Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

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. 

Not factually contested?  What the fuck is wrong with you?  This is nothing more than a bald faced lie.  I contested that the article you cited claimed what you claimed it did.  That's a factual contestation.  I disputed whether or not you had quoted Norse canon.  Yet another contested fact!  I contested your claim that you had provided evidence for your claim about Hitler by pointing out that you didn't provide evidence for what you claimed but rather for something else.  You can't provide evidence for that original claim.  You claimed that I dismissed people without evaluating their arguments.  Yet another supposed fact under dispute.  You claimed that I was motivated by anger.  Disputed!  You claimed that I was following my emotions rather than the evidence and facts.  Again, disputed!  

To claim that your facts are uncontested is a transparently obvious lie to anyone who can read.  Do you think that these lies are likely to escape the attention of those present?  Apparently you don't care.  Backed against a wall, you choose to attempt to lie your way out of difficulty.  You're nothing but a liar for Jesus.  Answer my points or don't, but this notion that your 'facts' are uncontested and that your major points have been made is sheer bollocks.

What on earth makes you think you can get away with such shit?  Do you have no personal integrity at all?

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 wouldn't know about that given that you've never succeeded in pushing me into such a corner.  This appears to be more of your useless and delusional wishful thinking.

And again you conclude that 'wrath' or anger is even in the picture.  A sentiment you've already been refuted on.  Never let the falseness of something prevent you from repeating it ad nauseum in hopes that sheer repitition will lead to its acceptance.  Christian 'scholars' like David Barton employ similarly bankrupt strategies, so you're in good company with your fellow Christians.

I am however always open to questions:

Glad to hear it.

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.

Not my question, Drich.  I specifically asked what you base your opinion of your general competence upon.  That you cite sources does not help if your reading of them is faulty due to generally poor reading comprehension (as documented several times), if your inferences or the arguments you construct are faulty because of general incompetence, or you believe that certain inferences are valid when they are not due to a lack of skill at reasoning.  It's said that a workman is only as good as his tools, and the primary tool you depend upon is your mind and your ability to reason with it.  If that is not sound, appealing to the fact that you cite sources does no good, as your citations, as I've documented, don't support your arguments, and your arguments themselves are filled with errors of reasoning.  So the question is, on what basis do you form your belief that you possess adequate mental competence to back your claims and arguments, and on what do you base your beliefs about your competence, intelligence and reasoning abilities?  You've said in the past that you had educational difficulties in acquiring competence as a reader and a writer.  Given such a history, on what basis do you conclude that you have competent reading comprehension.  Flaws in that skill have already been pointed out to you.  You say that you are successful in your business and that you have some engineering achievements related to such.  That might provide some evidence in favor of competence except for two things.  First, specialized competence is not a reliable indicator of general competence.  Many people with great skill in their specialization lack similar competence in their general ability to reason and think.  The second problem is that you have attributed these successes to intervention from God.  If God is indeed behind your competence in these or other areas, that offers no evidence of competence that you personally possess.  It would be highly inappropriate of you to argue that they are effects of God when you want to witness in favor of belief in God, only to turn around and claim the reverse when you need to establish your own competence.  That would undermine both your arguments about God, as well as about your general competence given the obvious illogical shenanigans going on in doing so.

So, to put the question back under the microscope, what evidence are you appealing to in order to conclude that you are generally competent, intelligent, and capable of reasoning well?  It's important because if you don't have evidence of these things, then it makes no sense to attribute them to you, and if you can't claim them as your own, what other capacity could you possibly appeal to in order to provide a justified conclusion that your arguments are sound, well made, and well supported?  Do you have any independent evidence of such that you have not already sacrificed upon the altar of your faith?

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..

These are simply your own opinions of your ability.  I specifically asked if you have evidence supporting your opinion of your own abilities that was separate from your opinion, because as I noted, self generated opinions about one's own competence don't have a strong correlation with reliability.  Intelligent people think they are able and competent.  But so do idiots and morons.  What evidence do you have that you are not among the latter group?

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

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!

What bluff, exactly, is it that you think you've called.  It can't be the Hitler and Rosenberg affair because of the reasons stated, so what bluff do you think that you've called?

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?!?!

You've already been corrected on the angry part.  This is just willful stupidity on your part.  That you infer from  my actions that I am angry cuts no ice as you have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of drawing correct inferences reliably.  Like A Theist recently, that you can't imagine an alternate explanation simply points to a lack of imagination on your part.  But even if I were angry, it would be irrelevant, as your claim was that my anger was leading me to inappropriately and incorrectly draw conclusions based upon those feelings rather than upon the facts and the evidence.  That someone is angry doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that they are doing so, and so that's a non sequitur.  I could be angry and still be reasoning appropriately about the facts and evidence.  The two aren't necessarily in conflict, and your belief that they are just points to more incompetence on your part.  Regardless, since I'm not angry, and I'm the only one here capable of making that determination, all your arguments to the contrary are worth nothing.

And I never said that I don't like Jorgie.  Plenty of people call me that and I haven't once objected to it.  I point out your use of the alpo moniker because using derogatory nicknames for people you are debating is childish and shows your general emotional immaturity, as well as your inability to correctly conclude that such tactics are going to be useless against a mature and intelligent debater, at best, and turned against you, at worst.  You could have easily called me 'Apo' -- everybody else did.  No, Drich, we know the reasons you use such disparaging nicknames and it has nothing to do with the length of my name, difficulty in spelling it, or my objection to using shortened versions of my name for convenience.  These are tantamount to more lies on your part.

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.

I have never claimed that only persons possessed of 100% Asian heritage are superior to those without, or that people of mixed heritage aren't truly Asian.  Where you get that from, I have no idea.  That seems to be something you pulled from your anxiety closet.  I didn't in any way discount you on the basis of your ethnicity.  What I did do was point out that, if you research and prepare as thoroughly as you claim, then your use of what is an ethnic slur was an intentional act, intended to play on Asian stereotypes in order to demean me.  

And for the record, I find your use of insulting Asian stereotypes, derisive nicknames like 'alpo', and so forth, do more to undermine you then they are ever going to effect me.  I have a healthy reputation on this forum.  Your nicknames and ethnic slurs simply undermine your credibility and the opinions of your maturity and intelligence among those that you hope to reach with your missionary efforts.

As I noted when I started this conversation, I don't take you seriously, Drich.  That would be a bar you'd have to meet before I became butthurt over the things you do and say.

any other questions?

I think that's enough for now.  I reserve the right to ask further questions as they occur to me.

  I have a wall of text from you that says otherwise..

Watch what happens when one doesnot take another seriously....

You watching?

Keep watching...

Be patient..