True Irony [Trollville]

Essence of Irony
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-09-14
User is offlineOffline
True Irony [Trollville]

When one thinks of a radical Theist, many thoughts come to mind; irrationality, ignorance, arrogance, and general stupidity. And yet, those adjectives aren't solely limited to radical Theists. The key word in that phrase is the term radical. And another noun that can easily accompany that word is the word Atheist. But that's impossible right? After all, atheists live without an irrational belief in a god and are therefore freethinking and open to a whole new world. But that phrase, oft-used as an atheist’s self-description, falls right under the descriptor of arrogance.  The fact of the matter is that many Atheists, in particular, my audience the Rational Response Squad, readily coin any Theist a number of condescending terms, as their if belief in a god somehow makes them inferior to such “enlightened” people. In reality, these people so deeply enthralled in the belief of disbelief are no different than the fundamentalists and extremists that give religion the image that atheists superimpose on anyone who holds a belief in a higher power.

 

In essence, radical theists are no different than radical atheists. A look at the words themselves, theist and a- (anti) theist, show that the two are simply opposites of each other. One can deduce from Newton’s third law of gravity that for every one thing, there exists an equal counterpart of said thing. As such, an extreme atheist is equal to an extreme theist.

 

Examples of this equal and opposite existence can be found easily; and one of the quickest and best sources for examples is, of course, the internet. On one end of the spectrum exists the Christian Teen Forum, on the other, the Rational Response Squad. The former dedicates itself to spreading the “good news of God” while the other seeks to stop any expression of the word “god,” save the few Christians that are baited into Atheist vs. Theist debates that leave both ends believing that the other was foolish for believing what he or she believes, with the grand conclusion of each argument being, “Where is your god now?” (and oppositely, “Where is your science now?&rdquoEye-wink.

 

In conclusion, both sides believe they have life figured out and that the other side is completely foolish. The difference, however, is that radical Christians are proud to declare their involvement in a religion, a religion with God at the center of it. However, radical atheists are offended when their beliefs are labeled as a religion, which is truly what radical atheism is, a belief with science at the center of it. By denying that their beliefs form a religion, radical atheists are free to criticize theists for their beliefs without risk of scrutiny for being essentially the same as any radical Christian. And with this control over the word “religion,” in conjunction with the ability to attack Christians with the word like a knife, atheists comfortably settle into the mindset of superiority. From this mindset, groups such as the Rational Response Squad exist to exert their dominance over radical theists despite the fact that the word radical—and all the descriptions that entail the word—describes the group just as well as it would describe any fundamentalist.

 

EDIT - changed text color for readability - dead_again

EDIT - It's like ray-ee-ayn on your wedding day, a free riiiiiiiiiiiiide when you're already late... - magilum

So quick to point the finger
Yet you fail to realize you've become what you've hated.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I was agreeing with you. You

I was agreeing with you. You are WRONG on ALL counts. LOL

Quote:
BB, remember the story of the grammarian and the boatman?

Yes, but I don't see what that has to do with topic we're discussing.

I'm sure you don't.

What does the dictionary say about the term "atheism?"

From what I do know of the word, it's a disbelief in god but it says nothing about the afterlife. Yet plenty of atheists can comment as if they know a thing or two about that.

3) And, you don't throw philosophical terms around without understanding their meaning.    

What is a fallacy of equivocation? Ad hoc? Ad hominem? True Scotsman? Non sequitur?

Which of these terms did I use? And y?

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I'm basically asking, how

I'm basically asking, how can you advocate something (rational, sane, common sense, logic) which you know nothing about? Where is this rational sane logic you boast about using?

You are not dealing with a case of mistaken identity, you are dealing with a case of IDENTIFYING your true self. I am saying that you and apparently everyone else in this forum has misunderstood the definition of atheism because I have not seen one atheist respond rationally or logically in this entire forum. These posts prove it.

You are the one that misconstrued my words and are now acting like somehow that's my fault (logical, indeed). LOL. I addressed your argument but you just failed to see that. Now (that which I highlighted) THIS I am debating. I asked a question and norm, jc and you have yet to respond... it's been several hours.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I was agreeing

Arj wrote:
I was agreeing with you. You are WRONG on ALL counts. LOL

Childish and pointless.

Quote:
I'm sure you don't.

Forcing the topic to end instead of actually backing up your claim.

Quote:
From what I do know of the word, it's a disbelief in god but it says nothing about the afterlife. Yet plenty of atheists can comment as if they know a thing or two about that.

Well, then your confusing the dictionary definition with a position that is held by the majority of atheists. I don't believe in the afterlife, but that doesn't mean that the definition of atheism includes such a rule. Similarly, most Christians probably oppose abortion, but the belief is not inherent in the religion. 

Quote:
Which of these terms did I use? And y?

Here's one.

Quote:
This was ALWAYS my point. That I have NO reason to prove myself to you and YOU still have NOT given me a reason. LOL. You committed the fallacy.

This is from the first page of your famous thread, post #48, where you referred to the Ad Hoc fallacy without knowing what it meant. Start there and work your way through the conversation; count how many times you refer to a fallacy.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726

Unfathomably, you were able to massacre logic with DG for over a page. I've never seen a theist do that. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
If I am communicating with

If I am communicating with you, I will almost always quote your statements. If I don't, you can assume that I'm speaking to someone else or the thread in general.

Arj wrote:

I'm basically asking, how can you advocate something (rational, sane, common sense, logic) which you know nothing about? Where is this rational sane logic you boast about using?

Misleading rhetorical question. The structure implies that the statement that RRS members know nothing about logic is a proven fact when this is simply the same baseless, insulting assertion that you've been parroting the whole time.

Quote:
You are not dealing with a case of mistaken identity, you are dealing with a case of IDENTIFYING your true self.

Really, what is my true self? Care to expand on that?

Quote:
I am saying that you and apparently everyone else in this forum has misunderstood the definition of atheism because I have not seen one atheist respond rationally or logically in this entire forum.

Non sequitur. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Not responding rationally doesn't logically follow to misunderstanding the definition of atheism. Plus, your still spewing the same assertion that you espoused in the first sentence. You only stacked another claim on top this time instead of a rhetorical question.

Quote:
These posts prove it.

Another fallacy. Begging the question. You have not shown how these posts prove your claims because it's impossible; your claims are bullshit to begin with. Thus, your entire argument is circular. 

Quote:
You are the one that misconstrued my words and are now acting like somehow that's my fault (logical, indeed).

No warrant. No evidence. Not even referring to a specific example.

Quote:
LOL. I addressed your argument but you just failed to see that.

Another fallacy. You've skipped an entire segment in the line of inquiry. You've failed to mention how you've addressed my argument and even what argument you are referring to.  

Quote:
Now (that which I highlighted) THIS I am debating.

Contradicting yourself on the subject of debating.

Quote:
I asked a question and norm, jc and you have yet to respond... it's been several hours.

Many of these people are scientists, entrepreneurs, etc. They've actually gotten an education and experienced the world. You have not. Even I'm busier than you, albeit slightly. Being offline for several hours doesn't mean that they're scared of your comments; it means that they're busy or that your posts are so pathetic that responding to them would be a waste of their time. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Childish and pointless.Of

Childish and pointless.

Of course you would call it that simply because I'm right.

Well, then your confusing the dictionary definition with a position that is held by the majority of atheists. I don't believe in the afterlife, but that doesn't mean that the definition of atheism includes such a rule. Similarly, most Christians probably oppose abortion, but the belief is not inherent in the religion. 

You asked me what the dictionary said about Atheism so I responded with that information. Then you're gonna tell me I have you confused. This is a bullshit conversation.


