Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People - I /was/ a Christian
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 211 of 307 (421717)
09-14-2007 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by crashfrog
09-13-2007 4:15 AM


Re: I know about Faith
I'm not asking for clemency, here, you just need to be aware of your own bias, here.
i am well aware of them, i just thought you should be aware of your's.
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Sometimes I misinterpret joshing for personal attacks, especially when people don't use smilies, especially when its people, like you, I'm already frustrated with. Holmes especially had a tendency to do that. When it was a case of genuine error, I've genuinely apologized for misunderstanding. The line between "you're an idiot" and "you're an idiot; ha ha!" is quite narrow. Hell, even my gentle ribs have come off as great insults from time to time.
your "gentle ribs" come off as insults. perhaps you do not intend them that way, but they are read that way. you are probably equally misreading some of the things i say -- i have a particularly... odd sense of humor. i'll try to use smilies for you.
You, of course, think that I'm an asshole to one and all, and that's how you read my posts - "let's see what Crash the asshole has to say today."
no, but acting like an asshole doesn't help. even if you're only kidding.
Jesus Christ. I pray to god I never wind up on your bad side if this level of prickishness is what you extend to the people you don't even dislike. I don't think I could leave the house without a gun if I had the impression that you ever disliked me, now.
lol!
It's not contrarianism, Arach. I honestly found your arguments lacking, for the reasons I described. You did nothing to change my mind.
ditto. though i find it odd you have to dispute my accusation that you're being contrarian. but then again, so do i.
I was not convinced, and I don't think I was being unreasonable then, and you haven't convinced me that I'm unreasonable, now. I'm not going to lie and tell you otherwise. Don't confuse me being unreasonable with you having impotent arguments.
don't confuse you not reading my arguments my arguments having erectile dysfunction.
Is that all? I know people who think you're acting like one, right now. (Oh, did you think you were the only one engaged in ex parte discussions about this?)
lol, no, and the irony is that, well, i'm sorta acting like you.
And it's hardly a shock for an atheist to be called "fundamentalist"; that's just par for the course. That's the automatic attempt at insult for anybody who speaks of religion in any but the most glowing language.
ah, see, i still like the simplicity of "you are a darwinist, so logically..."
crash, i don't know if you noticed, but i don't speak of religion in the most glowing language either. your side remember?
Why on Earth would I take being called "fundamentalist" at all seriously? Certainly none of the actual fundamentalists here think I'm one of them.
nor do they consider muslim fundamentalists among their ranks.
Or did you forget about Ray, up there, promising me an eternity of hellfire?
oh yes, i'm always amused by ray, too.
Nobody on the fundie side of the aisle considers me anything but the strongest possible irreverent skeptic and incorrigible evolutionist.
frankly, i think they'd be more than happy to argue that atheism is just another religion. and i had fully expected you to assume that's what i meant, and i am very glad you don't. but those of us in the middle, in the "moderate" camps tend to think that either extreme is "fundamentalist" because of the similarities in behaviour, and rampant adherences to ideology.
yes, crash, i'm a moderate. you wouldn't know it by this thread, though. i have successfully demonstrated how to act like a fundamentalist. and so have you.
Since you've decided to hijack an entire thread to air your personal greivance with me, I guess it's only fair that others be allowed to do the same. Although I hope that they're not as big an asshole about it as you've been.
i wasn't trying to be an asshole. i was trying to honestly critique something that's bothered me about your style -- something that if you'd just change, your arguments would greatly benefit.
I think it's just as possible to be divested of one's faith, as well. It is possible to be faithless, just as one can be footless.
er, yes. but people are normally born with feet. just like our brains normally function in irrational ways from time to time. nice nitpick though. sure you're not simply arguing for the sake or argument?
Maybe we should just stop talking to each other. Quite frankly I find your endless baiting and contrarianism - not to mention your accusations - very difficult to avoid terse responses to. If you can't help but make them, we should both refrain.
i would much prefer that we understand each other. i could have left it at the apologies, yes, and maybe i should have, but i think we're both basically reasonably people, and we should be able to both post in a public forum with petty fights. i'm sorry that i had to say what i did -- the ad hominem with actual content, that is -- but i felt it needed to be said. i think that we're both big enough to take each other's personality critiques in stride and learn something from them about ourselves. yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2007 4:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by anglagard, posted 09-14-2007 1:27 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 213 by AdminQuetzal, posted 09-14-2007 8:29 AM arachnophilia has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 212 of 307 (421720)
09-14-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by arachnophilia
09-14-2007 12:41 AM


