential diversions.
Aware of why those such as you must engage in your attacks. Aware of culture and history and the weaknesses and vanities of men.
Those remain vague speculations rather than delineating any specific awareness citing specific examples. Proceed to speculate why you 'believe' that I engage in posting viewpoints which dissent from religious beliefs, (speciously designated as "attacks" when they are all in responsive reply - at most, as 'counter-attacks' to the numerous frontal attacks of religious proselytizing). If you choose to do so, I'll choose whether or not to refute your probable specious speculations.
Well how about this then -- aware of all the important things that you could never know, just as you revealed of yourself with your simplistic attempt to try and frame me as committing some sort of logical fallacy. Look above and reread the revelation of your small minded accusation and you may get a glimpse of how little you really comprehend. It is funny that you ask this question right after having proved a sound rebuttal to it with your arrogance -- I mean I couldn't have drawn the truth out of you so it is fitting that you are the one who provides the evidence.
Aware of why someone such as yourself that hears of something they cannot understand has to describe it as 'magical' or 'supernatural' ...
What's so difficult about "prayer" that you falsely accuse me of not understanding? It's an evocation to a hypothetical supernatural entity and as such, qualifies as a magical intercessory ritual by definition. I'm previously aware of your penchant for eschewing standard definitions and wanting to make up your own to support your blind faith however, that's not how it works unless you're delusionally-narcisstic or out of some "fear" of ego damage.
Apparently everything about it is difficult for you to understand. You call it 'magic' which means you are labeling it according to your superstitious atheists beliefs. You should be aware of me using the definition of faith from the book that actually uses the word faith. I can understand why you would suggest such was made up with such superstitious as you have.
... limited ability to comprehend and understand and reason.
Right, I'd omitted your "limited ability of comprehend and understand and reason" from your failed attempt to make "prayer" so complex that not even a primative goat-herder could understand it, (let alone someone with more intelligence than a sack of sand). Thanks.
Just because you are too ignorant to understand it doesn't mean it is complex -- that is simply your ego reassuring you that it is like that way for everyone. Remember, you are the only one having difficulty understanding it. Honestly, do you even think about what you post before you post it or are you deliberately trying to make yourself appear to be an idiot? I didn't know that you were a goat-herder. Are you also a goat roper?
... than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.
The "mind" of a religious adherent is constricted by their specious religious beliefs, where a mind unrestrained by such superstitions is the opposite of closed.
“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins
My mind is far more open than yours is. I both accept and question my religions beliefs --
Yet, you've failed to demonstrate either of your claims thusfar; arguing instead such irrationalities as "atheism is a religion" and not questioning that religious beliefs rely upon faith which relies upon not having substantive evidence, (in an inherently illogical contradiction).
I have verily proven atheism is a religion and it is only your denial that claims otherwise. I have also shown that your premise of "not having substantive evidence" is simply a fallacy and quite different from the actual "not requiring substantive evidence". It is only illogical to a liar such as yourself who is so deceitful in all that he does as to never trust anything that you cannot put your hands on. Which brings me back to wondering why you were so curious about my nuts and puts a shiver down my spine.
You are rigid in your beliefs ...
I'm neither "rigid" nor flexible in something I don't have. The ability to accurately reason is not a "belief"; it's either functional or not, independent of any "belief". What's the functional utility of specious religious beliefs? A false sense of "comfort" from fears?
So you state, but can you prove this? You certainly demonstrate contrary to this claim and you do so repeatedly throughout these forums. Since you don't seem to possess the ability to accurately reason (as you supply this evidence all through these pages) your point is meaningless since it wouldn't apply to you -- unless your standards for 'accurately' are so trifling as to include this nonsense you put on.
You would readily leap into the arms of some obscure pseudo-scientific theory such as "emergent phenomena"
No, I'd rather continue to leap into the arms of my girlfriend however, neither weather phenomenon nor chaos theory nor fluid dynamics are "pseudo-scientific" theories because they are functional emergent phenomenon theories.
Okay I am now picturing a small flowery falcon9 leaping into his strong girlfriends arms while she cradles him as one would a baby (well actually I am picturing the troll from the video doing the leaping).
... because you can reason the small steps of its introductory thoughts without every scoping the relevance it exhibits in an empty set.
I merely presented some of the introductory steps of emergent theory because it's complexities were preceived to extend beyond the scope of an FC forum. Your assumption that characterizes that as all I know about emergent theory is false and it does not exhibit "an empty set", (since emergent phenomenon aren't especially restricted to a von Neumann universe of pure sets). Regardless, it's a theory with some mathematical basis, (unlike a 'g-d' theory, which has no basis other than baseless faith and a mathetically-insignificant probability of validity).
