vertiaset: "Many of your posts in various atheist threads are word for word, with sometimes small variation to your posts in other threads. Do you deny this?"

No, but it's not from blogs. They're posts from older threads. It's all stuff I wrote that I'd prefer not to write again.

vertiaset: "Moreover, I have called you out before on your knowledge of, not just the Bible and Christian theology, but on the writings of Dawkins and Dennett. It is clear that you have either not read them or just gleaned the rough outline from the writings of others. This is why I often make fun of you."

But you haven't "called me out". You've seized upon jokes and rhetorical questions, taking them literally in order to misrepresent my views, as you did in this thread. It's just pedantry.

vertiaset: "I don't attack everybody. I just don't like Zamboro. Not because he is an atheist but because he is an asshole."

I don't attack everyone either. I already directed you to the last thread I posted in where I had a long, productive and civil conversation with NEDM, who is a Christian. You're a vicious anti-atheist douchebag and you open fire on atheists in every thread you post in, in what sense is it out of line to oppose you?

It's an interesting concept to suggest that you either beleive all of the bible or you don't beleive in the bible at all.

I mean, the bible was written by man, who is not only imperfect, but is also biased, often with his own agenda.

There's also the argument that the bible was not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense, but expressed themes and stuff.

I'm not for or against, but it's interesting, especially when you factor-in stuff like "cherry-picked" religious quotations from either side of the argument.

For example, out of several recountings of the Jesus returning to life, only one makes mention of Jesus saying "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do." That same recounting also goes on to explain how all of the dead in that cemetery rose and walked through the streets of the city, and yet we never hear of that from the church, in fact sometimes you hear their emphasis is on the fact that only Jesus could rise from the dead.

Again.. I'm neither for nor against, because I have no evidence other than circumstantial stuff, supporting either side.

It's just interesting.

vertiaset: "See, you fundie atheists only see black and white. You cannot wrap your mind around the fact that many Christians understand the historical and political background of the writings which make up Christian theology."

Is that really the case, king wicker? Or has he put words in your mouth, as he put words in mine? Let everyone bear witness to his behavior.

vertiaset: "I am a "Cherry Picker" in the way that Thomas Jefferson was a cherry picker. You most modern Christians have minds which are open, we see more than just simple black and white. You might say we have evolved."

So you have evidence now?

vertiaset: "The story of faith in the West is a progression. Even within the Old Testament we see the development of the idea of "God" from the early tribal polytheism of Abraham i.e. Yahweh as the God of Israel who could combat and defeat the Gods of Egypt, a to the idea of a universal God in Isiah. Then we have this extended even further in the New Testament. The evolution of thought does not end there it progresses both in the Christian tradition, Islamic tradition and in the Rabbinical writings of Jewish philosophers and scholars to the modern age."

At what point during this evolution of the God idea was it tested? At what point were evolved forms it checked against reality in order to determine whether revised conceptions more accurately reflected reality than prior ones? That's how ideas evolve.

When it was discovered that God was not actually responsible for the weather, the Christian conception of god was changed so that it would no longer appear to conflict with the science of the day. When it was discovered that the Earth was not flat and had no firmament (as described in Hebrew cosmology) the Christian conception was further revised (after centuries of struggling against it) so as not to contradict the science of the day. When it was discovered that the Earth rotated about the sun rather than being at the center of the universe, after centuries of torture and suppression of those who advocated such heresy, the church relented and revised their conception of god so that it did not contradict the science of the day. So it was with evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang (which, though discovered by a priest, was discovered by way of science and is resisted intensely by many Christians even today).

This cannot be compared to the manner in which a theory is revised in light of new evidence, because at every stage of revision the new formulation is tested against the available evidence to make sure that it's better supported and offers more consistent predictive power than the prior revision. If you leave out that part, if all you're doing is changing your story every time someone finds a hole in it, you're not "evolving". You're shifting the goalposts in order to evade disproof. That's something I like to call "theological calvinball."

Dead-Guy: It's an interesting concept to suggest that you either beleive all of the bible or you don't beleive in the bible at all.