Re: I know about Faith
At the risk of being off topic, I would like to second what Arachnophilia said in this post.
Sorry Crash, you essentially asked if anyone else has the same opinion and I feel I owe you an honest answer based upon my admittedly fallible nature.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 12:41 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 3:02 PM anglagard has not replied

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 307 (421750)
09-14-2007 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by arachnophilia
09-14-2007 12:41 AM


Warning!
Arach and Crash.
Arach you are really skirting a very thin edge with this post. It is extremely off-topic in the first place, and you are continuing the discussion of another poster's style rather than the OP - which was the subject of my previous warning. Stop now. The next suspension (see mark's overnight time out) will be for a week. No further warnings.
Crash: I very strongly recommend you do NOT reply to Arach's post.
Edited by AdminQuetzal, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 12:41 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 307 (421790)
09-14-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by nator
09-13-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Biblical Fundamentalist
quote:
What people love to do is point out how some avowed Christian says or does something counter to their own ascribed theology, only to bring the whole of Christendom in to ill-repute. That kind of reasoning is flawed, as it only serves to confirm that the people espousing it are wrong, not the doctrine itself.
So when Buz condemns all Muslims for the behavior of a minority, you should be right there, correcting him and telling him that he's wrong, every time.
Right?
Funny that I don't remember you doing that.
Probably because I've never seen Buz condemn all Muslims. I've seen him criticize those who are hypocritical and I've seen him speak out against Islam over its religious veracity-- all of which I do too.

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by nator, posted 09-13-2007 9:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by nator, posted 09-14-2007 9:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 307 (421797)
09-14-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by macaroniandcheese
09-13-2007 10:50 AM


Re: More Misuse of the Word Wahabbi
you have no idea what wahhabism means. it is not the arabic word for fundamentalism.
I never said, nor implied, that Wahhabism was the Arabic word for fundamentalism, so I'm not sure what you're objection is.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-13-2007 10:50 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-14-2007 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 216 of 307 (421799)
09-14-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2007 2:48 PM


Re: More Misuse of the Word Wahabbi
you keep using it wrongly, including describing people from iran and iraq WHERE THER ARE NO WAHHABIS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2007 2:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2007 3:13 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 217 of 307 (421802)
09-14-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by anglagard
09-14-2007 1:27 AM


Re: I know about Faith
At the risk of being off topic, I would like to second what Arachnophilia said in this post.
Could you be more specific?
Sorry Crash, you essentially asked if anyone else has the same opinion and I feel I owe you an honest answer based upon my admittedly fallible nature.
You don't have anything to be sorry for, except perhaps not being as clear as you could be. It's not entirely clear to me what you're seconding. In a spirit of friendship, could you be more specific?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by anglagard, posted 09-14-2007 1:27 AM anglagard has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 307 (421803)
09-14-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by macaroniandcheese
09-14-2007 2:53 PM


Re: More Misuse of the Word Wahabbi
you keep using it wrongly, including describing people from iran and iraq WHERE THER ARE NO WAHHABIS.
Brenna, since this is now getting off topic, this will be my last transmission in this vein.
My usage of Wahhabism was merely for juxtaposing and paralleling, not for discussing at length. Should you like to discuss at length, start a new topic.
Lastly, Al-Qaeda models itself after Wahhabist beliefs, which tends towards extreme interpretations of Islam. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Many Iranians hold a similar ideology. Therefore, it renders your point moot, as there is nothing wrong with the description in the context I used it in.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-14-2007 2:53 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-14-2007 3:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 219 of 307 (421804)
09-14-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by arachnophilia
09-14-2007 12:14 AM


