People - I /was/ a Christian

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.

---

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. 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. yes, that's "fundamentalism."

---

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.

---

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

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. 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. 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. 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'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.

---

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. 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. 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. evidently, you're not reading the replies i'm writing. oh boy, damned if i do, damned if a don't. i'm "logic chopping." i couldn't care less about your masturbatory habits. just try not to do it verbally in the tread, ok? 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. 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. 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.

---

see, that's your problem. you don't understand what "rational" means. yes, so is the science behind religious experiences. that doesn't make them rational. just because we can analyze it and determine its cause, or approach it rationally does NOT mean that the thing itself is ration. you could study random numbers rationally for all i care. yes, you do. but that doesn't happen overnight. the decision is not everything. that's sort of the point here, actually. your atheism, in particular, is not scientific or emprical. you do not treat it as such. it is simply your outlook on life, and you continue to behave irrationally. sometimes i think i should just let you post for me. you say all the wonderful things i'm trying to say, in much more clear (if slightly more crass) way. what in the name of holy hell is wrong with you that you would be so arrogant as to try to judge anyone else's personal outlook. you are, after, the one that goes around saying how people must be psychotic to disagree with you. that there is some disorder with your opponents. case in point. look. this is just getting silly. if you're just going to repeat the point of my argument, minus all of the nice wording, well. i don't know what to say. you mean in the OP? your continued participation in this thread demonstrates that you don't understand. similarly, your (contrarian) insistence that love and hate -- emotions -- are not irrational demonstrates that you don't understand what "rational" means either. i'm not justify faith. i'm not saying you didn't have faith. to think that is to have misunderstood my argument. i'm saying that you still have faith and have simply trasmuted it into something less recognizeable. and as such, you've attempted to rationalize your faith. you are no better than the fundie who says that it's not their faith, it's fact. you've forgotten what faith is, because you try so hard to cover it up with an air of rationality.faith is not conscious. it never is. ever. that's belief, and there is a difference. the difference between faith and trust is experience. yes, it does. it doesn't. again, it's really funny to hear you argue the very things i'm trying to say to you. and you pretend the whole time like you're somehow different, better. not to further contradict you, but i agreed with you above. you're the one arguing here, crash. i'm just trying to explain something to you that you seem absolutely opposed to understanding. what are you afraid? ...again, not to contradict you, but i don't believe i have ever called you a "heretic" or "unbeliever." i could care less what you believe, and that your ideas are different. that's fine. in fact, i would not be surprised to learn that we think the same way about a great many things. you are a "relentless contrarian" afterall.but let's keep things straight here. you're the one with the superiority complex, and the one who accuses people of mental disability for "daring to hold different ideas." this is about your attitude not your ideas. your strawmen are ridiculous in the extreme. see, that's just it. they're not. and you have the habit of making things that are very difficult problems for some people sound like trivialities. that's just plain insulting, is what that is. maybe you didn't go through a significant change, and so you don't remember. if you did, you would be more hesitant to trivialize changing your entire life. ah bugger, i just closed it. here's the potm for your ad hominems. enjoy. yes, because i bothered to read the thread again. again crash, this is about you. your inability to pass of