Welcome Guest! To enable all features please try to register or login.
4 Pages«<234
Dangers of Atheism
morninghoneybee
#76 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2008 8:29:06 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
Quote:
"...And that's why we're atheists. It's all about the evidence. "


Then try this 'evidence' on for size.

Given the number of people in the world who DO believe in SOME sort of deity-based, intangible, unprovable reality, compared to the number of people incapable of doing so (I use the word 'incapable' pointedly so), that serves as irrefutable 'evidence' that the propensity for such belief is indeed hard-wired into the human psyche...It further leads one to the inescapable conclusion, given what we know of even the basics of evolution, that if it's hard-wired into the organism, it can ONLY be because such a belief system SERVES TO IMPROVE the probability of survival of any given species., because that is, after all, how evolution works.

Therefore, those who do NOT believe, are, in fact, defective, genetically speaking. A few years ago, I'm no longer sure how many, but maybe between 5 and 7 perhaps, I think it was Time magazine, or maybe Newsweek, who had a story on "The God Gene"...where geneticists �(never mind, I'm too anal...I had to google..."FROM THE OCTOBER 25, 2004 ISSUE OF TIME MAGAZINE; POSTED SUNDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2004"Wink postulated this exact thought...that our hard-wiring to believe in a power higher than ourselves, as well as some sort of afterlife, whether heavenly or reincarnated, came to be as part of the EVOLUTIONARY process of the human organism.

On the basis of that theory, atheists have not 'risen above' the 'ignorance of belief', but rather, have DEGENERATED to a state of DISbelief, thus LESSENING their odds of survival in a 'believing world'...

Sorta brings that scripture to mind about God 'using fools, to confound the wise...'

I'd say all you have to do , as an atheist, is stop having FAITH in your own 'reasoning', when you can merely opne your eyes and SEE the reality that the vast MAJORITY of the people around you have a capacity that you yourselves lack.

Another interesting avenue you might want to explore is a site called "www.whatthebleep.com"...where the latest discoveries of some of the world's greatest physicists, scientists, and thinkers are posted and discussed. It is becoming more and more apparent to "those with ears to hear, and eyes to see" that science will ultimately, and soon, PROVE a physically provable basis for 'faith' and 'belief', rather than DISPROVING it...

Maybe, if you're lucky, they'll come up with a 'genetic patch' to fix that atheistic defect in the course of their studies.

In the meantime, we'll keep a light on for ya...

(ADDENDUM: Here's a link to that Time article, for any interested... http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/
morninghoneybee
#77 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:29:22 PM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
That many people believe it shows only that they believe it; you are making the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populam (argument from the masses). 400 years ago, 100% of people thought both that the Earth was stationary with the Sun going round it, and that the Earth was the center of the universe. They were wrong on both counts. Popularity of belief is not evidence. (Also remember that much of what is true is actually counter-intuitive.)
As to hardwiring, belief itself is a meme, and as such it is fantastically vulnerable to parasitization. As children, the rule of thumb is "believe everything told to you", which is good advice when the message is "don't eat red berries" or "don't pick up snakes", but piggybacking on that good advice can easily be the "believe there is a shiny beardy man in the sky" nonsense, for which there is no evidence.
Memes explain in Darwinian terms (the only meaningful terms) the nature of belief; they do not mean that the belief itself is true. Stop confusing the two. Understanding the real world actually improved (note the past tense) survival odds (as modern society now removes the likelihood of death in infancy, or at least skews the odds), because earlier atheists like Lucretius and Democritus saw the world more how it is than their contemporaries.
BTW, "what the bleep" is just crap pseudoscience, and if any single one of their claims can be demonstrated under proper scientific conditions, they will win $1 million: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/
They have two years to apply, but I expect to see you making that application immediately. After all, why wouldn't you... unless you really know already that it's all crap...?
morninghoneybee
#78 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:23:38 PM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=Lisa_Swallows link=1162636212/75#76 date=1200230962]That many people believe it shows only that they believe it; you are making the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populam (argument from the masses). 400 years ago, 100% of people thought both that the Earth was stationary with the Sun going round it, and that the Earth was the center of the universe. They were wrong on both counts. Popularity of belief is not evidence. (Also remember that much of what is true is actually counter-intuitive.)
As to hardwiring, belief itself is a meme, and as such it is fantastically vulnerable to parasitization. As children, the rule of thumb is "believe everything told to you", which is good advice when the message is "don't eat red berries" or "don't pick up snakes", but piggybacking on that good advice can easily be the "believe there is a shiny beardy man in the sky" nonsense, for which there is no evidence.
Memes explain in Darwinian terms (the only meaningful terms) the nature of belief; they do not mean that the belief itself is true. Stop confusing the two. Understanding the real world actually improved (note the past tense) survival odds (as modern society now removes the likelihood of death in infancy, or at least skews the odds), because earlier atheists like Lucretius and Democritus saw the world more how it is than their contemporaries.
BTW, "what the bleep" is just crap pseudoscience, and if any single one of their claims can be demonstrated under proper scientific conditions, they will win $1 million: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/
They have two years to apply, but I expect to see you making that application immediately. After all, why wouldn't you... unless you really know already that it's all crap...?[/quote]

