(January 30, 2013 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 29, 2013 at 6:28 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

---

And yet you regularly have a cooked-up bull shit answer for everything.

The man doesn't know god from the hole in his butt - has no education to back up anything - openly admits that it's hard to validate and incorporate the Bible and yet consistently shoots his mouth off about what god "really" is ... as if he's some kind of prophet with all the secret codes.

He sells so much bull shit now that he contradicts himself daily. How apropos for a sheep.



...such good "work" you're doing here ... [large enough eye-roll could not be found]

---

If the content of my posts can so easily be identified as lacking of substance then why haven't you identified any of these passages? Why is each and every appeal to dismiss my work based on The superfical and not on actual content? You do know the quickest way to dismiss a message is to find inconsistencies in content. so why may I ask is such a smart and 'well educated' person such as yourself only response based on an appeal to probability? Is this how you were taught to think (in logical fallacies?) or did you come up with this thought process on your own?

Really? You're going to accuse me of not "identifying passages?" First of all, your posts are not "passages" as you are not writing scripture here; you're writing your own semi-christian rhetoric. Secondly, every time I refute one of your ridiculous claims about Christianity, I am indeed identifying your "passage." You may be too thick to grasp this concept, but I'll try again. If you write some nonsense about some prophet killing adults and my following post calls you out on it, that is indeed me identifying your bull shit. Ergo, I have identified your "passages" many many many times. You are making up a massive lie to make a point you do not have.

Quote: did you see what I did there? I isolated a legitimate inconsistency in your base logic, identified it (appeal to probability which is a Formal fallacy) then I moved to dismiss the body of your posts by summing up the body of your work as being based in a logical fallacy. I will now lock you into this logical fallacy of your own creation by challenging you to prove that what you believe to be true about me, is indeed true. So again if you can show where any of my arguments are contextually lacking in reference or exegetical support then your sweeping generalization may actually have Merritt. If not Sport, then I'd say it is your argument that lacks intelectual integrity, and if you choose to stand behind your literally baseless accusations and sweeping generalizations, then you too can be quickly identified and labeled as lacking intelectual integrity.

I think you need to look up what a logical fallacy actually is, and then point out exactly where I used one according to the actual definition and not your own "special godly definition." Furthermore, this portion of your post looks like a copy and paste job, which would further explain why it doesn't seem to really coincide to what I wrote. It looks like you found some fancy verbose wording in another thread somewhere and clumsily forced it into your response. It doesn't even apply to what I said: contextually lacking? Get over yourself. I didn't reference some theological remark you made. Did you even write that portion??

Quote:How's that? I posted this from my ipad (with auto correct) with no spelling errors for you to crutch an argument together with, it kind puts a little more sting in what I have to say doesn't it?

[facepalm and muttering] jesus fucking christ ....

Quote:..And we are not even really speaking with one's deeply held religious beliefs. We are just jabbing at each Other's pride. Now imagine being de balled by someone who has all the answers you have been looking for religiously/spiritually, but seems completely superior to you in every way. Even if a prick like that did know God no one want anything to do with him. Especially is he approaches everyone with the one ups manship attitdude you are advocating.

I'm not jabbing at your pride. I'm treating you the way you treat everyone on this site. I'm stating what I "KNOW" to be true. You are an authority on nothing. You're simply some peon who had a dream. Nothing you say about god or the bible is any more legitimate than any of the other sheep. You want respect? You and I both know exactly why you're on this site. It's better to be an infamous douche bag on an Atheist site than an unknown, unwanted, UN-substantiated lunatic on a Christian Forum. "Real christians don't get visions from god," but you already know that your brothers-in-christ look down on you don't you? Don't bother, I grow weary of your lies.

Quote:That is why I ask;
What is wrong with sharing who I truly am? Flaws and all? I am not looking to project myself a certain way nor do I look to fit a specific profile. If you are to judge me then let it be on actual content. If the content is lacking or suspect then ask me to show you where it is based and or how I came to a given conclusion. If however appealing to logical fallacies is all you have left in you then know your work will be labeled accordingly and dismissed.

I judge you only on your content. I assure you, if you start a thread about lawn care, I won't say a fucking word.

Quote:It is better to keep ones mouth closed and have others wonder if he is a fool. Than to open it, and prove everyone right.
-last nights fortune cookie

You should've payed that cookie attention.

