[quote]siouxperman wrote:
“My head is full of fuck!”
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
You condescend yourself with the stupid bullshit that you say.
[/quote]
Ha hahaha!
Perfect!
[/quote]
[/quote]
I guess you think you are pro-ascending yourself?
Ha ha ha.[/quote]
Nice
In retrospectively I was making an ascent at hilariousity of speech. (note, I used the English to Deorum function of Google translate to craft this)[/quote]
Is this really as far as your understanding of our language goes? This is pathetic.
Condescend - to stoop or deign to do something
You stoop below even your own standard of intelligence with the stupid shit you are saying…
And you refuse to stop doing so…
“pro-ascending” - did you really make up a fucking word and compare it to what I said? Holy fuck you are beyond retarded. And the entire time you are saying this retarded shit you actually think you have gotten me this time. You actually think this time you will show your superior intelligence through criticizing a sentence which you did not comprehend. Then you further embarrass yourself by not letting it go… You have further condescended yourself with that bullshit. Maybe this time you will be able to understand that oh-so-obtuse sentence?
[/quote]
You know, it’s pretty rare that I really get a good, sincere laugh here at PWI.
But this, THIS is genuinely funny!
You are either a fairly skilled troll, or one truly dumbass (yet arrogant) motherfucker.
Just in case it’s the latter, I’ll allow for some sympathy for you, and give you hint: Does your dictionary also give sample sentences as to the usage of “condescend?”
Or in words (only) you will understand: Your using of this verb contraindication to grammarian stricture.[/quote]
You do not stop showing off your retardation…
I gave you a fucking link of where to argue this. And they DO give examples of usage and the ones in agreement with my usage happen to be from ivy league papers… You fucking retard. Take this bullshit to the proper forum and keep it out of my thread. By the way, which one of us here are functioning as the troll? The one trying desperately to keep a class full of kids who forgot their adderol focused on topic, or the one bitching about grammar and “proper” word usage?[/quote]
From YOUR above link:
Hoa Thai, I don’t think I’ve ever heard condescend used reflexively; you can lower yourself, but I’m not sure you can condescend yourself.
Next time you might want to avoid quoting a Vietnamese person on English grammar?
Ha hah ha ha!
[/quote]
“If you cannot “condescend” yourself to respectfully discuss such issues with people of different viewpoints, then I can’t take you seriously.” Harvard Pro-Sex and Anti-Sex Crusaders Make Us Want to Ignore Them, Have Sex (IvyLeague)
OH JESUS IF THE IRONY IN THESE QUOTES WERE ANY MORE APPARENT IT WOULD SLAP YOU OVER THE FUCKING HEAD! YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY EVEN TAKE YOURSELF SERIOUS CAN YOU?!?
Let me ask you, if your god loves you so much why did he make you in the exact image of a fucking retard? That is not the loving thing to do is it?[/quote]
There’s a reason why the word is in quotes, Bozo. See if you can figure it out.
You’re starting to bore me. Your only true redeeming value is to remind us all just how arrogant – yet blindingly stupid – a 19 year old boy can be. I guess the most adult response is to feel bad for you, and leave you alone…
And so, with that, I hereby, and officially, condescend you into oblivion! Goodbye, Wonder Boy! He he he.
PS: I don’t beleive in God. I just can’t stand pretentious children.[/quote]
Yes its in fucking quotes because it is not really condescending to “respectfully discuss such issues with people of different viewpoints” that is just how [you] would take such a thought. The quotes are for fucking irony. AGAIN you shoot and fucking miss and stumble over a huge fucking pile of irony. Please just keep your fucking mouth shut, every last fucking word you utter builds a case for your being absolutely retarded.
By the fucking way, I did not get arrogant with you until you gave me reason to - ie acting like a total fucking retard. Now I am condescending you, you little fucking retard.
This is for you ZEB. The following is our exchange and I’ve gone thru the last few pages and you’re quite silly. You’ve practically misrepresented everything I wrote - perhaps knowing that most people are too lazy to go back and read it all. But here is the relevant exchange about God’s communication:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
I have not agreed that one religion could be right.
This is what you wrote:
If they aren’t all right, then by default, all are wrong except one
And your back peddling notwithstanding, I agree with that statement.
I find it incredulous that the alleged Almighty (as he has been described) has not stayed in contact with us and/or left behind a clearer record not subject to any dispute (certainly possible for the “Almighty” as He has been described.
It is your assumption that a clearer better way is available to God. But, as I said to you in one of our earlier posts God (the Father) spoke to his people directly. Did it help? They still sinned and turned away in droves.
“It is your assumption that a clearer better way is available to God”.
Hmmm.
Okay, let’s apply the logic and grammar that you appear to rely on in your effort to avoid openly discussing ideas. You used the word “available”. Now, that’s pretty damn curious. Because by stating “available”, by default you’re are implying that there are means of communication “unavailable” to God. Your doctrine claims that your god is eternal, all powerful, all everything - yet there might be a means of communication “unavailable” to God? This was your reply in response to my statement that I was incredulous that God has stopped communicating with us or failed to leave behind a clearer, indisputable record.