Again, you misconstrue my words and somehow it becomes my fault.... Sure. This forum is starting to show how it's not all there with any of you. I asked, Which of these terms did I use? And y? You respond with that??? Get this bullshit outta here, man. Where in that statement did I refer to that particular logical fallacy or any other??? "You committed the fallacy."

Do you know how to use YOUR dictionary???

Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.... is a mistake in reasoning..... A logically unsound argument.... 


Forcing the topic to end instead of actually backing up your claim.

No. It was a metaphor for what's going on in this thread.... now. Since you didn't get the point I kinda figured it went over your head. You mentioned all the science, logic, and religion and basically my reply was well it didn't teach any of you how to swim.... use rational logic or common sense.

BB your logic is not going anywhere. This is a waste of time.

 

 

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:If I am

butterbattle wrote:

If I am communicating with you, I will almost always quote your statements. If I don't, you can assume that I'm speaking to someone else or the thread in general.

Arj wrote:

I'm basically asking, how can you advocate something (rational, sane, common sense, logic) which you know nothing about? Where is this rational sane logic you boast about using?

Misleading rhetorical question. The structure implies that the statement that RRS members know nothing about logic is a proven fact when this is simply the same baseless, insulting assertion that you've been parroting the whole time.

Quote:
You are not dealing with a case of mistaken identity, you are dealing with a case of IDENTIFYING your true self.

Really, what is my true self? Care to expand on that?

Quote:
I am saying that you and apparently everyone else in this forum has misunderstood the definition of atheism because I have not seen one atheist respond rationally or logically in this entire forum.

Non sequitur. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Not responding rationally doesn't logically follow to misunderstanding the definition of atheism. Plus, your still spewing the same assertion that you espoused in the first sentence. You only stacked another claim on top this time instead of a rhetorical question.

Quote:
These posts prove it.

Another fallacy. Begging the question. You have not shown how these posts prove your claims because it's impossible; your claims are bullshit to begin with. Thus, your entire argument is circular. 

Quote:
You are the one that misconstrued my words and are now acting like somehow that's my fault (logical, indeed).

No warrant. No evidence. Not even referring to a specific example.

Quote:
LOL. I addressed your argument but you just failed to see that.

Another fallacy. You've skipped an entire segment in the line of inquiry. You've failed to mention how you've addressed my argument and even what argument you are referring to.  

Quote:
Now (that which I highlighted) THIS I am debating.

Contradicting yourself on the subject of debating.

Quote:
I asked a question and norm, jc and you have yet to respond... it's been several hours.

Many of these people are scientists, entrepreneurs, etc. They've actually gotten an education and experienced the world. You have not. Even I'm busier than you, albeit slightly. Being offline for several hours doesn't mean that they're scared of your comments; it means that they're busy or that your posts are so pathetic that responding to them would be a waste of their time. 

BB please don't pretend to know me. This post is beyond confusing. Those questions weren't rethortical when I asked them and you know the behavior I'm referring to. If you don't then denial's playing a factor. That's cool. And I said I was asking the questions (which I highlighted) to you and anyone else who wanted to answer but those comments belonged to the person I addressed in those posts. And the last post you mentioned in which you fail to see the correlation between posts 51 and 52 really exhibit your advanced degree of deductive reasoning. And then you pretend to use common sense. Sure. This discussion is truly pointless. 

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Of course you

Arj wrote:
Of course you would call it that simply because I'm right.

Repetition.

Quote:
You asked me what the dictionary said about Atheism so I responded with that information. Then you're gonna tell me I have you confused. This is a bullshit conversation.

Strawman, you completely ignored my argument. You stated that many atheists also declare that there is no afterlife. I was obviously responding to this line since it was the line I quoted. As a clarification, I was warning you not to confuse the definition of the term with a position that is also frequently held by the people who fit that term, since you usually confuse the two. 

Quote:
Again, you misconstrue my words and somehow it becomes my fault.... Sure.

I quote you every time I make a rebuttal. It would be simple to show where I have misconstrued your words. If you committed a fallacy, it's your fault. If I misinterpreted your words, it's my fault. If you want to accuse me of misinterpreting your words, stop whining and show me where I have done this.  

Quote:
This forum is starting to show how it's not all there with any of you.

Ad hominem. Assertion with no evidence. No warrant. 

Quote:
I asked, Which of these terms did I use? And y? You respond with that???

Um, yeah, you referred to the Ad Hoc fallacy when you didn't know what it meant?

Quote:
Get this bullshit outta here, man.

Meaningless snide remark. No substance. Doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Quote:
Where in that statement did I refer to that particular logical fallacy or any other??? "You committed the fallacy."

You don't have to actually state a proper noun in order to refer to it. Have you ever heard of pronouns? I quoted your sentence from the other thread. "You committed the fallacy." You were arguing with DG, referring to the Ad Hoc fallacy.

Quote:
Do you know how to use YOUR dictionary???

Yes, the words progress in alphabetical order. 

Quote:
Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.... is a mistake in reasoning..... A logically unsound argument....

That's the definition of it. So what? 

Quote:
No. It was a metaphor for what's going on in this thread.... now.

The reference to the grammarian and the boatman was in an earlier post, it was not the one I was quoting. It's not that hard to figure out. Whichever line I am quoting, that's the line I'm addressing. 

Quote:
Since you didn't get the point I kinda figured it went over your head.

It went way over my head. I don't understand your logic at all! You're repeating yourself again, and you're still refusing to explain how the metaphor relates to this thread.

Quote:
You mentioned all the science, logic, and religion and basically my reply was well it didn't teach any of you how to swim.... use rational logic or common sense.

You still haven't explained the entire metaphor. What is swimming in this context? Experiencing life?  

Quote:
BB your logic is not going anywhere.

You're right. My logic isn't going anywhere. I enjoy being free from delusion, and I enjoy being sane. 

Quote:
This is a waste of time.

Probably, but I, like many of the posters, have developed a strange obsession with wanting to help you. If you keep posting, I'll most likely continue trying to teach you. 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:BB please don't

Arj wrote:
BB please don't pretend to know me.

Interesting plea from someone who has called everyone on this forum delusional, idiots, irrational, stupid, dumbasses, etc. etc. etc.

Quote:
This post is beyond confusing.

Good diversion.

Quote:
Those questions weren't rethortical when I asked them

Rhetorical question can mean any question that is posed for a persuasive effect.

Quote:
and you know the behavior I'm referring to.

Yeah, the behavior that is inherent in all theists and atheists, but not Arj.  

Quote:
If you don't then denial's playing a factor. That's cool. 

Begging the question again, with a passive aggressive twist.

Quote:
And I said I was asking the questions (which I highlighted) to you and anyone else who wanted to answer but those comments belonged to the person I addressed in those posts.

I've already addressed that question Arj. I haven't given a yes or no answer because it is a bullshit question. Didn't you read my response?  

"Misleading rhetorical question. The structure implies that the statement that RRS members know nothing about logic is a proven fact when this is simply the same baseless, insulting assertion that you've been parroting the whole time."

This is like me asking you, "Why are you stupid?" The obvious answer would be, "I'm not stupid." Now, imagine how you would feel if I responded with, "But you didn't answer the question! Why are you stupid?"

Quote:
And the last post you mentioned in which you fail to see the correlation between posts 51 and 52 really exhibit your advanced degree of deductive reasoning.

More fallacies, ha ha. Posts 51 and 52 had virtually zero correlation other than the fact that you posted both of them, and you haven't shown how I've failed to see a correlation. You're still throwing empty assertions at me without any warrants. You don't even understand the basics of philosophical discourse.  

Quote:
And then you pretend to use common sense.

Another assertion. Ad hominem.