False Dilemma but don't blame these guys, in regards to the bible, Jesus started the whole thing:
"He who is not with me is against me" Matthew 12:30

Zamboro: Fruitless though it may appear to the casual observer, the religious debate has been very productive indeed.

I'm appealing to you because philosophically, I'm in your court.

Most Atheists become Atheists on their own. If you're going to convince someone of something, there are two ways psychology will allow you to do that:

1) Get 'em while they're young, and make it a debate while ideas are forming.

or

2) Publicly announce, like with the new ads on billboards, that allows people to feel more comfortable coming out of their shell.

Psychology is very stubborn in its dictates, and PEOPLE are very stubborn in their behavior. If you argue with them head-on about beliefs, they'll dig in and two things will result:

1) They'll hate you.

2) They'll become more convinced of their own opinion.

Admire your goals, of course, but arguing with similarly fierce intellects, head-on, is not the way to go.

/ Career is in grassroots organizing
// Know my shiat

Dead-Guy: "It's just interesting."

Certainly. And it's obvious that many portions of the Bible are meant to be taken as metaphor. But then it's clear what they are intended to metaphorically explain, and it's clear from the poetic way they're written that they aren't intended to be taken literally.

Genesis doesn't read like metaphor. It's written the same way the creation stories from all other religions are, as historical narrative. It could not have been a metaphorical explanation of the big bang, evolution and so on as the ancient Hebrew authors lived in a comparatively ignorant period and would have known nothing about them. Even if one chose to interpret that way, it has light existing before life on Earth (when stars preceded it by billions of years) and it has the Earth and the rest of the universe extant on day one. We know the Earth has only been around 4.5 billion years. The Universe is something like 14 billion years old.

I suspect that "it's metaphor" is being used as a "get out of disproof free" card for all factually inaccurate claims in the bible. Never do they explain what the passage is a metaphor for, as they hadn't thought it out that far. Like the shallow non-explanation "God did it" that they admonish their fundie cousins for using, they make use of the "it's metaphor" non-explanation in order to smooth over the cognitive dissonance. It doesn't matter if it doesn't actually resolve the issue as long as it's superficially plausible enough to set their minds at ease.

Dead-Guy: [...]That same recounting also goes on to explain how all of the dead in that cemetery rose and walked through the streets of the city, and yet we never hear of that from the church, in fact sometimes you hear their emphasis is on the fact that only Jesus could rise from the dead.

Dead_Guy ... he knows of what he speaks

He's not really putting words in my mouth. Just falsely categorizing me. I don't see things in black and white. I just don't believe that Jesus ever existed. Wall o' text coming up.

Even Christian writers acknowledge the difficulty of early preachers attempting to give inquirers proof. The church historian Mosheim writes "The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraid" later saying "The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy." Why should forgery and fraud be necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus? I don't have to lie to prove that Alexander the Great existed.

Another historian, Milman, wrote "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed [by the early missionaries of Jesus]" Bishop Ellicott speaking of the times immeadiately following the alleged crucifixion wrote "It was an age of literary frauds" Dr. Giles says "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to deceive". Dr. Robertson Smith said "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views".

One of the oldest critics of Christ, Porphyry, had most of his works destroyed by the early Fathers who then produced new texts supposedly written by him including the Philosophy of Oracles in which the pagan Porphyry was made to write like a Christian and had his name signed on it.

One of the prominent historians during the time of Jesus, Josephus, had his works tampered with to include a line about Jesus. A line which De Quincey says is known to be "a forgery by all men not lunatics." Canon Farrar says "This passage was early tampered with by the Christians" further saying "Respecting the third passage in Josephus, the only question is whether it be partly or entirely spurious". Early Christians did what Scientologists are trying to do now with their Glorious Leader.