(January 30, 2013 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: It is better to keep ones mouth closed and have others wonder if he is a fool. Than to open it, and prove everyone right.

This is only proof that you are incapable of taking your own advice.

(January 31, 2013 at 2:54 am)Cinjin Wrote: Really? You're going to accuse me of not "identifying passages?" First of all, your posts are not "passages" as you are not writing scripture here; you're writing your own semi-christian rhetoric.

You have set me up to provide you with an example of how to properly identify and refute a passage. First highlight the failed line of reasoning or Passage (as seen above) then make an assertion: (The word passage denotes a portion or section of a written work. While the most common usage of the word will identify a verse, the use of this word is not limited to scripture.) Once your commentary is over provide any Reference material you have to support your claim: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/passage?s=t) Or if the person is usally opposed to reference material then make a note of it and wait till it's asked for. But know when asked your obligated to provide the reference.

Quote:Secondly, every time I refute one of your ridiculous claims about Christianity, I am indeed identifying your "passage." You may be too thick to grasp this concept, but I'll try again. If you write some nonsense about some prophet killing adults and my following post calls you out on it, that is indeed me identifying your bull shit. Ergo, I have identified your "passages" many many many times. You are making up a massive lie to make a point you do not have.

Sometimes you do, but in the last three of four post you have not. Again the majority of your comments are appeals to spell check, or my general level of education. Then you make a sweeping generalization in hopes to not have to address what has been laid out for you.
Little to nothing you have contributed has anything to do with addressing the content of my messages.

Quote: did you see what I did there? I isolated a legitimate inconsistency in your base logic, identified it (appeal to probability which is a Formal fallacy) then I moved to dismiss the body of your posts by summing up the body of your work as being based in a logical fallacy. I will now lock you into this logical fallacy of your own creation by challenging you to prove that what you believe to be true about me, is indeed true. So again if you can show where any of my arguments are contextually lacking in reference or exegetical support then your sweeping generalization may actually have Merritt. If not Sport, then I'd say it is your argument that lacks intelectual integrity, and if you choose to stand behind your literally baseless accusations and sweeping generalizations, then you too can be quickly identified and labeled as lacking intelectual integrity.

Quote:I think you need to look up what a logical fallacy actually is, and then point out exactly where I used one according to the actual definition and not your own "special godly definition." Furthermore, this portion of your post looks like a copy and paste job, which would further explain why it doesn't seem to really coincide to what I wrote. It looks like you found some fancy verbose wording in another thread somewhere and clumsily forced it into your response. It doesn't even apply to what I said: contextually lacking? Get over yourself. I didn't reference some theological remark you made.

Actually I did that very thing (again giving me an opertunity to model how one properly identifies and dismisses a basless accusation) i identified 2 logical fallacies "an appeal to probability" which is a formal as orginally stated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability and second you have a tendency to use sweeping generalizations.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presump...alisation/
It's funny how I used those two terms specifically to describe your use of logical fallacies, but you glanced right over them to tell me how I need to educate myself on the identification and use of logical fallacies. I-Ron-Knee

Quote:Did you even write that portion??

Yes i did, I write everything in my posts unless I other wise say. I even gave credit to my fortune cookie.

Quote:I'm not jabbing at your pride. I'm treating you the way you treat everyone on this site.

Actually no. Your treating me to your personal definations and understanding to how the world and more over how you want thought to be regulated on this site. Their is a stark contrast between what i do here, in providing reference material and actual data when asked, compared to your half assed attempts to simply bully someone on your word or understanding on how something works.

Quote:I'm stating what I "KNOW" to be true. You are an authority on nothing.

Which is why i provide reference material when asked. Now the same can be said of you:"You are an authority on nothing" Now when I've asked you to provide reference material several times across many threads, and all you seem to be able to produce is an angry desire to shame me into silence. again I ask you to show me what gives your arguement any legitmacy, as you are nothing, you words mean nothing unless supported by someone or an organization way smarter than you are.

Quote: You're simply some peon who had a dream. Nothing you say about god or the bible is any more legitimate than any of the other sheep. You want respect? You and I both know exactly why you're on this site. It's better to be an infamous douche bag on an Atheist site than an unknown, unwanted, UN-substantiated lunatic on a Christian Forum.

lables, and 'rewards' aside, I'm here for you cinny.

