Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Angrboda]

Drich, the part of your source that is relevant was the part that contradicted the claim you were making.  This idea that the part that contradicted you is not relevant to the claim you were making is sheer bollocks.  That you want to pretend that it wasn't is just more evidence that you are too incompetent to continue breathing, or simply too dishonest and lacking in integrity to care.  Neither absolves you of responsibility.

Your argument here does not follow.. Again I quoted the source materials claim of 'global warming being 43 years old.'  (added 8 years to allow for the difference between publication and now) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...l-warming/

---

then you proceed to cherry pick the source to extrapolate a different date.. again not a valid approach as your interpretation of the data does not trump the source's findings. if you wish to invalidate the source you must find a primary or secondary source.. Here we simply have your "I said so" based on your spin the data the source provides. You must provide better data, stronger evidence not just put a different spin on the data provided..

why?
You neither hold the authority nor have any recognizable expertise to simply dismiss me nor my use of this material not the claim provided by the source material without first providing a stronger evidentiary chain. again you are arguing the method of research here. you are not arguing me or my thoughts which I believe is your greatest flaw. You need to understand once I hand off an idea to another source, then your argument ceases to be with me and must approach a source by a pre established set of rules IF you wish to have an intelligent conversation. otherwise you look the foolwhich I have no problem with..

If you can not put your head around the idea that evidence or material is rated and things like commentary holds less importance than first hand information then maybe you should read a little more and interject your thoughts a little less. because this is not about emotion or trying to hold me to the work of another if I simply quote him. If you think this man is wrong fine.. go through the process and show him tobe wrong.

You assigning me with what you think of his claim is petty foolishness. I get it. it is an attempt to discredit me, but that is not how endevor for truth through research works. You claim to want to know the truth, then do the research stop this emotional tirade of constant one upmanship. all it does is give you reason to hold on to what you already believe.

---

Your 'source' claimed something different than what you claim your source said.  It's only your complete lack of reading comprehension which leads you to think otherwise.  So, no, my beef is not with the source but with your misrepresentation of it.  If things were as you suggest, then please explain why, in the very article you claim as a source, the author noted that the thing you claimed was not true?  The only reason you think that I have some issue with the source is because you're an incompetent boob with a fourth grade reading ability.

And no, your rationalization as to Jormungandr being a dragon doesn't wash.  The meaning of dragon as serpent would flow to Jormungandr if indeed dragon as serpent were current usage, but it is not.  So, no, it has nothing to do with applying a general term to something specific or the reverse.  That idea is just more proof that your brain is broken.

Moron... You are trying to argue norse Cannon. I quoted norse cannon.

---

Meaning your beef is with Norse cannon which identified Jormungandr as a dragon serpent.  A dragon serpent is a dragon without legs.  there are dragons with legs are called wyverns dragons without legs are called wyrms or serpent dragons. The broken brain bit again further evidence in a hail mary attempt to discredit the messenger rather than the message. Even if you could discredit me the truth remains i quoted Norse cannon when I described your buddy jorge. you are quoting a dictionary and tryng to put to gether some bs about how the word in MORDERN usage does not aply to 1000 year old myth... and I am the one with the broken brain.. how does this even make sense to you?

---

No, you did not quote Norse canon.  You quoted some internet rando who thinks that the Jormungandr serpent resembles a dragon.  Unfortunately for you, the modern meaning of dragon doesn't mean serpent, and indeed means something completely at odds with the accounts of Jormungandr.  So the question is whether your description of me and Jormungandr was accurate according to usage.  According to modern usage, it is not.  You haven't brought any evidence from Norse canon, in spite of your moronic notion that a web page on Norse myths written in English is in some way Norse canon.  A more ridiculous gaff is hard to imagine.

As to Rosenberg, I am not depending on your representation for my conclusion.  When it looked like we were going to be rehashing the discussion in the context of your argument that I was not substantively addressing your posts, I went back and did my own research and found that the sources do not bear out your theory.  So, no, your notion that I'm simply not giving you credit for the aces up your sleeve doesn't pan out as it appears you have no aces up your sleeve.  I, on the other hand, do.

well that is how I have been expecting you to confront and argue me, not just call me names. show me what you have!

Given your laughable difficulty with other arguments, as well as your complete inability to put two and two together and see how wrong you are, I'm not the least interested in pursuing a rehash of prior debates with you at this time.  But I don't have to do so in this case, as you changed your claim from asserting that Hitler had demanded to be worshiped as God to the more lukewarm claim that this is what he wanted, even if he hadn't outright stated it.  In order to get to the latter conclusion, you engage in some incompetent tea leaf reading, but all that is moot because you moved the goalposts, tacitly admitting you were wrong regarding your original claim.

And no, as my confronting you in that thread in which you accused me of not substantively engaging with you shows, I do not simply throw away your opinions on the basis that you are a fucking idiot.  I do, however, attack those opinions where you clearly demonstrate that you are a fucking idiot.  That's somewhat unfair, as it may give someone the impression that I think you are always wrong, but it's hardly a selectivity that I can be faulted for.

here we go.. again we simply take a different approach. I am not here to argue but to teach to teach means I am not here to win an argument necessarily which seems to be your only goal. My purpose here is to force you to look at more than one side of the argument, and if you can take my principle and refute it it means my primary goal is complete, now that doesn't mean the argument is over. I often place a few sacrificial lambs to allow or suck you in deeper to commit to a great point.. But again please show me what you have.

Your purposes, whatever they are would be rather irrelevant.  No doubt, if you indeed pursue such things, a fact which I strongly doubt, you do so with the same incompetence you do everything else.  I could care less what you think you are accomplishing as the only thing you are in fact accomplishing is showing everybody that you're a fucking moron who likes to think his egotistically motivated rationalizations for his behavior provide him some cover for his patently bad arguments.