One can only assume you suffer from spiritual deafness as well as spiritual blindness, since you addressed ONLY your own agenda as previously stated, and did not address in the slightest the notion I put forth, as backed by HARD science, that man's propensity for faith is GENETICALLY based, (as opposed to your blathering about 'memes'...)

But in trying to wax eloquent, you hoisted yourself on your own petard. Is it not obvious (well, probably not to you, since your mind is so obviously CLOSED to anything that distrubs YOUR belief system) that even as man's understanding of the world around him has so dramatically EXPANDED over the past 400 years, that religious belief, while certainly not remaining static by any means, has remained every bit as ROBUST over that same period, in SPITE of the scientific advances?

And it's a specious argument that science was advanced by atheists...Far MORE advances have been discovered, postulated, or proven by NON-atheists, which you certainly must be aware of, but again, in pursuit of your agenda, you choose to obfuscate.

"Belief" is not "argument for the masses"...rather it is observed phenomenon. Those who don't partake are in a very noticeable minority. Part of their dementia is the illusion (in their minds) that their defect signifies higher intelligence, instead of diminished emotional capacity.

You talk about WHAT people believe in, unable to see the only significant thing is that they DO believe in SOMETHING, and you do not (or perhaps, it would be more correct to say...CAN not...). It is YOU who represent the 'flat earth society', not the other way around...and that is the delusion that entraps you.

People could not believe in a round earth they could not see, just as you cannot believe in a deity YOU cannot see...and yet you automatically fault the vision of those around you instead of questioning the shortcomings of your own eyes.

In a nutshell, the capacity for belief depends on an inner vision you simply lack. On that sad note, you are to be pitied, not ridiculed.
morninghoneybee
#79 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2008 12:31:01 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
What on earth does this "spirit" mean? Please define your terms. If I am "spiritually blind", so is everyone else, for the reason that no such thing as "spirit" exists". Those who beleive it does are deluded--after all, there is no evidence for it.
I am not closed to new ideas, but I do require evidence for them-unlike you, who are so open-minded that your brains have fallen out. That religious belief remains extant in the face of scientific advances is testament to how easily deluded humans are as a species. Bu then again, when dealing with the scientifically ignorant, we are talking of an absolute majority.
The remainder of your arguments are merely an erroneous conflation of psuedoscience and confusion of belief with faith, which I have already explained and will not bother to do so again.
Have fun with your delusions.
morninghoneybee
#80 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2008 2:33:38 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=Lisa_Swallows link=1162636212/75#78 date=1200270661]What on earth does this "spirit" mean? Please define your terms. If I am "spiritually blind", so is everyone else, for the reason that no such thing as "spirit" exists". Those who beleive it does are deluded--after all, there is no evidence for it.
I am not closed to new ideas, but I do require evidence for them-unlike you, who are so open-minded that your brains have fallen out. That religious belief remains extant in the face of scientific advances is testament to how easily deluded humans are as a species. Bu then again, when dealing with the scientifically ignorant, we are talking of an absolute majority.
The remainder of your arguments are merely an erroneous conflation of psuedoscience and confusion of belief with faith, which I have already explained and will not bother to do so again.
Have fun with your delusions.[/quote]

Spoken like a true flat worlder, once again...Your mind is not only closed, but evidently very small as well, to match your intellect, no doubt.