You misunderstand, this emergent phenomenon would have to prove itself within an empty set and none have demonstrated this. I actually presented you a footstep introduction to how this could work and hold true to mathematics, but since this subject seems entirely avoided by the advocates of this theory it makes the theory seem dubious and weak since it avoids qualifying the very subject it wishes to solve. It could be demonstrated to be much more but as it is now you are left with a modified abiogenesis.
-
Unlike yourself, though, I am direct in my manner and I do not hide behind deniability as I find such cowardice common and rather petty.
On the contrary, you're constantly hiding behind specious denials of your own inverted non-logic. Yeah, it's common, cowardly and petty of you but, I accept you as you are.
Every time someone who is in pain and grieving posts a request for prayers and support your miserable little self ...
See, that last ad hominem would be one of those 'flames' you deny, (and proceed to post, or pose). Once again, I'm not qualified to diagnose your lies as compulsive or, pathological since that would take a first year clinical psychiatry student - at least.
That is not ad hominem.
Of course it is and your reply is another one of your common, cowardly and petty denials, (when your own words are in this very post).
I haven't lied once here ...
Technically, you've lied more than once here so, that's another lie about not lying.
... rushes in to attack and insult them and to try to make them feel worse.
No, I've posted in opposition to such superstitious magical intercessory rituals themselves and not any particular individual. The archived evidence of my posts exists in contradiction to your lie.
Also, because something is beyond your limited understanding you don't have to label it as 'magical'. If everything you don't understand is magical then truly you are the most superstitious person I have ever met.
On the contrary, my understanding isn't limited by specious religious beliefs as yours is and the terms "magical intercessory ritual" accurately apply to "prayer" as they do to a witch's "spell". I suspect it's you who are unable to make the logical extrapolation because that would entail religious "prayers" being prohibited "magic". Can't have that, can you fundie?
You would accuse me ...
On the contrary, your own archived words betray your lies. Pointing your lies out is less an accusation than indicating the evidence to support that contention.
Show this proof ...
Such proof was shown at the time of the occurances. You denied that the evidence was evidence therefore, reproducing it for you is a waste of time, (as it simply provides you with another opportunity to deny evidence posted in your own words). Your troll tactics fail once again.
You seem to think ...
Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.
Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...
... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religious claims.
And your irrational hate ...
If you're going to keep evading that burden of proof requirement for asserting your specious claims via attempted diversions, you merely emphasize your contended prevaricating.
Evading what?
Apply your own ad hom to yourself:
I know it is exceedingly difficult for you but for your sake at least pretend to the readers that you are at least remedial in your capabilities.
My religion does not blind me ...
That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such? Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.
I don't have to support it as it is your contention that I am blind and thus the burden of proof would rest upon you to demonstrate that -- since this is your favorite claim an demand. While you certainly do claim quite frequently that faith is blind, you have never given any proof of this claim
You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation. I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence'). The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it. Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.
[/quote]
I have never failed to meet any burden of proof that was warranted.
Bull. Your reply is another one of your common, cowardly and petty denials, (plus, who died and put you in charge of deciding what's "warranted"?). Next, you go on to tacitly admit you 'cherry-picked' your definition of "faith", (" ... in your favor"). Doubtless you'll deny that too.
You used a single definition as your burden of proof and I countered with multiple definitions in my favor -- including a definition for faith from the very book that the faith is used in.
The source, (if "biblical"), is self-referential and therefore, circular and invalid. Alternate sources are as 'cherry-picked' as you claim the definition I used for "faith" is. There's at least one significant difference between them; I'm not using a religious self-referential source, ("bible"), and you apparently are.
Considering that my source definition automatically trumps yours ...
No such false claim will be considered just because you've claimed it, (once again, sans evidence). Now, considering that source is full of more holes than a seive and more specious nonsense than a heroin addict, it can be dismissed as a reference.
Are you so stupid...
Ad hom; deny at will.
... nobody could be as stupid as you seem to demonstrate.
No such stupidity has been demonstrated by the content of what I've posted; your specious accusations do not constitute evidence supporting your ad hom claims. However, your denials of posting ad homs, (after doing so repeatedly, in this post alone), do constitute evidence of your being simplistic and somewhat dim of wit, ("yes Virginia, that's an ad hom in counter-fire).
... yet when given a definition from someone of religion that has faith you discount that definition.