Quote:
Sure. This discussion is truly pointless.

Refer to my previous post on the exact same issue.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Arj ... you make me  St.

Arj ... you make me think of St. Martin Luther. Do I make you think of anyone?

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/luther1.htm
.......... LUTHER, THE DERANGED THEOLOGIAN ..........

"The damned whore Reason...."

"To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."

== Insert Atheists for Jews, and prayer books and Talmudic writings for science ==

 "We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews]."

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings...are to be taken from them."

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews."

"What shall we do with...the Jews? I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...their homes also should be razed and destroyed." ~~~~~

    .... Umm, denounce those who insist on evidence .... is that you Arj ?

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I'm basically

Arj wrote:

I'm basically asking, how can you advocate something (rational, sane, common sense, logic) which you know nothing about? Where is this rational sane logic you boast about using?

You are not dealing with a case of mistaken identity, you are dealing with a case of IDENTIFYING your true self. I am saying that you and apparently everyone else in this forum has misunderstood the definition of atheism because I have not seen one atheist respond rationally or logically in this entire forum. These posts prove it.

You are the one that misconstrued my words and are now acting like somehow that's my fault (logical, indeed). LOL. I addressed your argument but you just failed to see that. Now (that which I highlighted) THIS I am debating. I asked a question and norm, jc and you have yet to respond... it's been several hours.

You've been bludgeoned with it repeatedly - that's why you came saying "Leave my beliefs alone" when we examine them for you.

You also assume that folks here somehow identify ourselves as atheists. Most of us identify ourselves by our names - atheism is a postiton we hold in common but it's not an identifier.

Is your identity wrapped solely in the belief in the spirit world and mediums?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Arj

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
Of course you would call it that simply because I'm right.

Repetition.

Quote:
You asked me what the dictionary said about Atheism so I responded with that information. Then you're gonna tell me I have you confused. This is a bullshit conversation.

Strawman, you completely ignored my argument. You stated that many atheists also declare that there is no afterlife. I was obviously responding to this line since it was the line I quoted. As a clarification, I was warning you not to confuse the definition of the term with a position that is also frequently held by the people who fit that term, since you usually confuse the two. 

Quote:
Again, you misconstrue my words and somehow it becomes my fault.... Sure.

I quote you every time I make a rebuttal. It would be simple to show where I have misconstrued your words. If you committed a fallacy, it's your fault. If I misinterpreted your words, it's my fault. If you want to accuse me of misinterpreting your words, stop whining and show me where I have done this.  

Quote:
This forum is starting to show how it's not all there with any of you.

Ad hominem. Assertion with no evidence. No warrant. 

Quote:
I asked, Which of these terms did I use? And y? You respond with that???

Um, yeah, you referred to the Ad Hoc fallacy when you didn't know what it meant?

Quote:
Get this bullshit outta here, man.

Meaningless snide remark. No substance. Doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Quote:
Where in that statement did I refer to that particular logical fallacy or any other??? "You committed the fallacy."

You don't have to actually state a proper noun in order to refer to it. Have you ever heard of pronouns? I quoted your sentence from the other thread. "You committed the fallacy." You were arguing with DG, referring to the Ad Hoc fallacy.

Quote:
Do you know how to use YOUR dictionary???

Yes, the words progress in alphabetical order. 

Quote:
Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.... is a mistake in reasoning..... A logically unsound argument....

That's the definition of it. So what? 

Quote:
No. It was a metaphor for what's going on in this thread.... now.

The reference to the grammarian and the boatman was in an earlier post, it was not the one I was quoting. It's not that hard to figure out. Whichever line I am quoting, that's the line I'm addressing. 

Quote:
Since you didn't get the point I kinda figured it went over your head.

It went way over my head. I don't understand your logic at all! You're repeating yourself again, and you're still refusing to explain how the metaphor relates to this thread.

Quote:
You mentioned all the science, logic, and religion and basically my reply was well it didn't teach any of you how to swim.... use rational logic or common sense.

You still haven't explained the entire metaphor. What is swimming in this context? Experiencing life?  

Quote:
BB your logic is not going anywhere.

You're right. My logic isn't going anywhere. I enjoy being free from delusion, and I enjoy being sane. 

Quote:
This is a waste of time.

Probably, but I, like many of the posters, have developed a strange obsession with wanting to help you. If you keep posting, I'll most likely continue trying to teach you. 

 

 

You weren't making an argument you were just adding to the definition. I didn't feel there was anything I needed to address.....In regards to the Ad hoc fallacy you misinterpreted my words. I am trying to tell you that just like in post 32 in this thread you misunderstood me when I was talking to DG in the other thread. I'm not gonna lie to you. If I've made a mistake I'll correct myself. But that's not the case here.....  I'm not reexplaining the metaphor to you. For now that will have to remain a mystery.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:<A tail


butterbattle wrote:

<A tail kicking>


Arj wrote:

<a dodge>

Damn us for reading what Arj writes instead of the magic subtext the spirits put in.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Arj

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
BB please don't pretend to know me.

Interesting plea from someone who has called everyone on this forum delusional, idiots, irrational, stupid, dumbasses, etc. etc. etc.

Quote:
This post is beyond confusing.

Good diversion.

Quote:
Those questions weren't rethortical when I asked them

Rhetorical question can mean any question that is posed for a persuasive effect.

Quote:
and you know the behavior I'm referring to.

Yeah, the behavior that is inherent in all theists and atheists, but not Arj.  

Quote:
If you don't then denial's playing a factor. That's cool. 

Begging the question again, with a passive aggressive twist.

Quote:
And I said I was asking the questions (which I highlighted) to you and anyone else who wanted to answer but those comments belonged to the person I addressed in those posts.

I've already addressed that question Arj. I haven't given a yes or no answer because it is a bullshit question. Didn't you read my response?  

"Misleading rhetorical question. The structure implies that the statement that RRS members know nothing about logic is a proven fact when this is simply the same baseless, insulting assertion that you've been parroting the whole time."

This is like me asking you, "Why are you stupid?" The obvious answer would be, "I'm not stupid." Now, imagine how you would feel if I responded with, "But you didn't answer the question! Why are you stupid?"

Quote:
And the last post you mentioned in which you fail to see the correlation between posts 51 and 52 really exhibit your advanced degree of deductive reasoning.

More fallacies, ha ha. Posts 51 and 52 had virtually zero correlation other than the fact that you posted both of them, and you haven't shown how I've failed to see a correlation. You're still throwing empty assertions at me without any warrants. You don't even understand the basics of philosophical discourse.  

Quote:
And then you pretend to use common sense.

Another assertion. Ad hominem.

Quote:
Sure. This discussion is truly pointless.

Refer to my previous post on the exact same issue.

Don't pretend to know me outside of this forum. You don't.....  That behavior is not in me. I'm trying to tell you that there's no reason for it....I have no reason to be passive.... but it's not logically sane to argue over non-testable ideas. Then to get mad because I knew this would be a pointless debate while everyone else was too dense to see it this way. It's not rational to dispute something that you can't disprove. It's not logical to mistake syllogistic reasoning for scientific evidence. There is a 500 posts thread in this forum that can testify to all of this behavior. Therefore, those questions are not rhetorical. These aren't baseless assumptions whereas calling me stupid would be.... you really don't know that both posts are in response to the confusion behind post 32? Interesting. I thought that was an act.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:butterbattle

Arj wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
BB please don't pretend to know me.

Interesting plea from someone who has called everyone on this forum delusional, idiots, irrational, stupid, dumbasses, etc. etc. etc.

Quote:
This post is beyond confusing.

Good diversion.

Quote:
Those questions weren't rethortical when I asked them

Rhetorical question can mean any question that is posed for a persuasive effect.