'Science', in the guise of 'all the greatest minds of the time', KNEW that the earth was flat...in fact, 'everyone' knew it at the time, except for the delusional few.  The only thing that's changed in this discussion is it is now YOU among the 'delusional few', so filled with your own sense of 'rightness', you can't even entertain the notion that the lack of 'evidence' is due, not to any lack of evidence, but rather, in your inability to perceive it, even when it is present all around you.

Also, in your misplaced haughty arrogance, you fail to address YOUR perceived difference between 'faith' and 'belief'. You 'believe' there is no Deity because you cannot prove there is. Others 'believe' there is because they can't prove there is not. You have 'faith' in the inerrancy of your logic, just as they have 'faith' in the validity of their intuition.

Yet you find your position categorically superior. How very illogical of you....not to mention delusional.
morninghoneybee
#81 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2008 4:54:14 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=FuckWad link=1162636212/75#79 date=1200278018] Spoken like a true flat worlder, once again...Your mind is not only closed, but evidently very small as well, to match your intellect, no doubt.

'Science', in the guise of 'all the greatest minds of the time', KNEW that the earth was flat...in fact, 'everyone' knew it at the time, except for the delusional few. �The only thing that's changed in this discussion is it is now YOU among the 'delusional few', so filled with your own sense of 'rightness', you can't even entertain the notion that the lack of 'evidence' is due, not to any lack of evidence, but rather, in your inability to perceive it, even when it is present all around you.

Also, in your misplaced haughty arrogance, you fail to address YOUR perceived difference between 'faith' and 'belief'. You 'believe' there is no Deity because you cannot prove there is. Others 'believe' there is because they can't prove there is not. You have 'faith' in the inerrancy of your logic, just as they have 'faith' in the validity of their intuition.

Yet you find your position categorically superior. How very illogical of you....not to mention delusional.
[/quote]
Nice ad hominem attack, but again nothing of substance. Your mischaracterization of science is typical of the scientifiically ignorant, and is a major problem in the world today. And you have committed yetr another logical fallacy in assuming equiprobability of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. remmeber, the burden is on those who take the affirmative position: that gods do exist. Without evidence, the only rational position is that they do not exist.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary...?
morninghoneybee
#82 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2008 11:34:56 PM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
[quote author=Lisa_Swallows link=1162636212/75#80 date=1200286454][Nice ad hominem attack, but again nothing of substance. Your mischaracterization of science is typical of the scientifiically ignorant, and is a major problem in the world today. And you have committed yetr another logical fallacy in assuming equiprobability of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. remmeber, the burden is on those who take the affirmative position: that gods do exist. Without evidence, the only rational position is that they do not exist.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary...?[/quote]

And your arrogance is only superceded by your ignorance.

You take an equally 'affirmative positive' position when you attempt, however feebly, to ignore the EVIDENCE that most of the members of the most evolved species on the planet are in agreement that "SOMETHING" exists "above" them, (that's called 'prima facia evidence' by those who understand the concept of evidence', which apparently you do not, or do not CARE to) whether in the form of a 'force', a 'deity', or just an overarcing order to everything.

Don't let my ad hominems blind you to the weight of the evidence couched within.

So much of today's 'science' was, by definition, "supernatural" not that long ago..."Supernatural" is a moving target after all, would you not agree, since it is wholly dependent on our constantly evolving ability to define that which IS "natural".

I am not a proponent of ANY faith, just observing that to have A faith is obviously the MORE 'natural' condition of the species. And to LACK faith is, by extension, therefore more suspect. Rather than implying a DEEPER 'understanding', it more readily suggests a DEFECT within those who lack the capacity to see the world as FULLY as the vast majority of their kind.