Using the principles of logic, we can conclude from your statement that when God allegedly did communicate with man, that to do so by personal revelation was the only means available to the almighty. And, that direct communication is no longer an option for God. Is that about right ZEB?? Hmmm?
Oh do tell ZEB, please explain this some more. I am anxiously awaiting your attempt worm yourself from underneath this one. And yes, I do have time. I will continue to go back and cut and paste where you depart from my original point, while not addressing the point.
I’m done here in this thread. Call it a revelation if you will; I no longer see it fit to bestow my philosophies among the ingrate, self-willingly weak-minded. The meek can keep their Christianity, in fact, I would not have it any other way. That is my conclusion.
Please tell us, before you go, how you aquired such a vast intelligence at age 19. What books did you read? What schools did you attend? What life lessons have you had to expand your mind in such a way that you are virtously the next step in mental evolution?
Did you expand your mind naturally or use any drugs?
We can always rely on your to add something intelligent to the dialogue. Maybe YOU should be moved to GAL where in living color vids are appropriate. [/quote]
I know that I hurt your wittle feelings in the last thread, and I expect you to lash out in the sad, troglodytic way you do. That’s fine. What is particularly pathetic, though, aside from your curiously appropriate avatar, is the fact that your addled brain is too underdeveloped to discern a “dialogue” from a troll-job.
There is nothing intelligent to be added here, guy. The fact that you come down on the side of the troll, though, makes the thread even more amusing. The In Living Color skit is as much about you as it is the OP. But I guess you could feel that, hence your defensiveness.
[/quote]
Feels like you have this weird stalking thing for me to be honest. And what “man” calls another man a troglodyte? Pull down your skirt and stop showing your pussy lil man. [/quote]
You’re right. How thoughtless of me. That was an insult to troglodytes everywhere.
And you might want to drop the creepy sexual fantasies about me, guy. You lifted that stalking line from me when I called you out for weirdly following Pat around T-Nation. Even a caveman would have been more original.
Now, on to the whiny last word you always insist upon having. Go on, have at it.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
“My head is full of fuck!”
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
You condescend yourself with the stupid bullshit that you say.
[/quote]
Ha hahaha!
Perfect!
[/quote]
[/quote]
I guess you think you are pro-ascending yourself?
Ha ha ha.[/quote]
Nice
In retrospectively I was making an ascent at hilariousity of speech. (note, I used the English to Deorum function of Google translate to craft this)[/quote]
Is this really as far as your understanding of our language goes? This is pathetic.
Condescend - to stoop or deign to do something
You stoop below even your own standard of intelligence with the stupid shit you are saying…
And you refuse to stop doing so…
“pro-ascending” - did you really make up a fucking word and compare it to what I said? Holy fuck you are beyond retarded. And the entire time you are saying this retarded shit you actually think you have gotten me this time. You actually think this time you will show your superior intelligence through criticizing a sentence which you did not comprehend. Then you further embarrass yourself by not letting it go… You have further condescended yourself with that bullshit. Maybe this time you will be able to understand that oh-so-obtuse sentence?
And no matter how many times I make you the child to my teacher you REFUSE to stop arguing semantics… Maybe if you stopped being a passive aggressive boy arguing over the irrelevant and actually attacked the topics under debate you would be less of a target for my “expose the weak minded for who they are” rants. And if I didn’t make you my example for the weak mind and its manifestations, then I’m quite sure you wouldn’t be hanging from my dick quite as much. Stick to topic kid, your trying to berate me is never going to garner you any victories.
It certainly is fun to make up arguments. Like the one where I criticized your size. Cool, you weigh more than I do. And cool if you lift more too. Also cool how you used the “you believe in religion, you’ll believe anything” line when I’m not religious. I’ve been on the opposite side of Deorum this whole time not because I’m religious but because he’s an idiot. I’ve “sided” with the religious folks because they can type complete sentences and I’m fairly certain that they’re intelligent people who just happen to have a different outlook on life than I do: and they aren’t attacking me for it. I asked a sincere question of Zeb and Brotherchris and got sincere answers. That’s a worthwhile dialogue, regardless of whether or not I believe what they do. I’ll sure as hell disagree with them about a lot of other things (politics for one) but I can also take a step back to try and see things from their point of view and get a little perspective.
