(September 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Whenever Drich calls someone 'sport' it's a sign he knows he's losing an argument.  I'd love to play poker against such a tell.

When I was growing up 'sport' was what i was called when I leaped before i looked and got hurt because I did not take the time to consider the consequences of what I was doing/or I was marching into a situation I was about to get smashed up. For instance Dad: "Do you really think it is a good Idea to try and give that stray cat a bath?"

In turn I typically use 'sport' when I catch one of 'use guys' saying some really really stupid, as a sort of verbal warning to let you know if you continue down this current line of 'stoo-pid' reasoning next go around I am going to swing for the fences/kick you teeth in/beat you with your own reasoning.

If we were playing poker I would say 'you sure about going all in sport' while you held a pair of deuces, and I had 4 of a kind.

Me calling you sport is giving you a chance to back down and re think what it is you are saying.
or in this situation I'd say:
'So way to go on that psychological analysis there SPORT, wow I feel like you have me pegged.'

Now in this particular situation if you continue to press I would find a few examples of me calling someone sport (provide you with source material or evidence to my claim)  and the back down and I backed off and other times where i gave my verbal warning and they pressed and I kicked their teeth in.

(September 9, 2016 at 10:11 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Drich has reached the point where his comments aren't worth replying to, again. You know you've gotten under his skin when he starts calling you 'sport' a lot, and then he's pretty much just ranting.

This is the point where I remind myself that not all Christians (#notallChristians) are like that.

Really?!?!?

So you know you've gotten under my skin and I am on my heels and have been left completely defenseless and you are just going to give me a pass? You are going to forgo going in for the kill? If I am allowed to say it, that is mighty white of you. Even though when you started posting (before my rebuttles) you did indeed think you had me on my heels and you opened up with your best effort to put me in my place.

-or is it, that doing a victory lap (proclaiming a high road reason for bowing out early) after you make a sweeping dismissal that does not broach one subject matter I posted is your way of letting me know you have bitten off more than you can chew and want a way out but do not want to loose face?

Since I seem to be re explaining all my 'rules' Know if you ever simply drop a topic I am not one of the subject snipers/vultures that feels they need to add commentary/personal attacks. If you quit I will leave you alone even if the discussion has been left open. If next time you bit off more than you can chew, just walk away I won't chase after you.

(September 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Whenever Drich calls someone 'sport' it's a sign he knows he's losing an argument.  I'd love to play poker against such a tell.

He's very experienced at losing arguments.

(September 9, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Whenever Drich calls someone 'sport' it's a sign he knows he's losing an argument.  I'd love to play poker against such a tell.

He's very experienced at losing arguments.

And then he acts like he never lost. It's like playing chess with a pigeon. I'm sure everyone is familiar with that analogy by now.

(September 9, 2016 at 11:57 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Whenever Drich calls someone 'sport' it's a sign he knows he's losing an argument.  I'd love to play poker against such a tell.

When I was growing up 'sport' was what i was called when I leaped before i looked and got hurt because I did not take the time to consider the consequences of what I was doing/or I was marching into a situation I was about to get smashed up. For instance Dad: "Do you really think it is a good Idea to try and give that stray cat a bath?"

In turn I typically use 'sport' when I catch one of 'use guys' saying some really really stupid, as a sort of verbal warning to let you know if you continue down this current line of 'stoo-pid' reasoning next go around I am going to swing for the fences/kick you teeth in/beat you with your own reasoning.

If we were playing poker I would say 'you sure about going all in sport' while you held a pair of deuces, and I had 4 of a kind.

Me calling you sport is giving you a chance to back down and re think what it is you are saying.
or in this situation I'd say:
'So way to go on that psychological analysis there SPORT, wow I feel like you have me pegged.'

Now in this particular situation if you continue to press I would find a few examples of me calling someone sport (provide you with source material or evidence to my claim)  and the back down and I backed off and other times where i gave my verbal warning and they pressed and I kicked their teeth in.

Okay, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.

(September 9, 2016 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Sure, I get it. You referenced an article about a "theory" that doesn't rise to the level of theory (and arguably not even a scientific hypothesis) and that provides no evidence for its speculations. Yet you want to cite it as evidence that "science" doesn't rule out the possibility of a soul, however ill-defined 'soul' may be, and you decline to take any responsibility for providing anything like a workable definition that might be fruitful in a scientific context.

Yeah, I get it just fine.

