Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8928 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 3:47 PM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,367 Year: 15,403/19,786 Month: 2,126/3,058 Week: 500/404 Day: 15/89 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   People - I /was/ a Christian
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 307 (421444)
09-12-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Hyroglyphx
09-12-2007 5:08 PM


Re: I know about Faith
As for you Crash, I have tremendous hope for you. I think you are always teetering on the cusp of revival.

Well, of course I am. I'm committed to accepting what the evidence best supports in as many things as possible - in all things, is my goal.

The natural result of that is that I'm always on the very cusp of being shown to be completely wrong in whatever I previously believed. That's what it means to be a rational person.

And, of course, that's the farthest thing in the world from being a person of faith. It's possible, however unlikely, that I might be convinced by evidence to believe in God again; but I don't imagine I could ever in this universe become a person of faith, except as a great personal failing.

Naturally, you might scoff at such a notion because it would tacitly assert that you are wrong about something.

I take great pleasure in finding out that I'm genuinely wrong. In fact I doubt very much that there's anybody at this forum who has admitted to more genuine error than myself.

And perhaps though you think I'm horribly deluded, maybe, just maybe, you wish the same of me-- that I would snap back in to reality.

If there's one thing that I wish for you, in this subject and all others, it's that you'll come to regard yourself as the least trustworthy authority on these issues, rather than the greatest, as you seem to, now. I'm sure you'll misunderstand what I mean, but a reasonable person - rather than a person of faith - would find their personal, irrefutable feelings of communion with God to be an even greater reason to be skeptical of the existence of God - not proof of God.

Do you see what I mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-12-2007 5:08 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 9:03 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-13-2007 7:29 AM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 307 (421456)
09-12-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:07 PM


Re: I know about Faith
I prefer mild warmth personally.

Perhaps you might try comporting yourself with some.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:07 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1917
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 153 of 307 (421464)
09-12-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:07 PM


Re: I know about Faith
HEWG writes:

Well I hope the best for you while you burn in hell. I prefer mild warmth personally.

Bad Form! Especially in another persons thread who is an atheist. This is your one warning, and suspensions will follow for violating the Forum Guidelines. This is not treating others with respect.

Edited by AdminPhat, : admin mode



What Is A Discussion Board Anyway?

  • New Topics should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Keep them short and don't attempt to explain your entire point in the first post. Allow others to respond so that you can expand your discussion.
  • If you are warned by an administrator or moderator for any reason that is not explained in the Forum Guidelines you can argue your case here.
  • If you are not promoted, feel free to discuss your reasons with the administrator in the Proposed New Topics Forum who responded to your topic proposal. Feel free to edit and modify your topic and inform the administrator that you have done so.
    You may also take your argument here and get feedback from other administrators.
    Usually, we leave topic promotion to the first administrator that responds, unless that administrator invites others to comment.

    ************************************
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 145 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:07 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 209 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 154 of 307 (421482)
    09-12-2007 8:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
    09-12-2007 6:24 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    It is once you know you're doing it, Arach. I realize that's the sticking point - becoming aware of your own bad assumptions - but you seem like you're past that point.

    so tell me then, crash, once we're aware that we're irrational, and we fail to stop being irrational... what then? you make it sound like the switch from religion to atheism is like changing hats. "i think today i'll wear this one." it's not like that for most people, and you know it. most people have a harder time trying to quit smoking than the way you portray this.

    but see maybe that's the problem. maybe it is just switching hats for you. leaving fundamentalism, and i mean really leaving fundamentalism is like coming down off heroin. it's long, and painful, and it tears most people apart from the inside out. no, the only quick seemingly rational decision is just switching hats, without actually changing. your new hat may say exactly the opposite of your old hat, but until your attitude really changes, it's just a new reactionary expression of the very same flaw. the fact that you downplay something like this tells me that you've never really gone through it. you just converted; transferred laterally. you gave up the heroin in favor of abusing methadone. and then you sell try to sell us on it by acting like an addict. the real path involves the gradual withering of fanaticism. maybe, for some, fanatical atheism (like methadone) is easier to be weened off of -- but that's still the gradual process that does it, not the switch itself. and the new drug can be abused just as easily as the old one.