[/quote]
Oh, I get it now, so you didn’t just merely reply to my statement about your ad hominems, you didn’t take a personal swipe at me either? I must be seeing things. I didn’t realize I made up “this argument”. I also don’t recall using “you believe in religion you’ll believe in anything”. But don’t let that stop you, you’re not quite on a roll yet. And what I did to you was not an “attack”. It was a counterpunch. Learn the difference. [/quote]
Here’s the reply to the ad hominems. It’s not an ad hominem if his inability to coherently express his thoughts precludes him from making any relevant statement. Lrn 2 argument. Who said I never took a swipe at you? What I didn’t do was say anything about your physique, you just acted like I did cause it made you feel like a big man to criticize me for it. Therefore, you made up arguments in your “counterpunches” (with all that hubris I’m sure you probably fancy yourself a boxer, but your punches really do need some work). You really don’t remember saying “If you can believe in the fairy tales of religion, I guess you can also believe you’re hyooooge”? Weird. You also seem to keep referencing a point in time where I said I was hyoge or something, which I don’t particularly remember doing. You also didn’t get the sarcasm of the use of “brah” in reference to myspace. Also, speaking of hubris, you stated you need no more size. So you’ve hit the pinnacle? You’re the best of the best and have no further aspirations? What the hell are you doing on this site then? You’re set. Get out there and live the hyooooge life.[/quote]
I’m 46 lil guy. I am bigger than you will ever be (unless you respond to and start taking higher doses of drugs) and I have been stronger than you will ever be. Weightlifting doesn’t pay my bills and any attempt to get “hyooger” would only be a detriment to my health. Never had a myspace brah so I don’t get your references. I’m not a boxer, but I’ve been known to fight. Want to go a round? You near NJ?[/quote]
I figured it was only a matter of time til you actually challenged someone to a fight.
It occurred to me that you’re a pathetic little man to sit there and needle dick everything I write instead of just taking a counter point and expressing an idea. Don’t discuss the ideas, attack the man. You’re not winning any converts here and for all your cleverness, I don’t see a groundswell of support for your nonsense beyond the usual troll from Japan.[/quote]
But you’re the man of logic who is able to prove Christianity wrong. How could any of this bother you in the least? You are above it all right? A logic titan. A pillar of the agnostic community. No? I guess not.
But if you were able you’d be only too happy to do so.
Actually I do remember one of your earlier posts on this thread you wrote something on the order of Christians causing war and equated them to terrorists. That’s when you were still on the Christians are war mongers theme. That is before I proved to you that non-Christians have created more wars than Christians. Remember running from that point? The rest of us do.
So now you’re resorting to lies? It is difficult to defend your poorly written posts isn’t it?
I’ve actually tried to be kind to you. If you cannot properly put forth your point, with words, then how do you intend to communicate your ideas? And moreover how do you intend to take down an entire religion? And why is it that it seems the weakest of your group are always the most vocal? Those like you, who really have nothing to say scream it from the roof tops. And then when they’re rebutted instead of walking away with just a tiny bit of grace they come roaring back with more nonsense. Yes, you’re doing such a great job, pat yourself on the back no one else is going to.
Yes, you promised to make good with that particular threat in your prior post, and surprise here you are saying again. Yet, for some reason none of my words are pasted here with a date and time claiming that I said God (the father) Couldn’t speak to people directly any longer.
I think I know your problem. You have made a number of logical fallacies in various forms. But you didn’t do it to be irritating, you did so because you are not a smart person. And in place of intelligence you use bluster. And as I said previously that bluster works well in other parts of the forum but here it seems that you are being rebuffed for your efforts. How does that feel? Think about it is this the person you want to be? A pseudo Internet tough guy? Really? Shall I dumb down my responses to you from this point on? Shall I speak to you as the child that you appear to be?
Think back now who brought up the topic? Yes, it was YOU. Now ask yourself why you brought up such a topic. Why would a non-Christian, like YOU mention that Christians are responsible for war, pain and even terrorism? Do you know the answer? It’s because you were trying to attack and demean Christianity. And do you know why that tactic didn’t work? It didn’t work because it isn’t true. As Winston Churchill once said “Truth is the best defense.” You couldn’t get beyond the truth so what do we have here? One more straw man attack, nice. When did I say that atrocities are not bad? Please cut and paste this for me if you are going to respond. That makes two you have to back up, I’ll keep track for you.
1-You are going to cut and paste where I said God (the father) couldn’t talk directly to man once he stopped doing so according to the OT.
2-You can now find in my words where I said that “other people engaged in atrocities so we (Christians) are not bad.”
I’ll be watching for the cut and paste to these two accusations. Keeping in mind that you’ve already threatened twice now regarding #1.
Are we? Who laid down those rules you? You cannot even be trusted to put together a cogent argument without pursuing the many logical fallacies that you have. Now you want to dictate the subject matter? In the course of discussion about any one topic many other topics are usually raised. This is the normal course of any debate. Is this too much for you (and it appears to be) to follow? Poor boy.
You are not even open to using sound logic in your half-witted attempt at debate. And God only knows what type of thoughts rule your life, but I have a good idea after the many exchanges that we’ve had.
If you think this is badgering I suggest we go no further. I will continue to insist that you actually make sense. Tough on you I know.
Many, many times and I will tell you in all honesty that you are without a doubt the weakest.
Really? equating Christianity to terrorism is not confrontational? Buffoon.
