Hi all from a bemused Atheist

[Frank Ernest]

Just found/read it, but thanks.

Seems fair to me. He was rude. I understand why he was frustrated, but that doesn't make it reasonable to trash people because of their ideas/beliefs, even if they do, you.

Yes, it does. Atheists, agnastycs and lie-berals are unreasonable people. They come here to trash Christian Conservatives and be rude, obnoxious, and, in some cases, obscene. Some even pretend to be naive and innocent.

Eventually they self-destruct. Only a matter of time.

 

[icilian fenner]

Yes, it does. Atheists, agnastycs and lie-berals are unreasonable people. They come here to trash Christian Conservatives and be rude, obnoxious, and, in some cases, obscene. Some even pretend to be naive and innocent.

Eventually they self-destruct. Only a matter of time.

What of the copious amount of name calling done by some christian conservatives here?
Why do you think ALL atheists, agnostics and liberals (lie-berals? And you present yourself as the mature alternative?) are rude and obnoxious?

And from where do you get the idea about their motivations?
More specifically - MY motivations?

Incapable - As you can see there are some here that are prone to sweeping generalisations.

 

[Frank Ernest]

What of the copious amount of name calling done by some christian conservatives here?

Why are you trying to change the subject? (Typical. Trying to deflect criticism by changing the subject.)

Why do you think ALL atheists, agnostics and liberals (lie-berals? And you present yourself as the mature alternative?) are rude and obnoxious?

It's their errant way of thinking. They're brilliant and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and they do not hesitate to say so. I didn't say so, but you are correct. I am a mature alternative (one of many) to the sloppy, childish, stupid and egregious arguments offered by lie-berals, atheists and agnastycs.

And from where do you get the idea about their motivations?
More specifically - MY motivations?

I expect that you are motivated by a hatred of authority (parents, God, etc.) and thereby wish to avoid and deny any consequences to your bad and arbitrary behavior. That would be typically atheist, agnastyc and lie-beral.

Incapable - As you can see there are some here that are prone to sweeping generalisations.

Yes, your first comment above was an excellent example.

 

[icilian fenner]

Why are you trying to change the subject? (Typical. Trying to deflect criticism by changing the subject.)

Its easy - I'm not. You're making an assertion inherent in which christian conservatives act in a more mannerly, reasonable way. I was saying that that's not always the case.

Are you trying to accuse me of deflecting criticism because you don't want to be seen to be in the wrong?

It's their errant way of thinking. They're brilliant and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and they do not hesitate to say so. I didn't say so, but you are correct. I am a mature alternative (one of many) to the sloppy, childish, stupid and egregious arguments offered by lie-berals, atheists and agnastycs.

So do I fall into any of the above catagories?

I expect that you are motivated by a hatred of authority (parents, God, etc.) and thereby wish to avoid and deny any consequences to your bad and arbitrary behavior. That would be typically atheist, agnastyc and lie-beral.

HAHA!
I love my parents very much, and they love me too. I do not think it is likely God exists, and therefore hatred towards him would be difficult. I am simply trying to weigh up likelyhoods honestly.
What is this etc of which you speak?

Yes, your first comment above was an excellent example.

No. It really isn't. I SAID : "
What of the copious amount of name calling done by some christian conservatives here? "

SOME!
Hence not a sweeping generalisation.

 

[Layla]

It's their errant way of thinking. They're brilliant and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and they do not hesitate to say so.

I've seen that attitude from many theists, here, but not so many atheists. The starter of this thread does fall into that category, though, I'm sad to say, but he's not representative of all atheists.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Its easy - I'm not. You're making an assertion inherent in which christian conservatives act in a more mannerly, reasonable way. I was saying that that's not always the case.

I made no such assertion.

Are you trying to accuse me of deflecting criticism because you don't want to be seen to be in the wrong?

No, you're trying to deflect criticism because you don't want to be seen as you are.

So do I fall into any of the above catagories?

Undoubtedly.

HAHA!
I love my parents very much, and they love me too.

Sure.

I do not think it is likely God exists, and therefore hatred towards him would be difficult.

:darwinsm: What a cop-out! Not that I haven't seen it before.

I am simply trying to weigh up likelyhoods honestly.

:darwinsm: Sure.