If Jesus was a historical figure, surely other historians would mention him. Which brings us to Philo. Philo was known as a great Jewish scholar who lived in the same time period Jesus supposedly did. He was an Alexandrian Jew and he visited Jerusalem while Jesus was supposedly teaching and performing miracles in the city. Yet Philo never once mentions Jesus. He doesn't seem to have ever heard of him. He could not have helped mentioning him if he had ever seen or heard of him. At one point in his works Philo is describing the difference between two Jewish names, Hosea and Jesus. He even says that Jesus means Savior of the People. What a great time to mention that at that very moment there was living in Jerusalem a savior by the name of Jesus, or one supposed to be, or claiming to be, a savior.

vertiaset: "Oppose me all you like Sparky. I welcome it. Hey, try being civil and you may find that I will be civil in return. Act the ass and I will hand it to you on a platter."

Actually, yeah. Fine. I'm up for it. I gave kerpal32 the same chance, and although it didn't end well I'm always willing to give someone a clean slate if they want it.

vertiaset: "Here are some tips to assist you in not looking the fool"

In whose eyes do I look the fool? Should it matter to me if it isn't someone whose views I respect?

vertiaset: "Try learning something about philosophy, in particular about epistemology."

I'm not terribly enthusiastic about philosophy but I do know a fair bit about epistemology. You might've noticed I've asked you and other religious posters how it is we know what we know, which is the subject of epistemology. I ask because when one asserts that "we cannot know either way", they ignore that there are many things that's the case for, things they disbelieve in without considering their disbelief to be a faith based position.

vertiaset: "You might also want to actually READ The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion and Consciousness Explained."

I've read the first two. I'm receptive to reading the third.

vertiaset: "This, and you might also face the fact that not all Christians are young earth creationists or Evangelicals"

Why on earth would you believe that I hold this position? When have I ever said such a thing? I did reference data confirming that the majority of American Christians are Creationists, however. If you'd like to dispute that there are a great many other studies and polls I could provide corroborating the findings.

vertiaset: "....and that Christian Theology has progressed since the "bronze age".

In what sense is it "progress" when none of the revisions are tested? How do they know the revised conceptions are more accurate than the older ones?

vertiaset: "Also, lest I forget, remember that "faith" encompasses Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism and many other traditions the world over."

That's one meaning of "faith". The most basic and functional is the denial of the necessity of supporting claims with evidence.

vertiaset: "You might also remember that science deals only with the physical world and not with moral or ethical questions."

Religion doesn't deal with them either, though. Its answers aren't verifiable, they're just bare assertions. Over the centuries, religion has integrated a great deal from science, but what has science integrated from religion? The exchange has been very one sided for the simple reason that religion isn't a fact finding methodology and cannot produce real answers the way science can.

vertiaset: "If you stop acting like a ignorant hate filled fundamentalist I might stop treating you like one."

I'm not. I've been very clear about what I actually believe and I don't meet the criteria you've set out. I've been a jerk to you because you've been a jerk to me and because you have very common, very prejudicial opinions about "that kind of atheist". You invited the abuse, and I provided it. If your definition of "fundamentalist atheist" is "any atheist who is a jerk to me", it's no wonder you think you've met so many.

Jesus owes me money...

Is it too late to bail the Connecticut Son of Jesus out of jail, give him his 2x4 back, and send him off to bludgeon vertiaset and Zamboro?

/just a thought.

Gyrfalcon: If our argument has upset you, I apologize.

Zamboro: That's something I like to call "theological calvinball."

Nice.

vertiaset: If you stop acting like a ignorant hate filled fundamentalist I might stop treating you like one.


Hmm this sounds very familiar....

Having lived in Manchester (yes, I've gotten around a bit), I can say that it's a pretty screwed up place. It's like Rockville with a steady job and sometimes sober.

/bookmarking for awesome images to snag later!

Kliffoth: If you stop acting like a ignorant hate filled fundamentalist I might stop treating you like one.


No I swear I've heard someone on Fark use almost these exact same words many times over. Hmmm now who could it be....

hey vertiaset can kerpal32 come out and play?

Zamboro: vertiaset: "Yes, you have the small minded zealotry of the recently converted. This makes sense."

Recently? I'm 25. It was my high school level introduction to education in anthropology and neurobiology at a private Episcopalian academyEpiscopalian High School that disconvinced (disconvinced?? wtf???) disconvinced me of my beliefs became a different type of zealot with a lot of repressed hate. But I haven't figured that out yet.

