Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.)

Then I suppose you will count this as a win as well. because I made my points I said my piece and all my major points have been made and are not factually contested. what I see here is basically a letter of disagreement and disdain.. so be it. I don't have to make you like me or how I do things. 

Know this or not I am not here to provoke you to wrath or push you into a corner where there is no way out each and every time.

I am however always open to questions:

Tell me Drich, whose opinion other than your own do you rely upon in coming to these conclusions? 

Why is it you think I post so many links to so many other pages of people works? I promise you 9 times out of 10 the things I speak about... are things I hear about in the news, then I research to find corroborating stories or evidence and condense it in such a way as to provoke thought and post it. like I heard the term 'global warming was only 40+ years old which corroborated a statement I was making about ever changing science and how before this period of global warming the chicken littles of the world (climate 'scientists') were clucking about how the sky was falling due to global freezing and a coming ice age. This is in contrast to science claiming the records of global warming have gone back 100+ years. Which I know to be untrue because I lived through the 'panic' of the next ice age by 2000.

 What are you basing your assessment of your general competence upon?

my ability to identify and the general use of primary secondary and tertairy source material when building and deconstructing statements or arguments. I isolate 'facts and evidence and counter them with established points of reference so that when a conclusion is question I can point to the chain of evidence and the strength of the source material..

Which is miles above your efforts to destroy you opponents credibility in an effort to discredit his message.

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

When you threaten to expose my supposedly shotty argument through all of your research and back study, me simply saying "i'm calling your bluff. means I've called your bluff. show me what you have. show me your research show me what you think you have on me. If you think you won something show me.. and we can conclude this to it's end if you wish. If you don't think I was calling your bluff before know I am calling it now!

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.

Look snow flake.. if you are but hurt because I abbreviated your screen names THEN PICK A SHORTER NAME! Why did I call you Alpo, because it was short for alphopheninia or whatever the hell your first name was... why do I call you jorie because it is short for 'Jörmungandr' Why did I call you Angery Dragon lady? 1 you said you don't like jorgie or alpo. because of all of your personal attacks on me. despite what you claim one can not say more than once a person has a defective brain, cite or create reading comprehension errors repeatedly slam a person personly for their thoughts and ideas and not be angry. Not only that you do these thing unsolicited.. meaning most of the time you interject yourself into a conversation that has nothing to do with you. the point is you are seeking opportunity to destroy again another act indicating anger. Anger however is not a unique identifier as 99% of the people here are angry with me. However you choose to represent yourself with a norse dragon serpent a "wyrm" (again a dragon with no legs) So now you are an angry dragon which puts you in a position of strength which when speaking to you That is ground I do not want to give. So I sought to cut your self image down a little and added lady as a dragon lady was to us growing up was a mean squawking old lady who is never happy who never compromises who always wants things done her way right now. which to me describes you. Now that fact that your asian too bonus! double meaning for those smart enough to get it (meaning probably only you) at least by your own estimation.. But the fact that you would pull a yellow card on me and make this about race?!?!

One that is a cowards panic stop button. I know that in you world pulling your yellow card/race card is always a instant win. Never mind the fact the heritage I supposedly insulted is SHARED between us! Which only means to me that you do not count anything but a full blooded asian as being asian... Or Do You not understand I grew up first generation born here in the US, that I'm not some 3 or 4 or 1000 times removed nancy pelosi asian.. Your attitude if you know I am 50%/(my mother and her whole family is 100% korean and chinese) and still feel I don't count, despite being raise growing eating and preparing the food and speaking the language.. If that is what you believe, your belief is a bigoted one. In that only pure bred people should count or to speak about someone else in the same race..

which is why when with my mother's family and friends I had to be 200% asian and with my dads people 200% white. or i was not counted and cast aside. Which is what you just did here. Do you have any idea how hard it is not to be able to identify with any race completely? Not belonging anywhere but knowing and completely understand both cultures?

Which is why I identify as an american first. and if you are one then I see you as the same. which is what I was going off of (because mastery of the language and insight to pop culture references) which is why I had the same name for you as anyone one else in a similar circumstance.

any other questions?