Quote:
and you know the behavior I'm referring to.

Yeah, the behavior that is inherent in all theists and atheists, but not Arj.  

Quote:
If you don't then denial's playing a factor. That's cool. 

Begging the question again, with a passive aggressive twist.

Quote:
And I said I was asking the questions (which I highlighted) to you and anyone else who wanted to answer but those comments belonged to the person I addressed in those posts.

I've already addressed that question Arj. I haven't given a yes or no answer because it is a bullshit question. Didn't you read my response?  

"Misleading rhetorical question. The structure implies that the statement that RRS members know nothing about logic is a proven fact when this is simply the same baseless, insulting assertion that you've been parroting the whole time."

This is like me asking you, "Why are you stupid?" The obvious answer would be, "I'm not stupid." Now, imagine how you would feel if I responded with, "But you didn't answer the question! Why are you stupid?"

Quote:
And the last post you mentioned in which you fail to see the correlation between posts 51 and 52 really exhibit your advanced degree of deductive reasoning.

More fallacies, ha ha. Posts 51 and 52 had virtually zero correlation other than the fact that you posted both of them, and you haven't shown how I've failed to see a correlation. You're still throwing empty assertions at me without any warrants. You don't even understand the basics of philosophical discourse.  

Quote:
And then you pretend to use common sense.

Another assertion. Ad hominem.

Quote:
Sure. This discussion is truly pointless.

Refer to my previous post on the exact same issue.

Don't pretend to know me outside of this forum. You don't.....  That behavior is not in me. I'm trying to tell you that there's no reason for it....I have no reason to be passive.... but it's not logically sane to argue over non-testable ideas. Then to get mad because I knew this would be a pointless debate while everyone else was too dense to see it this way. It's not rational to dispute something that you can't disprove. It's not logical to mistake syllogistic reasoning for scientific evidence. There is a 500 posts thread in this forum that can testify to all of this behavior. Therefore, those questions are not rhetorical. These aren't baseless assumptions whereas calling me stupid would be.... you really don't know that both posts are in response to the confusion behind post 32? Interesting. I thought that was an act.

"It's not logical to argue over non-testable ideas"

IOW, you want us to just accept that you're right about the spirit world?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:"It's not

jcgadfly wrote:

"It's not logical to argue over non-testable ideas"

IOW, you want us to just accept that you're right about the spirit world?

No I don't jc. This is what you are hearing but I have NEVER stated that. I answered this question in the My Beliefs belong in trollville thread.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:jcgadfly

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"It's not logical to argue over non-testable ideas"

IOW, you want us to just accept that you're right about the spirit world?

No I don't jc. This is what you are hearing but I have NEVER stated that. I answered this question in the My Beliefs belong in trollville thread.

You don't want us to accept that you're right - you'd simply prefer that we didn't question the lack of basis for your beliefs (except for what they mean and the warm fuzzies they give to you)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Arj

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"It's not logical to argue over non-testable ideas"

IOW, you want us to just accept that you're right about the spirit world?

No I don't jc. This is what you are hearing but I have NEVER stated that. I answered this question in the My Beliefs belong in trollville thread.

You don't want us to accept that you're right - you'd simply prefer that we didn't question the lack of basis for your beliefs (except for what they mean and the warm fuzzies they give to you)?

It went over your head. I want you to sit and meditate on it for a minute then get back to me. This is where the illogicality and the hypocrisy comes into play. YOU LACK EVIDENCE TO OPPOSE MY BELIEFS. Get this through your head. If you don't then PROVE me wrong. If you can't (and you won't) then shut the hell up with that bull shit. That's nonsense.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:jcgadfly wrote:Arj

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"It's not logical to argue over non-testable ideas"

IOW, you want us to just accept that you're right about the spirit world?

No I don't jc. This is what you are hearing but I have NEVER stated that. I answered this question in the My Beliefs belong in trollville thread.

You don't want us to accept that you're right - you'd simply prefer that we didn't question the lack of basis for your beliefs (except for what they mean and the warm fuzzies they give to you)?

It went over your head. I want you to sit and meditate on it for a minute then get back to me. This is where the illogicality and the hypocrisy comes into play. YOU LACK EVIDENCE TO OPPOSE MY BELIEFS. Get this through your head. If you don't then PROVE me wrong. If you can't (and you won't) then shut the hell up with that bull shit. That's nonsense.

You've missed the point - we can't attack your beliefs. the best we can do is examine the justifications on which your beliefs are based. As you've provided none, pointing out that fact is the best we can do. Even pointing out that you haven't provided any basis for your beliefs except for your saying "I believe this" seems to tick you off.

I don't have to prove that you don't believe. That your beliefs aren't based in reality has already been adequately shown. I don't have anything to do here. It's already been done.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:jcgadfly wrote:Arj

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"It's not logical to argue over non-testable ideas"

IOW, you want us to just accept that you're right about the spirit world?

No I don't jc. This is what you are hearing but I have NEVER stated that. I answered this question in the My Beliefs belong in trollville thread.

You don't want us to accept that you're right - you'd simply prefer that we didn't question the lack of basis for your beliefs (except for what they mean and the warm fuzzies they give to you)?

It went over your head. I want you to sit and meditate on it for a minute then get back to me. This is where the illogicality and the hypocrisy comes into play. YOU LACK EVIDENCE TO OPPOSE MY BELIEFS. Get this through your head. If you don't then PROVE me wrong. If you can't (and you won't) then shut the hell up with that bull shit. That's nonsense.

Get this through your head, Arj. We DO have evidence that OPPOSES your beliefs. DG spelled it out. It may not DISPROVE your beliefs, but that does NOT mean there is no evidence which suggests that there are significant problrms with those beliefs.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Arj

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"It's not logical to argue over non-testable ideas"

IOW, you want us to just accept that you're right about the spirit world?

No I don't jc. This is what you are hearing but I have NEVER stated that. I answered this question in the My Beliefs belong in trollville thread.

You don't want us to accept that you're right - you'd simply prefer that we didn't question the lack of basis for your beliefs (except for what they mean and the warm fuzzies they give to you)?

It went over your head. I want you to sit and meditate on it for a minute then get back to me. This is where the illogicality and the hypocrisy comes into play. YOU LACK EVIDENCE TO OPPOSE MY BELIEFS. Get this through your head. If you don't then PROVE me wrong. If you can't (and you won't) then shut the hell up with that bull shit. That's nonsense.

You've missed the point - we can't attack your beliefs. the best we can do is examine the justifications on which your beliefs are based. As you've provided none, pointing out that fact is the best we can do. Even pointing out that you haven't provided any basis for your beliefs except for your saying "I believe this" seems to tick you off.

I don't have to prove that you don't believe. That your beliefs aren't based in reality has already been adequately shown. I don't have anything to do here. It's already been done.

That's more BS. I HAVE provided evidence for my beliefs but you Atheists didn't see it as such and keep spouting these lies and nonsense. That's y I say you all are hard of hearing and like to read with one eye closed. Also, don't act like evidence is NONEXISTENT in my case like it is in yours. There are plenty of paranormal investigations which correspond with my beliefs. I just know those will be discounted like my personal experiences were so I don't bother to mention them-- that's subjectivity for you. So don't try to put me in the same boat with you. Just like in this post, you ACTUALLY do lack evidence to PROVE your disbelief and can ONLY resort to a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) to justify your unsubstantiated close-mindedness and bigotry. It's apparent that I am more in touch with reality then you are.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Get this

BobSpence1 wrote:

Get this through your head, Arj. We DO have evidence that OPPOSES your beliefs. DG spelled it out. It may not DISPROVE your beliefs, but that does NOT mean there is no evidence which suggests that there are significant problrms with those beliefs.

