[QUOTE="alienlegion"]
snip self praising diatribe
Barbariser
Doesn't matter if you don't care about getting modded, you will be reported and appropiately punished anyway. There is only one person in this conversation who has belittled and insulted other users, and seeing as it's not me, I find it quite amusing that you think I am arrogant and pathetic when you're the only one who sees fit to throw a temper tantrum and call a couple of internet posters stupid and worthless over an argument. I have never ever said anything about myself being superior to other people on the basis of belief and I have never attacked a religious person on the basis that they were religious. I would normally say I don't know where you got that stuff from, but it wouldn't be entirely accurate - I'm already aware that you pulled it out of your ass.
And yes, I have clearly addressed your arguments (the only part that I was interested in, by the way - I am not obligated to respond to every single thing a poster says) by pointing out that your use of language clearly indicates that you are generalizing scientists, and that this is how it will be interpreted regardless of what you meant originally. If someone said to me "Christians aren't rude to other people" and I showed him your posts as counterevidence, it would not be sufficient to prove him wrong because you are only one case of a Christian treating others like crap - well, assuming of course that you are Christian. If he had instead said "Christians are never rude to other people" then yes, showing him what you said to me would be sufficient evidence to defeat that statement.
The fact that you choose to ignore this and accuse me of failing to address what you have said is hilarious, considering that about 60% of your rants consist of telling me that I am stupid and that I should go away, 30% is devoted to talking about how awesomely knowledgable you are and the remaining 10% consists of you twisting my words so that you can make me look stupid. Had you been focused on reading my post and not thinking about how stupid you think I am, you would have noticed that I was trying to link your silly scientist dialogue fantasy to your Stephen Hawkings article.
But yes, you are right in that there isn't any point for you to talk to me, at least from my perspective. That's how its going to be until you choose to practise what you preach instead of talk about how much smarter you are than internet forumgoers.
So pretty much you've missed everything I was saying.
The point of the above argument, which was started when someone else replied to one of my posts and asserted that I was ignorant (with absolutely no grounds to do so), was to state that athiests are just as gullible as they claim believers to be.
The most common athiest argument on these boards is that they don't believe in a God because they can't see him, or there is no proof. This is lazy thinking (or rather anti-establishment reactionism ((Christianity, etc.))) at it's best.
Athiests let scientists spoon-feed them anything they come up with. The point is not science vs religion, which two of you have completely overlooked due to either your relentless pursuit to further the superiority of athiesm or your plain inability to admit you were wrong, but the means and method by which we come to decide on a world view.
One person read the Bible and believes it. One person reads Bertrand Russel, Richard Dawkins, of Stephen Hawking and believes them. There is no difference. Because most of what is written in the books of the latter are ideas and concepts that you yourself will never be able to prove true or false, just as in the former.
The other guy consistently fumbled on his knowledge of the ideas mentioned in this discussion every step of the way. He confused young earth creationsim with evolutionary creationism, which are two COMPLETELY different philosophies. You yourself have illustrated nothing more than a scant understanding of logical syllogisms, but nothing else. When you can argue the voracity of any of the scientific concepts I have mentioned in my above posts, rather just just drop in and accuse me of (what was it...oh yes- intellectual dishonesty:roll:) let me know. It might help you if also gain an understanding of thinkers like Kant, Heidegger, Hume or even James to argue against the concepts of existential experience and radical empiricism that I've been referring to.
To illustrate what I'm talking about- you have assumed that I believe the things I've been talking about, an argued against me in the hope of correcting my thinking or repremand my insults- solely because I told you I do. And given your opinion of me I shouldn't even be a credible source. This conversation up until now could be just an illusion and you wouldn't know it, because it could be built on total falsehoods. I may be an athiest, but you'll never know.
Last, I do practice what I preach. I've spent the last 19 years of my life serving the community as a librarian, helping homeless people fill out job applications, directing foreign immigrants to the resources and support systems they need to help them learn english and become integrated into American culture, oh, and there's that teaching kids to read thing.I will take absolutely no injury over that broad brushed comment based on your narrow perception of me through these posts. Mainly though because I don't put much stock in insults slung over the internet and I'm not easily offended by people with an opinions, just annoyed when people employ lazy thinking.
BTW I slept just fine that night I was suspended. -\('_')/-
Log in to comment