I'll show you a real Christian

[Esquilax]

Is my message really that difficult to understand? I'll simplify: Hypocracy.

If you're going to boil your position down to one word, misspelling that word is a major fuck up: Hypocrisy.

Secondly, I've already mentioned one major difference between what was done in the OP and what a christian would likely produce, and simply dismissing that isn't really a rebuttal. Openness isn't the same thing as vagueness, and I'd submit to you that what would get us mad at a christian isn't vagueness, it's a lack of evidential grounding for what they do present.

Kitanetos, by contrast, presents us with things that demonstrably exist: christians exist, and their discussions on what constitutes a True Christian are widely known.

[Bad Wolf]

Blackmason, take that stick out of your arse and pipe down. The picture was a bit of fun, the meaning was obvious (I hope) to anyone seeing it. You're just looking for an argument where there isn't one.

[BlackMason]

Is this place a haven for confirmation bias for atheists? Lets put the shoe on the other foot: If a theist posted something directed at atheists in a similar manner, a whole swat team of atheists would come out right? So where's the consistency men? Or is this site a place for jokers? Lets use this incident to do a little introspection. It seems that some people here are becoming the very thing they claim to be against. They're just using a different name.

So, if I'm reading this right, you're mad because Kitanetos posted something that made you think, rather than just telling you directly what it means?

So use your own interpretation on what he said? Again it is irresponsible to leave a message to subjective interpretation in this kind of forum. Isn't that one of the arguments that we atheists use on christians? Why would god leave an important document to subjective interpretation?

Who do I listen to? For me it's more like what. I listen to reason and logic.

The difference, of course, is that my "subjective interpretation," at least has the benefit of being based on demonstrable events, whereas a christian's subjective whatsits of the bible is already factually dubious before they even get to the point of adding their own spin on it.

I've got no issue with your interpretation at all. My issue is with the OP. You're being a distraction. I merely want to hear Kitanetos' story. Hopefully he'll be honest.

Blackmason, take that stick out of your arse and pipe down. The picture was a bit of fun, the meaning was obvious (I hope) to anyone seeing it. You're just looking for an argument where there isn't one.

This is how I interpreted it: There are no real christians because they don't apply the bible 100%. This is a classical no true scotsman logical fallacy. What if they don't wanna apply the bible 100% all the time. Does that make them false/untrue christians? No. Read about this particular logical fallacy.

So don't tell me to pipe down you fucking idiot.

[Bad Wolf]

I don't think you understand what a 'no true scotsman' logical fallacy is or how its applied.

[Cato]

Comedy clubs must be a veritable torture chamber for you.

Actually I love comedy.

Also, two weeks and 30 posts gives little credence to your expert analysis of what kind of forum this is.

Now we've resorted to ad hominems. Wow this is unbbelievable. Judge me on the merit of what I'm saying rather than what you know about me. Perhaps the categories on this site are meaningless.

Fucking incredible. You reply to me with a demonstration that you have no sense of humor nor any idea what the forum is about.

I think you need to learn the definition of ad hominem. You sailed in here prescribing what kind of forum this is. I called bullshit based on your lack of experience here. Precisely how is this an ad hominem attack? Particularly since you are mistaken about the character of the forum.

[BlackMason]

I don't think you understand what a 'no true scotsman' logical fallacy is or how its applied.

I can walk you through the steps and show you my workings for my application in this case.

---

Fucking incredible. You reply to me with a demonstration that you have no sense of humor nor any idea what the forum is about.

Perphaps I'm mistaken about the purpose of this forum. Is it to troll christians?

I think you need to learn the definition of ad hominem. You sailed in here prescribing what kind of forum this is. I called bullshit based on your lack of experience here. Precisely how is this an ad hominem attack? Particularly since you are mistaken about the character of the forum.

It's YOU that doesn't know what an ad hominem is. It's not limited to "attacks". Argumentum ad hominem is when one part knows a personal detail about the other and uses that to refute an argument. For example: You don't shower regularly so I don't believe the conclusions of your doctoral thesis. Or, "You haven't got your BS degree yet so I don't believe you."

---

If you're going to boil your position down to one word, misspelling that word is a major fuck up: Hypocrisy.

Look if you're gonna play grammar nazi then you're serving no purpose. Did my typo deter my message so much so that it became incomprehensible? No, so next time just shove it.