That's because religious adherents, (who inherently hold blind faith, otherwise they'd have supporting evidence), don't get to redefine words to suit their religious beliefs.
These source definition comes from the very book of this religion and as such it 'owns' the word in its usage.
What a bizarre claim, especially in support of the writers of such 'religious texts' who have plagiarized previous pagan religious mythologies and now such cultural thieves "own" the word 'faith'? Your hypocrisy would be humorous were extensive evidence of xtianity's plagiarisms not abundantly evident, (yep, that means there's evidence of it). Further, such a specious claim attempts to pre-empt previous usage of the word by non-xtians, (that's very sanctimonious in and of itself).
Tell you what though; show me xtianity's registered copyright for the word "faith" and I'll concede that they own it.
*awaiting diversionary bs from "Abrupt" in lieu of evidence*
Aware of why someone such as yourself that hears of something they cannot understand has to describe it as 'magical' or 'supernatural' ...
What's so difficult about "prayer" that you falsely accuse me of not understanding? It's an evocation to a hypothetical supernatural entity and as such, qualifies as a magical intercessory ritual by definition. I'm previously aware of your penchant for eschewing standard definitions and wanting to make up your own to support your blind faith however, that's not how it works unless you're delusionally-narcisstic or out of some "fear" of ego damage.
I have verily proven atheism is a religion ...
No, you've repeatedly claimed to do so. Merely claiming/asserting that you have, without evidence, as if it were true does not confer validity upon your invalid claims/assertions.
-
You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation. I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence'). The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it. Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.
Abrupt's trying to redefine another word now?
-
Abrupt's trying to redefine another word now?
Apparently so however, doubtless he will deny that he's attempting redefinitions, (despite his posts where he attempts redefinitions), nor cherry-picking definitions. Heck, if you look, you'll see that he even denies denying some things. As they say, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
:o
-
I know your mental capacity ...
No, you don't. As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster. I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently. You seem to think that your close guardedness and frequent attacks seem to afford you some secrecy, but you fail to realize they actually spotlight you and highlight your weaknesses.
You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious. Speaking of trolls I found a video about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg
Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your specious diatribes and claims and attacks. My religion does not blind me, it actually makes me aware of far more than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.
That's a great video,Abrupt.That's exactly the way I picture Falcon9. ;D
If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.
-
My religion does not blind me ...
That's a great video,Abrupt.That's exactly the way I picture Falcon9. ;D
Then estimate of your low intelligence level has been severely under-estimated.
If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.
How does not tolerating the blind faith excuses of religious adherents constitute "blind faith"; in what, the ability to reason instead of simply believing superstitious nonsense sans evidence? There's nothing irrational about rationality, (hence the opposite meanings of the two terms). Although such fanatical irrationality on the part of a xtian fundie would be more "frightening" were it not simply self-delusional.
“You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.”
-– Carl Sagan
-
If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.
...says the 12 year old religious zealot who has never posted a coherent argument...
-
If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.
...says the 12 year old religious zealot who has never posted a coherent argument...
12 years old, hmmm? Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then -
(http://i.imgur.com/AISWS.jpg)
-
If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.
How does someone's rational questioning of posted NON-factual comments and statements, which provide absolutely no proof or evidence to back them up, become "intolerant hatred of all things biblical"??
It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).
-
If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.
How does someone's rational questioning of posted NON-factual comments and statements, which provide absolutely no proof or evidence to back them up, become "intolerant hatred of all things biblical"??
It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).
That's probably due to JJ being 'confused' as to the difference between "intolerant hatred", (like he has of the ability to reason), and a rational conclusion that religious superstitions are illogical and opposed.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
-
You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation. I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence'). The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it. Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.
Abrupt's trying to redefine another word now?
I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word. I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool. This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'. If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school. Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.
-
Abrupt's trying to redefine another word now?
Apparently so however, doubtless he will deny that he's attempting redefinitions, (despite his posts where he attempts redefinitions), nor cherry-picking definitions. Heck, if you look, you'll see that he even denies denying some things. As they say, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
:o
It was you that cherry picked definitions and I proved this with dramatic emphasis. When I took a definition from your same source and presented it in contrast to the one that you used you balked and stated it was not valid. The definition I am using is sourced to be over 2000 years old, how old is your definition?
-
I know your mental capacity ...
No, you don't. As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster. I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34p0uvo.gif)
Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently. You seem to think that your close guardedness and frequent attacks seem to afford you some secrecy, but you fail to realize they actually spotlight you and highlight your weaknesses.
