Proof of God

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Post like Dustin’s happen when seminary students start taking meth.
Please Dustin, get help.

Is this the only thing you could think of in response to my proof of God? Do you believe this is insightful or witty or funny? It isn't. If you have anything useful or constructive to say regarding my OP, please don't hesitate, however if your goal is to ignore anything that disagrees with your world view and doggedly stick to your beliefs then you're probably not worth my time to begin with.

 

[Loss Leader]

I can't help but see you as something of a social outsider yourself.

Oh yeah, that's obvious. He is seriously socially awkward and cannot figure out how to be liked. Unfortunately, the very normal psychological response is to actively try to be disliked. This accomplishes two things: 1) It protects the ego from feeling rejection by pretending that acceptance isn't important; 2) it provokes a strong negative reaction in others which, at least, is some sort of acknowledgement by others that one exists.

There is actually quite a lot of hope for a person like Dustin. With years of therapy, he can begin to try out socially acceptable behaviors. When these produce positive responses in others, he can actually train himself to repeat the behaviors. Over time, he may be able to reform.

I made a similar journey. Of course, even at my worst I never claimed to have created an impossible proof by assuming the conclusion. But that's just me.

 

[PixyMisa]

They provide adequate definitions for words. Which is all I use them for.

In that case, your "proof" is actually merely an argument; it has, and can have, no formal validity because you haven't formally defined your terms.

Calling me "cowardly", "simplistic" and "arrogant" is rude and insulting by definition. It's also immature and petty.

It's all of those. But it's also accurate.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Oh yeah, that's obvious. He is seriously socially awkward and cannot figure out how to be liked. Unfortunately, the very normal psychological response is to actively try to be disliked. This accomplishes two things: 1) It protects the ego from feeling rejection by pretending that acceptance isn't important; 2) it provokes a strong negative reaction in others which, at least, is some sort of acknowledgement by others that one exists.

There is actually quite a lot of hope for a person like Dustin. With years of therapy, he can begin to try out socially acceptable behaviors. When these produce positive responses in others, he can actually train himself to repeat the behaviors. Over time, he may be able to reform.

I made a similar journey. Of course, even at my worst I never claimed to have created an impossible proof by assuming the conclusion. But that's just me.

Using pop-psychology to patronize me? What's the name for a person who pretends to be a psychologists and dispenses medical opinions or a person who is a psychologist and makes conclusions having never met the person in question? All of a sudden I'm "socially awkward" because I have converted to Christianity and accepted Jesus?

The ONLY thing I can be criticized for is bothering to try to have a constructive discussion with a bunch of abusive and insulting atheists. Call me naive in that respect.

 

[athon]

They provide adequate definitions for words. Which is all I use them for.

Thank you for exemplifying my point. A very narrow, one dimensional view of how to use references. You ignored the rest of my point about dictionaries being purely denotative and necessarily simplistic, obviously because taking that into account means you have to concede that they aren't the final word on language use.

What do you believe name calling and personal insults will accomplish?

Name calling would be if I called you a prat. Calling your behaviour cowardly, when I feel it is, can be thought of as rude, but it is also accurate. I can't help it if you're upset by my calling a spade a spade.

Calling me "cowardly", "simplistic" and "arrogant" is rude and insulting by definition. It's also immature and petty.

Truth often stings a bit, Dustin. But it doesn't mean I'll avoid pointing it out.

Save your pity for those who need it. Perhaps for people who choose to resort to petty insults and abusive insults opposed to having mature and adult discussions? Hey, Wait a minute....

Hey, I don't choose to pity you. I just do. It's called empathy. I feel sorry for people whose behaviour leads them to have rather isolated and misguided lives.

Athon

 

[kmortis]

Using pop-psychology to patronize me? What's the name for a person who pretends to be a psychologists and dispenses medical opinions or a person who is a psychologist and makes conclusions having never met the person in question? All of a sudden I'm "socially awkward" because I have converted to Christianity and accepted Jesus?

The ONLY thing I can be criticized for is bothering to try to have a constructive discussion with a bunch of abusive and insulting atheists. Call me naive in that respect.

No, you were socially akward before you converted too. It just now you're socially akward AND a fundy.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Thank you for exemplifying my point. A very narrow, one dimensional view of how to use references. You ignored the rest of my point about dictionaries being purely denotative and necessarily simplistic, obviously because taking that into account means you have to concede that they aren't the final word on language use.

What's narrow and one dimensional about what I said? Dictionaries provide adequate definitions for words. Which is all I use them for.

