Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

Fine.  I was wrong about the dragon part. So you're saying you meant to be literal on one part and figurative on another.  Gotcha.  Clear as mud.  You're simply employing amphiboly to claim that the angry part applied to the serpent rather than the lady part, a claim which no one over the age of 12 is likely to believe.  

way must you make everything complicated? I simply said your a lady who wants to be known or seen as an angry dragon how is this complicated? you assigned yourself the avatar of an angry dragon serpent beast. To then call you an angry dragon lady is a simple play on words, one because of your own personal avatar assignment and because your asian which at least for koreans means you a angry b-word. I just though it was funny that you are playing to that specific stereotype whether you know it or not..

Regardless, aside from this rather amusing digression, you're still wrong in assigning me anger I did not possess, which is the only issue of significance here.  Like Huggy, you win the battle but lose the war.  I'll take to calling you Pyrrhic Victory Drich.

seriously at this point you gotta be a little miffed if not angry...
And what was the cost? your respect? the respect of your peers? you informed me on like post number 2 I lost that. Am I now on yet another ignore list?? It's funny how many ignore lists I've been placed on and yet not one of you is on mine. is loosing to someone who you considered so inferrior the loss must always be considered a Pyrrhic victory?

Why could you just laugh or shrugg the comment off? why decide to die on this hill? why not one of consequence? or was pride in your assigned avatar too great of a call to arms to allow me a pass?

By now you of all people should know we simply think and see things differently. and just because I make a point counter to what you see doesn't make you wrong or me right we often time both have legit points. that doesn't make you an more stupid than it makes me for looking at it from a different perspective. You often time simply are not looking at the same angles I am. like here with the angry dragon lady comment. You saw one incorrect assessment I saw two or three cheeky ways to spin the term and left it for the reader to interpret.

And as to your once again referencing the claim that you are some master of research and preparation, I'll point out that you cited a source which contradicted your claims three times in the global cooling debate, and your 'research' on Hitler and Rosenberg was ultimately crap.

but here's the thing... I did not quote the whole source. I quoted the head lines and the supporting information that vetted the head lines. when one quotes source material especially tertiary material it does not mean I am tied to the whole source. Have you not ever researched anything outside of highschool? Tertiary material by default contain personal opinion, personal conclusions and personal spin. You can't take my tetary source to refute itself using the very same source and have it mean anything. all it means is you've cherry picked out your own conclusion based on the same tertiary evidence the author of the tertiary source used to conclude his own findings. Finding I can partially agree with or not agree with.. You need a secondary source or primary source material to refute tertiary findings and conclusions. All you've done for anyone in the know is show you know how to cherry pick. Because Again the article was titled what I had previously stated with the global warming bit. and rosenberg did place hitler at the head of the church which in the church is symbolism that represents Christ. I showed you rosenbergs letter placing Hitler in this position and I left a passage that showed Christ being the "head of the church.' YOUR Failure to comprehend or refuse to acknowledge my evidence because you discredit me as a viable source does not change the facts. That is how you argue btw.. you in your mind find fault with an individual and then just throw away any conclusions the individual makes because of the previous fault you may or may not have correctly identified.

 You use this excuse that you research everything when you are right, and pretend that it is a mysterious unevidenced strategy when you are wrong.  I often don't research shit and I still manage to toast your ass more often than not.

Wow.. you just admitted to being the person you accuse me of being.. I thought there was a lot of 'insight and assumptions' but it turns out your have just been describing yourself when supposedly assessing me.

 Anyone who cites evidence which refutes their claim three times in a row isn't practicing strategy or involved in any deep research.  He's just a dumbass who is occasionally right, and has a buttload of excuses which he uses to justify ignoring the many more times that he is wrong.

I have no doubt you walk away patting yourself on the back more often than not. I have a parameter that ends my involvement in a thread lest we get into flaming or unconstructive blasting each other.. If you need to count those as wins fine. as my only thing is to put the truth out there. My job is not to till the ground or force the seed to grow. I am just to cast the seed/truth out there.

Honestly I harbor no ill will towards you nor anyone else. most of the time I am having lots of fun. wording things certain ways to push certain topics a certain way just to make you all think of things a little differently. If it means I gotta take a few to the chin I can and will be willing to make that sacrifice. how ever when someone who blasts me more often than not sets her angry self up to be blasted, then I will more often than not take the shot. Not because I hate you or wish you ill will but as a measure of distributing the humility most of us need to hear each other over the noise of our pride. If a chip on your pride counts as too high of a cost, and we are done... then so be it. step aside like the other 'heavy atheist hitters'/long term members who have put me on ignore because I've shown them like you I will not roll over and allow "unresearch BS" go unchallenged. Even if it means a person strike against your ego.

---

Nevermind.  Dragon is correct.  So all told you're 1 for 3 so far.  Still need to see evidence that Thor opposed the serpent because the serpent was angry, and that I am in fact a lady.

Oops.  Belay that order.

dragon, n.

1. A huge serpent or snake; a python. Obsolete (except in etymological use).

Apparently, according to the OED, referring to Jormungandr as a dragon would be obsolete usage.  I was under the impression that because the word dragon had the etymology of 'serpent' that this would make the modern word also mean serpent, but that's an example of the genetic fallacy and so the conclusion doesn't hold.

So you're back to 0 for 3.

here's the problem with that...

I quoted secondary material from norse god library who's description is from Norse god cannon..

You have taken a single word consulted a tertiary source as the word is not specific to the topic at hand, (akin to the word god verses Jehovah) and have created your own commentary which is not anything but speculation.. Eg. Jehovah is God, but not all gods are Jehovah. In turn Jörmungandr is a dragon but not all dragons are Jörmungandr. yet you look up the generic term and applied it to a specific being.

Do you see how research works ADL? 

Secondary source or a canonical source ALWAYS trumps personal speculatory bull shit.

So go ahead call me stupid because you donot agree with my analogy pat yourself on the back and call this another win! meanwhile ignoring the larger point the greater truth that underscores your whole effort despite finding fault with something trivial.. which again is how you 'win'/what you do. you look for specs and when you find one you give your self permission to throw out everything you don't like.