LOL. You know what I would call that? An explanation. Pure subjectivity. Please don't mistake syllogistic REASONING as EVIDENCE. We've been down this road before. I'm not trying to convert you Atheists. You can disbelieve what you want to disbelieve. Just like I can believe what I want to believe.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:jcgadfly wrote:Arj

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"It's not logical to argue over non-testable ideas"

IOW, you want us to just accept that you're right about the spirit world?

No I don't jc. This is what you are hearing but I have NEVER stated that. I answered this question in the My Beliefs belong in trollville thread.

You don't want us to accept that you're right - you'd simply prefer that we didn't question the lack of basis for your beliefs (except for what they mean and the warm fuzzies they give to you)?

It went over your head. I want you to sit and meditate on it for a minute then get back to me. This is where the illogicality and the hypocrisy comes into play. YOU LACK EVIDENCE TO OPPOSE MY BELIEFS. Get this through your head. If you don't then PROVE me wrong. If you can't (and you won't) then shut the hell up with that bull shit. That's nonsense.

You've missed the point - we can't attack your beliefs. the best we can do is examine the justifications on which your beliefs are based. As you've provided none, pointing out that fact is the best we can do. Even pointing out that you haven't provided any basis for your beliefs except for your saying "I believe this" seems to tick you off.

I don't have to prove that you don't believe. That your beliefs aren't based in reality has already been adequately shown. I don't have anything to do here. It's already been done.

That's more BS. I HAVE provided evidence for my beliefs but you Atheists didn't see it as such and keep spouting these lies and nonsense. That's y I say you all are hard of hearing and like to read with one eye closed. Also, don't act like evidence is NONEXISTENT in my case like it is in yours. There are plenty of paranormal investigations which correspond with my beliefs. I just know those will be discounted like my personal experiences were so I don't bother to mention them-- that's subjectivity for you. So don't try to put me in the same boat with you. Just like in this post, you ACTUALLY do lack evidence to PROVE your disbelief and can ONLY resort to a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) to justify your unsubstantiated close-mindedness and bigotry. It's apparent that I am more in touch with reality then you are.

What's that evidence again? Oh yeah, "My mom's a medium" and  "<fill in personal experience here>". Why is it when folks ask for evidence that carries weight with more than just you, you fall back on "it's my belief"? If you don't have evidence that means the same thing to everyone, just say so.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:You weren't making

Arj wrote:
You weren't making an argument you were just adding to the definition.

1) I don't know what you're referring to.

2) Making another assertion doesn't make it true.

Quote:
I didn't feel there was anything I needed to address

Yet, you're addressing my posts anyways.

Quote:
.....In regards to the Ad hoc fallacy you misinterpreted my words.

Another baseless assertion. I stated that you threw around philosophical terms without knowing their meaning. You asked where you did that and why. I showed you where you did it, the first page of your "My Beliefs" thread. I also showed you that you were referring to the Ad Hoc fallacy, and you were accusing DG of committing it, without knowing the meaning of the term. Please explain where I misinterpreted your words.

Quote:
I am trying to tell you that just like in post 32 in this thread you misunderstood me when I was talking to DG in the other thread.

I misunderstood you in post 32 because you suck at communicating; even then, I apologized. The conclusions that I drew from your post were the most logical assumptions to make. I stated something; you disagreed with me. Logically, that means that you disagreed with me. Besides, you probably purposely made your point vague to avoid being annihilated and then changed your position when I questioned you further on the fallacy, without even admitting that you were wrong. 

Quote:
I'm not gonna lie to you. If I've made a mistake I'll correct myself.

Bullshit. If that were true, then right now, you'd be apologizing to everyone in this forum a couple dozen times and admitting all of the mistakes that you have made in all of the threads that you've commented in.

Quote:
But that's not the case here.....

You've stated that you're not an atheist. You also stated that you disbelieve God. Sounds like a mistake to me.

Quote:
I'm not reexplaining the metaphor to you.

First of all Arj, you wouldn't be REexplaining the metaphor because you never adequately explained it at all. 

Second, this is equivalent to my little stepbrother professing that he knows the proof for a calculus theorem, but won't tell me because it's a waste of his time. Obviously, being in elementary school, he doesn't know shit about calculus, but believes that pretending to know it and not telling me is a valid argument.  

Quote:
For now that will have to remain a mystery.

Okay, Sherlock.

Quote:
Don't pretend to know me outside of this forum. You don't.....  That behavior is not in me.

Stop whining and respond to my points.

Quote:
I'm trying to tell you that there's no reason for it....I have no reason to be passive....

You don't know what passive aggressive means Arj!

Quote:
but it's not logically sane to argue over non-testable ideas.

Stating it doesn't make it true Arj! So, since you can't test whether God exists, it's logical to just believe in God? Huh, Arj?

Quote:
Then to get mad because I knew this would be a pointless debate

Ad hominem. You're playing dodgeball with my arguments.

Quote:
while everyone else was too dense to see it this way.

Stating it doesn't make it true Arj!

Quote:
It's not rational to dispute something that you can't disprove.

Then why are you disputing it, Arj! These kinds of disputes shouldn't occur at all. If it's not falsifiable, then the rational thing to do is to not believe in it. 

Quote:
It's not logical to mistake syllogistic reasoning for scientific evidence.

We have scientific evidence. It's called the brain Arj. You haven't followed DG's link yet, Arj.

Quote:
There is a 500 posts thread in this forum that can testify to all of this behavior.

Stating it doesn't make it true Arj.

Quote:
Therefore, those questions are not rhetorical.

You don't know what "rhetorical question" means Arj.

Quote:
These aren't baseless assumptions whereas calling me stupid would be....

So why do you keep calling everyone stupid Arj.

Quote:
you really don't know that both posts are in response to the confusion behind post 32? Interesting. I thought that was an act.

Stating it doesn't make it true Arj!

Quote:
It went over your head. I want you to sit and meditate on it for a minute then get back to me.

Arrogant. Hypocritical. Pointless.

Quote:
This is where the illogicality and the hypocrisy comes into play.

Go on.

Quote:
YOU LACK EVIDENCE TO OPPOSE MY BELIEFS.

Burden of proof Arj!

You haven't looked at DG's link yet Arj. You haven't even investigated this topic. How the hell do you know that science has zero evidence against this?

Quote:
Get this through your head. If you don't then PROVE me wrong.

Many members have already posted evidence Arj. Don't you remember what you said, "I'm not going to waste my time reading all of that." You refused to look at the evidence Arj.

Quote:
If you can't (and you won't) then shut the hell up with that bull shit.

Refusing to look at the evidence. Then, using that as proof that we have no evidence.

Quote:
That's nonsense.

Repetitive. Unwarranted claim.

Quote:
That's more BS.

Assertion.

Quote:
I HAVE provided evidence for my beliefs but you Atheists didn't see it as such and keep spouting these lies and nonsense.

Lieing.

Quote:
That's y I say you all are hard of hearing and like to read with one eye closed.

Ad hominem.

Quote:
Also, don't act like evidence is NONEXISTENT in my case like it is in yours.

Delusional

Quote:
There are plenty of paranormal investigations which correspond with my beliefs.

Assertion without evidence.

Quote:
I just know those will be discounted like my personal experiences were so I don't bother to mention them-- that's subjectivity for you.

Admitting that her beliefs are unreliable.

Quote:
So don't try to put me in the same boat with you.

Lieing.

Quote:
Just like in this post, you ACTUALLY do lack evidence to PROVE your disbelief

Burden of proof.

Quote:
and can ONLY resort to a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance) to justify your unsubstantiated

Baseless assertion.