Rather than railing against religion of any sort, trying to bolster your own delusions of superiority in the process, you'd do better to look within, and try to decipher what it is that cripples you so badly. Otherwise, you'll continue hobbling through life on one leg. As it turns out, religion is NOT the crutch the 'flat worlders' make it out to be.

As the Bible might put it "Stop pointing to the splinter in the other's eye, and remove the mote from your own instead..."

One does not need to leave one's intellect and logic at the entrance to the church. However one DOES need to shut one's mind to the obvious all around them to enter into the temple of the Atheist fundamentalists.
violator1200
#83 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2008 11:57:20 PM(UTC)
Rank: Junio RLC Member

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 72
Dammit Fuckwad you keep amazing me with the way you can just reply intelligently to everything!
BTW you took the words right out of my mouth,I'm with you on this one Wink
violator1200
#84 Posted : Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:53:48 AM(UTC)
Rank: Junio RLC Member

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 72
[quote author=FuckWad link=1162636212/75#81 date=1200353696]And your arrogance is only superceded by your ignorance.

You take an equally 'affirmative positive' position when you attempt, however feebly, to ignore the EVIDENCE that most of the members of the most evolved species on the planet are in agreement that "SOMETHING" exists "above" them, (that's called 'prima facia evidence' by those who understand the concept of evidence', which apparently you do not, or do not CARE to) whether in the form of a 'force', a 'deity', or just an overarcing order to everything.

Don't let my ad hominems blind you to the weight of the evidence couched within.

So much of today's 'science' was, by definition, "supernatural" not that long ago..."Supernatural" is a moving target after all, would you not agree, since it is wholly dependent on our constantly evolving ability to define that which IS "natural".

I am not a proponent of ANY faith, just observing that to have A faith is obviously the MORE 'natural' condition of the species. And to LACK faith is, by extension, therefore more suspect. Rather than implying a DEEPER 'understanding', it more readily suggests a DEFECT within those who lack the capacity to see the world as FULLY as the vast majority of their kind.

Rather than railing against religion of any sort, trying to bolster your own delusions of superiority in the process, you'd do better to look within, and try to decipher what it is that cripples you so badly. Otherwise, you'll continue hobbling through life on one leg. As it turns out, religion is NOT the crutch the 'flat worlders' make it out to be.

As the Bible might put it "Stop pointing to the splinter in the other's eye, and remove the mote from your own instead..."

One does not need to leave one's intellect and logic at the entrance to the church. However one DOES need to shut one's mind to the obvious all around them to enter into the temple of the Atheist fundamentalists.
[/quote]
You have yet to offer ANY evidence, you mischaracterize science, and now you mischaracterize atheism, which cannot by definition ever be "fundamentalist". I suggest you read some science books before you start ranting again.
violator1200
#85 Posted : Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:13:25 AM(UTC)
Rank: Junio RLC Member

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 72
[quote author=Lisa_Swallows link=1162636212/75#83 date=1200358428]
You have yet to offer ANY evidence, you mischaracterize science, and now you mischaracterize atheism, which cannot by definition ever be "fundamentalist". I suggest you read some science books before you start ranting again.
[/quote]

rather an emotional reaction to MY 'rant', if you ask me...apparently the creature cannot handle painting itself into an intellectual corner.

After all this board IS  "Religion and Philosophy", not "Atheism 101"...so I guess your posting it here is your admission that Atheism IS, at best, merely yet another belief system...and therefore, by definition, certainly capable of having factions one could characterize as "fundamentalist".

And the best argument you can mount to refute everything I've put before you is to suggest that I read some science books?

