Arti. You must be the only person who ever went to high school who wrote her own "KICK ME' sticker.
For the final time, I'm going to explain exactly why and where it is that you prove yourself to be the perfect example of your favourite cliche - moses.
I know it won't make the slightest bit of difference to how you think you're going, but you've just passed my "not lucid enough to bother with" function. I'll make the odd comment and I'll never put you on ignore, but in terms of efforts to engage you, this is it.
I can even be perfectly civil while doing it.
Sorry TA-- you are going to have to get someone else to translate...
Coming from someone whose posts are littered with grammatical and spelling errors (as opposed to simple tyops), I won't even start to question what level of self-delusion might encourage anyone to start a post to me in that fashion.
Irony didn't even make the top five.
Demonstraby absurd.
... you are sounding as crazed as Herzblut now... how's that imaginary battle you are winning in your head going?
Let me see...
One
ad hominem to me, and a quick uppercut to Herzblutt.
*Quick note to Arti: nice to see you get Herzblut's name right, it's a lot more difficult than
QAYAK's and they've been posting for about the same time, although
qayak has far more posts.
And I know this is going to be hard to hear, but I actually get quite a lot of positive feedback and pms from both this forum and TAM. And it's from some really smart and cool people who actually know stuff! I don't have communication problems with people in general.
Obviously. I wouldn't expect you to have
communication problems with people in general. Given the average standard of communication, I'd say you'd be well above it. The problems always seem to stem from when someone questions something you have: A) learned by rote, and B) believe to the point of fury when questioned.
Your argument with me in this thread is entirely about me refusing to accept that
all religion is bad.
Now explain which one of us is the zealot, please.
My eight-year old daughter knows some "
really smart and cool people who actually know stuff" as well. Congratulations.
I have heard one person say a positive thing about you (andyandy) and heard tons encouraging others to put you on ignore.
Yep, I've spoken to Andy about that, but he's a Pom and they're quite forgiving. I agree with the ignore feature, though, more people should us it on me, because if they keep coming back to me on positions I take, I'll fight for those positions, and as I repeat after repeat after repeat. I have no interest in who are what is right, just that it is right.
Again, how lovely it is to see
Unter leaping to your defence. Last week, someone took my defence of him to mean that I was some kind of CFLarsen fan, despite that being demonstrably wrong. Since this started, you have classed me as a religious apologist, because I refuse to accept that all religion is bad.
How silly is that?
I constantly see people demanding skepticism and critical thinking, only to see it fly out of the window when someone kicks a sacred cow. I kick sacred cows just for the hell of it. Just to see whether they kick back, and if so, whether they kick back with a vengeance of facts or a peurile and cowardly attack.
Let's see.
Inbetween the pair of brackets immediately following this sentence, I have listed all of the facts you brought to this discussion showing why
all religion is bad: ( )
Hmm. Not much, is there?
I suggest you put me on ignore promptly then, because what you're getting at the moment is me being nice. Frankly, you sicken me. It bugs the hell out of me that I'm perceived as being "on your side" by christendom and apathetic agnostics. Much as I despise christians for being deluded, I far reserve the worst invective for people who
are smart enough to know better but act the same way, just minus god.
I don't even dislike you...
That's nice to know. Let's have a look at the evidence, shall we?
I just think you only make sense in your own head most of the time.
Promising start.
I don't really seem to have trouble communicating with intelligent people on this forum or in life. I try to see if someone like you ever has a point--but when I read your old posts they are the same as now. Some are decent... but most are tangential, insulting of those you might learn something from, amusing only to you as far as I can tell, and they show a profound lack of understanding of both evolution and anything Dawkins says as well as evolution in general. Those who you quote in your sig are people I find much more coherent and intelligent than you. So, naturally, I've concluded the problem is you--not me.
Not even worth challenging on your totally baseless allegation about my understanding of evolution. At no stage have I challenged any conventional thinking, beyond supporting John in a theory which has by no means disproven. I commented from my very first defence of John that I did not necessarily agree with his theory, but felt it is worth exploring. Personally, I find it incredible that anyone wishing to be called a scientist would dismiss it out of hand. No evidence has been forthcoming to refute John at any stage.
My defence of him, and my refusal to admit that
all religion is bad has led to your "not disliking" me.
In fact, Paul Provenza jokes that he's met dumb theists and smart theists, but he's never met a dumb atheist. And I always think to myself, that's because you haven't met TA.
Quick
ad hominem on the way through.
Ah prolly wooda larfed myslef iff'n Ah'd a-knowed who thet fulla wuz.