So, no, once again, all you show is that you're an idiot who is full of himself and makes bullshit excuses so he can rationalize his behavior, even though said excuses tend to be filled with the same type of errors the opinions they are meant to defend are.

And you're still 0 for 3 on the Jormungandr front, in case anybody is keeping count.

sorry jorgie, but again your beef is with norse cannon. you are not agruing me. in order for this to be an 0-3 as you claim you must provide something like a norse bible that describes jorgie the serpent dragon as something else... we are not just goingg off your word or distaste for what I have to say. Nor does you taking on this persona as a dragon lady make you an expert. your word means dick here. provide proof or submit to the mythos as it is written out in the canonical source I provided. Again don't be retarded and simple assume you can bully me because you think differently. It is clearly spelled out in the post I copy and pasted from that norse God website.

This btw really shows your prvoclivity of not researching anything. you attribute fact to the one who repersents it or the one who provides it. you can not seperate fact from what you think of people. I however am the oppsite in that I rate fact by how close it's orgins are to the orginal source. A transcription of norse cannon can only be trumped by a reading of norse cannon that condradicts the transcription. Your little fit and stamping around bullshit make you look weak minded and petty.

time to grow up or shut up about jorg if you can not accept what the source material I quoted has to say. Grow up meaning look at this objectivly and find something stronger than your say so.

Your views in this are as delusional as your views on everything else, but most especially your views about yourself.  Whether and when I research things is not a particularly relevant issue because like it or not, I've been right.  You can't argue with a broken clock when it displays the correct time, so your complaint here, even if it were true, is moot. And yes, I can and do separate my feelings about a person from what I think of their claims and arguments, a fact which is ably on display in the thread I posted about Rupert Sheldrake's ten dogmas of science as well as your own thread about the brain as receiver hypothesis in which I made specific arguments against those represented and didn't simply dissmiss the ideas on account of their source. This whole episode, your attributing various things to me which aren't true seems to indicate that it is possible that you can't separate your beliefs about a person from their arguments and in this you are simply projecting. Unfortunately for you, everything you imagine about me turns out to be wrong and so this simply ends up being another example of your incompetence. You wish certain things about me were true, likely so you can feel better about yourself. Unfortunately, your wishes don't bear any resemblance to reality.

(Side bar.. time out.. the above is an example of me not caring if I am right or not but me teaching and provoking a subject in such away as to make you change the way you think or approach a subject. If you can find proof great if you can but look equally as great. the point for me is not about the dragon but of the way you argue/stop attacking people address content in a structured way)
*Time in!

Whatever feeds your delusions, Bud.  Have fun being a deluded moron who thinks he's accomplishing shit just so he can ignore the fact that he's not actually accomplishing shit.

The only things you accomplish on this forum are: a) Giving Christianity a black eye, b) showing what an egotistical and deluded moron you are, c) giving otherwise neutral parties reason to distrust you, and d) giving everybody else a good reason for putting you on ignore.  On that score, you're 4 for 4.

And no, I'm not even a little miffed.  To quote Jeffrey Dahmer, "I eat guys like you for breakfast."  I enjoy crucifying you and your stupidly boneheaded arguments.  It gives me a lady boner.

I called it. you were being lead around by emotion and feelings 'trying to get hard' and not by fact evidence and truth.. what irony.

Having a motive to do something is not "being lead around by emotion," it's simply being motivated and having a rational reason to do that thing.  It doesn't in any way indicate that said emotions in any way compromised the quality of my arguments or the validity of my points.  That would be drawing a conclusion that is not in evidence.  But anyway, your contention was that I was attacking you because I was angry.  Even if I were being lead around by emotion, because that emotion is not anger, you would still be wrong.  You called something completely different than what turned out to be the case, so your belief that you called it is just another example of your ridiculously bad logic.

And you've yet to show that Jormungandr was angry or that Thor opposed Jormungandr because Jormungandr was an angry serpent.  Have you decided to simply drop those points and pretend it didn't happen?  Probably for the best.

And you still haven't responded to the obvious fact that you were making an ethnic slur against me because of my Asian heritage.  Are you just going to quietly ignore that, too?

I have to seriously wonder who your audience is these days.  The only person convinced by your lame ass rebuttals is you, while I continue to crush you in the eyes of anybody with half a brain.  The only thing I can see that you are accomplishing is undermining the credibility which your stated mission here depends upon.  These rebuttals of yours do nothing but cut off your nose to spite your face.  You would be wise to ignore me, but we know wisdom is something you lack.

I've called your bluff bring it ADL

You are a hero in your own mind.  Tell me Drich, whose opinion other than your own do you rely upon in coming to these conclusions?  You are aware that according to science, depending solely upon one's opinion of oneself is one of the least reliable methods known to assess such things.  I have the accolades of peers, teachers, schools, and standardized testing to fall back on in assessing my general competence.  What are you basing your assessment of your general competence upon?

Regardless, you've not called any bluff.  All you've done is post more ridiculous and wrong-headed drivel.  

And now, despite having been shown to be wrong six ways from Kevin Bacon, you have adopted a clever name for me in lieu of actual arguments.  Sadly, nobody but you and me will get the joke, as they'll read 'ADL' and wonder what it means.  And I, for my part, will acknowledge it as yet another example of you using personal insult and abuse instead of valid argument.  Feel free to call me whatever names you like, but making light of my Asian heritage is low, even for you, Drich.  Oh wait.   No it's not.  It's actually just about your speed.

(Oh, and you've been remarkably silent on the actual subject of this thread since I criticized you, a fact I can only regard as an unmistakable win. lol.)