You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious. Speaking of trolls I found a video about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg
Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your specious diatribes and claims and attacks. My religion does not blind me, it actually makes me aware of far more than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.
That's a great video,Abrupt.That's exactly the way I picture Falcon9. ;D
If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.
It was just a random video I found and apparently it was a family video of his, or at least he said it was but you know how he lies.
You are correct about his blindness and such is all the more hilarious with hypocrisy of him labeling others that way to never even get a glimpse who holds that position most of all. He claims to hate preaching and religion more than most I have ever met yet he preaches his religion more than any southern revivalist 'bible thumper'. He loves to accuse faith of being blind, without understanding what faith even is and is entirely unaware of his own (complete) blindness. The stark contrast between his accusations and the reality of his qualities is unbelievably clear for all to see and it amazes me that none in his flock are aware of this anymore than he is (and this is made more comical when you factor in all the blustering they put on about critical thinking and logic and rationality). You are dead on accurate here with your conclusion.
-
It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).
It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often. He is rather like that Clark character in 'Good Will Hunting', except that in his case he seems to have even less of a petulant understanding than Clark possessed. Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.
-
It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).
It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often.
You're quite the gossipy little girl, aren't you? It's doubtful that you have more than "a bit of education" nor developed sufficient reasoning skill to debate without interjecting slander, attempting to redefine words which already have consensual meanings and engaging in outright lies.
Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.
Such an empty assertion is nominally made by those who have a limited intellect, ability to reason and consider words with more than one syllable to be "jargon", (which merely emphasizes their own lack of vocabulary and their resorting to 'flames' in lieu of debate).
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
-
He claims to hate preaching and religion more than most I have ever met yet he preaches his religion ...
I don't have a religion to preach, you abject moron, (flame-for-flame policy in force).
He loves to accuse faith of being blind, without understanding what faith even is ...
The term has already been defined, (both illogically/in a circular manner by 'true believers' and logically, by those not restricted by irrationality).
The stark contrast between his accusations and the reality of ...
The "stark contrast" there regards the specious emptiness of "faith" without substance and recognising the difference between things that don't require "faith" to exist because they have substance. Granted, psychologically-unstable people will often believe in things that aren't 'there'.
... it amazes me that none in his flock ...
No flock, no preaching - that's for your mind-blinded xtian fundies and for those who can reason to oppose if they choose to. You lies are beyond tedious, "Abrupt" and such trolling is transparent even to the dimmer xtians, (although it still eludes you, who denies every lie - sometimes immediately following your lies - possibly because even Ron White can't fix your abject stupidity).
"Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
-
I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word. I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool. This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'. If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school. Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.
Oh please. I don't feel the need to again backtrack and quote since your ego will simply brush it off as something completely different from what I could quote. You display selective hearing. You can't admit when you're wrong. You don't know how to compromise. You even name call when there's no foundation for it. I've already learned my lesson from your arguments. Strangely it would seem Falcon9 hasn't, and he has been arguing with you for much longer. So you know what? Let's just forget about the massive amount of facts presented against your flawed arguments. Let's forget about the numerous logical fallacies you present in every one of your posts. Atheism is a religion. Religious faith isn't blind. Just because you and your very few cherry-picked instances say so. Congrats.
12 years old, hmmm? Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then -
I enjoyed this so much, I looked it up on google and was surprised you didn't show the bottom of the page which said "Customers who bought titles by Pastor Deacon Fred also bought titles by these authors: Adolf Hitler, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, George Bush, Jorgé Luis Borges" HA!
-
[quote from Abrupt liar]I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word. I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool. This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'. If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school. Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.[/quote]
Oh please. I don't feel the need to again backtrack and quote since your ego will simply brush it off as something completely different from what I could quote. You display selective hearing. You can't admit when you're wrong. You don't know how to compromise. You even name call when there's no foundation for it. I've already learned my lesson from your arguments. Strangely it would seem Falcon9 hasn't, and he has been arguing with you for much longer.
I'll admit to giving the "Abrupt" liar additional rope to 'hang himself' since he'd accomplished that by now, (and has provided sufficient evidence here of how far some faith-blinded religious fundie xtians will go in their superstitious self-deceptions). The extra rope was provided to gage whether or not the fundie liar would continue to represent otehr xtians in such a 'good light'. Kudos, nyet?
So you know what? Let's just forget about the massive amount of facts presented against your flawed arguments. Let's forget about the numerous logical fallacies you present in every one of your posts. Atheism is a religion. Religious faith isn't blind. Just because you and your very few cherry-picked instances say so. Congrats.