a strawman as a logical conclusion (a proof by contradiction) does not make me a fundamentalist. it makes your point fallacious, and laughably so. it was closed, because of nitpicky "contrarian" fights. and no. don't flatter yourself into thinking that you get under my skin. i consider you amusing, yes. a walking contradiction, yes. mean? sure. do i care? no, i have a life believe it or not. the fact that you accuse me of your own faults in harshed language doesn't bother me in the slightest. go right on doing it. maybe i'll POTM you for it again. no, not at all. i just have a lot patience.and your frog is green. ...yes, and that's the point. again. disagreeing with you is not a mental disorder. you portraying it as such... well."INABILITY TO REFUTE!"i think you're developing a catch phrase. it's nowhere NEAR as good as ray's, though. and the problem, as it turns out, is that you do know about religion. maybe even too much. it's atheism you don't know a thing about. this is still very amusing, crash. i don't think i've ever actually seen someone actively argue against the thing they're doing with the very same argument. ok, i'll revise that statement: you have no respent for anyone you disagree with. you respect seems to be contingent on content. would you agree? remember, "no deference." ok, look. it's still silly. and i am getting really, really tired of pointing out that, once again, that's exactly what i'm saying about you.perhaps if you'd like to more effectively disagree with me, it would be best to not simply mimic my arguments. but again, that was the point. wasn't it? i don't. you come off as arrogant and pigheaded, and somebody should have told you long ago. i could care less what you think of me. and i realize that you could care less what i think of you. but stop being a "relentless contrarian" and just take some fucking advice for once? you take criticism really, really badly. not here, crash. every time you post. you sound conceited, and sometimes, just plain insulting. you accuse your opponents of mental derangement, and act like if anyone disagrees with you they're stupid and foolish for thinking something else.get off your high horse. please learn to apply analogies in a direct fashion, instead of assuming everyone must view things inside-out from how you do.there are rational, well reasoned arguments against bigotry and sexism -- two things you said you were against along with religion. the statement then means that there are rational, well-reasoned arguments against religion too. stop pretending you know what i'm going to say, and actually read the post, would ya? i don't care. religion is one of the most destructive forces known to man, simply because of its power to manipulate. you want to argue that point, go ahead. i'll agree with you. but that's not what this is about. no one is claiming that religion is superior, and if you think that's what i'm arguing, you are simply mistaken, or worse, intentionally putting up a strawman.i am arguing that treating atheism like a religion is every bit as bad. atheism is not a religion, and it frustrates me to see the "logical" position reduced to the same inane garbage the fundamentalists spew. i'm telling you to try to be BETTER than them. no, crash, acting like some kind of immature child, running around calling people "asshole" and implying they're sick in the head, and telling them to "cram it [their] ass" would make you an asshole. again, this is not about content. it's about style. what part of "i'm on your side" did you interpret as contradicting your own personal viewpoint? i could care less about your point of view. all i'm saying is stop acting like a fundamentalist if you don't want people to think you are one. why does it never pass yours? it's always some insult from you instead. our disagreement here exactly about that -- you're just not polite or level-headed in debate. you go for the throat, and resort to insults and derision. no, crash, because i'd been trying to get to that reference since the beginning of the thread. getting long quotes is especially difficult and time-consuming when you're trying to correct a relentless contrarian who simply likes to argue. even with a text scanner, you have to baby-sit it. and hebrew really, really fouls it up.i didn't post evidence in your favor simply to contradict you. what the heck kind of logic is that? i happen to find it so amusing that it was memorable. most of our discussion i could care less about. since your posts are content-free it's not like i ever learn anything from them, or take anything away from the discussion. just mild frustration and what an irrascible, irrational, and argumentative debator you are.oh, and yes, crash, i totally worship you. what's wrong with you?