    crash, you act irrationally. you argue your points irrationally. you stick to and repeat refuted arguments, and claim they're "logic." you word it more coherently than ray does, but the both of you seem to think that by putting the word "logically" in a post, it will make it so. you once called me -- me! with the hebrew signature! -- an antisemite. sometimes, it's like you live in opposite world right along with the bushites and the fundies. you rarely ever even hint that you could be wrong, and frequently insert your ideology into fields you know little about. you tend to paint things as completely black or completely white, never nuanced. your first reaction is to insult and flame, and arrogantly condescend. you can be every bit as mean, or meaner than someone like faith ever was, and just as selective in what you want to hear. and then you want to tell us that this is the high ground in the debate? i don't say this to be mean myself. i say this because in this thread you hold yourself up as an example: someone that was a christian, and then got better. but i don't see the improvement, and i know i'm not alone here. for the way you act sometimes, you might as well still be a fundamentalist.

    i realize that, with your history, it is very hard not to have a spiteful attitude towards religion. remember that i have had the same (or worse) experiences as you had. i've seen the destructive power of fundamentalist christianity firsthand, as have you. but behaving just like them is not the answer. anger and spite is not the answer. reactionary drivel is not the answer. logic would dictate that if you were a victim, they probably are too. the answer is the compassion they should have -- the real "moral" high ground. and answer is cool and calm discussion, and often years of study and hard work on their parts. you cannot simply force your beliefs or lack thereof on people. not anymore than a creationist who comes here, asserting that god made the world, and then cursing at anyone who disagrees. you do as much harm to rational thought as that christian does for his case.

    i also realize that this post will probably get me suspended, as it constitutes a personal attack. i do not mean it as such; merely a critique. you are intelligent and well spoken, but you collect very little respect or credulity for your position because your behaviour or your condescending attitude often gets in the way. you make "rational atheism" seem like just another religion, which is not your intent. you have only given up christianity, but have failed to let go of your fundamentalist ways.

    Faith is conscious, though, because "faith" is the rationale people use to defend those assumptions when they are challenged.

    no. faith is subconscious. belief is conscious. and they are two very different things. even religious people may confuse the two, but they are not the same. belief is something that changes easily in comparison.

    What's stopping you?

    i think the more important question is about what's stopping you. i know what road i'm on, and i know where it leads.

    Edited by arachnophilia, : editted to add "black and white"


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 6:24 PM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 11:42 PM arachnophilia has responded

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 209 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 155 of 307 (421484)
    09-12-2007 9:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
    09-12-2007 6:32 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    I take great pleasure in finding out that I'm genuinely wrong. In fact I doubt very much that there's anybody at this forum who has admitted to more genuine error than myself.

    you have a reputation for "never being wrong." i'm not sure you're aware of this, but it's what people say sarcastically behind your back. i won't name names.

    if you'd like to genuinely admit to error, please feel free to revisit my sodom thread. aside from the original evidence i continually pointed you to, there are now three more posts which contain lengthy citations from a book that analyzes the story in great depth. one post contains a citation in favor of your argument (something you never presented btw) within it, and then goes on to detail why that's a faulty reading, specifically regarding themes within the text. ie: it makes it pretty clear that you were in error to have spoken about idiomatic and euphemistic usages in a language you don't speak.

    i will happily accept your admission of error there. should you post a decent argument that accounts for all of evidence i have posted in that thread regarding socio-historical context, linguistic origins, and the overriding themes the authors of the torah tried to make clear, and points out several things my argument does not account for, i will also happily admit error. i do make them from time to time. but until the "evidence against" outweighs the "evidence for" on the scale -- or is at least presented -- it seems that logic would indicate the side with more evidence is probably right.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 6:32 PM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 11:49 PM arachnophilia has responded

    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1279 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 156 of 307 (421491)
    09-12-2007 10:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
    09-12-2007 12:22 AM


    Re: I know about Faith
    And quite frankly, Ray, you can take your ad hominem and cram it up your ass.

    There was no ad hom, Crashfrog, just a self-evident observation.

    Looks like the truth hit a nerve. My comment about you being a loser who could not make it with God attracted the warning of a fellow Darwinian-Moderator who apparently felt sorry for you.

    If you can't take the heat of a topic that YOU created, but accept the bail out of a fellow Darwinian Moderator, then I advise that you do not create such topics in the future. My comment was antiseptic compared to yours and I do not feel the least bit offended.

    You're doing exactly what I suspected you people would; you're scared to death at the idea that someone could escape your prison of bullshit, so you have to pretend like I was never in the prison, in the first place.

