(August 3, 2011 at 4:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: ...Where DickDawk leads, atheists follow.

I find your propensity for sweeping generalizations about atheists to be disturbing, to say the least. Especially since you would condemn one of us for making similar statements about Christians.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:01 pm)edk141 Wrote: I like how you accuse a guy you don't know of being a dick then proceed to call all atheists his blind followers. I mean, you're a dick, and how many people do you see following you?

(August 3, 2011 at 4:28 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: you guys will all come around eventually.

We won't. Repeating the same thing doesn't make people believe it. For example, I have persistently insulted you since first bumping into you on this forum, and you still don't believe yourself to be a moron, asshole or idiot.

Dick is the short name for Richard you silly goose. I don't know DickDawk personally, so I don't know how he is in person.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Dick is the short name for Richard you silly goose. I don't know DickDawk personally, so I don't know how he is in person.

Didn't know you were on nicknaming terms with the guy. My bad. Anyway I keep calling you a moron so good on you for taking it so well, but you still ignored my main point in a very moronic fashion - you are not making a point, just trying to hammer the same one down our throats again and again, and it won't work. Also I don't like the way you call us sheep. It's generalizations like that that make me feel justified in insulting you as much as I do.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:03 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(August 3, 2011 at 4:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: ...Where DickDawk leads, atheists follow.

I find your propensity for sweeping generalizations about atheists to be disturbing, to say the least. Especially since you would condemn one of us for making similar statements about Christians.

You are far from a typical atheist FNM, so don't take offense. It's not a sweeping generalization, it's based off of observation, atheists love DickDawk, and will use arguments he uses and take positions he popularizes. Feel free to make generalizations about Christians like wherever Christ goes Christians follow. :-) If you are one of the few atheists who does not follow Dawkins then kudos to you.

---

(August 3, 2011 at 5:11 pm)edk141 Wrote:

(August 3, 2011 at 5:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Dick is the short name for Richard you silly goose. I don't know DickDawk personally, so I don't know how he is in person.

Didn't know you were on nicknaming terms with the guy. My bad. Anyway I keep calling you a moron so good on you for taking it so well, but you still ignored my main point in a very moronic fashion - you are not making a point, just trying to hammer the same one down our throats again and again, and it won't work. Also I don't like the way you call us sheep. It's generalizations like that that make me feel justified in insulting you as much as I do.

There is no justification for your insults.

Don't act like sheep and I won't call you sheep. Branch out, think for yourself. :-)

(August 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: He is talking about a “paradox” and says “as strange as it may sound”, so it is obvious he is talking about science

Wait, what? As strange as it may sound means science? No, no, it doesn't, Stat. You are are obfuscating this debate . . . again.

(August 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Everyone else I have shown that quote to understands it immediately, even other atheists; you are just purposely dragging your feet on it.

I didn't misunderstand the quote, Stat. I pointed out its irrelevance and the uselessness of your snippet quoting in having an actual debate. Believe me, I would never drag my feet in a discussion with you. If I agreed with you, I would do it awful quick so I could get the fuck out of the mire.

(August 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I guess it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider Dawkins a reliable source.

I didn't say that. I said I do not read Dawkins and, therefore, his opinions mean nothing to me, either for or against. I'm just interested in why you want to use other people's opinions and quotes instead of arguing for yourself.

(August 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I never said you were ignoring my posts, I said you were ignoring the evidence I provided in them, which you have.

I can't ignore something that isn't there, Stat.

(August 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Trust me, you are hardly the pillar of patience on this board, there numerous posters on here with more patience.

I never said I was a pillar of patience. Fuck, you bounce around. I said, I am one of the few who has the patience to respond to you fully, which is absolutely true. Have you ever noticed the sheer mountain of one liners that border on "Look at this fucking idiot!" that are posted in reply to your walls of incomprehensible nonsense? I have. I give you more than that and I refrain from calling you an idiot, which is difficult when you basically respond in the same way as those you complain about.

(August 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You see, this is what bothers me about you. You are just being dishonest, when I actually did go back and look at my original post; this is what I found…

Oh, look. You followed that with a bunch of selected quotes where you said modern science and not science. I was talking about you changing terms as the debate wears on. By the end of every one of your debates, your argument is not remotely like your op.

(August 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you can accuse me of moving the goalposts all you want, the facts don’t lie though.

No, but you do, by quote mining, changing up terms and otherwise being disingenuous.

As for the rest of your post, I am not bothering. You are boring the shit out of me with your, "Look! It's a quote." "You're too stupid to get the quote." "You don't understand what these geniuses are saying." "Other atheists understand what I am saying, but not you, because you're stupid." Blah, blah, blah. I don't want quotes from other atheists, Stat. I am not a sheep. I understand that is a tough concept for you. However, that is who I am. I'm not like, "Dawkins said it?!?!?!?! Holy shit. It must be true. Stat is a genius!! *slurp*" In all of these months of talking, you are still feeding me this shit waiting for the day I find my shepherd amongst your obscure references. Sorry, dude. I prefer actual, personal thought. I would not object to quotes supported by statistics, facts, links between modern science and religion, but all I get are other people saying "Dude, modern science and religion are tight!" Not even any of them provided those links. This is exhausting and pointless. You wouldn't know how to provide evidence because you are willing to accept such dubious evidence as the Bible. I should have come to that conclusion a long time ago.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(August 3, 2011 at 5:11 pm)edk141 Wrote:

There is no justification for your insults.