---

lol. just keep on proving my point. that one actually made me laugh. it's not the words, crash. it's the attitude. and you just keep on demonstrating it. got anything of real content, not a simple goof? somewhere where superior logic or evidence has proven you wrong about something a little more significant than simply forgetting about ducks?i must tell you, that bit about admitting you're wrong more than anyone on the board, that got a few chuckles in chat. i'm sorry, being called an anti-semite was particularly memorable in its absurdity. you get filed next to ray calling phat a darwinist, and that time-travelling-cd-roms-in-the-bible guy. i believe you've already replied to it. i'm a stickler accuracy in arguments. you might have noticed. and i'm not chasing you -- i think the fact that you gave up posting and totally ignored all of the evidence presented in the thread is fairly indicative of the quality of your argument. like a creationist, confronted with the vast amounts of scientific evidence for evolution -- refuse to acknowledge it exists saying stuff like "i still haven't seen a transitional species" and then taking your ball and going home.i just figured i'd formally offer you the chance to prove what you're saying here, and admit to an error in the face of overwhelming evidence. sure. but both have to be justifiable. yours was not. it did not fit all the evidence. i'm not out to prove you wrong. and it's mighty paranoid of you to think so. crash, two of those five years have been spent studying hebrew. the fact is that you posted something wrong, and i knew more about it than you did. it's not that i'm out to get you. i'm not the boogeyman. it's just that for some reason, the idea of me catching you being wrong really upsets you. why? i don't enjoy constantly having to repeat myself correcting your illogic. my post may have been slander (well, libel, it's in print) but it was neither unfair nor inaccurate. you do act like a fundamentalist. and i am not the only one who thinks that -- just the first one with the balls to tell you to your face. no, see, that's just the point. you do not engage people in a constructive way. and somebody has to tell you that. i'm not trying to sling slime, i'm trying to get you to participate constructively rather than destructively. something i am failing at, evidently. ...yes, exactly. you can't. yet you continue to go on, sure that you are right. that's just irrational. it's like me wandering into a particle physics discussion and telling people that "quarks don't do that." how the hell would i know? and insisting that i'm right, in spite of the opposition telling me stuff i just don't understand? how "fundamentalist" does that sound to you?that's just what you did. rrhain was the reason the thread got posted. notice he made one post there? no evidence, just contrarian sophistry -- the same thing you accused him of above? i posted pages and pages of evidence -- he made one post. "destroyed" might be the word for it, but the other way around. wonder why he hasn't posted a reply there in a week? evidently, you hadn't. since you never addressed any of the supplimentary information, and just argued the one point that was moot. oh? is that why you belaboured the same point, over and over and over, too? see, i didn't actually see anyone address those arguments, at all. no one commented on the asherah worship. no one commented on the lingistic origin. no one commented on the historical context. rrhain certainly didn't -- that was all new content i posted after he stopped. you certainly didn't. you seemed more obsessed with homosexuality -- which was not the topic. please feel free to contribute in that thread again. post a reference post of all the threads you think i missed -- because i went out of my way to check each and every one. you and rrhain were the only ones to ever disagree, except for taz (who contributed one line of agreement in your direction). what "others?" it was just you.and you accuse me of mental disorders? i think you're imagining stuff. uh, no, actually i don't. because i get along with a lot of people here. quite well, as a matter of fact. the people that really have a hard time with me are the fundamentalists. what does that say about you, crash? you will find that 95% of my participation here is arguing with fundamentalists. fundamentalists including you.i am SURE that more people than just little old crash have the backbone to argue against me. i can't be that scary.

---

crash, you go on to do it in this very post. do you really not realize you're doing it? arrogance is your strong suit, isn't it. hey, who got the potm here? just because you misunderstand the argument... no, the faith itself is meaningless. no, i know why i got suspended. but i can't help if i find your foul temper very insightful into the strengths of your argument. no, crash, an ad hominem is attacking the person. the fact that your argument was plagiarized from postmodern feminist bs is not an attack on you. it's an attack on the argument. granted, maybe you perceived and accusation plagiarism as an implication of intellectual dishonesty, but you did crib from sources i've read and failed to cite them. and that's plagiarism. what, accusing you of the same gender bias you claim to arguing against? bias is bias -- perhaps you should get used to people being willing to call you on yours. perhaps i'm confused. my second post in that thread corrected an error than "bewitched" and "i dream of jeanie" were 50's sitcoms, and dispelling the myth that they were inherently anti-feminist. was that deeply personal and insulting? perhaps you can direct me to which post you mean? i believe i did support that your argument was gender-biased, and based on stereotyping. you were simply argumentative. as you are now. no, crash, and i'm willing to take some criticism. you, apparently, are not, as this is exactly the charge levied at you. crash, i think i phrased what's wrong with you very eloquently in this thread. perhaps you thought i meant it as an insult. but my criticism of you is that you're insulting. think about that for a little bit before you try to criticize people for your own faults. *sigh*how does amusement turn into a grudge? i think you're silly. preposterous. laughable. and i do list a physical location. "god's waiting room" is a slang term for south florida, and it has to do with the people who come here to wait to meet their maker. similarly, brenna uses "hurricaneland" which is a slightly newer one. you think i would drive several thousand miles to track your ass down? please. simply arguing with you takes enough of my time. i really don't care about you that much, one way or the other.