What is this etc of which you speak?

Figure it out. You're a brilliant agnastyc.

No. It really isn't. I SAID : "
What of the copious amount of name calling done by some christian conservatives here? "
SOME!
Hence not a sweeping generalisation.

Ok. You swept a generalization on some.

 

[icilian fenner]

I made no such assertion.

IF you didn't, then :

Yes, it does. Atheists, agnastycs and lie-berals are unreasonable people. They come here to trash Christian Conservatives and be rude, obnoxious, and, in some cases, obscene. Some even pretend to be naive and innocent.

Eventually they self-destruct. Only a matter of time.

Would read

People are unreasonable people. They come here to trash other people and be rude, obnoxious, and, in some cases, obscene. Some even pretend to be naive and innocent.

Eventually they self-destruct. Only a matter of time.

Or similar.
IF you can explain why you didn't include all groups in your statement, seeing as you think you are under the impression you implied no such thing, I'm interested to hear.

No, you're trying to deflect criticism because you don't want to be seen as you are.

I have no problem with people seeing me for what I am. You do yourself discredit saying I am deflecting criticism when I am responding to it head-on.

Undoubtedly.

And where have I been unreasonable, and on what evidence do you say that I come to trash talk conservative Christians? Where have I been rude and obnoxious?

Sure.

Was that sarcastic or not?

:darwinsm: What a cop-out! Not that I haven't seen it before.

You've seen it before because it is the truth. No amount of persauding would let you take that position, though, as it is contrary to what you have chosen to believe.

:darwinsm: Sure.

See above.

Figure it out. You're a brilliant agnastyc.

Forgotten your own point already?
Nasty how?

Ok. You swept a generalization on some.

Population: Conservative christians on TOL
Quantity descriptor: Some
Evidence: More than one person from the Christian conservative element on this board name call.

Please tell me you have the intellect to understand the above?
Or are you simply a troll?

 

[Layla]

Unbanned? Welcome back, doogie.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Hey all it seems the risen one has a most forgiving streak, thanks Knight.

Now as a little right to reply as you have all been chatterboxes whilst I have been left lurking.

I called the interpretation of the facts a dumb one and YECism as a story of creation a dumbass idea. I didn't personally attack anyone, now I understand that insulting these strongly held beliefs is akin to insulting the person so I will try to be more reasonable in the future.

IncapableAdmin.
You're right I did come across as irrational and certainly don't speak for all atheists.

Carolus Magnus
I'm sure it'll be a blast

Frank Ernset
We're not all that bad, you're statement

They're brilliant and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and they do not hesitate to say so.

Can seem to be true I know. It is how some Atheist me included come across.

I only a liken it to the way a Christian sees an Atheist as simply wrong and if they don't turn to Christ they are lost. I can see how this frustrates when the answers seem so clear and easy.

I don't see myself as lost nor as wrong but in Britain even our conservative Christians are not quite as committed as your liberal ones so I haven't really been exposed to such a polar belief. Remember most of our churches have been turned into carpet warehouses and pubs. Some of the most wonderful architecture has simply been filled with screaming teens drinking alchopops into the wee hours.

I don't come on here to trash ideas and start fights, I am interested in theology. To me theology is not just about Christian belief it’s about Islam, Buddhism, Krishna and polytheism as well as many others.

Thanks to Knight and thanks to you all I’m sure if Knight felt you were not all as gracious he wouldn’t have let the arrogant young upstart back in.

Rob

Stay Sharp
Doogie Talons

 

[Frank Ernest]

IF you didn't, then :

Would read


Or similar.
IF you can explain why you didn't include all groups in your statement, seeing as you think you are under the impression you implied no such thing, I'm interested to hear.

Deflection ploy #1. Change the subject.

I have no problem with people seeing me for what I am.

All atheists/agnastycs, especially the liberal ones, have that problem.

You do yourself discredit saying I am deflecting criticism when I am responding to it head-on.

Let me see. This is deflection ploy #44 or thereabouts. Don't answer to the argument. Question the credibility of the arguer.

And where have I been unreasonable, and on what evidence do you say that I come to trash talk conservative Christians? Where have I been rude and obnoxious?

You're being so now with personal attacks.

Was that sarcastic or not?

Was what sarcastic or not? Have you lost the thread so soon?