You'd really like me in person. I love letting people think I'm quite stupid before I utterly destroy their credibility in an instant. Unfortunately, you appear to be a n00b at it.
Quick rule for you: when slinging
ad hominem, don't make them ones which are so obviously flawed from any angle. Really good abuse should be true, funny and hurtful. 0/3.
And I don't think I called you a Christian, did I? I called you a religious apologist... or maybe a Christian apologist. Heck, even the Christians can't agree on who is or isn't a Christian.
Either or, I'm quite happy, since you have now clearly defined "christian apologist" as a person who will not
publicly state that all religion is bad.
Defintely comfortable in that group. That probably rates about 99.999% of English-speaking people.
On that basis, the attempted ad hominem of "christian apologist" is disallowed, because it's now an accurate description, under your meaning.
No worries. Equally happy with "religious apologist", because I constantly fail to state, and will not accept, that
all islam is bad, either.
Mea culpa.
I just think it's creepy and sad and weird that people continue this indoctrination because they think it's necessary for morality or to save their kids from hell or because it will lead to salvation.
I think that's creepy, too. Again, the brackets enclose the entire evidence you have posted to date which shows that all christians teach their kids about hell: ( )
Thanks for your hard work.
There's no good reason to think that any of this is true. And I think it's part of the indoctrination that people defend the practice without being aware they are doing it... they've learned not to ever say the emperor is naked and to shush those who say as much.-- like you.
Again, I agree. Another attempted
ad hominem falls by the wayside now that, all deluded people cannot state that all religion is bad.
Sorry, I know this all looks a little repetitive, but this is my last reply to you and you will keep making the same [incorect] point, over and over, and over again. (again)
If people wish to insult me, I hope they do it to my face, because it livens my day when I piss off creationists and religious apologists and nutters.
That's nice, but not anywhere near as revealing as this next bit:
I can't help it... It makes me feel empowered. It keeps me on my toes.
Now, you'll get no argument from me that those three groups often contain the three most-useless sectors of humanity - especially the first and last. In any case, apart from me, Andy, John and our hardcore cadre of JREF apologists, there aren't many about.
You're telling us here that you are empowered by arrogantly showing how intelligent you are against people who are clearly less-intellectual than yourself!
What on earth does that say about your personality? "Empowered!"
My word.
Gosh, I hope John's up to the intellectual challenge! Let me see; a research scientist PhD bloke against the biology teacher. Tough one; I'll get back to you on that.
Besides, I might just get over-confident if all I get is praise. It allows me to accumulate info. about whom to ignore and then I can warn new posters that I like so that the wackos don't give them the wrong impression of the forum community.
Was that another
ad hominem? Including me in the "wackos"?
Just to clarify, please: if all people who fail to
publicly state that all religion is bad are now "wackos", I'll deduct the ad hom - cheers.
Crikey, quite right. Wouldn't want those n00bs to get the impression that the forum was full of hot-heads who are incapable of changing a hard-held opinion, despite having no evidence to back it up.
You should start posting in the "Welcome n00b" thread - I often post in there and they may well get that wrong impression if they read my apologist crap.
Plus, when I piss the wackos off, their true colors show for all to see. It makes for a nice instant character assessment for anyone dropping by, you know-- it allows people to see who shares their views, who's worth reading, who's totally wacked, etc. Plus, it gives people who were once timid, as I once was, to courage to sound off to the blowhards on line.
I think the same ad hominem rule applies to the first one, or even two: I await the "wacko" and think the "totally whacked" could be covered there, but the "blowhard" is definitely
ad hominem.
Thanks for helping me develop a thicker skin, TA.
Hell, Arti. As you know, no matter how worthless I think a person is, I'm always glad to help them in some small way.
Oh, and if you can't bear to read me, then there's always the ignore button.
Not a feature I ever have or ever will use in a forum. I just get to a stage where I cease replying because a person has proven to me that he or she is beyond reason. As I said at the top - I may still occasionally even respond, just to let them know they aren't on ignore - I wouldn't ever put someone on ignore. Even the dumbest fundy says something funny every now and then. And I repeat the case of
Unter - a bloke with whom I would disagree with on principle - I still found it impossible not to state that he was right about something, no matter how distasteful it was to say so.
I heartily encourage its' use for those who want to avoid my words. I use it myself. I tend to enjoy more intelligent dialogue with my peers than these silly little skirmishes most of the time. But these can be fun too. (I must say, I find myself amusing at times even if nobody else does.)
Interesting way to finish. I suspect that somewhere, deep down, you are actually honest with yourself.