Don't act like sheep and I won't call you sheep. Branch out, think for yourself. :-)

You don't fucking know me Statler, so don't call me a sheep. When you insult everyone who takes a particular world view, expect some flak in return. To my knowledge I have never fallen back on other people's arguments or otherwise avoided thinking about things myself, and never, unlike you and the other followers of your religion, accepted anything as true just because I was told it was, even when the evidence at hand does not back up that claim. So when you make that assertion about me and hundreds of thousands of other atheists, you should consider "moron" the very light end of the spectrum of what you deserve to be called.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: I said, I am one of the few who has the patience to respond to you fully, which is absolutely true. Have you ever noticed the sheer mountain of one liners that border on "Look at this fucking idiot!" that are posted in reply to your walls of incomprehensible nonsense? I have. I give you more than that and I refrain from calling you an idiot, which is difficult when you basically respond in the same way as those you complain about.

Why you bother is beyond me. Insulting the prick is much more enjoyable and nearly 100% less depressing.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)edk141 Wrote: Why you bother is beyond me. Insulting the prick is much more enjoyable and nearly 100% less depressing.

I don't know about enjoyable, but I am sure it is less depressing. Anything is less depressing than a battle of the quotes.

The jesus figure is so important to the way that Statler interprets the world, he looks for the "atheists jesus" and criticizes that. What else can he do? His nutball YEC train hasn't left the station in a couple hundred years. If they'd just get out there and turn all of modern science on it's head, then maybe god can exist. Of course, in case they can't, he would also like to claim credit for science in the name of christianity. It's called hedging a bet.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: Wait, what? As strange as it may sound means science? No, no, it doesn't, Stat. You are are obfuscating this debate . . . again

What! Why would you stop at the comma? If you follow basic grammar you’d realize that I didn’t stop my idea at the comma after the word science, but rather at the period. Science arising from religion is the paradox he is referring to, but I am sure you knew that and you just wanted to quote me out of context to feel better. My original quote is found below for everyone to see how you didn’t use it correctly.

Quote: He is talking about a “paradox” and says “as strange as it may sound”, so it is obvious he is talking about science, which today is very anti-religious, arising from religion.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: I didn't misunderstand the quote, Stat.

Yes you did.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: I can't ignore something that isn't there, Stat.

Well you ignored it, so it must be there.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: Have you ever noticed the sheer mountain of one liners that border on "Look at this fucking idiot!" that are posted in reply to your walls of incomprehensible nonsense?

Of course! Ad Hominem is what people who can’t refute an argument resort to. I totally expected to run into from people who hold such an indefensible position as atheism. It is a reflection on them, not me.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: Oh, look. You followed that with a bunch of selected quotes where you said modern science and not science. I was talking about you changing terms as the debate wears on. By the end of every one of your debates, your argument is not remotely like your op.

My OP said modern science! I have been talking about modern science all the way through this debate. You said I changed terms when I said modern science, so I changed terms from modern science to modern science? I just caught you being dishonest, don’t cry about it.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: As for the rest of your post, I am not bothering.

Yeah I knew you wouldn’t be able to hack it.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: I would not object to quotes supported by statistics, facts, links between modern science and religion

[sarcasm] yeah because they kept a lot of statistics in the 16th and 17th century [/sarcasm]

So we can just sum this up as this…

I made a historical claim, I supported this claim with quotes from experts on the matter, and quotes from the founders of modern science themselves and it was all just blown off because you want statistics? This is history! We use historians and historical documents, not statistics that don’t exist. Get real.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:41 pm)Shell B Wrote: I don't know about enjoyable, but I am sure it is less depressing. Anything is less depressing than a battle of the quotes.

Battle of the quotes? You would have had to actually provide some quotes for it to be a battle.

(August 3, 2011 at 8:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What! Why would you stop at the comma? If you follow basic grammar

. . . you would put a question mark at the end of a question.

Quote:you’d realize that I didn’t stop my idea at the comma after the word science, but rather at the period.

Why would I have continued after that? It was pretty much, "science hates religion." Get yourself a binky, Stat and get on with the debate.

(August 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Shell B Wrote: I didn't misunderstand the quote, Stat.

Quote:Yes you did.

*sigh* Sure, I did, Stat. If it makes you feel better, I misunderstood your vague and ambiguous quote mill. Happy?

Quote:Well you ignored it, so it must be there.

Perfect logic, as always.

Quote:Of course! Ad Hominem is what people who can’t refute an argument resort to. I totally expected to run into from people who hold such an indefensible position as atheism. It is a reflection on them, not me.

Whatever you say. (Do we have an eye roll emoticon?)

Quote:My OP said modern science! I have been talking about modern science all the way through this debate. You said I changed terms when I said modern science, so I changed terms from modern science to modern science? I just caught you being dishonest, don’t cry about it.

You then said just science in like ten posts! Fuck your op. Follow the goddamn debate without slipping up so much and this shit won't fucking happen. Type what you mean and mean what you type. I wasn't being dishonest. You're a prick for suggesting it when it is obvious you said science in other posts and only resorted to your op because you knew you had done so. You see how something as simple as rereading your posts can avoid all kinds of confusion.

Quote:Yeah I knew you wouldn’t be able to hack it.

No, you knew that I would get bored with your bullshit.

Quote:[sarcasm] yeah because they kept a lot of statistics in the 16th and 17th century [/sarcasm]

I imagine that you do not read much, do you? When do you think the first census was taken? Now, don't be a lazy asshole. Actually Google census and find the oldest reference of a census being taken. I'll wait here. While you're at it, think about where your bullshit Inquisition death toll statistics came from.

Quote: Get real.

Get fucked. (For the sake of transparency, I am going to leave that there. Though I believe that you are equally insulting without using swears, I know you will take offense. Therefore, I retract that statement. I genuinely hope you do not get fucked.)

Quote:Battle of the quotes? You would have had to actually provide some quotes for it to be a battle.

Why would I? You made the claim.