You've seen it before because it is the truth.

:darwinsm: Truth is a word no atheist/agnastyc should ever use.

No amount of persauding would let you take that position, though, as it is contrary to what you have chosen to believe.

Deflection ploy #45. Claim the arguer believes what he believes only because he alone believes it. (PC version is called "Isolation.")

Population: Conservative christians on TOL
Quantity descriptor: Some
Evidence: More than one person from the Christian conservative element on this board name call.

Original statement did not address What Christians do here. Your deflection ploy #1 - change the subject.

Please tell me you have the intellect to understand the above?

Rude ad hominem. You're being both unreasonable and vicious.

Or are you simply a troll?

:darwinsm: Deflection ploy #46. Try to elicit an emotionally defensive response. If successful, that will totally obscure the original subject and eliminate any discussion of it.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Frank Ernset

Last name is "Ernest."

We're not all that bad, you're statement

They're brilliant and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and they do not hesitate to say so.

Can seem to be true I know. It is how some Atheist me included come across.

Ok.

I only a liken it to the way a Christian sees an Atheist as simply wrong and if they don't turn to Christ they are lost. I can see how this frustrates when the answers seem so clear and easy.

Ok.

I don't see myself as lost nor as wrong but in Britain even our conservative Christians are not quite as committed as your liberal ones so I haven't really been exposed to such a polar belief. Remember most of our churches have been turned into carpet warehouses and pubs. Some of the most wonderful architecture has simply been filled with screaming teens drinking alchopops into the wee hours.

Do you regard the above, insofar as it means the decline of Christian belief in Britain, to be indicative of social and moral progress?

I don't come on here to trash ideas and start fights, I am interested in theology. To me theology is not just about Christian belief it’s about Islam, Buddhism, Krishna and polytheism as well as many others.

All due respect, there are other internet forums which discuss the various religious belief systems you're interested in. This particular site is unashamedly Christian and we seem to get the "evangelists" from the other groups.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Last name is "Ernest."

Damn my fat fingers.

Do you regard the above, insofar as it means the decline of Christian belief in Britain, to be indicative of social and moral progress?

I have not studied this so couldn't answer, it's strange though that at a time of church deline we have a most outspoken Christian Primeminister.

All due respect, there are other internet forums which discuss the various religious belief systems you're interested in. This particular site is unashamedly Christian and we seem to get the "evangelists" from the other groups.

Indeed there is, the point I was making was thet the very web address Theology online was a draw to me, now of course I understand it's mainly christians, I still find it interesting, its like coming to the web address cars.com and finding they mainly talk about fords. If I were interested in cars in general fords would be as good a topic as any to dicuss and chat about even though I'm a honda fan myself.

 

[Frank Ernest]

I have not studied this so couldn't answer, it's strange though that at a time of church deline we have a most outspoken Christian Primeminister.

Not strange to me.

 

[icilian fenner]

Doogie - After this response I will take up no more of your thread with this discussion - I'm sorry also that I do so now in my last rebuttal, but I feel angered enough not to let this pass.

Deflection ploy #1. Change the subject.

You made a sweeping statement about a group of people that you failed to back up, so I called you out on it.
Deflection ploy num. 1 - Attempt to make it look like Hugh's changing the subject.

All atheists/agnastycs, especially the liberal ones, have that problem.

Unbacked assertion presented as truth.
Deflection ploy num, 2 - Attempt to brand an entire group with a dishonesty label, thereby sneakily attacking the credibility of the person you're arguing with.

Let me see. This is deflection ploy #44 or thereabouts. Don't answer to the argument. Question the credibility of the arguer.

Deflection ploy num. 3 - Attempt to make it appear that original accusation was unfounded by attacking the motives of the arguer.

You're being so now with personal attacks.

Allow me to remind you that calling me a lie-beral and ag-nasty-c are examples of attack upon my credibility via unsupported assertions. I am simply questioning your intent or intellect based on the quality of your arguments, not anything else.

Was what sarcastic or not? Have you lost the thread so soon?

Deflection ploy num. 4 - Attempt to come off superior so that people feel you have the upper-hand.

Were you being sarcastic in saying 'sure' to my assertion that I lave my parents very much and vice versa?