    First off, you admit to being a Fundamentalist - they aint real Christians. They are legalists who do not understand the gospel, but superimpose Christ ONTO Mosaic law/code of conduct as the way one walks with Christ. This is heresy. The gospel message is: God will accept faith as the only other alternative to Mosaic works/code of conduct to relate to Him through Christ - that's the GOOD NEWS (= meaning of the word 'gospel').

    IF you had genuine faith then a born-again experience with Christ would have resulted at some point. But you quit or never had faith since Fundamentalists have not a clue as to what faith or the gospel really is.

    But that's exactly what I embarked on. I had faith. I had genuine communion with God.

    Are you blind to the contradiction in this statement? If you had really discovered God or like you say "had genuine communion with God" then we would not be having this conversation, would we?

    But your next comment admits that you were not and did not have "genuine communion with God":

    And then, I realized it was all self-delusion.

    2Timothy 4:10

    "For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world..."

    This is how the Bible explains your kind: you simply forsook God because you loved the world, now you are deceived into believing that God does not exist.

    Ray


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 12:22 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 10:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 209 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 157 of 307 (421493)
    09-12-2007 10:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 156 by Cold Foreign Object
    09-12-2007 10:00 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    My comment about you being a loser who could not make it with God attracted the warning of a fellow Darwinian-Moderator who apparently felt sorry for you.

    ray, (admin)phat is an evangelical christian. he's not a "darwinist."

    and "loser" is an ad-hominem. similarly, so is my post above. what gets me is that your comment attracted moderator attention, but his "cram it up your ass" did not.

    First off, you admit to being a Fundamentalist - they aint real Christians.

    ah, it's "no true scotsman" again, is it? frankly ray, "fundamentalist" is someone who accepts the fundamentals (trinity, divinity of jesus, salvation by crucifixion, resurrection, etc) and generall attends one of the smaller denominations (ie: not catholic, anglican, etc). you are a fundamentalist -- i don't mean that as any kind of insult. that's just the definition. i was one too. so was crash.

    The gospel message is: God will accept faith as the only other alternative to Mosaic works/code of conduct to relate to Him through Christ - that's the GOOD NEWS (= meaning of the word 'gospel').

    yes, that's "fundamentalism."


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 156 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-12-2007 10:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2007 11:22 PM arachnophilia has responded
     Message 163 by pbee, posted 09-13-2007 12:00 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded
     Message 192 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-13-2007 2:58 PM arachnophilia has responded

    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 2159 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 158 of 307 (421496)
    09-12-2007 10:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 148 by nator
    09-12-2007 6:12 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    i disagree. i think there are three groups of people. one of the first you describe and one of the latter and then a third who is almost always right but not forgiving at all.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 148 by nator, posted 09-12-2007 6:12 PM nator has not yet responded

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 159 of 307 (421502)
    09-12-2007 11:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 157 by arachnophilia
    09-12-2007 10:12 PM


    Re: Biblical Fundamentalist
    Arach writes:

    ah, it's "no true scotsman" again, is it? frankly ray, "fundamentalist" is someone who accepts the fundamentals (trinity, divinity of jesus, salvation by crucifixion, resurrection, etc) and generall attends one of the smaller denominations (ie: not catholic, anglican, etc). you are a fundamentalist -- i don't mean that as any kind of insult. that's just the definition. i was one too. so was crash.

    LOL! Ray may not remember but for a long time I've been trying to get him as well as some other members to understand this fact. A fundamentalist in anything is one who believes, proclaims and practices the fundamentals of whatever one is involved in. It can also apply to a machinist, pilot or whatever. When I fly I certainly want the pilot and crew to adhere to the fundamentals of flying a passenger jet so as for the thing to arrive at the destination safe an sound. Even those violent Muslims we call "fundamentalists" are called that because when one does the homework, on realizes that they are the really devout fundies who go by the books even to the point of sacrificing their lives for the advancement of their religion.


    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
    The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 10:12 PM arachnophilia has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 160 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 11:36 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 209 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 160 of 307 (421507)
    09-12-2007 11:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
    09-12-2007 11:22 PM


    Re: Biblical Fundamentalist
    every chance to insult islam, huh buz?

    nevermind that suicide is forbidden by the quran. they find a way around it just like christian fundamentalists find ways around what their book actually says. i don't think the book itself is much of a standard -- fundamentalism seems to do more with dogma and systems of belief than any holy text.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2007 11:22 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 184 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-13-2007 8:08 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    crashfrog
    Inactive Member


    Message 161 of 307 (421508)
    09-12-2007 11:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 154 by arachnophilia
    09-12-2007 8:50 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    so tell me then, crash, once we're aware that we're irrational, and we fail to stop being irrational... what then?