Re: I know about Faith
with all due respect, who the hell are you to tell phat he's not a christian?
Forget about Phat - you aint one either. What I wrote about Phat simply insert your name in place of his. We know this by what comes out of your mouth/keyboard (atheistic viewpoints). A person is as they argue, and not as they label them self, if the two contradict.
"no true scotsman" is when someone makes a statement, as your above, that excludes people as "not counting" as a "real" whatever. the idea is that if every person in scotland excludes every other group, then by collective agreement, there is no true scotsman. just infidels.
perhaps you should look up what the fallacy is.
As I suspected you do not know what NTS is about.
NTS says objective truth does not exist; therefore, it is an attempt to "objectify" subjectivity.
There are ways to identify real Christians, that is, there are ways to verify if a claim of Christianity is true. NTS is an attempt to evade objective truth and say that there is no way or method to objectively identify personal claims.
yes ray, that's "fundamentalism" means.
You have evaded facts and repeated yourself because you cannot refute what was said. A real Christian would not slander the gospel to be that which western societies consider to be moronic. When we remember that you are an evolutionist, that is, a person who agrees with Richard Dawkins concering ORIGINS, then your slander of the Bible and the gospel is explained instantly.
The gospel (= way of faith) is not Fundamentalism - that is Atheist slander of God's word. You are a Fundamentalist Atheist evolutionist who is enraged and has no other way to attack that which you hate (= Bible) except by slander.
We are glad your kind rejects the Bible; it would be the best evidence that the Bible is wrong, and the fact that you are uneducated as is seen in your grammar and punctuation is the best prima facie evidence of your Fundamentalist status (besides the other errors pointed out in this post).
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 12:14 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 4:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 307 (421805)
09-14-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by macaroniandcheese
09-13-2007 4:06 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
absolutely. but i'd argue that it's also possible to be an ex-atheist and an ex-unbeliever and that the fact that you are not those things now doesn't invalidate the fact that you were those things, back then.
I agree completely. Did I imply otherwise? If I did it was certainly unintended.
and at the same time you scream at them because their experience isn't valuable because they can't understand you and that they are intellectually or spiritually inferior because they fail to be what you are.
I can't be an atheist for just me, Brenn. That doesn't make any sense. God either exists or doesn't. If there's no God, then by definition, any experience of God is inauthentic.
To the extent that I'm rejecting someone else's experience, I'm doing so because there's an objective reality that their experience contradicts. A surgeon who claims to have experienced that the position of the average human spleen is located where it says "lungs" on the anatomy chart is just plain wrong, and it's not wrong for the state medical board to reject his application for licensure because he's intent on denying physical reality.
Believers aren't wrong because I'm an atheist. Believers are wrong for the same reason that I'm an atheist - there is, in all likelihood, no such things as Gods. There's a big difference.
it's an untenable and wretched position, this "i'm right and you suck because you don't agree with me" position, no matter what side it's fought from.
Somebody has to be right. The thing about the existence of God is that there's an excluded middle - God either exists, or doesn't. He can't not-exist for me and exist for you. One of us has to be wrong.
And it's you. There's no such things as Gods. I don't think "you suck" because you're wrong. I don't think any less of you for believing. I don't think knowing one thing that you don't know makes me better than you, or anybody else. I have contempt for religion, but not automatically for its adherents. Of course, some people can't help but take criticism of their religion personally. I can't help that.
And occasionally I am contemptful of individual religious people, but that's as a result of their behavior, not their religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-13-2007 4:06 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-14-2007 3:31 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 4:51 PM crashfrog has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 221 of 307 (421806)
09-14-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2007 3:13 PM