[quote from Abrupt liar]12 years old, hmmm? Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then - [/quote]
I enjoyed this so much, I looked it up on google and was surprised you didn't show the bottom of the page which said "Customers who bought titles by Pastor Deacon Fred also bought titles by these authors: Adolf Hitler, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, George Bush, Jorgé Luis Borges" HA!
He managed to abruptly 'flame' himself, did he? That saves some effort.
-
It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).
It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often. He is rather like that Clark character in 'Good Will Hunting', except that in his case he seems to have even less of a petulant understanding than Clark possessed. Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.
So let me see if I understand this correctly........(although I'm apparently incapable of doing so)
According to your post, I am:
*Unfamiliar with the religions (no argument there) and OTHER SUBJECTS (and from the tone of your post, I can only assume that means ANY and ALL subjects)
*Lacking ANY education whatsoever, and
*I have more "pride in my intellect and reason than I possess in intellect and reason"
This (personal) attack against me was totally uncalled for, and not very nice.
NEVER have I claimed to be knowledgeable about ANY religion; And you don't know what other subjects I may or may not be familiar with, nor do you know a d**n thing about how educated or uneducated I am.
Pride in my intellect and reason (both of which I am short on)? Again, you don't have anything to base your opinion on - you don't know anything about me, my pride, or my "intellect and reason".
And you managed to get all your "snidely" comments about me posted, while you avoided responding to the simple but true point I made.....
why would ANY person educate themselves on a subject if they have such a hatred for it? It doesn't make any sense.
-
It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).
It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often.
You're quite the gossipy little girl, aren't you? It's doubtful that you have more than "a bit of education" nor developed sufficient reasoning skill to debate without interjecting slander, attempting to redefine words which already have consensual meanings and engaging in outright lies.
Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.
Such an empty assertion is nominally made by those who have a limited intellect, ability to reason and consider words with more than one syllable to be "jargon", (which merely emphasizes their own lack of vocabulary and their resorting to 'flames' in lieu of debate).
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
And yet with all your pompous claims I have revealed your dishonesty, ineptitude, hypocrisy, and ignorance. You have been reduced to a squawking chicken who pecks at its own droppings. I am quite sure that I have a far more extensive education than you do, both formally and informally -- since you brought the subject up. My debate style has been mostly gained through practice, with some insight from creative writing experience and legal proceedings. Regardless, it has been more than sufficient to pluck your feathers and reveal you for what you are. You are free to classify me however you wish, but be aware that however low you place me puts you even lower since I have thoroughly bested you here at virtually (if not entirely) every point and turn.
-
I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word. I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool. This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'. If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school. Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.
Oh please. I don't feel the need to again backtrack and quote since your ego will simply brush it off as something completely different from what I could quote. You display selective hearing. You can't admit when you're wrong. You don't know how to compromise. You even name call when there's no foundation for it. I've already learned my lesson from your arguments. Strangely it would seem Falcon9 hasn't, and he has been arguing with you for much longer. So you know what? Let's just forget about the massive amount of facts presented against your flawed arguments. Let's forget about the numerous logical fallacies you present in every one of your posts. Atheism is a religion. Religious faith isn't blind. Just because you and your very few cherry-picked instances say so. Congrats.
12 years old, hmmm? Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then -
I enjoyed this so much, I looked it up on google and was surprised you didn't show the bottom of the page which said "Customers who bought titles by Pastor Deacon Fred also bought titles by these authors: Adolf Hitler, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, George Bush, Jorgé Luis Borges" HA!
I have done far too many shameful things to posses much trace of pride or ego. I know the real reason that you don't wish to backtrack is because there is nothing there in support of your false claim. I have actually admitted being wrong here within these forums, something I am sure your beloved Falcon9 could never do (even though I have repeatedly proven his lies for all to see and yet you and him seem to be blind to them).
I was under the assumption that me and you had already established terms of what was provable or not (in fact it was you that set the anchor and I agreed with your position)? It wasn't even that "atheism is a religion" or "religions faith isn't blind" it was of the unprovable and disagreeable and a reasonable point to take it to that continuation would be futile. The facts favor me and not him and I would again ask you to look back at these so called 'logical fallacies' I have been accused of committing and you will see that they are simply accusations by Falcon9 and not actualities. I am particular in my methodology and I stick to the truth of what I know and I don't rely on or require fallacious tricks to prove my points (I bring things to the open and forefront and I do not obfuscate and divert like Falcon9 does). My arguments have been strong and logical and they do no rely upon emotion or hearsay as does those of Falcon9. The only reason my endless debate continues with Falcon9 is because he cannot admit defeat and also I will not allow him to harass and try to bully others (I have ever been drawn to challenge bullies).