:darwinsm: Truth is a word no atheist/agnastyc should ever use.

Deflection ploy num. 3 again.
On what grounds?

Deflection ploy #45. Claim the arguer believes what he believes only because he alone believes it. (PC version is called "Isolation.")

Deflection ploy num 5 - Strawman approach.
On the contrary, I was saying you were unpersuadable by reason. Quite different.

Original statement did not address What Christians do here. Your deflection ploy #1 - change the subject.

Deflection ploy num. 2. I did also say that your sweeping generalisation was unfounded, so I addressed both the subject and the implications of it.
The only omission from your damning criteque was christians - an obvious ploy to try and make all non-Christians look bad.

Rude ad hominem. You're being both unreasonable and vicious.

Deflection ploy num. 6 - Point at opposing party and yell HE DID IT.

Im not being unreasonable, and you are simply acting provocatively. It was merely a logical question, given the standard of your argument thus far.

:darwinsm: Deflection ploy #46. Try to elicit an emotionally defensive response. If successful, that will totally obscure the original subject and eliminate any discussion of it.

Of course not. I wish only to ponder your motivations.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Doogie - After this response I will take up no more of your thread with this discussion - I'm sorry also that I do so now in my last rebuttal, but I feel angered enough not to let this pass.

Rebuttal? :darwinsm: Angered? I thought agnastycs were calm ane peaceful and living a rewarding intellectual life without God. Looks like I was misled.

You made a sweeping statement about a group of people that you failed to back up, so I called you out on it.
Deflection ploy num. 1 - Attempt to make it look like Hugh's changing the subject.

:darwinsm: That plus the neg rep tells me you're toast and not liking it much.

Unbacked assertion presented as truth.
Deflection ploy num, 2 - Attempt to brand an entire group with a dishonesty label, thereby sneakily attacking the credibility of the person you're arguing with.

Totally off the original subject.

Deflection ploy num. 3 - Attempt to make it appear that original accusation was unfounded by attacking the motives of the arguer.

That's what you did and are doing.

Allow me to remind you that calling me a lie-beral and ag-nasty-c are examples of attack upon my credibility via unsupported assertions. I am simply questioning your intent or intellect based on the quality of your arguments, not anything else.

You are a lie-beral, agnastyc and somewhat dimwitted if you believe I'm impressed.

Deflection ploy num. 4 - Attempt to come off superior so that people feel you have the upper-hand.

You tried that too by questioning and insulting my intelligence.

Were you being sarcastic in saying 'sure' to my assertion that I lave my parents very much and vice versa?

How does one "lave?"

Deflection ploy num. 3 again.
On what grounds?
Logical.

Deflection ploy num 5 - Strawman approach.
On the contrary, I was saying you were unpersuadable by reason. Quite different.

:darwinsm: You weren't offering any "reason." You were blathering on and on trying to evade the original subject.

Deflection ploy num. 2. I did also say that your sweeping generalisation was unfounded, so I addressed both the subject and the implications of it.
The only omission from your damning criteque was christians - an obvious ploy to try and make all non-Christians look bad.

Non-Christians look bad enough without my help.

Deflection ploy num. 6 - Point at opposing party and yell HE DID IT.

:darwinsm: That would be accusing me of exactly what you are doing. Good politics but hardly reasonable.

Im not being unreasonable, and you are simply acting provocatively. It was merely a logical question, given the standard of your argument thus far.

You never addressed the original question. If you are provoked by that, it's because your silly little game was exposed.

Of course not. I wish only to ponder your motivations.

And totally avoid anything responsive to the original question. Thanks for confirming.

 

[icilian fenner]

How does one "lave?"

:darwinsm: With difficulty.

 

[conrad]

hi, how can I customise my avatar.


cheers

 

[Stripe]

hi, how can I customise my avatar.

post this question in 48 more inappropriate threads

 

[bigbang123]

Hi all my name is Rob, Doogie's the nom de plume.

Thought i'd say hi, i'm not here to convert anyone to be a non beliver but I do respect reason.

I never accept what is written in the bible as truth or proof of truth. Just as I don't accept the Harry Potter books as proof of wizards.

I will listen to and reason with reasonable people and look forward to many a debate.

Stay Sharp

Doogie

is there anything in the bible you like or agree with?