---

yes. no. you post that way to relatively simple and pleasant responses. i knew someone personally who was like that. she took any contradiction as a personal insult to her competence, and would put up every bit as much of a fight as you, with all the same linguistic prowess.she did it out of deep-seated insecurity. why do you? do you see everything as constant accusations? this is abuse? you stole arguments from somewhere. that's plagiarism. you did. and still do. thus -- my post here. you have a habit of twisting things away from their intended meanings. i'm forced to believe that you do it mostly on purpose. right, that explains why it's just me that has this opinion of you. incidentally crash, i don't dislike you. i see, so, basically, you're pretty much right about everything most of the time? you may not have noticed, but in my standard arguments here, i am now arguing against positions i came here advocating. maybe i haven't spelled that out clearly anywhere, but that should say something. er, it was you who was doing the misrepresentation. and still are. crash, i am interested in reasonable discussion. but discussion with you simply runs in circles. i say something, you twist it, and i explain why what you did was wrong, and you get your feathers ruffled. then we just fight, endlessly repeating ourselves.if you could go about discussion here without resorting to insult as a first instinct, and with out the condescending attitude, maybe we'd be capable of discussion. until then, my process of taking apart your post reminds you too much of your own process, and my attitude comes off too much like yours. if you could stop being a jerk for two seconds, we'd probably even get along. see, this is that "relentless contrarianism" you talked about. that's all you do. "yes i did!" "no you didn't!" look, read the thread. respond to the evidence, or ignore it. but don't pretend like you addressed when you ignored it. that's just, well, that's just dishonest. no, you're welcome to your different opinion. just expect to be corrected when you insist that an opinion that differs from all available evidence is anything other than irrational. crash, i'm typing this from outside your window, holding a bottle of vicks vaporrub and a machete.seriously. get over yourself. and... those aren't contradictory statements how? look, you act like a fundamentalist. i know it. you know it. most of the board knows it. i'm sorry i have to be the one to tell you, because i know you'll simply think that i'm holding a grudge or i'm out to get you. i'm not. i just think you could argue your points a little better. *sigh*i didn't say people hated you. i said people think you act like a fundamentalist. i don't know of anyone who's out to get you, or who hates you, just lots of people who think it would be rude to tell you to your face when you act like an idiot. sure, open invitation. if this thread stays open until tomorrow, i know at least one (reasonable atheist) person has said they'll comment.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

the part where "what the fuck is wrong with you?" is the first thing to come out of your mouth, no matter what the statement is. everybody as feet. how do feet exist? kinda silly. oh yes, let me tell you how much being called a "douche" on the internet actually hurt me. why, i don't think i slept for months!the fact is that plagiarism is a claim that can be substantiated. your argument was taken from somewhere without credit. it's not an insult, it's a statement about the source of your argument. "douche" is an insult. i cannot believe that you fail to see the difference.was my attitude a contributing factor? yes. hey! that would have been a better response. er, no, your argument was based on gender bias. different statement altogether. and in any case, when have you ever hesitated to call a bigot a bigot? you said before, you will not pay an deference to sexism -- why should i? oh, ok, the other thread. my bad. anyways, how do you get "you're sexist" from this?

quote:

---

your argument was plaigarized from postmodern feminist bs. i'm well acquinted with the subject and the biases it draws from. if you're repeating those same arguments, you're subject to having it's biases analyzed. even if you yourself are not openly advocating those biases.

---

that seems to pretty clearly say that i understand that you're not sexist but are simply repeating arguments that are based on gender bias. it was a long time ago. look harder. and i will apologize for the "plagiarism" remark if it'll make you feel better -- i had (erroneously) assumed that you had read those arguments, and not simply and coincidentally come up with them on your own. what can i say, crash? you bring out the worst in me. actually, crash, all i remembered until tonight was you calling me an anti-semite.Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tag -- does this count as an admission of error too?

---

with all due respect, who the hell are you to tell phat he's not a christian? "no true scotsman" is when someone makes a statement, as your above, that excludes people as "not counting" as a "real" whatever. the idea is that if every person in scotland excludes every other group, then by collective agreement, there is no true scotsman. just infidels.perhaps you should look up what the fallacy is. ray, i was a fundamentalist. i know what fundamentalism is. you are obscuring the main idea by focusing on some irrelevent minutae -- "fundamentalist" comes from the idea that someone believes in the "fundamentals" and adheres to them. i thought the bible does not contradict? yes ray, that's "fundamentalism" means.