Quote:
close-mindedness and bigotry.

Name calling.

Quote:
It's apparent that I am more in touch with reality then you are.

Baseless assertion.

Quote:
LOL. You know what I would call that?

Unnecessary. 

Quote:
An explanation. Pure subjectivity.

Non sequitur.

Quote:
Please don't mistake syllogistic REASONING as EVIDENCE.

Logic is not evidence. Non sequitur.

Quote:
We've been down this road before.

Yes we have. Many times.

Quote:
I'm not trying to convert you Atheists.

Stop whining.

Quote:
You can disbelieve what you want to disbelieve. Just like I can believe what I want to believe.

Cop-out.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:BobSpence1

Arj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Get this through your head, Arj. We DO have evidence that OPPOSES your beliefs. DG spelled it out. It may not DISPROVE your beliefs, but that does NOT mean there is no evidence which suggests that there are significant problrms with those beliefs.

LOL. You know what I would call that? An explanation. Pure subjectivity. Please don't mistake syllogistic REASONING as EVIDENCE. We've been down this road before. I'm not trying to convert you Atheists. You can disbelieve what you want to disbelieve. Just like I can believe what I want to believe.

Did you just tell us not to use logic and reason to examine your beliefs after asking why we weren't using logic and reason?

arj wrote:

how can you advocate something (rational, sane, common sense, logic) which you know nothing about? Where is this rational sane logic you boast about using?

Holy crap, I think you did.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
I just have to interject

I just have to interject here:

I find the parallels in the decision-making processes between Arj and Luminon to be striking. The same insistence that personal experience is evidence, the same shoving aside reason and the scientific method when they intrude on a personal world-view, the same suggestion that there are things that exist and have an effect on us that science can not detect, the same use of ad-hominem when feeling threatened, the same shifting of definitions, the same shifting of the burden of proof from the positive assertion to the negative...

Or, in short: Magical thinking.

I would love to get a nice, large group of folks like Luminon and Arj together for a study of their decision processes. I'm wildly curious as to how this sort of thinking effects day-to-day life, political opinions, and the like.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Arj

jcgadfly wrote:

Arj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Get this through your head, Arj. We DO have evidence that OPPOSES your beliefs. DG spelled it out. It may not DISPROVE your beliefs, but that does NOT mean there is no evidence which suggests that there are significant problrms with those beliefs.

LOL. You know what I would call that? An explanation. Pure subjectivity. Please don't mistake syllogistic REASONING as EVIDENCE. We've been down this road before. I'm not trying to convert you Atheists. You can disbelieve what you want to disbelieve. Just like I can believe what I want to believe.

Did you just tell us not to use logic and reason to examine your beliefs after asking why we weren't using logic and reason?

arj wrote:

how can you advocate something (rational, sane, common sense, logic) which you know nothing about? Where is this rational sane logic you boast about using?

Holy crap, I think you did.

I would think logic and reason would take into account subjectivity. To assume your rational- in a world of 6 Billion- is all there is is highly illogical and very dumb. And that is the mistake YOU and the rest of these atheists are making. But I'm sure this point will be ignored.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:I just have

JillSwift wrote:

I just have to interject here:

I find the parallels in the decision-making processes between Arj and Luminon to be striking. The same insistence that personal experience is evidence, the same shoving aside reason and the scientific method when they intrude on a personal world-view, the same suggestion that there are things that exist and have an effect on us that science can not detect, the same use of ad-hominem when feeling threatened, the same shifting of definitions, the same shifting of the burden of proof from the positive assertion to the negative...

Or, in short: Magical thinking.

I would love to get a nice, large group of folks like Luminon and Arj together for a study of their decision processes. I'm wildly curious as to how this sort of thinking effects day-to-day life, political opinions, and the like.

LOL. There may be something there. I'm seeing what a group of Atheists can come up and it's not pretty or logical. You could always visit a paranormal forum.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Another baseless assertion.

Another baseless assertion. I stated that you threw around philosophical terms without knowing their meaning. You asked where you did that and why. I showed you where you did it, the first page of your "My Beliefs" thread. I also showed you that you were referring to the Ad Hoc fallacy, and you were accusing DG of committing it, without knowing the meaning of the term. Please explain where I misinterpreted your words.

BB, it's not clicking with you. It's really not. You tell me to explain where your logic went wrong and I do and you just deny the claim. If you can't own up to your mistakes then we can't get anywhere. You can't tell me what I was thinking ONLY I can tell you that. And I did and you're still insisting it was the other way around. That's retarded. You are addressing each statement one at a time then flasely proclaiming that my words are baseless assertions. Taking each statement out of context is a straw man technique and this post is filled with nothing but trivial nitpicking which is another logical fallacy. When you can handle a REAL debate and can respond with more substance then I will get back to you. Peace.

Logic is not evidence. Non sequitur.

I am trying to tell you this.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:JillSwift wrote:I

Arj wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

I just have to interject here:

I find the parallels in the decision-making processes between Arj and Luminon to be striking. The same insistence that personal experience is evidence, the same shoving aside reason and the scientific method when they intrude on a personal world-view, the same suggestion that there are things that exist and have an effect on us that science can not detect, the same use of ad-hominem when feeling threatened, the same shifting of definitions, the same shifting of the burden of proof from the positive assertion to the negative...

Or, in short: Magical thinking.

I would love to get a nice, large group of folks like Luminon and Arj together for a study of their decision processes. I'm wildly curious as to how this sort of thinking effects day-to-day life, political opinions, and the like.

LOL. There may be something there. I'm seeing what a group of Atheists can come up and it's not pretty or logical. You could always visit a paranormal forum.

Interesting idea. I think reality's exciting enough without adding woo-woo, though.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:I would think

Arj wrote:
I would think logic and reason would take into account subjectivity.

Subjectivity deals with the reliability of evidence, it doesn't change reality. 2+2=4 is not up for subjective interpretation.

Quote:
To assume your rational- in a world of 6 Billion- is all there is

This is another fallacy Arj! 2+2 always equals four. It can't simultaneously equal 4 and 5 because people have different opinions.  

Of course I assume my rational is probably correct. I support my positions on subjects because they're the most logical conclusions to make. If someone showed me how another position is more valid, then I would support that position.

Quote:
is highly illogical and very dumb.

You're just hurling more insults Arj. This is just another assertion Arj!

Quote:
And that is the mistake YOU and the rest of these atheists are making.

Another assertion.

Quote:
But I'm sure this point will be ignored.

Another assertion.

Quote:
LOL. There may be something there.

Okay.

Quote:
I'm seeing what a group of Atheists can come up and it's not pretty or logical.

Ad hominem. Insults.

Quote:
You could always visit a paranormal forum.

Want to link us to one?

Quote:
BB, it's not clicking with you.

Insult. Assertion.

Quote:
It's really not.

Repetition.

Quote:
You tell me to explain where your logic went wrong and I do and you just deny the claim.

No you didn't Arj. Where did you do that.

Quote:
If you can't own up to your mistakes then we can't get anywhere.

Begging the question. 

Quote:
You can't tell me what I was thinking ONLY I can tell you that.

Pointless. Sophomoric.

Quote:
And I did and you're still insisting it was the other way around.

More repetition.

Quote:
That's retarded.

Insult. Fallacy.

Quote:
You are addressing each statement one at a time then flasely proclaiming that my words are baseless assertions.

Non sequitur.

Quote:
Taking each statement out of context is a straw man technique

According to this logic, anytime someone quotes someone else, they're taking a statement out of context. You're like a fundamentalist Christian, just declaring that I've taken your stupid fairy tales out of context without actually explaining how I've done this. 