    Why would you fail? I don't understand. If you failed - acted irrationally - then clearly you weren't aware of your own irrationality at that time; or else you're choosing to act irrationally, with "faith" that it'll all turn out fine in the end, or whatever.

    you make it sound like the switch from religion to atheism is like changing hats.

    That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm not talking about religion to atheism. I'm talking about faith to faithlessness, and it is just as easy as saying "you know, I'm going to stop holding positions that are contravened by the evidence."

    it's long, and painful, and it tears most people apart from the inside out.

    Sure. It's like coming out of the closet, I imagine. You have to tear down a whole host of bad mental habits you put in place to deal with the cognitive dissonance of being gay and telling people you're straight.

    But, ultimately, the choice is a simple one - "Today, I'm going to stop pretending. I'm going to stop living a lie. Today, I'm going to change how I act."

    Trust me, no one knows better than I do about how hard it is to change your own habits. My entire adult life has been a struggle against my own bad mental habits. But ultimately, it's just a matter of choice. The choice to live differently. To think differently. To act differently.

    crash, you act irrationally. you argue your points irrationally. you stick to and repeat refuted arguments, and claim they're "logic."

    Funny, but that's exactly what I've been saying about you. Between you, Holmes, and Rrhain, the three of you have the corner on contrarian sophistry.

    you once called me -- me! with the hebrew signature! -- an antisemite.

    Right. Do you remember why?

    Not because I think you hate Jews, or that you're a bigot. All I did, as I recall, was turn your logic around on you and show you how it led to the ridiculous conclusion that you could be considered an anti-semite.

    Of course, you missed the point in order to have something to argue about, as usual. It's just one more example of your relentless contrarianism run amok, Arach. You like to argue. You misrepresent or misunderstand arguments in order to do so.

    I can't, for the life of me, understand why you had to make it personal, though. What a chip on your shoulder you must be carrying around.

    you tend to paint things as completely black or completely white, never nuanced.

    Never nuanced? You haven't got the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Honestly, Arach, you need some help with your obsession problem, I think.

    anger and spite is not the answer.

    I'm neither angry nor spiteful, but I refuse to pay deference to religion. It's a destructive force that humankind would be better without. It's the same as bigotry and sexism, and I refuse to pay lip service to it.

    for the way you act sometimes, you might as well still be a fundamentalist.

    Whoah! Never heard the theist call the atheist a "fundamentalist" before!

    Seriously, Arach, I can be convinced that I'm wrong at any time by evidence. Not by sophistry, which is what you usually bring to the table, but by evidence.

    You? Nothing in the world can convince you of error once you'd adopted the opposite stance as me. Not even the fact that you're contradicting previous positions. Whatever I say, you have to say the opposite. Here you are doing it in this thread!

    You're obsessed with contradicting me. What the fuck is wrong with you?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 8:50 PM arachnophilia has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 164 by arachnophilia, posted 09-13-2007 1:07 AM crashfrog has responded

    crashfrog
    Inactive Member


    Message 162 of 307 (421510)
    09-12-2007 11:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 155 by arachnophilia
    09-12-2007 9:03 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    you have a reputation for "never being wrong." i'm not sure you're aware of this, but it's what people say sarcastically behind your back. i won't name names.

    I could give two shits what people say behind my back. Of course, you're deluding yourself if you think that people hold you beyond criticism.

    I'm wrong like, all the time. And I admit it when I am. You, of course, have never admitted to being a relentless contrarian at any point that I've seen on the board. I'm sure you'll deny it now, but here you are, trying to contradict me at literally every turn. If I told you I jacked off in the shower this morning, I have no doubt at all you'd be the first to proclaim as loudly as possible that I, in fact, did no such thing.

    I don't know if it's spite, or you're a mean cuss in general, or if you've got a big chip on your shoulder. But you're certainly not the only relentless, ridiculous contrarian around here.

    if you'd like to genuinely admit to error, please feel free to revisit my sodom thread.