Admit it, you were made to look like an idiot...and I wasn't even trying that hard....YOU deserve all the credit...but of course you do, because after all, YOU are the 'supreme being' in YOUR pathetic little world, aren't you? Best you stay there then...better for everyone.


violator1200
#86 Posted : Friday, January 25, 2008 5:47:32 AM(UTC)
Rank: Junio RLC Member

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 72
Dangers of Atheism? lol, Now that's funny. I would think over the course of human history more people have lost life and limb over the whole 'my god has a bigger dick than your god' argument. I would consider that to be 'Dangerous'. If that's some 'added capacity' that us heathens lack, then maybe that's a good thing. Ya think? Then there's the whole 'the earth is ten-thousand years old' idea. I say unto you... Carbon Dating!!

I think this should sum it up.. at least it's funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Oh and when you're done with that, try some reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw

There's 2 cents. The defense rests your honor.
violator1200
#87 Posted : Friday, January 25, 2008 7:01:43 AM(UTC)
Rank: Junio RLC Member

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 72
[quote author=�upid_BDB link=1162636212/75#85 date=1201240052]Dangers of Atheism? lol, Now that's funny. I would think over the course of human history more people have lost life and limb over the whole 'my god has a bigger dick than your god' argument. I would consider that to be 'Dangerous'. If that's some 'added capacity' that us heathens lack, then maybe that's a good thing. Ya think? Then there's the whole 'the earth is ten-thousand years old' idea. I say unto you... Carbon Dating!!

I think this should sum it up.. at least it's funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Oh and when you're done with that, try some reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw

There's 2 cents. The defense rests your honor.
[/quote]

<gavel comes down> GUILTY!  Of Stupidity in the 1st degree, and reckless manslaughter of logic! Sentence? To be hung by the neck until SOME blood reaches your empty brain!

Carbon dating has been, since its inception, a topic of debate throughout the scientific community. Erroneous readings, WILDLY fluctuating reads of identical specimens...you name it, it's blown it. And yet again, you try to support NOT believing in SOMETHING by ridiculing specific articles of faith of those who do...Hardly an adequate, and certainly not a glowing, defense.

You also somehow in the same sentence condemn believers for the very same offenses you excuse the heathens from? Why? Were they in some PARALLEL universe when all of human history was happening? Perhaps on Bizarro Earth, no doubt...since you probably got your 'facts' from the same place as your education....Superman comic books...

Why is it Atheists can only defend THEIR faith by attacking the articles of faith of NON-Atheists? Did you EVER ask yourself that single, cogent, PIVOTAL question? That's called 'defining yourself by a negative'...There's a slightly less technical term for that though that I'm SURE you've had to deal with being accused of spewing MOST of your life, probably every time you opened your mouth, in fact....

BULLSHIT.

It's hardly a refutation of what someone else sees to say you only believe in what YOU can see...ESPECIALLY when those who ALSO see what you see are in an almost insignificant minority...But that's the word that troubles you so much, no doubt...

No, the troubling word is not 'minority'....The one you can't stand being applied to YOUR 'faith' is  "Insignificant"...

You see, THAT'S why this thread is titled the DANGERS of Atheism...It's not about WHAT you do, or do NOT believe...it's about the fact that you DO, or do NOT believe, in something...It means you're mentally unbalanced...an aberration...genetically defective.

Maybe you should pray for healing, eh? :Smile
violator1200
#88 Posted : Sunday, January 27, 2008 4:02:07 AM(UTC)
Rank: Junio RLC Member

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 72
I joined this late - but I must say I disagree strongly with last statement that says ...
"It is not what you do..."

Of course it is.  we can talk all day and night, write wonderful diatribes that purport one ideal over another - but in the end it is entirely WHAT WE DO ... that mattters.  

Our actions - more than our clever words - are the true refection of our character and moral base.

This is an obvious fact - a total and undeniable truth.  

Thought this thread needed at least one ...

Peace - Jerlon
violator1200
#89 Posted : Monday, January 28, 2008 2:14:32 AM(UTC)
Rank: Junio RLC Member

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 72
[quote author=Jerlon link=1162636212/75#87 date=1201406527]I joined this late - but I must say I disagree strongly with last statement that says ...
"It is not what you do..."

Of course it is. �we can talk all day and night, write wonderful diatribes that purport one ideal over another - but in the end it is entirely WHAT WE DO ... that mattters. �

Our actions - more than our clever words - are the true refection of our character and moral base.