Yet, you keep responding. Please don’t add liar to your other drawbacks.
But what about this great debate that you want to have about Christianity?
I’ve told you and retold you, I just want you to make sense. And no I don’t “know what you mean” unless you actually put the facts across clearly in a logical manner. I think you’ve done that twice in all the posts that we’ve had.
And you still can’t keep up!
One must make sense before they are taken seriously.
Is that what you think this is all about? You are dim indeed. I never once said anything about defending Christianity. Would you like to add that to your cut and paste threat list? It could be number three. If you paid attention you would know that in the very beginning I clearly stated that faith is faith and science is science. I further stated that it is impossible to please God without faith. I won’t repeat the rest of that particular paragraph but there was more. You are dense. Christianity needs no defense against the likes of you. Someone who uses logical fallacies as a mainstay. Now you’re just trying to make me laugh aren’t you?
Now you better get going it seems that others have noticed that you are not keeping up and want a part of you as well.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey…I just realized, you are the one stalking me, if anything. I never said word one to you in this thread until you opened your drooping yap at me. [/quote]
It certainly is fun to make up arguments. Like the one where I criticized your size. Cool, you weigh more than I do. And cool if you lift more too. Also cool how you used the “you believe in religion, you’ll believe anything” line when I’m not religious. I’ve been on the opposite side of Deorum this whole time not because I’m religious but because he’s an idiot. I’ve “sided” with the religious folks because they can type complete sentences and I’m fairly certain that they’re intelligent people who just happen to have a different outlook on life than I do: and they aren’t attacking me for it. I asked a sincere question of Zeb and Brotherchris and got sincere answers. That’s a worthwhile dialogue, regardless of whether or not I believe what they do. I’ll sure as hell disagree with them about a lot of other things (politics for one) but I can also take a step back to try and see things from their point of view and get a little perspective.
[/quote]
Oh, I get it now, so you didn’t just merely reply to my statement about your ad hominems, you didn’t take a personal swipe at me either? I must be seeing things. I didn’t realize I made up “this argument”. I also don’t recall using “you believe in religion you’ll believe in anything”. But don’t let that stop you, you’re not quite on a roll yet. And what I did to you was not an “attack”. It was a counterpunch. Learn the difference. [/quote]
Here’s the reply to the ad hominems. It’s not an ad hominem if his inability to coherently express his thoughts precludes him from making any relevant statement. Lrn 2 argument. Who said I never took a swipe at you? What I didn’t do was say anything about your physique, you just acted like I did cause it made you feel like a big man to criticize me for it. Therefore, you made up arguments in your “counterpunches” (with all that hubris I’m sure you probably fancy yourself a boxer, but your punches really do need some work). You really don’t remember saying “If you can believe in the fairy tales of religion, I guess you can also believe you’re hyooooge”? Weird. You also seem to keep referencing a point in time where I said I was hyoge or something, which I don’t particularly remember doing. You also didn’t get the sarcasm of the use of “brah” in reference to myspace. Also, speaking of hubris, you stated you need no more size. So you’ve hit the pinnacle? You’re the best of the best and have no further aspirations? What the hell are you doing on this site then? You’re set. Get out there and live the hyooooge life.[/quote]
I’m 46 lil guy. I am bigger than you will ever be (unless you respond to and start taking higher doses of drugs) and I have been stronger than you will ever be. Weightlifting doesn’t pay my bills and any attempt to get “hyooger” would only be a detriment to my health. Never had a myspace brah so I don’t get your references. I’m not a boxer, but I’ve been known to fight. Want to go a round? You near NJ?[/quote]
I figured it was only a matter of time til you actually challenged someone to a fight.
[/quote]
As I’ve said to this genius, when you peel away the bluster there is nothing there but an Internet tough guy. I’ll thank him directly for proving my point the next time he spills more of his blather in my direction.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
This is for you ZEB. The following is our exchange and I’ve gone thru the last few pages and you’re quite silly. You’ve practically misrepresented everything I wrote - perhaps knowing that most people are too lazy to go back and read it all. But here is the relevant exchange about God’s communication:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
I have not agreed that one religion could be right.
This is what you wrote:
If they aren’t all right, then by default, all are wrong except one
And your back peddling notwithstanding, I agree with that statement.
I find it incredulous that the alleged Almighty (as he has been described) has not stayed in contact with us and/or left behind a clearer record not subject to any dispute (certainly possible for the “Almighty” as He has been described.
It is your assumption that a clearer better way is available to God. But, as I said to you in one of our earlier posts God (the Father) spoke to his people directly. Did it help? They still sinned and turned away in droves.
“It is your assumption that a clearer better way is available to God”.
Hmmm.
Okay, let’s apply the logic and grammar that you appear to rely on in your effort to avoid openly discussing ideas. You used the word “available”. Now, that’s pretty damn curious. Because by stating “available”, by default you’re are implying that there are means of communication “unavailable” to God. Your doctrine claims that your god is eternal, all powerful, all everything - yet there might be a means of communication “unavailable” to God? This was your reply in response to my statement that I was incredulous that God has stopped communicating with us or failed to leave behind a clearer, indisputable record.