    As soon as you have an argument, I'll be happy to. As it stands I find it illuminating that your brand of knee-jerk contrarianism, wrong-headed logical fallacies, and clumsy ad hominem managed to convince absolutely nobody at all.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 9:03 PM arachnophilia has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 165 by arachnophilia, posted 09-13-2007 1:29 AM crashfrog has responded

    pbee
    Member (Idle past 4259 days)
    Posts: 339
    Joined: 06-20-2007


    Message 163 of 307 (421513)
    09-13-2007 12:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 157 by arachnophilia
    09-12-2007 10:12 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    arachnophilia, sorry to interupt your spat, but I wanted to say that I really liked your signature text(looks very nice).

    Lately I have been researching God's name and I was wondering if you might know where I could get the Hebrew Tetragrammaton for God's name? In the same style(size) your signature is in.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 09-12-2007 10:12 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 209 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 164 of 307 (421516)
    09-13-2007 1:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 161 by crashfrog
    09-12-2007 11:42 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    Why would you fail? I don't understand.

    no. you don't, and that's just the point. you don't understand. people act irrationally all the time. you do it too. some people even realize that things they do or things they feel are irrational. that doesn't make it a choice. that makes it recognized.

    personal preferences are irrational. love is irrational. hate is irrational. habits are irrational. i recognize those things -- but i still have preferences. i still love. i still hate. i still do things out of habit. they're not choices, but some can be changed over time.

    That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm not talking about religion to atheism. I'm talking about faith to faithlessness

    no, you're talking about religion to atheism. faith is a different matter, and something that you evidently don't understand. we all have faith in something, and that faith is by definition irrational. it may be backed by lots of observation and experience, or it may be backed by none. the faith that's got lots of observation and experience -- it's still faith, just rationalized. that is, unfortunately, how the brain works.

    Sure. It's like coming out of the closet, I imagine. You have to tear down a whole host of bad mental habits you put in place to deal with the cognitive dissonance of being gay and telling people you're straight.

    But, ultimately, the choice is a simple one - "Today, I'm going to stop pretending. I'm going to stop living a lie. Today, I'm going to change how I act."

    have you known many gay people? it's a gradual process. you don't walk around wearing a shirt that says "ASK ME ABOUT MY GAY!" one morning. you tell people gradually. first random people on the internet. then friends -- and parents are generally last. and it's not an instanteous process.

    but that's not exactly the analogy. the analogy is being gay. you don't wake up one morning and decide it. you don't wake up one morning and decide not to have faith.

    My entire adult life has been a struggle against my own bad mental habits.

    yes, and you still have quite a few. so do i. so does everyone. in your case, pretending like you have all the answers and telling us how simple it is... well that's one of them.

    Funny, but that's exactly what I've been saying about you. Between you, Holmes, and Rrhain, the three of you have the corner on contrarian sophistry.

    actually crash, the people i've talked to tend to group you and rrhain together.

    i freely admit that i will argue points just to argue points. sometimes, i will begin an argument simply as devil's advocate (and admit that in the post, too) because i see some possible hole in logic that i otherwise agree with. occasionally, i will even convince myself. but generally, i argue with people because they're wrong.

    you once called me -- me! with the hebrew signature! -- an antisemite.

    Right. Do you remember why?

    as i recall it, i was calling you for basing your arguments on stereotypes.

    Not because I think you hate Jews, or that you're a bigot. All I did, as I recall, was turn your logic around on you and show you how it led to the ridiculous conclusion that you could be considered an anti-semite.

    perhaps you can refresh my memory. as i recall it, your comment failed to make sense: i was pointing out that stereotyping was a bad thing to base an argument on, and somehow you brought up hitler (red flag there, on account of godwin). and instead of following my argument ("rape is a male quality" says something bad about men) and applying it to that statement ("hitler killed 6 million jews" says something bad about hitler) you read it as "stating something supports it" (which was not my argument) and because i agreed that hitler killed 6 million jews, i supported killing jews. sound about right?

    makes about as much sense as anything ray posts. because instead of paying attention to what i was saying, you made an absurd strawman, and ran with it. you might as well have equated darwin and nazism. maybe it made sense in your head, but here in the real world that sort of argument is not called "logic." basing your argument on a stereotype, and affirming that stereotype, is not the same as supporting a notion held by the thing the stereotype is against. stating that "hitler did something bad" is not the same as "i agree with hitler."

    bad, bad logic. not rational in the slightest.

