Avoiding questions

[Angrboda]

It's been less than a week since I told you, in this very thread, that I am a Hindu. And here you are calling me an atheist.

No, you're not incompetent. Tell us more, Mr. Professor.

I assumed that you just said that for the sake of pulling rank, in an attempt to win what you thought would be an easy arguement.

Because the cognitive dissonance it would invoke in you to take me seriously as a Hindu would make your mind snap like peanut brittle. You're already calling me a liar for claiming to be a Hindu even though you don't have the first clue what my beliefs are, nor where I learned them. This is the obvious evasion of someone who denies something without even knowing the substance of what it is they are denying. It's pure bullshit. You don't know me, nor my Hindu beliefs, nor where I got them, so for you to claim a) that you do know what I believe [necessary for 'b'], and b) that they are improper beliefs for a 'traditional Hindu' is a pure bluff. Once again, we find you evading the question even before it can even be raised, and making excuses in preparation for discounting any and all counter-arguments and evidence before even hearing the evidence. What would you call a judge who passes sentence before hearing the evidence? I don't know about you, but I'd call him incompetent.

Because when you were confronted by traditional Hindu beliefs your arguement folded rather quickly.

Lies. As anyone can examine that reply, I lined up your prior statement on Hinduism with statements from the very source you chose and showed how your own source refuted what you earlier stated about Hinduism. Your further statement claimed that a passage in the Vedas demonstrated that Hindus do not believe in a direct relationship with god (in which I believe you referred to the Hindu holy book, further undermining your credibility as a person knowledgable about Hinduism; speaking of "quickly abandoning" things, we note how quickly you abandoned your chosen source when it was shown to be in direct conflict with your prior statements).

Just like how quicky you changed the subject about bible translation when confronted to provide "Proof" of your assertions.

More lies and evasions. I told you I thought you were an incompetent boob and that I didn't consider it worth my time to waste my talents on you. That you consider that "changing the subject" is precious, but is yet more example of your bullshit and lies.

It seems as if you wait in the wings for an oppertunity to lash out when you see an Ap-oppertunity for an easy score. I will give you that most of your work is elegantly constructed, but as this post has demonstrated you efforts are of very little substance.

Elegant and substanceless enough that despite us both being well known theists with roughly comparable numbers of posts to our credit, I have ten times as many kudos as you do, and threefold as many reputation points as you. Please, do tell me, upon whose opinion are you resting this assertion that my posts are elegantly constructed yet empty of substance? And if you say your own, I'm just going to laugh.

You have been asked to 'prove' your assertions acouple different times in acouple different ways, and in each instance you faulter and change the subject.

Which assertions would these be? That I'm a Hindu? Since you obviously conclude the truth of the matter without even knowing the evidence, it's hardly surprising that you see yourself as uniformly victorious. You're as bad as the recent poster 'alwayson' who, no matter what anybody said, would respond with, "I see this as a sign of victory!" But by all means, demonstrate that you are a humble penitent of God and acknowledge where you've been wrong. Please cite three things that you've been wrong about on this forum.

Oh, and before I forget, a list of those assertions for which I failed to provide evidence and changed the subject. (Hang on to your hats, people. You're in for some massive evasions.)

Just assume from now on, when you make an assertion no matter how elegantly stated i will not take what you have to say at face value. Assume that I will ask you to 'prove' your statement, and be ready to discuss and defend said proof or assume that you have said will be deconstructed, Identified as a trivial assertion and dismissed.

You can ask all you like. I am under no obligation to defend any particular statement, assertion or idea. (Are you? Does your god smile upon those who evade questions, or does he reach for his eraser and the Book of Life?) However, your not taking anything I say at face value is another example of your warped process. You don't take what I say at face value, so you don't accept the substance of what I say, so you conclude what I have said has no substance and set your mind not to take anything I say at face value. We in the business call this 'circular reasoning' and refer to its substance with adjectives such as 'vapid'. The sheer stupidity of it is brilliant. It's a hobby of mine to study the way cognitive bias and illogic warp people's thinking and leads them to faulty conclusions; I could spend the rest of my life on a case study of you alone. You're incompetence knows no bounds.

(Which again is why I did not take you seriously as a 'hindu.') Not to say you can't paralell aspects of hinduism and call what you believe to be Hinduism, even though by doing so it is going against Traditional hinduism. (Because people do this in Christianity all of the time)
Just do not expect me to accept your version of the religion like I would the traditional Version. (The same is true for Christianity or any other religion)

You didn't take me seriously as a Hindu because if you did then you would have had to face the very real possibility that your statements about Hinduism were false. Instead of that, or even listening to any evidence, you launch a pre-emptive strike in which you declare anything I have to say invalid even before I say it. What a simple way to win any argument. Although it bears an uncanny resemblance to the "la la la, I can't hear you" graphic which I posted above.

I fully accept that you will likely never be proven wrong about any matter of substance, in your eyes, and consider the task futile. So I don't really try. I'm not stupid, I don't waste my efforts attempting to accomplish goals that I suspect are not achievable. How stupid would that be? (That's more the behavior of a self-styled, incompetent biblical scholar and Protestant Christian coming to an atheist forum and attempting to win souls with the brilliance of his analysis and rhetoric.) No, Drich, I know what you appear to yourself in your eyes. To everyone else, myself included, you're a pathetic and laughable loser who likely couldn't find his own ass with both hands, a trained proctologist, and sixteen flashlights. The train wreck graphic posted in another thread accurately describes you. You are an apologetic train wreck, and a blight on Jehovah's name. You do more damage trying to spread the word of God than would ever occur if you just kept your mouth shut.

In another thread, someone allluded to you being counseled, by other Christians, not to minister (the specific context is unclear). I'd like to hear the specifics of this testimony, as long as you're regaling us with boasts of your greater substance and such. Who were these people and what exactly happened?