Re: More Misuse of the Word Wahabbi
Lastly, Al-Qaeda models itself after Wahhabist beliefs, which tends towards extreme interpretations of Islam. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Many Iranians hold a similar ideology. Therefore, it renders your point moot, as there is nothing wrong with the description in the context I used it in.
there are suddenly loads of southern baptists who think the birth control pill is murder, just like catholics. in no way is distinguishing between southen baptists and catholics moot.
since this is now getting off topic
i don't think wahhabis was ever on topic in this thread and you shouldn't have brought it up. but you keep vomiting your lack of knowledge on this subject all over the board and you decided to respond to my castigations here. i would gladly join you in a discussion of wahhabism. in the mean time, you're mistaken, please stop.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2007 3:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 222 of 307 (421807)
09-14-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 3:17 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
Did I imply otherwise?
the sum of your posts on this thread (and throughout the board) express your opinion that anyone with any variety of religious belief or faith is completely delusional or perhaps suffers from some variety of cognitive ddisability. this does not support the idea that they might be genuine and legitimate in their opinions.
If there's no God, then by definition, any experience of God is inauthentic.
but you haven't any more proof than they do.
A surgeon who claims to have experienced that the position of the average human spleen is located where it says "lungs" on the anatomy chart is just plain wrong, and it's not wrong for the state medical board to reject his application for licensure because he's intent on denying physical reality.
my future father in law's appendix was north of his liver when it was removed in may of his 4th grade year.
Believers are wrong for the same reason that I'm an atheist - there is, in all likelihood, no such things as Gods.
in all likelihood is not enough for you to declare them wrong.
Somebody has to be right.
i'm not so sure.
He can't not-exist for me and exist for you.
no, but a complete lack of evidence doesn't give you absolute license. it may give you the logical upper hand, but that's all. and logic is like pissing in your tea. it's only yours from then on, but it doesn't really get you anywhere.
There's no such things as Gods.
what happened to that likelihood qualifier?
I don't think any less of you for believing... I have contempt for religion, but not automatically for its adherents.
that claim is not supported by how you respond to believers on this board and specifically in this thread.
Of course, some people can't help but take criticism of their religion personally.
but you're not just criticizing the religion. when you say that everyone who is religious is delusional and potentially purposely fooling themselves (which might thus require that they are psycho or sociopathic), you're not criticizing the religion, you're actively attacking ever single person in the world who has some form of religious belief.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 3:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:19 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 223 of 307 (421810)
09-14-2007 3:52 PM


Trapped By His Own Argument
Crashfrog has repeatedly claimed that he was a real Christian, that he was having genuine communion with God, but then he realized that it wasn't really God after all - he was deluded having communion with himself.
Crashfrog has stated his testimony badly. The logical flaws are self-evident: he could not have been a "real Christian" if Christ and/or God do not exist? But this is how he has expressed his case: "I was a real Christian." Again, he could not have been if the Deity does not exist. Crashfrog, because he has already stated his argument this way cannot admit to the illogic and correct himself, but he must defend what was said (because he said it) and insult everyones intelligence.
But he has admitted that he was deluded into thinking that he was having communion with God but it turned out that he was simply entertaining himself.
How does the Bible explain Crashfrog's admitted delusion?
2Thessalonians 2:11,
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
[In context, "unrighteousness" is defined as the unrighteousness of not having faith - Ray]
The context of these verses is persons who have rejected Christ as Lord of their life. God says if you scorn Him and His Son He will send a strong delusion so that you will believe a lie for the sole purpose of making sure your eternal damnation.
This is what happens when you make excuses for your failure to make it with God.
This exposes the lies in Crashfrog's story. He had God on trial and when he didn't get what he wanted when he wanted it he gave God the finger - that's what really happened. These verses say that God gives the finger back and makes you believe something that is not true. Since Crashfrog has admitted that he was under a delusion, the Bible says it is from God and it explains Crashfrog's present state of blasphemous apostasy.
The Bible corresponds to reality and is true: my only point.
Ray

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 227 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 4:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 224 of 307 (421815)
09-14-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2007 3:15 PM