---

i am well aware of them, i just thought you should be aware of your's. your "gentle ribs" come off as insults. perhaps you do not intend them that way, but they are read that way. you are probably equally misreading some of the things i say -- i have a particularly... odd sense of humor. i'll try to use smilies for you. no, but acting like an asshole doesn't help. even if you're only kidding. lol! ditto. though i find it odd you have to dispute my accusation that you're being contrarian. but then again, so do i. don't confuse you not reading my arguments my arguments having erectile dysfunction. lol, no, and the irony is that, well, i'm sorta acting like you. ah, see, i still like the simplicity of "you are a darwinist, so logically..."crash, i don't know if you noticed, but i don't speak of religion in the most glowing language either. your side remember? nor do they consider muslim fundamentalists among their ranks. oh yes, i'm always amused by ray, too. frankly, i think they'd be more than happy to argue that atheism is just another religion. and i had fully expected you to assume that's what i meant, and i am very glad you don't. but those of us in the middle, in the "moderate" camps tend to think that either extreme is "fundamentalist" because of the similarities in behaviour, and rampant adherences to ideology.yes, crash, i'm a moderate. you wouldn't know it by this thread, though. i have successfully demonstrated how to act like a fundamentalist. and so have you. i wasn't trying to be an asshole. i was trying to honestly critique something that's bothered me about your style -- something that if you'd just change, your arguments would greatly benefit. er, yes. but people are normally born with feet. just like our brains normally function in irrational ways from time to time. nice nitpick though. sure you're not simply arguing for the sake or argument? i would much prefer that we understand each other. i could have left it at the apologies, yes, and maybe i should have, but i think we're both basically reasonably people, and we should be able to both post in a public forum with petty fights. i'm sorry that i had to say what i did -- the ad hominem with actual content, that is -- but i felt it needed to be said. i think that we're both big enough to take each other's personality critiques in stride and learn something from them about ourselves. yes?

---

i argue for a literal interpretation of the bible. maybe you hadn't noticed.and my question still stands, ray. who the hell are you to tell other people whether or not they are christians.

quote:

---

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

​

Matthew 7:1-5

---

quote:

---

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

​

Luke 6:37

---

seems to me that those that walk around condemning others will condemned themselves. maybe in your cockeyed worldview. for the rest of us, it's a logical fallacy, based around the notion of exclusionary debate tactics, such as yours. just as you exclude people from being "true scotsmen" others exclude you and your point becomes simply subjective and personal opinion. it's not about objectifying anything, it's about pointing out that you are biased and subjective.as jesus said, exclude, and you will be excluded. see, you're arguing for the objective. but your "objective" is just your own subjectivity. either christianity is a profession of faith -- as you say it is -- or it is a way of life -- what you previously argued against as "fundamentalism." you can't have it both ways.and anyways, if we're talking about standards on which to judge the veracity of a claim to christianity, it seems that the standard jesus set (above) would be the final word. so if you go around telling people they're not christians then neither are you for you have fundamentally misunderstood the gospel and are preaching in reverse. instead of spreading the love of god and sharing salvation, you are spreading hatred and condemnation. and that's just not very christian, is it?further, it is attitudes like yours that drive people away from christianity, and away from the truth. you are doing a disservice to mankind, and christ, and poisoning his message. ray, i don't agree with richard dawkins about origins. richard dawkins is an atheist; i am not. he argues for atheism; i do not. that's really funny ray. that explains the effort i've gone to learn about and study the bible. to learn the language it's written in. why most of my posts here are about the bible. boy, if that's rejection, i'd hate to see the effort required for devotion! ad hominem = inability to refute.Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle

---

how could anyone be a "real christian" is if christ and/or god do not exist?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

so you want, basically, to spread what you feel is the truth? i think it's a little hard to claim objectively that there is no god. that's another thread, anyways. certainly, it's a lot harder than an anatomy lesson. your analogy applies very well to creationists in the geosciences... but not so much to philosophical questions. likelihoods are bad arguments. creationists make the same kinds of arguments about beneficial mutations. "unlikely," "doesn't," and "impossible" are all very different statements. that's just what brenna said to me earlier this afternoon.

---