Using the principles of logic, we can conclude from your statement that when God allegedly did communicate with man, that to do so by personal revelation was the only means available to the almighty. And, that direct communication is no longer an option for God. Is that about right ZEB?? Hmmm?
Oh do tell ZEB, please explain this some more. I am anxiously awaiting your attempt worm yourself from underneath this one. And yes, I do have time. I will continue to go back and cut and paste where you depart from my original point, while not addressing the point.
Fetch boy. Now let’s watch real backpedaling. [/quote]
Well ZEBster…I quoted you like I asked and I don’t see a reply to this, but I see another endless quote quote reply with you arguing semantics again and full of personal attacks. Hmmm, internet tough guy? Who’s been reduced to personal attacks? When are you going to respond to your QUOTE above?
It occurred to me that you’re a pathetic little man to sit there and needle dick everything I write instead of just taking a counter point and expressing an idea. Don’t discuss the ideas, attack the man. You’re not winning any converts here and for all your cleverness, I don’t see a groundswell of support for your nonsense beyond the usual troll from Japan.[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But you’re the man of logic who is able to prove Christianity wrong. How could any of this bother you in the least? You are above it all right? A logic titan. A pillar of the agnostic community. No? I guess not.
[/quote]
Strawman Mr. Scarecrow. Never once uttered or stated I would “prove Christianity wrong”. Said I didn’t believe. You have your faith, I have my skepticism. It’s pretty cool that I’ve reduced you to lies, misrepresentations and the tireless task of quote and quoting to build strawmen. Weak. Like I said, cut and paste, or STFU.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But if you were able you’d be only too happy to do so.
[/quote]
Oh, I’m doing it now, and I’ll do it for as long as you do.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Actually I do remember one of your earlier posts on this thread you wrote something on the order of Christians causing war and equated them to terrorists. That’s when you were still on the Christians are war mongers theme. That is before I proved to you that non-Christians have created more wars than Christians. Remember running from that point? The rest of us do.
[/quote]
Strawman, er, I mean Mr. SCARECROW. Stating a historical fact does not equal an “attack”. Murder, persecution, censorship, et als are indeed forms of terrorism. Did you offer a rebuttal that your religion did not engage in such practices. No, you did not. Instead, you attempted to engage in the weak minded moral relativism to defend your religion. Is the best you could offer a reply that stated “well other religions or groups killed more”? Weak indeed MR. SCARECROW. Your bible says we can judge a tree by its fruit. As far as I’m aware, your bible does not say we judge a tree by comparing it to other trees. Is that how you determine if you’re a “good” Christian or not? By comparing yourself to someone not as “good” as you? I will be awaiting your reply to that question, along with a reply to God’s limited ability to communicate, which I took the trouble of CUTTING AND PASTING for you. I’m pretty sure none of this is “running”.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
So now you’re resorting to lies? It is difficult to defend your poorly written posts isn’t it?
[/quote]
Where is the lie? Are you not attacking me? Your rebuttals ended pages ago. I’ve reduced you to personal attacks - not much better than a veiled invitation to “go a round”. Is it so difficult for you to make a rebuttal that does not include a lie or clever attack?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve actually tried to be kind to you. If you cannot properly put forth your point, with words, then how do you intend to communicate your ideas? And moreover how do you intend to take down an entire religion? And why is it that it seems the weakest of your group are always the most vocal? Those like you, who really have nothing to say scream it from the roof tops. And then when they’re rebutted instead of walking away with just a tiny bit of grace they come roaring back with more nonsense. Yes, you’re doing such a great job, pat yourself on the back no one else is going to.
[/quote]
You flatter yourself. Who cares if you’re “kind” to me? If you cannot properly offer a rebuttal without a personal attack or an argument about semantics, then how to you intend to defend your position? And moreover, how do you intend to represent christianity with some grace to the non-believers among us? Surely, at your rate, a bomb on the next flight I’m on can’t be too far behind can it? Or, maybe you and your church members could storm my home and burn the books you don’t agree with? And why s it that it seems people from your group are always the most vocal? Who goes on a line by line jihad to not make a point, but to make a personal attack? Those like you, who really have nothing to say (you stopped expressing any idea pages ago) scream it from the roof tops, and make personal attacks. And when you’re rebutted, instead of using the grace allegedly taught to you by Christ, you come roaring back with more personal attacks. Yes, you’re doing a splendid job. So, in all the above you posted, exactly where did you make a POINT?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, you promised to make good with that particular threat in your prior post, and surprise here you are saying again. Yet, for some reason none of my words are pasted here with a date and time claiming that I said God (the father) Couldn’t speak to people directly any longer.