Secondly, I've already mentioned one major difference between what was done in the OP and what a christian would likely produce, and simply dismissing that isn't really a rebuttal. Openness isn't the same thing as vagueness, and I'd submit to you that what would get us mad at a christian isn't vagueness, it's a lack of evidential grounding for what they do present.

Kitanetos, by contrast, presents us with things that demonstrably exist: christians exist, and their discussions on what constitutes a True Christian are widely known.

Again this is purely based on your interpretation of the OP. I have no issue with this. Perhaps you are Kitanetos' spokesman. If so then great. But I want Kitanetos to speak for himself because I do believe he was trolling christians. Don't be bias and choose a favourable interpretation simply because he is one of your own. Be consistent! Bullshit is bullshit regardless of who speaks it.

Also, is my message wrong? Interpretations aside, am I wrong? I think you're ignoring the larger issue here to save one of your own.

---

I find it quite ironic that my contributions would be treated with such contempt. These kind of forums are usually aimed at enlightenment of a corrective nature. It's a poor display that we expect theists to be so receptive of our correction yet we spit venom when corrected ourselves.

A simple, "Look, BlackMason, we see what you're saying. However, your remarks are misguided because Kitanetos was coming from *this* direction."

This discussion would only have been 3 posts long.

[Marsellus Wallace]

BlackMason....

[Cato]

It's YOU that doesn't know what an ad hominem is. It's not limited to "attacks". Argumentum ad hominem is when one part knows a personal detail about the other and uses that to refute an argument. For example: You don't shower regularly so I don't believe the conclusions of your doctoral thesis. Or, "You haven't got your BS degree yet so I don't believe you."

Did you intentionally omit the concept of relevance form your definition of ad hominem because it destroys your argument, or are you simply fucking ignorant?

[Creed of Heresy]

*Sniff sniff*

What's this I smell? A scrub talking about how this forum should operate?

Smells like bullshit.

With a hint of vanilla...

[Esquilax]

Look if you're gonna play grammar nazi then you're serving no purpose. Did my typo deter my message so much so that it became incomprehensible? No, so next time just shove it.

I just find it ironic to see people swanning in with this kind of intellectual posturing and then stumbling when presenting the core of their issue. That and, as a writer, spelling and grammar is kinda my jam. If you don't like it, then I invite you to shove it, because I find it even more ironic that you'll play off your spelling error as something I'm making too big a deal of in one sentence, and then in the very next sentence you'll proceed to make an even bigger deal out of what you just got through characterizing as me being a piffling pedant.

Again this is purely based on your interpretation of the OP. I have no issue with this. Perhaps you are Kitanetos' spokesman. If so then great. But I want Kitanetos to speak for himself because I do believe he was trolling christians. Don't be bias and choose a favourable interpretation simply because he is one of your own. Be consistent! Bullshit is bullshit regardless of who speaks it.

Ah, and here you presume to speak for me and from where I derived my interpretation from. That's interesting, that the person downplaying my contribution here because it's my interpretation will then expect me to bow to his interpretation of my thought processes.

Could it be that perhaps I came up with my position on this on my own? Is there the slightest possibility that the way you interpret the OP isn't so blindingly obvious and clearly true that everyone else must be thinking it too? Maybe, just maybe, those of us that are disagreeing with you on this aren't doing so due to some bias (which is itself a catch cry of the religious when we disagree with them, to add yet another layer of hypocrisy to this whole mess) but because we genuinely disagree?

I swear, the further you go the more presumptive and petty you show yourself to be.

Also, is my message wrong? Interpretations aside, am I wrong? I think you're ignoring the larger issue here to save one of your own.

Another typically theistic perspective, where disagreeing positions are just interpretations, but yours are objective facts.

I find it quite ironic that my contributions would be treated with such contempt. These kind of forums are usually aimed at enlightenment of a corrective nature. It's a poor display that we expect theists to be so receptive of our correction yet we spit venom when corrected ourselves.

Being corrected based on the presumptuous claims of a newbie who seems to think he knows better than us how our forum is run is more than a little grating.

A simple, "Look, BlackMason, we see what you're saying. However, your remarks are misguided because Kitanetos was coming from *this* direction."

This discussion would only have been 3 posts long.

I did that at the outset: all you did was dismiss my words as an interpretation. It must be very easy to talk the talk when you're unaware of how you're failing to walk the walk.