Quote:
and this post is filled with nothing but trivial nitpicking which is another logical fallacy.

"trivial nitpicking which is another logical fallacy." Non sequitur. You're trying to use my own arguments against me but you don't know what the hell you're saying.

Quote:
When you can handle a REAL debate and can respond with more substance then I will get back to you.

Fallacy. Plus, another cop-out.

Quote:
I am trying to tell you this.

No, you're not Arj! This is the fallacy you were just guilty of Arj. You don't know what non sequitur means Arj. Stop conducting doublethink and read your own fucking comments. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Arj ... you make me think of

Arj ... you make me think of St. Martin Luther. Do I make you think of anyone?


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Arj

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
I would think logic and reason would take into account subjectivity.

Subjectivity deals with the reliability of evidence, it doesn't change reality. 2+2=4 is not up for subjective interpretation.

Quote:
To assume your rational- in a world of 6 Billion- is all there is

This is another fallacy Arj! 2+2 always equals four. It can't simultaneously equal 4 and 5 because people have different opinions.  

Of course I assume my rational is probably correct. I support my positions on subjects because they're the most logical conclusions to make. If someone showed me how another position is more valid, then I would support that position.

Quote:
is highly illogical and very dumb.

You're just hurling more insults Arj. This is just another assertion Arj!

Quote:
And that is the mistake YOU and the rest of these atheists are making.

Another assertion.

Quote:
But I'm sure this point will be ignored.

Another assertion.

Quote:
LOL. There may be something there.

Okay.

Quote:
I'm seeing what a group of Atheists can come up and it's not pretty or logical.

Ad hominem. Insults.

Quote:
You could always visit a paranormal forum.

Want to link us to one?

Quote:
BB, it's not clicking with you.

Insult. Assertion.

Quote:
It's really not.

Repetition.

Quote:
You tell me to explain where your logic went wrong and I do and you just deny the claim.

No you didn't Arj. Where did you do that.

Quote:
If you can't own up to your mistakes then we can't get anywhere.

Begging the question. 

Quote:
You can't tell me what I was thinking ONLY I can tell you that.

Pointless. Sophomoric.

Quote:
And I did and you're still insisting it was the other way around.

More repetition.

Quote:
That's retarded.

Insult. Fallacy.

Quote:
You are addressing each statement one at a time then flasely proclaiming that my words are baseless assertions.

Non sequitur.

Quote:
Taking each statement out of context is a straw man technique

According to this logic, anytime someone quotes someone else, they're taking a statement out of context. You're like a fundamentalist Christian, just declaring that I've taken your stupid fairy tales out of context without actually explaining how I've done this. 

Quote:
and this post is filled with nothing but trivial nitpicking which is another logical fallacy.

"trivial nitpicking which is another logical fallacy." Non sequitur. You're trying to use my own arguments against me but you don't know what the hell you're saying.

Quote:
When you can handle a REAL debate and can respond with more substance then I will get back to you.

Fallacy. Plus, another cop-out.

Quote:
I am trying to tell you this.

No, you're not Arj! This is the fallacy you were just guilty of Arj. You don't know what non sequitur means Arj. Stop conducting doublethink and read your own fucking comments. 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive092003.html

Rivkah, what you describe is a familiar phenomenon, which Robert Gula discusses under the names "petty objection" or "nit-picking", and classifies as a type of red herring—that is, a diversionary tactic. I would agree that this is a type of irrelevancy, but would classify this more specifically as a version of the ad hominem argument. There are two cases involved:

  1. Rejecting an argument because of a minor error which does not affect its evidentiary value.

 

NIT-PICKING:

Instead of dealing with a comment or question directly, the idea here is to focus on some insignificant detail to evade the issue or buy time to think.

 

"We need to define just exactly what you mean by _________."

"Your last sentence ended with a preposition. Please restate it properly."

OUT OF CONTEXT:

A twisted version of NIT-PICKING, the technique here is to purposely misunderstand some word, phrase, or analogy and shift the focus to it instead of the subject. This ploy will derail the other person into a defense of the word, phrase, or analogy instead of the case at hand.

 

"You said 'feel' instead of 'think'. If you are feeling instead of thinking, I won't be able to convince you with reason."

"You said this happened five years before Hitler came to power. Why are you so fascinated with Hitler? Are you anti-Semitic?"

http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html

I've stopped responding to your shallow arguments. I find it funny that when you talk to Lum you use paragraphs but when it comes to me you respond in fragmented sentences commenting to each statement individually. I'm sure that's a ploy to take up space. I guess you find very little to dispute and are trying to make it appear as if you are really saying something. LOL. It's not working. Nothing you said is worth defending. Come up with something else BB. Provide more substance. Plus, common sense would tell you if it's nothing but a baseless assertion then there is no cause to react. I'm proving that now with your baseless assertions.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Arj

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Arj ... you make me think of St. Martin Luther. Do I make you think of anyone?

No. The only words that come to mind are hypocritical, close-minded, denial, ignorant, and prideful but no one in particular.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I caringly pity you Arj ...

I caringly pity you Arj ... do you pity me?  


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:I

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I caringly pity you Arj ... do you pity me?  

honestly, in a way (a very small way) yes. I've come to pity a lot of people in this forum. I sometimes do have fun at other people's expense too. It's just so funny to me that people take everything so seriously. It's just not that damn serious.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Arj. I'm sure we

Thanks Arj. I'm sure we would agree on many things. The "unnecessary" suffering in the world I do always take seriously ... and I do blame both tolorance and intolorance for this huge problem. I am a happy lucky guy who  also carries anger and embarrassment of my human race. Lucky Sad Me, god as you .....


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote:Blah blah

Arj wrote:
Blah blah blah

Okay, instead of admitting that you're wrong, you've decided to dig yourself a bigger hole. I've already destroyed every single one of your arguments and now your argument (or lack of one) is that I'm nitpicking.  

1) You haven't shown what I've misunderstood. 

2) You haven't shown how I'm nitpicking.

3) You haven't shown how I'm going off topic or what topics I've failed to cover.

I know what nit-picking means Arj. You're the one that needs to study a dictionary, not me. Start by defining atheism.

You're an arrogant, spoiled little brat and you need to stop pretending like you're smarter than all the scientists and philosophers on this forum. 

Quote:
I've stopped responding to your shallow arguments.

What the hell is this then? Am I just imagining that I'm responding to your comment?

Quote:
I find it funny that when you talk to Lum you use paragraphs but when it comes to me you respond in fragmented sentences commenting to each statement individually. I'm sure that's a ploy to take up space.

ROFLMAO. Yeah, that's funny isn't it, and your rationalization for that is that I'm trying to take up space? Hahaha, hilarious. You don't think it's more likely that it's because I respect Luminon's comments and actually see some intellectual merit in them? There's actually something to respond to; there's actually interesting points to take from his posts which the members of the forum can discuss. Although I disagree with some of his views, when I read his posts, I don't get distracted by an insult or a logical fallacy every other sentence.   

By the way, you've already stated that no one knows you except yourself. Yet, you've professed to personally understand every single atheist in the world, including me. Sounds like a ginormous mound of hypocrisy. 

Quote:
I guess you find very little to dispute

There is very little to dispute at this point except to point it out every time you commit an ad hominem in the hopes that you'll actually see the light.  

Quote:
and are trying to make it appear as if you are really saying something.

Oh, here's an ad hominem right here, with another pinch of hypocrisy.

Quote:
LOL. It's not working.

Stating it doesn't make it true Arj!

Quote:
Nothing you said is worth defending. Come up with something else BB. Provide more substance. Plus, common sense would tell you if it's nothing but a baseless assertion then there is no cause to react. I'm proving that now with your baseless assertions.

