(February 25, 2014 at 8:11 pm)discipulus Wrote: Why is it that when I tell an atheist that I love and care for them that the accusation of being condescending is leveled at me?

It has happened before. Not on here, but on another forum.

Would you like to explain to me why you think I am being condescending?

Minimalist said some things to me and I responded to them by saying that no matter what he said about me that I still cared for him.

Why is this a problem for you?

They're being cynical. That's all.

Quote:Minimalist said some things to me and I responded to them by saying that no matter what he said about me that I still cared for him.

Don't worry about me, guys. I don't give a flying fuck about this troll.

He has managed to derail a pretty good thread, though.

Over at FRDB.com someone noted that the bible manages to miss out on the ice age, too.

Someone else wondered what the propulsion system was for Noah's ark?

Two good questions.

(February 25, 2014 at 9:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Over at FRDB.com someone noted that the bible manages to miss out on the ice age, too.

Someone else wondered what the propulsion system was for Noah's ark?

Two good questions.

Are you being serious or are you jesting? I honestly cannot tell?



That is a great argument Minimalist...you know....the whole "The Bible does not speak of the Ice Age therefore it is not divinely inspired."

It is a favorite of non-theistic naturalists in academic debate.....

By the way, there is no mention of Noah's Ark having a propulsion system because it more than likely did not have a propulsion system.

Come on Minimalist, really now?

Is this it? Is this all?

(February 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm)discipulus Wrote: I use the information and evidence at my disposal to make a determination on whether the WTC attack actually happened the same way I use the information and evidence at my disposal to make a determination on whether or not the events recorded in the gospels actually happened. In this way my methodology is consistent.

The application of your methodology is not consistent. You accept a lower standard of evidence for things which support your preconceived beliefs.

The bible does not speak of the ice age because it is a 2nd century bc composition by a bunch of desert-dwelling hicks who didn't know shit from shinola.

You have a lot in common with them.

(February 25, 2014 at 8:11 pm)discipulus Wrote: Why is it that when I tell an atheist that I love and care for them that the accusation of being condescending is leveled at me?

It has happened before. Not on here, but on another forum.

Would you like to explain to me why you think I am being condescending?

Minimalist said some things to me and I responded to them by saying that no matter what he said about me that I still cared for him.

Why is this a problem for you?

If you can answer that, then I will answer your question.

It's a problem because it's completely clear you don't actually care, this is just another tool in your proselytizing arsenal; appearing benevolent. We've had folks like you around before, you know.

More importantly, it's a problem because the subtext is that you care for us in spite of our being filthy heathens. It's an "it's okay, you ass, I love you anyway because I'm like Jesus, whose grace and compassion you clearly can't understand." It's divine tone trolling!

Now answer my question.

Quote:Why is it that when I tell an atheist that I love and care for them that the accusation of being condescending is leveled at me?

Is there anything sadder than unrequited love?

Actually, its because I think you are full of shit.

(February 26, 2014 at 2:43 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Why is it that when I tell an atheist that I love and care for them that the accusation of being condescending is leveled at me?

Is there anything sadder than unrequited love?

Actually, its because I think you are full of shit.

Acne and unrequited love is sadder...

(February 25, 2014 at 11:43 pm)discipulus Wrote: By the way, there is no mention of Noah's Ark having a propulsion system because it more than likely did not have a propulsion system.

Come on Minimalist, really now?

Is this it? Is this all?

So a wooden boat as described could ride out the high winds, rough waves and currents without any help at all? How would it keep from being capsized?

(February 26, 2014 at 4:28 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So a wooden boat as described could ride out the high winds, rough waves and currents without any help at all? How would it keep from being capsized?

A boat full of animals that need to move around and have no sense of how their motion would affect the boat around them would capsize pretty quickly without a method of correcting itself. Not to mention all the debris in the torrential rain that'd take a big ass chunk out of the hull.

But then, I don't think any thought has gone into either the story, nor Disciplus' defense of it.