-
[quote from Abrupt liar]I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word. I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool. This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'. If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school. Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.
Oh please. I don't feel the need to again backtrack and quote since your ego will simply brush it off as something completely different from what I could quote. You display selective hearing. You can't admit when you're wrong. You don't know how to compromise. You even name call when there's no foundation for it. I've already learned my lesson from your arguments. Strangely it would seem Falcon9 hasn't, and he has been arguing with you for much longer.
I'll admit to giving the "Abrupt" liar additional rope to 'hang himself' since he'd accomplished that by now, (and has provided sufficient evidence here of how far some faith-blinded religious fundie xtians will go in their superstitious self-deceptions). The extra rope was provided to gage whether or not the fundie liar would continue to represent otehr xtians in such a 'good light'. Kudos, nyet?
So you know what? Let's just forget about the massive amount of facts presented against your flawed arguments. Let's forget about the numerous logical fallacies you present in every one of your posts. Atheism is a religion. Religious faith isn't blind. Just because you and your very few cherry-picked instances say so. Congrats.
[quote from Abrupt liar]12 years old, hmmm? Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then - [/quote]
I enjoyed this so much, I looked it up on google and was surprised you didn't show the bottom of the page which said "Customers who bought titles by Pastor Deacon Fred also bought titles by these authors: Adolf Hitler, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, George Bush, Jorgé Luis Borges" HA!
He managed to abruptly 'flame' himself, did he? That saves some effort.
[/quote]
You are so weak to even go as far as to try an mimic me. This is laughable though as you lack the character. It is you that is the liar and we all know this as I have repeatedly demonstrated it and even you conceded it with your challenges that you were unable to complete that I easily managed. You have given me nothing. I wrested your sham of integrity from your two lying hands.
'Hang' me? Is that another of your Freudian slips since I am sure that along with picturing me shirtless and dreaming about my nuts that you also fantasize that I am quite well 'hung'.
It is funny that you continue to call me a religious 'fundie' but were you required to prove it by anything here you would be entirely incapable of doing such. Consider that why don't you while you consider the degree to which I am 'hung'.
-
And yet with all your pompous claims ...
Which, specific, "pompous claims" were those?
I have revealed your dishonesty, ineptitude, hypocrisy, and ignorance.
No such false accusations have been substantiated; merely claiming to have done so does not constitute substantiation. You prevaricate poorly, even for a specious xtian.
You have been reduced to ...
Nothing you're able to post has "reduced" one iota of what I'm able to post in refutatio of your lies.
I am quite sure that I have a far more extensive education than you do, both formally and informally -- since you brought the subject up.
While neither of us have any practical way of verifying that claim one way or the other, (sans posting notarized transcripts and depositions from witnesses), I seriously doubt your claim on the basis of the evidence of your penchant for making false claims herein.
My debate style has been mostly gained through practice, with some insight from creative writing experience and legal proceedings.
No, your "debating style" is one of a flaming troll and relies upon strawman arguments, specious 'non-reasoning' and outright lies.
Regardless, it has been more than sufficient to pluck your feathers and reveal you for what you are. You are free to classify me however you wish, but be aware that however low you place me puts you even lower since I have thoroughly bested you here at virtually (if not entirely) every point and turn.
Such claims of 'victory' emanating weakly from the ashes of your own defeat would be amusing, had I not heard such false claims before. Tell yourself whatever lies you need to assuage your fragile ego. Telling public lies about others will be opposed, liar.
-
I have done far too many shameful things to posses much trace of pride or ego.
Yet, you're still either a compulsive or, pathological liar, (as indicated by archived posts in your own words).
I have actually admitted being wrong here within these forums, something I am sure your beloved Falcon9 could never do (even though I have repeatedly proven his lies for all to see and yet you and him seem to be blind to them).
Firstly, you've "proven" no such thing since I haven't lied in any of my posts. Secondly, I *have* admitted to error on these forums within at least two separate occasions, (find them yourself, lazy liar).
The facts favor me and not him ...
That's a false claim which apparently relies too heavily upon the 'hope' that no one has read these threads in their entirety and only the most recent posts, (where such empty claims are being made, as they are now), and on zero evidence.
I would again ask you to look back at these so called 'logical fallacies' I have been accused of committing and you will see that they are simply accusations by Falcon9 and not actualities.