Wow, you've completely withdrawn. Jesus, nobody can discuss anything with you. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Lost for words .... ummm ?,

Lost for words .... ummm ?, aha ! ,  Thank You my fellow Atheists.


Arj
Posts: 313
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Arj

butterbattle wrote:

Arj wrote:
Blah blah blah

Okay, instead of admitting that you're wrong, you've decided to dig yourself a bigger hole. I've already destroyed every single one of your arguments and now your argument (or lack of one) is that I'm nitpicking.  

1) You haven't shown what I've misunderstood. 

2) You haven't shown how I'm nitpicking.

3) You haven't shown how I'm going off topic or what topics I've failed to cover.

I know what nit-picking means Arj. You're the one that needs to study a dictionary, not me. Start by defining atheism.

You're an arrogant, spoiled little brat and you need to stop pretending like you're smarter than all the scientists and philosophers on this forum. 

Quote:
I've stopped responding to your shallow arguments.

What the hell is this then? Am I just imagining that I'm responding to your comment?

Quote:
I find it funny that when you talk to Lum you use paragraphs but when it comes to me you respond in fragmented sentences commenting to each statement individually. I'm sure that's a ploy to take up space.

ROFLMAO. Yeah, that's funny isn't it, and your rationalization for that is that I'm trying to take up space? Hahaha, hilarious. You don't think it's more likely that it's because I respect Luminon's comments and actually see some intellectual merit in them? There's actually something to respond to; there's actually interesting points to take from his posts which the members of the forum can discuss. Although I disagree with some of his views, when I read his posts, I don't get distracted by an insult or a logical fallacy every other sentence.   

By the way, you've already stated that no one knows you except yourself. Yet, you've professed to personally understand every single atheist in the world, including me. Sounds like a ginormous mound of hypocrisy. 

Quote:
I guess you find very little to dispute

There is very little to dispute at this point except to point it out every time you commit an ad hominem in the hopes that you'll actually see the light.  

Quote:
and are trying to make it appear as if you are really saying something.

Oh, here's an ad hominem right here, with another pinch of hypocrisy.

Quote:
LOL. It's not working.

Stating it doesn't make it true Arj!

Quote:
Nothing you said is worth defending. Come up with something else BB. Provide more substance. Plus, common sense would tell you if it's nothing but a baseless assertion then there is no cause to react. I'm proving that now with your baseless assertions.

Wow, you've completely withdrawn. Jesus, nobody can discuss anything with you. 

 

LOL. Ok.

‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Arj wrote: honestly, in a

Arj wrote:
honestly, in a way (a very small way) yes. I've come to pity a lot of people in this forum. I sometimes do have fun at other people's expense too. It's just so funny to me that people take everything so seriously. It's just not that damn serious.

 

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN

The mods have numbered your days and they are at an end. We have weighed your posts and found them wanting.

Perhaps you're right that we take things too seriously. However, we have entertained your inanity long enough.

To all passive browsers (aka lurkers), the position of theist in militant ignorant agnostic disguise on the forums is now open and we welcome all applications.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Arj is gone?  GONE? 

Arj is gone?  GONE?  Finally!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I agree. She was getting

I agree. She was getting really annoying. BTW WTF does MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN mean?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I agree.

MattShizzle wrote:

I agree. She was getting really annoying. BTW WTF does MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN mean?

"numbered, numbered, weighed, divided" according to Daniel 5.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


arj1981 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Arj wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

Arj wrote:
honestly, in a way (a very small way) yes. I've come to pity a lot of people in this forum. I sometimes do have fun at other people's expense too. It's just so funny to me that people take everything so seriously. It's just not that damn serious.

 

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN

The mods have numbered your days and they are at an end. We have weighed your posts and found them wanting.

Perhaps you're right that we take things too seriously. However, we have entertained your inanity long enough.

To all passive browsers (aka lurkers), the position of theist in militant ignorant agnostic disguise on the forums is now open and we welcome all applications.

Right, right right. I'm so sure this was an impartial decision. NOT!!! This was nothing but a battle of wits and you atheists are sore losers. BB's antics, alone, did not rise above a 6th grade level (of course, no one called him on that) and I can confidently say that that goes for the rest of the RRS crew (except for DG) as well. You all show your ass and end up eating your own shit. That's funny to me. Oh well, it was funny while it lasted.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
arj1981 wrote:darth_josh

arj1981 wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

Arj wrote:
honestly, in a way (a very small way) yes. I've come to pity a lot of people in this forum. I sometimes do have fun at other people's expense too. It's just so funny to me that people take everything so seriously. It's just not that damn serious.

 

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN

The mods have numbered your days and they are at an end. We have weighed your posts and found them wanting.

Perhaps you're right that we take things too seriously. However, we have entertained your inanity long enough.

To all passive browsers (aka lurkers), the position of theist in militant ignorant agnostic disguise on the forums is now open and we welcome all applications.

Right, right right. I'm so sure this was an impartial decision. NOT!!! This was nothing but a battle of wits and you atheists are sore losers. BB's antics, alone, did not rise above a 6th grade level (of course, no one called him on that) and I can confidently say that that goes for the rest of the RRS crew (except for DG) as well. You all show your ass and end up eating your own shit. That's funny to me. Oh well, it was funny while it lasted.

It certainly was a battle of wits. It was a damned shame you came unarmed.

This additonal bleating serves no purpose except for your saying "I tried to dazzle them with my use of logical fallacies and bullshit and those dirty atheiss saw right through my disguise of being a freethinker."

Pick up your ass and go home, kthnxbye.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Right, right right.

Quote:
Right, right right. I'm so sure this was an impartial decision. NOT!!!

You might have another username now, but spewing an assertion still doesn't make it true.

Quote:
This was nothing but a battle of wits and you atheists are sore losers.

Cry me a river.

Quote:
BB's antics, alone, did not rise above a 6th grade level (of course, no one called him on that)

It must be because they're my homies. 

Quote:
and I can confidently say that that goes for the rest of the RRS crew (except for DG) as well.

DG? You mean the guy that you called a delusional dumbass?

Quote:
You all show your ass and end up eating your own shit.

Why that's not very pleasant or productive.

Quote:
That's funny to me. Oh well, it was funny while it lasted.

Glad you had fun.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Arj said , "This was nothing

Arj said , "This was nothing but a battle of wits and you atheists are sore losers." ~~~

 You amaze and sadden me. You are OBVIOUSLY not content in your beliefs, and yet you claim victory, because no one can prove a tea pot isn't orbiting mars. ???? Fucking silly you are.

 To be the atheist I am, is not an internal personal battle. It is a calm opinion from both evidence and lack of evidence regarding the un-testable assertions of theists, and folks like you. I would be happy to know there was a caring sky daddy, of simple rules to get to a next place of a more perfect joy, or that it is just there for all, an after life.

 You can call me retarded, closed minded, or whatever, but in my honesty and limited knowledge I have no faith nor belief in your self proclaimed knowledge you claim, and especially as you refuse to debate, and you laugh at evidence. That's fucked up IMHO.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” - Richard Dawkins

 "The most they [ as you Arj ] will claim is that there is no evidence against, ... which is pathetically weak. There is no evidence against all sorts of things, but we don't waste our time believing in them.” - Richard Dawkins

“I'm not sure this conversation can go any further.” - Richard Dawkins

 

 

  


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Great response fro IAM!

Great response fro IAM!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks brave Matt. I've

Thanks brave Matt. I've always been of fan of your provocative bluntly honest posts.  Yeah, them complimentary girls drive me rather wild too !!! Writing to shock is a great way to communicate. Wake up the sheeple neighbors I like to say .