[/quote]
I DID quote it. Now go back and actually make a reply that does not include a personal attack. DEFEND your position. I used the same logic and nit picking of semantics you and others have employed. Live with your standards of debate and go reply to your quote.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think I know your problem. You have made a number of logical fallacies in various forms. But you didn’t do it to be irritating, you did so because you are not a smart person. And in place of intelligence you use bluster. And as I said previously that bluster works well in other parts of the forum but here it seems that you are being rebuffed for your efforts. How does that feel? Think about it is this the person you want to be? A pseudo Internet tough guy? Really? Shall I dumb down my responses to you from this point on? Shall I speak to you as the child that you appear to be?
[/quote]
I think I know your problem. You have made a number of fallacious statements, including personal attacks, in various forms. You know that religion cannot logically be defended (hence the personal attacks) because it’s a matter of “faith”. You fancy yourself a “smart person” while you avoid the topic and instead resort to personal attacks. Smart people do this all the time (sarcasm). This type of behavior normally occurs in PWI and you dwell here. You don’t like your beliefs challenged and you have been thru this many times before with the “likes of me”, but you’re with clean hands, always right, because you have “faith”. How does this feel? Think about this as a christian. Is this the christian you want to be? An internet preacher that cannot manage 3 pages without being reduced to a personal attack? Shall you commence with actually making intellectual responses, or shall I dumb it down to your level by making it personal?
See how that works? Let me know when you have an idea or fact that can be discussed. You have now wasted two entire paragraphs of your “rebuttal” on some personal attack. I get it. We don’t like each other. Are you going to continue to do this for another 5 pages? Christian?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Think back now who brought up the topic? Yes, it was YOU. Now ask yourself why you brought up such a topic. Why would a non-Christian, like YOU mention that Christians are responsible for war, pain and even terrorism? Do you know the answer? It’s because you were trying to attack and demean Christianity. And do you know why that tactic didn’t work? It didn’t work because it isn’t true. As Winston Churchill once said “Truth is the best defense.” You couldn’t get beyond the truth so what do we have here? One more straw man attack, nice. When did I say that atrocities are not bad? Please cut and paste this for me if you are going to respond. That makes two you have to back up, I’ll keep track for you.
[/quote]
I know why I brought up the topic; to judge the tree by its fruit. To judge all religion that has engaged in such acts. To illustrate these are not the fruits of love or God. I didn’t “attack” Christianity. How can stating a historical FACT be an attack? If it was not a fact, why didn’t you rebut it instead of building strawmen out of it? Why did you attempt to DEFEND it by comparing a tree to another tree and saying, well this tree isn’t as bad as the other. Is not the fruit spoiled? It didn’t work because it wasn’t true?! What wasn’t true? I have reduced you to a rambling, babbling, quote needle dicker who cannot even manage an intelligent reply anymore. What wasn’t true???!!! And, you didn’t outright state “atrocities” aren’t bad (nice strawman), you raised the issue that other religions or groups have acted worse than Christians. You did exactly what I stated you did; compare one tree to another, while avoided it’s sour rotten fruit. Wake me up when you are ready to defend your Church’s history. Or, you can just ignore the indefensible. Or, maybe, well, likely, you will continue with personal attacks to obfuscate any discussion about your religion.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
1-You are going to cut and paste where I said God (the father) couldn’t talk directly to man once he stopped doing so according to the OT.
[/quote]
I did. Reply to your own words.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
2-You can now find in my words where I said that “other people engaged in atrocities so we (Christians) are not bad.”
[/quote]
I paraphrased. You absolutely said something to that affect. You stated in so many words that other groups have committed more and greater atrocities. That’s exactly what you said and I’ll be happy to go back and cut and paste THAT TOO if you’d like.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll be watching for the cut and paste to these two accusations. Keeping in mind that you’ve already threatened twice now regarding #1.
I did the one. You really want to look like an ass twice?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Are we? Who laid down those rules you? You cannot even be trusted to put together a cogent argument without pursuing the many logical fallacies that you have. Now you want to dictate the subject matter? In the course of discussion about any one topic many other topics are usually raised. This is the normal course of any debate. Is this too much for you (and it appears to be) to follow? Poor boy.
quote]
Are you actually debating? Is that what your last replies have been? That’s pretty curious. I thought it was a mind numbing strawman and personal attack. Hmm, wait. Yes. I read your reply again, and I don’t see anything but personal attacks. I guess that’s what you do when you cannot defend statements about God’s limited communication abilities because that’s about the time you stopped having any serious discussion. Nice work.
[quote]ZEB wrote:You are not even open to using sound logic in your half-witted attempt at debate. And God only knows what type of thoughts rule your life, but I have a good idea after the many exchanges that we’ve had.
[/quote]
And you are open to personal attacks, lies and misrepresentations to defend that tree of yours that bears only sweet fruit. Tastes pretty sour to me, and I see a little worm wriggling from a rotten spot. Do you see the worm in the mirror?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If you think this is badgering I suggest we go no further. I will continue to insist that you actually make sense. Tough on you I know.