[highlight]This is an obvious fact - a total and undeniable truth.  

Thought this thread needed at least one ...[/highlight]

Peace - Jerlon [/quote]

Yes, and yours SURELY was not it!

Obviously you don't understand the concept of PARSING a sentence! You actually took the first few words of the sentence....and THREW AWAY THE REST!!! ;D ;D ;D

Or is it simply a lack of understanding of even the most basic punctuation that done ya in?

The sentence WAS
Quote:
"It's not about WHAT you do, or do NOT believe...it's about the fact that you DO, or do NOT believe, in something..."


Maybe you'd better stick to the general forums from now on...You're just gonna hurt yourself here, I mean, being language-impaired and all...

Maybe if you'd actually READ the previous posts, and GRASPED even in the slightest, the topic under discussion...but then, you're probably too busy to go to that much trouble...Better just to post your little drive-by inanity and be done with it, eh?

Sheesh! Blink


EllisaDQ
#90 Posted : Monday, January 28, 2008 3:40:54 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8
..ouch....
EllisaDQ
#91 Posted : Monday, January 28, 2008 4:22:56 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8
Hi FuckWad ...

You have named yourself appropriately ... spares me the bother.  
I found it interesting that your attack on my sentences were all grammar related - you offered nothing useful in the form of response to my content.

At any rate - it is easy to insult and challenge people in an 'invisible' forum ... you appeared to really enjoy yourself.  Would not want to spoil your fun.  

The water might be deep here - I will swim carefully.  I am always careful around children.  Need to watch out to ensure they are safe.  It can spoil the fun having that much responsibility, so you might be right?  

I might have more fun on forum links where adults with a sense of friendly and convivial attitudes are more apparent.  ?  At any rate, I do like you name.  It fits you.

If you care to address the substance of my statements - you are welcome to try.   I am happy to guide you if needed - feel free to ask.  

Peace - Jerlon
EllisaDQ
#92 Posted : Monday, January 28, 2008 4:32:42 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8
[quote author=Jerlon link=1162636212/75#90 date=1201494176]Hi FuckWad ...

You have named yourself appropriately ... spares me the bother. �
[highlight]I found it interesting that your attack on my sentences were all grammar related - you offered nothing useful in the form of response to my content. [/highlight]

At any rate - it is easy to insult and challenge people in an 'invisible' forum ... you appeared to really enjoy yourself. �Would not want to spoil your fun. �

The water might be deep here - I will swim carefully. �I am always careful around children. �Need to watch out to ensure they are safe. �It can spoil the fun having that much responsibility, so you might be right? �

I might have more fun on forum links where adults with a sense of friendly and convivial attitudes are more apparent. �? �At any rate, I do like you name. �It fits you.

If you care to address the substance of my statements - you are welcome to try. � I am happy to guide you if needed - feel free to ask. �

Peace - Jerlon [/quote]

Au contraire asshole. YOUR CONTENT was BASED on a rebuttal of a statement I NEVER MADE!!! And THAT was apparently due to your inability to read a complete sentence before reacting, foolishly, to the first few words of a statement, that, taken OUT of context in such a manner, had nothing to do with the THOUGHT itself...

I'd argue the content, if you had any, which you didn't, so I won't.

Even after I so helpfully pointed out your fuck-up, you didn't correct it, but instead tried to stonewall the fact you totally blew it, implying that it was I, not you, that was not addressing the issues...You raised an issue based on your own stupidity. If you can't get past that, then there's not much sense in me wasting additional time trying to educate you as to the rudiments of reading a simple statement correctly.

Keep posting though. Your feeble attempts so much more eloquently illustrate which of us is the 'child' in this exchange.

(And I'm glad you like my name. I selected it especially so that jerks like you wouldn't have to type it, and probably spell it wrong.)
EllisaDQ
#93 Posted : Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:29:40 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8
Hmmmm?

I re-read the entire thread and stand by my disagreement with your statement that said:

"It is not what you do..."  I think it IS what we DO that matters most, regardless of our words or ramblings, our actions speak louder about who and what we are.  You disagree?  How have I taken you 'out of context'?  