    Of course, you missed the point in order to have something to argue about, as usual. It's just one more example of your relentless contrarianism run amok, Arach. You like to argue. You misrepresent or misunderstand arguments in order to do so.

    someone's projecting again. crash, this is the point i wanted to make from the minute you openned your mouth here. just because you don't see it doesn't mean that others do not. you created this thread to show that, yes, you have understood what it is to be a christian fundamentalist. is the point to nod and agree? i agree, you almost certainly did have experience being a christian fundamentalist. i trust that you are telling the truth, and not simply making stuff up for the sake of argument.

    well, it explains a lot. you made this thread so people could understand you more clearly; i do. i am very familiar with the reactions to fundamentalism -- i've gone through many of them myself. but moreover, there are a great many flaws evident in your post. a superiority complex, for one. i call it "big brother syndrome." you hate seeing people make the same mistakes you did, and so you take it out on them in the hopes that you can correct their ways.

    I can't, for the life of me, understand why you had to make it personal, though. What a chip on your shoulder you must be carrying around.

    no crash, this thread is about you, remember? my post is about the chip you have on your shoulder. i am not angry at you, or offended by you. you've done nothing in particular to piss me off, i actually have a rather thick skin. you'll recall that the aforementioned "anti-semite" post earned you a POTM from me and earned me a suspension for abusing the POTM thread. i genuinely thought that it was so ludicrous as to be funny. your insults don't bother me in the slightest. i just find it rather amusing that you feel the need to resort to them.

    i posted because your attitude gets in the way of your arguments. your contrarian, reactionary, and inflammatory methods don't help anything, and especially not your case. there are lots of people here who escaped the clutches of fundamentalism, but you are not the shining example. many of our ex-fundamentalists are completely calm, and rational, and very polite. you jump right to ad-hominems and anger -- just like the people you heavily imply superiority to. i posted what i did because it needed to be said by someone.

    Never nuanced? You haven't got the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Honestly, Arach, you need some help with your obsession problem, I think.

    see, this is just what i mean. i'm not the one with the problem here -- but clearly any disagreement from the word of crash must be psychosis. you have a problem, and it is your attitude.

    i am aware that i am imperfect, and i freely admit to my faults. you do not.

    I'm neither angry nor spiteful, but I refuse to pay deference to religion.

    quote:
    cram it up your ass.

    i'm not sure if basic decorum or level-headed discussion is in the definition of "deference" but it's clearly not in yours. and that's just the point. you have no respect for anyone. not even the people you list above -- who argue exactly like you do. the faults you are so willing to point out in me -- those are your faults. things we seem to have in common.

    It's a destructive force that humankind would be better without. It's the same as bigotry and sexism, and I refuse to pay lip service to it.

    crash, you advocate rationality and reason. use them. there are rational, well-reasoned arguments against those things. while (you might think) they deserve a hearty "fuck you" and a swift kick in the pants, acting like the people you argue against does not help your case. it just makes you look every bit as bad.

    Whoah! Never heard the theist call the atheist a "fundamentalist" before!

    then you haven't been listening long enough. you can be fundamentalist at just about everything. you can be an atheist and a loony crackpot. you can be a militant atheist. you can treat your atheism like a belief. people do these things -- the rational positions might exist, but not everyone treats it rationally. the truth of the position does not justify everyone who agrees with it. reasoning matters.

    you do not treat it rationally, because with rationality comes a calm and collected argument, or no statement at all. we have lots of rational atheists here. you just are not one of them.

    and your objection to my theism is sillier than you can imagine. i am all but an actual atheist, and i am certainly treated that way by the religious people. i'm on your side of this debate. try not to forget that.

    Seriously, Arach, I can be convinced that I'm wrong at any time by evidence. Not by sophistry, which is what you usually bring to the table, but by evidence.

    again with the projection. the last thread we debated in was about 50% evidence from me, 50% posts from everyone else. you ignored all of the evidence -- citations about historical contexts, linguistic origins, literary analysis, etc -- in favor of... what, exactly? sophistry. "logical" arguments.

    it's nice that you like to play pretend, but at some point you do have to live in the real world, where the evidence out weighs the person who says it doesn't exist. god, crash, i've posted more evidence for your position in that thread than you have.

    You? Nothing in the world can convince you of error once you'd adopted the opposite stance as me. Not even the fact that you're contradicting previous positions. Whatever I say, you have to say the opposite. Here you are doing it in this thread!