[/quote]
We can do this until the thread closes and start another one. I will continue to point out the personal attacks and insist you actually reply with a cogent thought that does not include an attack on me. Tough on you I know. Also easy to attack someone from the internet. Would that make you an “internet tough guy”? Or just an intellectual coward?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Many, many times and I will tell you in all honesty that you are without a doubt the weakest.
[/quote]
Given that you’ve been entirely reduced to personal attacks, I doubt that. The only thing weak in this argument is your character.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Really? equating Christianity to terrorism is not confrontational? Buffoon.
[/quote]
I stated a historical FACT. So facts are out of bounds now? Buffoon.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yet, you keep responding. Please don’t add liar to your other drawbacks.
[/quote]
Yet, you keep responding. Stop being a liar and engage in a discussion like a grown up. Please don’t continue to fail your beliefs and the lessons of Christ by having your “faith” reduced to personal attacks. Did they give that sermon last Sunday?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But what about this great debate that you want to have about Christianity?
[/quote]
Frankly, I don’t care to debate about “christianity”. That was not the OP at all. I will however give my opinions on religion. That we happened to state a historical fact about yours has seemed to cause you to come unraveled. Why don’t you take a break and recompose yourself. Perhaps read some scripture and come back a better man and represent your beliefs in a better manner?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve told you and retold you, I just want you to make sense. And no I don’t “know what you mean” unless you actually put the facts across clearly in a logical manner. I think you’ve done that twice in all the posts that we’ve had.
[/quote]
I’ve told you and retold you, I just want you to respond to the topic.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And you still can’t keep up!
[/quote]
I’ve reduced you to entire posts filled with nothing more than strawmen and personal attacks. Is that what you call keeping up? Oh, you’re so clever. I can imagine it now, Christ making converts with ridicule and personal attacks, instead of law and wisdom. You’ve got dogma down, but apparently no wisdom to share.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
One must make sense before they are taken seriously.
[/quote]
Make sense? You mean like your statement about God’s ability to communicate? That happens to be just about the time you stopped offering a reply that contained anything other than a personal attack. You think anyone here, other than those that share your religious views, are taking YOU seriously?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Is that what you think this is all about? You are dim indeed. I never once said anything about defending Christianity. Would you like to add that to your cut and paste threat list? It could be number three. If you paid attention you would know that in the very beginning I clearly stated that faith is faith and science is science. I further stated that it is impossible to please God without faith. I won’t repeat the rest of that particular paragraph but there was more. You are dense. Christianity needs no defense against the likes of you. Someone who uses logical fallacies as a mainstay. Now you’re just trying to make me laugh aren’t you?
[/quote]
Oh, I thought this was a discussion about the OP. I didn’t know it was a thread to personally attack each other. Why didn’t you tell me? I would have asked for a picture of you and some personal information about you to form my attack. I guess you’re right, you haven’t been “defending christianity”. That would require an earnest reply to some posts on this thread. You have been attacking me. And, if I entirely used “logical fallacies” (instead of perhaps awkward analogies), why didn’t you simply rebut them? I’ll tell you why. Because you know they weren’t “logical fallacies” because I drew no conclusions from them. They were thoughts and perhaps bad analogies but apparently they touched enough of a nerve to reduce you to a pitiful shadow of a man ranting and raving from the internet. The “likes of me”? Indeed, I say the “likes of you”. The hypocrites in the Church.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Now you better get going it seems that others have noticed that you are not keeping up and want a part of you as well.
[/quote]
I think I’ll stick around a while. Let me illustrate how pathetic you are. I can see the future. You will be typing another personal attack, building more strawmen, but you will NOT get back on OP. You sir, are an intellectual giant. You sir, are a pillar of christianity, following in Christ’s footsteps, sharing your wisdom and knowledge of the law of your god. Thank you.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey…I just realized, you are the one stalking me, if anything. I never said word one to you in this thread until you opened your drooping yap at me. [/quote]
Really? So, this was your thread? You were having a serious discussion? You made a serious point? Oh no, that’s right you didn’t. You posted a clip in an attempt to demean someone. Yes, you are indeed an intellectual giant. What is it exactly that you do or have accomplished that makes you so special? Do you ever add anything meaningful to a discussion? Or are you the “yes man”. What I can’t figure out is if you’re holding the leash, and just a stupid pet owner, or if you’re on the leash, and just a stupid untrained dog.
It certainly is fun to make up arguments. Like the one where I criticized your size. Cool, you weigh more than I do. And cool if you lift more too. Also cool how you used the “you believe in religion, you’ll believe anything” line when I’m not religious. I’ve been on the opposite side of Deorum this whole time not because I’m religious but because he’s an idiot. I’ve “sided” with the religious folks because they can type complete sentences and I’m fairly certain that they’re intelligent people who just happen to have a different outlook on life than I do: and they aren’t attacking me for it. I asked a sincere question of Zeb and Brotherchris and got sincere answers. That’s a worthwhile dialogue, regardless of whether or not I believe what they do. I’ll sure as hell disagree with them about a lot of other things (politics for one) but I can also take a step back to try and see things from their point of view and get a little perspective.