If you disagree with me - that is fine - but I have explained why I disagree with you.  Perhaps I am missunderstanding your own words and writings (above)?  You still haven't addressed the 'content' of our disagreement.

And if this is a real discussion - I would like to propose a truce regarding our mutual condescension and rather petty tone.  I will avoid it in the future. (But we do seem to have inspired each other at least in that respect .. perhaps such fire is useful?)

I invite further comment - sincerely, Jerlon
EllisaDQ
#94 Posted : Friday, February 01, 2008 7:01:27 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8
Did I kill the discussion seeking the low carb 'debate'?  I can be nasty again if that helps spark things up ... but really hoping for a good continued discussion on the so called "dangers of atheism" ...

okey dokey donkey daddy

jerlon
EllisaDQ
#95 Posted : Friday, February 01, 2008 11:23:08 PM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8
You killed it by your inability to recognize that you can't parse words OUT of a complete sentence, then base your argument on JUST that partial phrase....which is EXACTLY what I TRIED to explain in my last response.

You don't even have to read the ENTIRE thread to get that...Just read the one you were responding to.

If you can only SEE that you WANT, and not what I actually WRITE, then this is not a good medium for you to try to have any sort of in-depth discussion in. In fact, it'd be frustrating for you, and useless to me.
EllisaDQ
#96 Posted : Saturday, February 02, 2008 4:56:00 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8
I have re-read your previous words again (for the last time) -

I see a trend of insult and attack in everything you write.  You DO NOT address content or context, and pretending the others (not just me, but everyone, it appears) fail to address your 'points' is a total dodge.  You fail to address your own points.  Just referring to the imagined 'errors' of others and making no strong stand whatsoever for your own thoughts. Can't you see this?  I am sure anyone else reading would find this obvious.  

Do you think Atheism is dangerous?  I don't.  I have no idea where you stand after reading your words.

Do you have some form of spiritualism, religion or faith of some sort ... ? I do.  I have no idea where you stand after reading your words.

I'll ask you one final time to explain yourself.  I am clearly stating my opinion - you have attacked my writing style and sentax, but not my content.  I believe in sense of faith and religious belief.  I believe God is real.  I do not think Atheism is dangerous.   What are your thoughts ...?  

I still think potential interesting discussion might result here - but your refusal to accept that I don't understand your 'real' intent or point ... might make this impossible.  Why not get on with making a point ... a statement of what you think ... I don't care what you think of me, that is meaningless to me ... I thought this was a quasi-theological discussion.  

I joined it, added my view, and have since been in discussion only with you.  A rather unpleasant 'discussion' at times too. This is why I wonder if the thread is 'killed.'  I am happy to engage in this type of dialouge, I really am - strangely entertaining, I guess?  We might be more succesful in a real exchange of thoughts and ideas if we had a better starting place than rudeness.

we'll see - but I'm still game ... I really don't understand you - you challenged me to re-read it, and I did - and honestly, in good faith, have no idea what you are talking about.  This (as you gleefully point out) may be a result of my innocence or ignorance ...?  But - it may also be a result of your words as your wrote them ... perhaps you would be good enough to re-phrase what I fail to understand - so that I might understand it?  

Hmmm ?  Just a thought my firey and interesting new voice in the cyber void -
Peace,
Jerlon
EllisaDQ
#97 Posted : Tuesday, February 05, 2008 5:26:46 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 8
Okey Dokey ...

as they say - "it isn't fair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person..."  

But I'll end on quote(s) from Ben. Franklin - who wrote:

"To write clearly, not only the most expressive, but the plainest Words should be chosen."

and

"If a Man would that his Writings have an Effect on the Generality of Readers, he had better imitate that Gentleman, who would use no Word in his Works that was not well understood by his Cook-maid."

........ Jerlon of Isis
Users browsing this topic
Guest (6)
4 Pages«<234
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Clean Slate theme by Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2010, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.232 seconds.
TC-QIIS-1