Truth often stings a bit, Dustin. But it doesn't mean I'll avoid pointing it out.

The truth? The truth is you're a childish immature prick who insults people he disagrees with on internet message boards because he is insecure about his own beliefs. And no, That's not an 'insult', It's just the "truth".

Hey, I don't choose to pity you. I just do. It's called empathy. I feel sorry for people whose behaviour leads them to have rather isolated and misguided lives.

Over 2 billion people agree with me. How "isolated" am I really?

Please try to address the issues and keep the personal insults out of it.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

 

[athon]

What's narrow and one dimensional about what I said? Dictionaries provide adequate definitions for words. Which is all I use them for.

The fact that they are not adequate. They give a brief, simple definition that is denotative and free of context. Language is much, much more than the sum of the words it is constructed of. How do you not understand that?

The truth? The truth is you're a childish immature prick who insults people he disagrees with on internet message boards because he is insecure about his own beliefs. And no, That's not an 'insult', It's just the "truth".

Ah, I see. You now feel that calling me a 'prick' is justified because I call you arrogant, smug, and cowardly? No, it doesn't work that way. A prick is plainly insultive in nature. It is thrown at me at of personal dislike for me, rather than addressing my responses. It is the realm of the immature.

Calling you arrogant is directly tied with your comments, which display arrogance.

Either way, I'm hardly bothered. Insult away, mate.

Over 2 billion people agree with me. How "isolated" am I really?

You regularly hang out with and are personally known and liked by 2 billion people? Wow. Your birthdays must be something to behold. I'd hate to clean your carpets the next day.

Athon

 

[kmortis]

Over 2 billion people agree with me. How "isolated" am I really?

If by "over 2 billion people agree with me" you mean that there are over 2 billion people who identify themselves as Christian, then yes, you're in good company. However, you'll find that it's a very small number that actually subscribes to the fundamentalist script that you've been parroting for the last few days. Granted, they're a very VOCAL minority, but a minority still.
Bear in mind that the largest "flavor" of Christianity (the Catholics) do not subscribe to YEC. They may agree to certain points of your "proof", but it'd be a poor Jusuit who would put it forth as poorly reasoned as you have.

 

[D'rok]

What's narrow and one dimensional about what I said? Dictionaries provide adequate definitions for words. Which is all I use them for.

Not narrow and one dimensional....simply dishonest. You know perfectly well that you are guilty of equivocation to suit your purposes. This is intellectual dishonesty.

The truth? The truth is you're a childish immature prick who insults people he disagrees with on internet message boards because he is insecure about his own beliefs. And no, That's not an 'insult', It's just the "truth".

Athon remarked on your behaviour. You are insulting Athon directly. Big difference.

Over 2 billion people agree with me. How "isolated" am I really?

Congratulations. Overnight you have acquired 2 billion BFFs. (BFsF?) This is much easier than the normal way of making friends....you know, being likeable.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The fact that they are not adequate. They give a brief, simple definition that is denotative and free of context. Language is much, much more than the sum of the words it is constructed of. How do you not understand that?

They're adequate for my uses.

Either way, I'm hardly bothered. Insult away, mate.

No, I'm done with you. I don't have time to deal with insulting and immature people who have a grudge on their shoulders and are so insecure in their own beliefs they must attack anyone who disagrees with them with insults and rudeness. You're wasting my time. You're contributing nothing. Don't expect me to respond to your posts in this thread anymore.

If by "over 2 billion people agree with me" you mean that there are over 2 billion people who identify themselves as Christian, then yes, you're in good company. However, you'll find that it's a very small number that actually subscribes to the fundamentalist script that you've been parroting for the last few days. Granted, they're a very VOCAL minority, but a minority still.
Bear in mind that the largest "flavor" of Christianity (the Catholics) do not subscribe to YEC. They may agree to certain points of your "proof", but it'd be a poor Jusuit who would put it forth as poorly reasoned as you have.

I'm not a young earth creationist, firstly. Secondly, 47% of people in the United States believe that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. That's over 140 million people in the United States alone. I'm real isolated...

 

[athon]

They're adequate for my uses.

I was about to disagree; then I figured that since your responses are typically shallow, evasive and dishonest, I can't do anything but concur. Using a dictionary to do that would indeed qualify for you as 'useful'.

For the rest of us, who realise that there is more to the universe than shallow descriptions and single dimensions of context, dictionaries will remain poor resources to use as sole evidence of language use.