[/quote]
Oh, I get it now, so you didn’t just merely reply to my statement about your ad hominems, you didn’t take a personal swipe at me either? I must be seeing things. I didn’t realize I made up “this argument”. I also don’t recall using “you believe in religion you’ll believe in anything”. But don’t let that stop you, you’re not quite on a roll yet. And what I did to you was not an “attack”. It was a counterpunch. Learn the difference. [/quote]
Here’s the reply to the ad hominems. It’s not an ad hominem if his inability to coherently express his thoughts precludes him from making any relevant statement. Lrn 2 argument. Who said I never took a swipe at you? What I didn’t do was say anything about your physique, you just acted like I did cause it made you feel like a big man to criticize me for it. Therefore, you made up arguments in your “counterpunches” (with all that hubris I’m sure you probably fancy yourself a boxer, but your punches really do need some work). You really don’t remember saying “If you can believe in the fairy tales of religion, I guess you can also believe you’re hyooooge”? Weird. You also seem to keep referencing a point in time where I said I was hyoge or something, which I don’t particularly remember doing. You also didn’t get the sarcasm of the use of “brah” in reference to myspace. Also, speaking of hubris, you stated you need no more size. So you’ve hit the pinnacle? You’re the best of the best and have no further aspirations? What the hell are you doing on this site then? You’re set. Get out there and live the hyooooge life.[/quote]
I’m 46 lil guy. I am bigger than you will ever be (unless you respond to and start taking higher doses of drugs) and I have been stronger than you will ever be. Weightlifting doesn’t pay my bills and any attempt to get “hyooger” would only be a detriment to my health. Never had a myspace brah so I don’t get your references. I’m not a boxer, but I’ve been known to fight. Want to go a round? You near NJ?[/quote]
I figured it was only a matter of time til you actually challenged someone to a fight.
[/quote]
It wasn’t “someone”. Are you now avoiding eye contact like a dog that shit on the carpet? Didn’t you start this with a personal attack? Yes. Didn’t you make a reference to boxing? Yes. You mad? Yeah, you mad. Brah.
We can always rely on your to add something intelligent to the dialogue. Maybe YOU should be moved to GAL where in living color vids are appropriate. [/quote]
I know that I hurt your wittle feelings in the last thread, and I expect you to lash out in the sad, troglodytic way you do. That’s fine. What is particularly pathetic, though, aside from your curiously appropriate avatar, is the fact that your addled brain is too underdeveloped to discern a “dialogue” from a troll-job.
There is nothing intelligent to be added here, guy. The fact that you come down on the side of the troll, though, makes the thread even more amusing. The In Living Color skit is as much about you as it is the OP. But I guess you could feel that, hence your defensiveness.
[/quote]
Feels like you have this weird stalking thing for me to be honest. And what “man” calls another man a troglodyte? Pull down your skirt and stop showing your pussy lil man. [/quote]
You’re right. How thoughtless of me. That was an insult to troglodytes everywhere.
And you might want to drop the creepy sexual fantasies about me, guy. You lifted that stalking line from me when I called you out for weirdly following Pat around T-Nation. Even a caveman would have been more original.
Now, on to the whiny last word you always insist upon having. Go on, have at it.
[/quote]
I have never in my life heard a man call another man a troglodyte. In fact, I’ve only heard women use that word. LOL but whatever. What’s next, are you going to call me insensitive because I didn’t compliment you on your haircut? LOL whatever lil guy.
I lifted the stalking line? Following Pat around? Hmmm, I don’t recall you actually supporting that contention especially since historically I don’t spend much time in PWI. Oh, wait. He and I disagreed in the past and that constitutes stalking.
Again, “stalking”. I never really heard a man use this language. Women complain that someone is stalking them. They go to the police station and get restraining orders because they are fearful.
Are you an only child? Or is estrogen a problem?
Seriously dude? Stalking and troglodytes? LMFAO. Okay champ, now reply with another fine whine and get the last word like you always do since you mad.
My gosh only on the Internet can someone (like you) call another person pathetic when he himself cannot even understand how to use something as simple as the quote function. I know, all those words running together is just too much for you. Really run along now. skip off to your next “triumph” in logical fallacies, and half remembered statements. At least that explains why you’ve been avoiding the quote function in earlier posts. It’s just too complicating and confusing - Got it. And you are the guy that has the universe figured to the point where you are certain that a 2000 year old religion is wrong. Right.
But I don’t want to end this post without thanking you for the shear entertainment value that you’ve provided. With the grand crescendo being your idle threat to beat up one particular poster who also apparently got the better of you in a brief discussion. “I live in Jersey maybe we can meet up.” Priceless!