Every "accusation" made has been made with substantiating evidence/validreasoning, (as opposed to "Abrupt's" false accusations which lack evidence and are based simply upon his lies alone).
I am particular in my methodology and I stick to the truth of what I know and I don't rely on or require fallacious tricks to prove my points ...
That's a false claim which apparently relies too heavily upon the 'hope' that no one has read these threads in their entirety and only the most recent posts, (where such empty claims are being made, as they are now), and on zero evidence.
(I bring things to the open and forefront and I do not obfuscate and divert like Falcon9 does).
That's a false claim which apparently relies too heavily upon the 'hope' that no one has read these threads in their entirety and only the most recent posts, (where such empty claims are being made, as they are now), and on zero evidence.
My arguments have been strong and logical ...
Where? All you've posted thusfar have been weak and illogical arguments.
and they do no rely upon emotion or hearsay as does those of Falcon9.
On the contrary, such "arguments" as "Aprupt" has abruptly put forth have consisted almost entirely of hearsay, basing conclusions upon false premises and emotional trolling, (such as "they do no rely upon emotion or hearsay as does those of Falcon9")
The only reason my endless debate continues with Falcon9 is because he cannot admit defeat and also I will not allow him to harass and try to bully others (I have ever been drawn to challenge bullies).
Turn away from your mirror while typing your specious justifications for trolling and face the computer screen, 'bully-liar'.
-
It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).
It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often. He is rather like that Clark character in 'Good Will Hunting', except that in his case he seems to have even less of a petulant understanding than Clark possessed. Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.
So let me see if I understand this correctly........(although I'm apparently incapable of doing so)
According to your post, I am:
*Unfamiliar with the religions (no argument there) and OTHER SUBJECTS (and from the tone of your post, I can only assume that means ANY and ALL subjects)
*Lacking ANY education whatsoever, and
*I have more "pride in my intellect and reason than I possess in intellect and reason"
This (personal) attack against me was totally uncalled for, and not very nice.
NEVER have I claimed to be knowledgeable about ANY religion; And you don't know what other subjects I may or may not be familiar with, nor do you know a d**n thing about how educated or uneducated I am.
Pride in my intellect and reason (both of which I am short on)? Again, you don't have anything to base your opinion on - you don't know anything about me, my pride, or my "intellect and reason".
And you managed to get all your "snidely" comments about me posted, while you avoided responding to the simple but true point I made.....
why would ANY person educate themselves on a subject if they have such a hatred for it? It doesn't make any sense.
Granted my tone does read more harshly upon you than I had intended it to, it is just I feel a great deal of disappointment in people that let themselves be bufalloed, especially by someone as unfit for that as Falcon9 is. This was not a personal attack against you, and my apologies if you took it that way. You seem to see venom in my post that was never intended (albeit I admit it could be construed as such in places -- depending upon how you view it).
"unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects" doesn't imply in totality, only as much as the particulars being argued as I found the points of Falcon9 in these areas rather slight and pedantic. He made such grievous errors as to expose his ineptitude and it would be conceited for me to think such things were only obvious to me and so I reasoned that if someone didn't catch on that they were 'unfamiliar' with the subject or modern debate regarding it. The tactic of using the fallacy of arguing by prestigious jargon is typically only used against the type I indicated as one is intentionally playing upon the others vanity. Since it was you that stated you found Falcon9 to be "rather knowledgeable and well-read" I could only reason that you were advocating some level of brilliance towards him. Since I know such considerations are unwarranted I figured you to fall into the "more pride in their intellect and reason.." or buffaloed camp. Once again my apologies if it seemed like a personal attack upon you but you are here, within this thread, giving praise and appreciation to someone I know to be quite dishonest and foolish.
I don't know what you mean with "..how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible)". The questions seemed to be missing something of a point with it or a reason for it as I don't understand the contention begged within it. Falcon9 isn't educated on religion at all and I see no evidence that he has any appreciable understanding of it other than what could be read on some so called atheists blog. Don't let him fool you in this internet age --with his extensive use of quote mining you should have a general understanding and a basic profile for him and just how two dimensional he actually is.
-
I found the points of Falcon9 in these areas rather slight and pedantic.
Yet, this is merely your empty and inherently biased opinion, sans a factual basis.
He made such grievous errors as to expose his ineptitude ...
No evidence of this claim exists except in the 'mind' of a religious adherent blinded by faith.