    You're obsessed with contradicting me. What the fuck is wrong with you?

    you're paranoid. i very often accept that i'm wrong, and i certainly don't run my life around you. in fact, i believe i stated, in that thread, that i would be happy to admit that i was wrong if you actually showed me some evidence. all the while, you ignored all of the other evidence in the thread, presumed to make up rules about a language i have more experience in than you and not expect to get caught, and introduced claims that were specifically off-topic?

    i don't argue against you simply to argue against you. i argue against you -- or anyone else -- when you're wrong.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 11:42 PM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 166 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2007 1:41 AM arachnophilia has responded

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 209 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 165 of 307 (421518)
    09-13-2007 1:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 162 by crashfrog
    09-12-2007 11:49 PM


    Re: I know about Faith
    I could give two shits what people say behind my back.

    see, again with the language. hey, george bush could give two shits about the rest of the world said behind his back. and maybe the world would be a better place if he did.

    Of course, you're deluding yourself if you think that people hold you beyond criticism.

    you evidently haven't been around when i've criticised myself. and i am well aware that i am imperfect, and that people criticise me for things.

    I'm wrong like, all the time. And I admit it when I am.

    oh yeah, i saw one today. you admitted you were wrong when the correction proved your point better than your original data. i saw that one.

    feel free to provide some other examples. in fact, i'll continue to grant you the opportunity to admit you were wrong in the sodom thread.

    You, of course, have never admitted to being a relentless contrarian at any point that I've seen on the board.

    evidently, you're not reading the replies i'm writing.

    I'm sure you'll deny it now,

    oh boy, damned if i do, damned if a don't.

    but here you are, trying to contradict me at literally every turn.

    i'm "logic chopping."

    If I told you I jacked off in the shower this morning, I have no doubt at all you'd be the first to proclaim as loudly as possible that I, in fact, did no such thing.

    i couldn't care less about your masturbatory habits. just try not to do it verbally in the tread, ok?

    I don't know if it's spite, or you're a mean cuss in general, or if you've got a big chip on your shoulder. But you're certainly not the only relentless, ridiculous contrarian around here.

    see, i still consider this funny. i'm not trying to be mean -- i stated as much. i'm not trying to be spiteful, either. i am a little contrarian, yes. i don't need you to tell me that, either. and i freely admit to (and when!) i am arguing simply because i enjoy debate. i wouldn't be here if i didn't simply enjoy debate.

    no, this is still about you. i'm not the only relentless, ridiculous contrarian here. there's certainly at least one more in this very thread. and i'm talking right to him.

    if you'd like to genuinely admit to error, please feel free to revisit my sodom thread.

    As soon as you have an argument, I'll be happy to.

    crash, there was an argument in that thread long before you showed up there. you have chosen to ignore it. look for the posts i've made with all the

    quote:
    quotes like this
    they've got quote a lot of argument you have simply ignored in favor of going for the one thing i explicitly indicated as "off topic" because i knew that fundamentalists like to make a big deal about it. i just didn't expect to have to argue it backwards with the other kind of fundamentalist.

    As it stands I find it illuminating that your brand of knee-jerk contrarianism, wrong-headed logical fallacies, and clumsy ad hominem managed to convince absolutely nobody at all.

    by that you mean it didn't convince you. i know it didn't, especially since you actively ignored 9/10 of the argument, and opted to argue against some that wasn't the other tenth. good job on that. you convinced one person. applause all around.

    the fact is that your position in that thread was "knee jerk contrarianism." that you must absolutely argue it away from rape -- even though all of the other evidence (that you ignored) indicates otherwise -- because some fundies think it's about gays. yeah, that's not "knee jerk" at all. and who took up the argument on your side -- you and rrhain. imagine that -- the person you called a knee-jerk contrarian above. and there you were, arguing the same position in the same way. and moreover, you were the only person who put up a counter argument. nobody else popped in to tell me why i was wrong. just you. the moderates agreed with me. the religious people agreed with me. the atheists agreed with me. one of our members who actually is gay agreed with me. just you, arguing against the obvious. but i'm the "contrarian" right?

    i didn't have to convince anybody, and frankly, most people i talked to wondered why i was belaboring such an obvious point.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2007 11:49 PM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2007 2:08 AM arachnophilia has responded

    RewPrev1
    ...
    910
    11
    1213
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019