Quote: "Real christians don't get visions from god," but you already know that your brothers-in-christ look down on you don't you? Don't bother, I grow weary of your lies.

what do i have to gain from lying here? If I believe in God as i say I do, then it is to God i must give an account. So why lie? Maybe you do not know how it truly works on this side of the atheist site. Once identified as a Christian, nothing one can say or do will ever get him past the stigma of being labled as a Christian. Being 'different' makes the effort that much harder. It's like the difference between wearing the wrong team colors at one of those crazy socer games fans destroy the city win or loose, and being caught dressed as the opposing teams mascot when the fans are out for blood. There is no win, there is no mercy. Again why would I make things harder for myself unless i felt obligated for sharing what has been shared with me?

Quote:I judge you only on your content. I assure you, if you start a thread about lawn care, I won't say a fucking word.

that's a lie. In the last three posts the bulk of your efforts are centered around spelling and grammer, not content. Maybe perhaps you are trying to say if i start a lawn care thread you will not grade my spelling and grammer.. That maybe true, but it is not what is being discussed.(red herring)

You should've payed that cookie attention.

(January 31, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Drich Wrote: lables, and 'rewards' aside, I'm here for you cinny.

Well Drichead, none of that last response deserves consideration. It was tantamount to you saying, "nuh uh," and then complaining about issues that you have created in your head. On behalf of everyone who occasionally reads your grammatically disastrous posts full of incorrect terms accompanied by your own special definitions --- please take that fortune cookie of yours, unwrap it, bend over and shove it up your ass so that we don't have to hear you talk ... or do you also lack the education to know not to talk when your mouth is full?



You accuse me of logical fallacies, including an appeal to probability and then back yourself up with a link. Seriously?! You piece of dirt.





If Jesus doesn't spit in your face for the reputation you've left him its only because he's dead.

(January 21, 2013 at 6:36 pm)Drich Wrote: If I just start spouting random verses to support everything I say it is considered "preaching" on this site. Which is a banable offence.

No, it isn't. The rule is a lot more narrowly constructed than that, especially since we recently changed it. I'll further note that the rule rule change was made specifically to protect theists (such as yourself) who are here to engage in discussion.

http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

If/when you started throwing around comments that specific people were going to be damned to hell, you might run afoul of that rule, but until you do, you're pretty safe.

(January 31, 2013 at 8:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(January 21, 2013 at 6:36 pm)Drich Wrote: If I just start spouting random verses to support everything I say it is considered "preaching" on this site. Which is a banable offence.

No, it isn't. The rule is a lot more narrowly constructed than that, especially since we recently changed it. I'll further note that the rule rule change was made specifically to protect theists (such as yourself) who are here to engage in discussion.

http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

If/when you started throwing around comments that specific people were going to be damned to hell, you might run afoul of that rule, but until you do, you're pretty safe.

When did the rules change?

And what does this mean

"Directed at forum members, rather than a general description of beliefs. "

I get directed at members but what is a "general description of belief?"

Do general descriptions include unsolicited bible verses?

---

(January 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Cinjin Wrote: You accuse me of logical fallacies, including an appeal to probability and then back yourself up with a link. Seriously?! You piece of dirt.

I had to leave a link because it was apparent by your last post that you did not recognize that an appeal to probability or a sweeping generalization was even a logical fallacy. If you care to think back to my original statement, I said your constant attacks on my lack of a formal education was the appeal to probability. Supposedly Because I did not meet this superficial standard of yours, that nothing I could say could be taken seriously. Upon the conclusion of this fallacy you make a sweeping generalization attempting to dismiss everything I have said. However in doing so you have only proved your own intellectual dishonesty. The fact the you continue to press your points based on these fallacies, Now that I have eliminated any claims to ignorance you may have to them, your intellectual integrity can be legitmatly called into question. Because Your line of reasoning has been weighed, measured and found wanting, by your own standards.

(February 1, 2013 at 10:36 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Cinjin Wrote: You accuse me of logical fallacies, including an appeal to probability and then back yourself up with a link. Seriously?! You piece of dirt.

