Why Christianity?

[Randy Carson]

I know, that's what we look like, morning or evening, when we read your posts.

Oh, believe me, I know how y'all typically respond.

I keep hoping for actual interaction...

[Longhorn]

Me too, actually. But you keep repeating what you said adding an extra layer of smugness each time :c

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I know, that's what we look like, morning or evening, when we read your posts.

Oh, believe me, I know how y'all typically respond.

I keep hoping for actual interaction...

Surprise buttsechs? We'll start interacting when you stop plagiarizing other people's works and passing it off as your own thinking people wouldn't notice. I know you don't care, but nobody here actually pays much attention to anything you have to say. I pay more attention to enrico, fucking enrico man. You seen that guy's posts? He makes Chopra look like a fucking genius or something. Maybe you'd have more luck with him?

[Iroscato]

You're impossible to engage with Randy - you are sooo condescending, like you know things that nobody else does - something I see in a lot of Christians that you take to a new level. You're a poster child for why theists can be so damn hard to get along with.
And you still haven't gotten that the Bible is not proof of its own stories - you have these oh so very obvious failsafes built into your brain that makes critical thinking apparently impossible. But for all of your prolific posting, I still get the feeling that you're doing it mainly to keep yourself convinced.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think by now it should be fairly evident to everyone on the forum, member and lurker, and even members of the catholic forum where randy is from who no doubt lurk on here from time to time (hi btw ), that he is a compulsive liar incapable of intellectually honest debate.

I think your judgement is a little harsh.

Randy isn't an intellectual, he's a salesman, it's what he does.  When he's selling whatever he's selling, he doesn't need to understand what he's selling, he's just got to try to get his sales methodology right.

It's the same when he's selling Jesus - for heaven's sake he can't even see the curious contradiction that, while he's a Protestant who switched to Catholicism, all his sales materials and methodology are Protestant Evangelical.

So, Randy doesn't have discussions, he has sales methodologies.

Yah, but on a 'discussion' forum that's not really very helpful. I actually think my analysis is spot on. He is not interested in the main reason this forum is here, to 'talk', and as such, people lost interest in him a long time ago.

I ain't got no time for entertaining the delusions of a simpleton, salesman or not. If other folks want to that's their choice, but I still think, for the reasons both you and I cite above, his ability to interact is so low it's next to dinosaur bones.

[Cyberman]

So your response to the accusation of having no interest in real interaction on here at all is to prove that point?

[T.J.]

Answer: None. For an argument to hold any significant weight it'd need actual evidence from an unbiased source to support it, and none of them have it. If they did and one day reached the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that their beliefs are true, then they'd cease being beliefs and would turn into facts. That's why I never understood why Christians try so hard to prove their religion true, it'd ruin all the importance they put in faith. Not only that, but even if they could, that wouldn't convert non-believers. It'd just turn them anti-theists if they weren't already.

And in case you're wondering, I thought that even when I identified as a Christian. Well, the latter years, anyway.

[Jenny A]

Just a quick note: I have no problem openly admitting that I copied a portion of the the article in my post. Big whoop.

Just one of the cardinal sins of acedemia, no big whoop. Also 100% no exceptions against the forum rules.

I'm not here to win praise or get paid. I'm here to get information into the minds of some people who desperately need it.

Which you are apparently wlling to lie and cheat to do.

For the record, MOST of the material I post is my own adaptation of things that others have said before me. I mean seriously...after 2,000 years, how many new ways are we going to find to answer the same tired objections that skeptics ask?

When there are no real answers copying won't help.

When I do post material written by others, I do provide attribution and links...MOST of the time. I think it is fair to say that I am more diligent about quoting sources than just about anyone else in the forum since most people here just blow out their own opinions with little or no supporting material from experts.

We can see whether there is citation for fact or opinion and evaluate the argument accordingly. Plagerism is by it's very nature a crime of concealment. It's also intellectal theft.

HOWEVER, occasionally, I think that revealing the source of a passage I'm quoting will actually cause people to ignore it or to discount it completely or in part.

Too bad so sad.

Sometimes I have to wrap my dog's medicine in bacon to get him to swallow a pill. Similarly, if I have to hide a source to get folks here to read what they need to learn, so be it. The fact that I have to resort to subterfuge says more about you atheists than it does about me.

You think getting people to listen to you is a good reason to be intellectually dishonest? Really? Grow up. Develope a little moral fiber.

[orangebox21]

Hey Shuffle,  I think we have to consider.....

[Ravenshire]

I know, that's what we look like, morning or evening, when we read your posts.

Oh, believe me, I know how y'all typically respond.

I keep hoping for actual interaction...

This from a guy who frequently responds with a smiley and nothing else?!?