So, you get it, but decide to default to a unsubstantiated sweeping dismissal and to end with a quip instead...

So riddle me this... what is it you think you get?

Because all I see here is more of the same. You fail to address the subject and move to dismiss with a personal evaluation based on nothing more than an insult made to stick with your standing in this peer group. You do know that out side this little safe haven, you by word thought and deed seem to 'get' nothing.

So . . . your response to my dismissal of your link as lacking in substance and evidence is to claim that I fail to address the subject, which is odd since the subject of my post pretty clearly has to do with the piss poor "evidence" you cite that there's anything like a real scientific debate taking place. And personal evaluation? As opposed to what? Impersonal evaluation? Yes, I personally think the article you referenced fails to present any evidence for Biocentrism's speculations (which are really just the usual old Idealist talking points dressed up in quantum woo), much less give any reason to class it as a legitimate scientific theory. You do know the criteria of good scientific theories, right?

But go on and bray and strut as you usually do. Whatever floats your boat, Drich. No one really cares about your comical need to appear to win at all costs, any more than they do with Huggy's similar affliction. However, if you ever get around to pointing out how Biocentrism rises to the level of theory or where in the article you linked to any evidence is presented, I'll be most interested. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain how Biocentrism leads to something other than solipsism. Until then . . . .

(September 9, 2016 at 11:33 am)Drich Wrote: And... Where did I claim, This theory had ANYTHING to do with what I believe?

Ever play devil's advocate before? Ever Explore a position not your own? Ever put on someone elses' position to refute them with their own tools?

That is what I did here. I know for really stupid people, it is impossible to imagine the mental dexterity it takes to remove oneself from a core belief and to be familiar enough with the other side's argument to dare represent a different facet of the opposing argument to their opponent, to use their tools against them.

For example the OP says he does not believe in God or after life because he believes that science says once your dead nothing is left. I simply put on 'science' in the way of this article and the larger theory of biocentrism to show him he was wrong in his repersentation of 'all of science.' Basicly with the very 'tool' he is using to dismiss Christianity, I dismissed his claim.

The reason being, If infact his base is unsure/undecided about us or our souls then how can it speak to the nature of God?

Fair enough if you're not using it as a defense of your own beliefs.  That's fine.

However, that doesn't take away from the fact that you presented an unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific, fallacy laden, and unevidenced hypothesis about the nature of the universe created by a freakin' biologist that refuses to defend his theory against other scientists and even stoops so low as to delete comments on his articles that challenge his theory.  Then you're trying to pass this tripe off as legitimate science to actually claim that there are two scientific schools of thought as to the existence of the soul.  

You're not playing Devil's advocate.  You're tripping over your own stupidity and ego all the while insulting/bullying anyone that points out you are wrong. You're just way too far out of your league here.

Leave the science talk to those that actually know what science is, and when we need someone to comment on your ancient mythological book about your zombie Jew Demi-god, we'll let you know.

(September 9, 2016 at 3:45 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Whatever floats your boat, Drich. No one really cares about your comical need to appear to win at all costs, any more than they do with Huggy's similar affliction. 

Hold up I have a need to "appear" to win? Anyone that doesn't think I win any arguments I defy you to ask me to provide evidence. let's see how many people will take me up on that request. If no one request the evidence then that speaks of itself. If on the other hand you're crazy enough to take me up on that challenge then don't whine when I put a number of you on blast.

We can do it this the easy way or the hard way.

Further more It's not a "need to appear to win", it's a need to come to a conclusion so that the same argument isn't brought up for discussion ad nauseam.

Yes, I'm sure others want to feed your incessant need to quote mine in seemingly every thread you take part in.

(September 11, 2016 at 8:54 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 9, 2016 at 3:45 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Whatever floats your boat, Drich. No one really cares about your comical need to appear to win at all costs, any more than they do with Huggy's similar affliction. 

Hold up I have a need to "appear" to win? Anyone that doesn't think I win any arguments I defy you to ask me to provide evidence. let's see how many people will take me up on that request. If no one request the evidence then that speaks of itself. If on the other hand you're crazy enough to take me up on that challenge then don't whine when I put a number of you on blast.

We can do it this the easy way or the hard way.

Further more It's not a "need to appear to win", it's a need to come to a conclusion so that the same argument isn't brought up for discussion ad nauseam.

"Prove me wrong"

No thanks. I've yet to see you prove yourself right. Waving your arms around in a big challenge to everyone doesn't make you any more right.