"not a real christian"
Forget about Phat - you aint one either. What I wrote about Phat simply insert your name in place of his. We know this by what comes out of your mouth/keyboard (atheistic viewpoints). A person is as they argue, and not as they label them self, if the two contradict.
i argue for a literal interpretation of the bible. maybe you hadn't noticed.
and my question still stands, ray. who the hell are you to tell other people whether or not they are christians.
quote:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:1-5
quote:
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Luke 6:37
seems to me that those that walk around condemning others will condemned themselves.
As I suspected you do not know what NTS is about.
NTS says objective truth does not exist; therefore, it is an attempt to "objectify" subjectivity.
maybe in your cockeyed worldview. for the rest of us, it's a logical fallacy, based around the notion of exclusionary debate tactics, such as yours. just as you exclude people from being "true scotsmen" others exclude you and your point becomes simply subjective and personal opinion. it's not about objectifying anything, it's about pointing out that you are biased and subjective.
as jesus said, exclude, and you will be excluded.
There are ways to identify real Christians, that is, there are ways to verify if a claim of Christianity is true. NTS is an attempt to evade objective truth and say that there is no way or method to objectively identify personal claims.
see, you're arguing for the objective. but your "objective" is just your own subjectivity. either christianity is a profession of faith -- as you say it is -- or it is a way of life -- what you previously argued against as "fundamentalism." you can't have it both ways.
and anyways, if we're talking about standards on which to judge the veracity of a claim to christianity, it seems that the standard jesus set (above) would be the final word. so if you go around telling people they're not christians then neither are you for you have fundamentally misunderstood the gospel and are preaching in reverse. instead of spreading the love of god and sharing salvation, you are spreading hatred and condemnation. and that's just not very christian, is it?
further, it is attitudes like yours that drive people away from christianity, and away from the truth. you are doing a disservice to mankind, and christ, and poisoning his message.
When we remember that you are an evolutionist, that is, a person who agrees with Richard Dawkins concering ORIGINS, then your slander of the Bible and the gospel is explained instantly.
ray, i don't agree with richard dawkins about origins. richard dawkins is an atheist; i am not. he argues for atheism; i do not.
We are glad your kind rejects the Bible;
that's really funny ray. that explains the effort i've gone to learn about and study the bible. to learn the language it's written in. why most of my posts here are about the bible. boy, if that's rejection, i'd hate to see the effort required for devotion!
nd the fact that you are uneducated as is seen in your grammar and punctuation is the best prima facie evidence of your Fundamentalist status (besides the other errors pointed out in this post).
ad hominem = inability to refute.
Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2007 3:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 307 (421817)
09-14-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by macaroniandcheese
09-14-2007 3:31 PM


Re: Runaway Train of thought!
the sum of your posts on this thread (and throughout the board) express your opinion that anyone with any variety of religious belief or faith is completely delusional or perhaps suffers from some variety of cognitive ddisability.
So what you're saying is, no, I didn't say that.
Look, if you're determined to read my posts hearing dripping contempt for the intellectual capacity of the religious that just isn't there, I can't convince you otherwise. My denials will only increase your certainty. And, of course, you and Arach will feed off each other, reinforcing your shared bias.
in all likelihood is not enough for you to declare them wrong.
Are you saying that, if I don't know everything, I don't know anything? How can you live with that kind of paralyzing fear of uncertainty?
Of course "in all likelihood" is enough certainty for me to know that, almost certainly, you're wrong. It's certainly enough certainty for arriving at any other practical conclusion.
It's just that, some people like you have a kind of intellectual timidity about God, and so you act like he gets different rules. I don't see why that's true. It's more than enough certainty to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why wouldn't it be enough for God?
i'm not so sure.
You're not sure that something has to either exist or not exist? Seriously?
Why aren't you sure?
that claim is not supported by how you respond to believers on this board and specifically in this thread.
No, that claim is not supported by you choosing to read into my posts contempt that isn't usually there. We address arguments on this board, and some arguments are so stupid I'm contemptuous of them. If you're not paying closely enough to tell the difference, then obviously you come to mistaken conclusions about my intent.
My claim [i]is supported by how I treat believers on this board. I've, many times, voiced my respect for NJ as a person. I've both praised and criticized Buzsaw for his fruity ideas about food but his excellent recipes. Schraf and I had a great disagreement once about what "atheism" means, and who agnostics were, but my respect for her as a person couldn't be more obvious. I complimented Faith on numerous occasions for the positive contributions and interesting questions she raised. There's been a whole series of believers who have come and gone who I have showered praise and respect on for the positive qualities that I saw in them. I've complemented people's jokes. I've thanked them for honesty when they shared difficult personal stories.
It's hilariously wrong for you and others to say that I have "respect for nobody" when I've often voiced my respect for my ideological foes. More often that my peers, in fact. Just because someone is making a stupid argument over there doesn't mean we all have to be uncivil in another context.
But, of course, you don't fucking remember any of that. It's just easier to think of Crash as the asshole who never has anything good to say about anybody, because it makes it easier to ignore what I'm saying. Never mind how frustrating it is for me to never, ever be remembered for any good thing I've said about anybody.
I'm sure you think I'm being an asshole now. Well, now I am, because you're the second person to act like I'm some kind of hateful imp, and it's bullshit. It's 100% bullshit. It's just an intellectual cruch the two of you use, and you should get over it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-14-2007 3:31 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-14-2007 4:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024