I had to leave a link because it was apparent by your last post that you did not recognize that an appeal to probability or a sweeping generalization was even a logical fallacy. If you care to think back to my original statement, I said your constant attacks on my lack of a formal education was the appeal to probability. Supposedly Because I did not meet this superficial standard of yours, that nothing I could say could be taken seriously. Upon the conclusion of this fallacy you make a sweeping generalization attempting to dismiss everything I have said. However in doing so you have only proved your own intellectual dishonesty. The fact the you continue to press your points based on these fallacies, Now that I have eliminated any claims to ignorance you may have to them, your intellectual integrity can be legitmatly called into question. Because Your line of reasoning has been weighed, measured and found wanting, by your own standards.

meh, I told you exactly why I wouldn't respond to you. I've answered your posts dozens of times and your response is always the same: greasy rhetoric and blatant contradictions followed by your own denial. That is not a person who deserves legitimate responses.
Oh and by the way, if you conducted yourself by what you call "my own standards," you wouldn't even be here ... the same way I don't hang out on christian sites claiming to do "work" and purposefully inflaming others into anger.

You can quote me on this ... you are the poster child for everything that is wrong with Christianity. Your "faith" is useless, as it has only been used to inspire hatred and contempt.

(February 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm)Cinjin Wrote: meh, I told you exactly why I wouldn't respond to you. I've answered your posts dozens of times and your response is always the same: greasy rhetoric and blatant contradictions followed by your own denial. That is not a person who deserves legitimate responses.
Oh and by the way, if you conducted yourself by what you call "my own standards," you wouldn't even be here ... The same way I don't hang out on Christian sites claiming to do "work" and purposefully inflaming others into anger.

You can quote me on this ... You are the poster child for everything that is wrong with Christianity. Your "faith" is useless, as it has only been used to inspire hatred and contempt.

Take some responsibility for yourself, and your own actions. My 'responses' to you are unique to you. My 'work' here is not centered around the singular purpose to provoke people to wrath. Even so, as you can plainly see I have no difficulty doing so if you wish to lead the conversation in that direction. My efforts have always and carefully matched the person I am working with. If you want to posture and be a bully, then know i can do the same. If you want to try and intimidate and point to my weaknesses then if continually provoked, I can do the same. But if you want to have a respectable discourse where you are willing to question what you believe, then again I can do the same. In short if You do not like how I come across then it's time to look at your own efforts. Rather than blaming others for your own failings.

That's not to say you will always agree with what I say nor does it mean you can't get emotionally charged because I have confronted or dismissed or confirm an image or understanding of God/religion that you may have. As I have said people tend to engrain themselves in what they believe, to challenge that belief is to challenge them personally. Which brings us back to my reasons for presenting myself honestly and openly. For if you personally wish to dismiss me or my work because I can not spell, then you are free to do so, if you need the occasional way out as a way to save face, then know that is what it is there for.

That said if you wish to start a spell check campaign, and try to bully me into a corner or shame me from my work here, then understand I reserve the right to turn these very same efforts back onto you.
Because in doing so I am still teaching. In that for the way you judge others will be used to judge you. That is why I told you by your own standard you have been weighed, measured and found wanting. Your standards (or appeal to my lack of a formal education) seems to be a place where you are lacking as well.

(February 1, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Drich Wrote: Take some responsibility for yourself, and your own actions.

Totaly off-subject... But this sentiment is why I cannot accept a sacrifice for my "sins"...

Search scripture for your Biblical proof of this concept...
.

(February 1, 2013 at 8:12 pm)catfish Wrote:

(February 1, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Drich Wrote: Take some responsibility for yourself, and your own actions.

Totaly off-subject... But this sentiment is why I cannot accept a sacrifice for my "sins"...

You were "designed" to sin Catfish. Well, unless the "designer" failed so badly.
Your brain rewards you for "good" behavior with a dose of chemicals to make you feel good. Our body gives us pain when when we do something "bad."
So why didn't god "program in" all the rules of the bible into our sensory preceptors? Why doesn't praying give us a string of orgasms stronger than sex? Doesn't god want us to praise him more than he wants us to produce?
Why doesn't sex with a one night stand hurt like kicks to the crotch? Doesn't the "designer" want us not to sin? We can have free will and have built in pain/pleasure sensors. I would not consider it a violation of my free will to have peppers burn my mouth despite my desire to eat them, do you?