No, I'm done with you. I don't have time to deal with insulting and immature people who have a grudge on their shoulders and are so insecure in their own beliefs they must attack anyone who disagrees with them with insults and rudeness. You're wasting my time. You're contributing nothing. Don't expect me to respond to your posts in this thread anymore.

Typical Dustin tantrum. When all else fails, spit the dummy and accuse the world of being unfair and insulting. Like the kid at school who cries that they are victimised and everybody picks on them because they can't handle being made to justify their actions.



Whatever.

I'm not a young earth creationist, firstly. Secondly, 47% of people in the United States believe that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. That's over 140 million people in the United States alone. I'm real isolated...

That's like the agrophobe who lives in his parent's basement, never going out and not having a lot of friends saying 'but there's millions of agrophobes in the world - I'm not alone'.

I'm sure you have a dictionary definition for that one, though.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Athon remarked on your behaviour. You are insulting Athon directly. Big difference.

Athon has called me a "Coward", a "Liar", and "Pathetic.

I called him a "Prick" which is defined as an obnoxious or contemptible person. Do you believe continuasly calling someone a "Coward", a "Liar", and "Pathetic is not obnoxious or contemptible?

Congratulations. Overnight you have acquired 2 billion BFFs. (BFsF?) This is much easier than the normal way of making friends....you know, being likeable.

All fellow christians are my brothers and sisters in Jesus. I am a very likable person. However it's clear to me that your perception of what's "likable" is skewed since you say I'm not likable even though I try my best to have a mature discussion without insults or rudeness. Why am I not "Likable" Because I disagree with you about religion? Because I disagree with you about modal logic? Because I don't find your arguments convincing?

 

[Hawk one]

Oops...text has no tone. Silly me.

I love how Dustin immediately removed this part when replying to athon, probably hoping that nobody who'd seen his previous post claiming that "texts don't have tones."

So what about it, Dusting? Will you either admit that your claim about text having no tone is wrong, or will you admit that athon didn't write in a condencending tone, since that isn't possible as per your claim?

Or will you find a way to weasel out of this too?

 

[PixyMisa]

They're adequate for my uses.

Ah, so you've given up any attempt to convince anyone of anything?

 

[Hawk one]

I am a very likable person.

So you're claiming that you're a victim of GIFT, then? Since you're completely unable to convey any of that likableness on the net, and instead continously shows off as an arrogant jackdonkey who amongst other things just about never admits to have said anything wrong (which is not a quality that counts as "likable", by the way).

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I love how Dustin immediately removed this part when replying to athon, probably hoping that nobody who'd seen his previous post claiming that "texts don't have tones."

So what about it, Dusting? Will you either admit that your claim about text having no tone is wrong, or will you admit that athon didn't write in a condencending tone, since that isn't possible as per your claim?

Or will you find a way to weasel out of this too?

When I said "Texts have no tone", That was a joke. It was supposed to be funny. Since "tone" has two definitions one referring to the frequency or pitch of a sound and the other referring to the formulation of words or texts in a specific way.

 

[Hawk one]

When I said "Texts have no tone", That was a joke. It was supposed to be funny. Since "tone" has two definitions one referring to the frequency or pitch of a sound and the other referring to the formulation of words or texts in a specific way.

Yep, the "weasel out" option. Par for the course.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So you're claiming that you're a victim of GIFT, then? Since you're completely unable to convey any of that likableness on the net, and instead continously shows off as an arrogant jackdonkey who amongst other things just about never admits to have said anything wrong (which is not a quality that counts as "likable", by the way).

Can you give me distinct and clear examples including quotes showing me where I have been an "arrogant jackdonkey"? I'll show you numerous examples of me admitting I was wrong about something if you want.

 

[calebprime]

What's narrow and one dimensional about what I said? Dictionaries provide adequate definitions for words. Which is all I use them for.

Over 2 billion people agree with me. How "isolated" am I really?

Words mean different things in different domains--a word can mean something quite different in philosophy, common speech, and psychology, for example.

I myself am socially awkward and isolated, in some ways. I also have a thin skin, which makes it difficult for me to enter sustained debates, or even mildly abusive ones. On the plus side, I know myself and my own limits.

As for 2 billion people agreeing with you--well, it depends on what. There are Christians of every possible stripe. Some are very, very careful logical thinkers. Some are not. There are Christian absurdists, existentialists, liberation theologists, etc. There are people who were simply raised Christian, so it's part of their identity. Would you say that you agree with--I don't know--Mr. Clingford or JMercer? (I could be wrong about either of these people being Christian...)