The tactic of using the fallacy of arguing by prestigious jargon is typically only used against the type I indicated as one is intentionally playing upon the others vanity. Since it was you that stated you found Falcon9 to be "rather knowledgeable and well-read" I could only reason that you were advocating some level of brilliance towards him. Since I know such considerations are unwarranted ...
No, you don't "know" that they are "unwarranted"; you're assuming that, again - without evidence. I typically write, (and converse offline), in the same manner as I have on these FC forums. Any "jargon" used is case-specific and the usage means that I'm aware of the meanings of the words I use, (whether or not anyone else is would be their concern, and choice to call what they don't understand "jargon").
Falcon9 isn't educated on religion at all ...
Now your assuming that I wasted my time in collage and life - much as you did, (given your pronounced penchant for projecting your own dubious 'qualities' onto others).
I see no evidence that he has any appreciable understanding of it other than what could be read on some so called atheists blog.
Then truly your "faith" has blinded you moreso than previously demonstrated by your stumbling around in the dark about this. I don't read blogs - atheist or otherwise. The evidence of my understanding of the subject exists in extensive posts, archived here, (and elsewhere). You troll poorly.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
-
I have done far too many shameful things to posses much trace of pride or ego.
My previous post was being directed at your argumentative stature and not your personal stature, so sorry if I opened a wound. There's no need to get too personal though. I'm just arguing over the lack of common sense in your oddly drawn-out arguments.
I know the real reason that you don't wish to backtrack is because there is nothing there in support of your false claim. I have actually admitted being wrong here within these forums, something I am sure your beloved Falcon9 could never do (even though I have repeatedly proven his lies for all to see and yet you and him seem to be blind to them).
At this point there's no reason to argue any further if you're expecting me to quote your errors, which I have done so in the past numerous times. You asking me to quote your errors would be 'professional' trolling (to anyone but yourself I'm sure...). I'd rather not argue with someone who refuses to see their basic errors which have already been quoted numerous times in the past.
I was under the assumption that me and you had already established terms of what was provable or not (in fact it was you that set the anchor and I agreed with your position)? It wasn't even that "atheism is a religion" or "religions faith isn't blind" it was of the unprovable and disagreeable and a reasonable point to take it to that continuation would be futile. The facts favor me and not him and I would again ask you to look back at these so called 'logical fallacies' I have been accused of committing and you will see that they are simply accusations by Falcon9 and not actualities. I am particular in my methodology and I stick to the truth of what I know and I don't rely on or require fallacious tricks to prove my points (I bring things to the open and forefront and I do not obfuscate and divert like Falcon9 does). My arguments have been strong and logical and they do no rely upon emotion or hearsay as does those of Falcon9. The only reason my endless debate continues with Falcon9 is because he cannot admit defeat and also I will not allow him to harass and try to bully others (I have ever been drawn to challenge bullies).
Concentrating on the original argument (ughghghg), the simple notion you can't get over the fact that atheism is not a religion shows a severe lack of common sense and therefore those arguments were never strong or logical. They were just needlessly drawn out with emphasis on small cherry-picked instances. I'm not a huge fan of Bill Maher but-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc
-
I have done far too many shameful things to posses much trace of pride or ego. I know the real reason that you don't wish to backtrack is because there is nothing there in support of your false claim. I have actually admitted being wrong here within these forums, something I am sure your beloved Falcon9 could never do (even though I have repeatedly proven his lies for all to see and yet you and him seem to be blind to them).
At this point there's no reason to argue any further. You asking me to quote your errors would be 'professional' trolling (to anyone but yourself I'm sure). I'd rather not argue with someone who refuses to see their basic errors which have already been quoted numerous times in the past.
The facts favor me and not him and I would again ask you to look back at these so called 'logical fallacies' I have been accused of committing and you will see that they are simply accusations by Falcon9 and not actualities. I am particular in my methodology and I stick to the truth of what I know and I don't rely on or require fallacious tricks to prove my points (I bring things to the open and forefront and I do not obfuscate and divert like Falcon9 does). My arguments have been strong and logical and they do no rely upon emotion or hearsay as does those of Falcon9. The only reason my endless debate continues with Falcon9 is because he cannot admit defeat and also I will not allow him to harass and try to bully others (I have ever been drawn to challenge bullies).
Considering you can't get over the fact that atheism is not a religion, it shows a severe lack of common sense and therefore those arguments were never strong or logical. They were just needlessly drawn out with emphasis on small cherry-picked instances. I'm not a huge fan of Bill Maher, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position."
-- Bill Maher
-
Anyone who has read the bible and then thought "Yep, that all happened" is the object of my envy. I wish I believed a guy died for me.