FTFY.


Kliffoth: Kliffoth: If you stop acting like a ignorant hate filled fundamentalist I might stop treating you like one.


No I swear I've heard someone on Fark use almost these exact same words many times over. Hmmm now who could it be....

hey vertiaset can kerpal32 come out and play?

lol. don't get paranoid because multiple people come to the same conclusion about zamboro or even point out the obvious about him or others on Fark.

/came to laugh at the troll-bait thread and verify the usual cast of characters with sandy-vag-syndrome were ranting. bye.

kerpal32: "FTFY."

Yes, though it was like no high school I've ever heard of. It wasn't really something my parents could afford but the education was top notch and they wanted the best. The only thing I didn't care for were some of the bluebloods. The facilities and instructors were above and beyond anything I've seen since.

Just curious, when did you become a Christian? If the age is too low or too high in my view, does it invalidate your conclusion?

kerpal32: "lol. don't get paranoid because multiple people come to the same conclusion about zamboro or even point out the obvious about him or others on Fark."

You accuse me of having alts all the time, but I have none and invite any moderators present to confirm it for kerpal. If I have even a single alt, permaban me on the spot.

Are you willing to make the same statement?

kerpal32: lol. don't get paranoid because multiple people come to the same conclusion about zamboro or even point out the obvious about him or others on Fark.


My post has nothing to do with that. You tipped your hand. It's OK I'll play along.

Kliffoth: My post has nothing to do with that. You tipped your hand. It's OK I'll play along.

Why because I didn't quote your post directly above it? hmmmmm..... seems a bit of a stretch. ok, here it is troll.

Kliffoth: Kliffoth: If you stop acting like a ignorant hate filled fundamentalist I might stop treating you like one.


No I swear I've heard someone on Fark use almost these exact same words many times over. Hmmm now who could it be....

hey vertiaset can kerpal32 come out and play?

oh well.... sorry you're not only paranoid, but a bit of an idiot to boot.

Zamboro: You accuse me of having alts all the time, but I have none and invite any moderators present to confirm it for kerpal. If I have even a single alt, permaban me on the spot.

Are you willing to make the same statement?

have the mods come in. I'm not him. He's not me. Sorry, you really are a fanatic and people see that about you..

You've admitted to IM'ing and e-mailing your trolling thuggy pals to come to these threads. Do you need me to provide the link?

Kliffoth: lol. don't get paranoid because multiple people come to the same conclusion about zamboro or even point out the obvious about him or others on Fark.


Maybe you can understand this: My posts in this thread have nothing to do with any conclusions about Zamboro or anything 'obvious' you pointed out, I am also not paranoid, keep trotting out the same old lines though. Especially since you've accused me of having alts when I never have, nor ever will I. Your schtick is getting old.

Can you comprehend that?

Sorry perhaps I should clarify a little further kerpal32 so you don't get too confused. That post I just posted, yeah the one up there, see how I'm quoted? See I quoted from my post instead of yours because your spew doesn't show up as well against your pink background.

Sorry for the possible confusion, I'm really trying to keep it simple for you.

kerpal32: "have the mods come in. I'm not him. He's not me. Sorry, you really are a fanatic and people see that about you.."

How do overlook all the people saying that about you? Remember when I quoted them? You reported me for it rather than face up to what it implies.

kerpal32: "You've admitted to IM'ing and e-mailing your trolling thuggy pals to come to these threads. Do you need me to provide the link?"

Your point being? Yes, I'm friends with Kome irl and I talk with ninjakirby online. That shouldn't seem unusual to you unless the whole concept of friends is unusual to you, which I wouldn't rule out.

Kliffoth: Maybe you can understand this: My posts in this thread have nothing to do with any conclusions about Zamboro or anything 'obvious' you pointed out, I am also not paranoid, keep trotting out the same old lines though. Especially since you've accused me of having alts when I never have, nor ever will I. Your schtick is getting old.

Can you comprehend that?

depends on whether or it takes more than 2 min of scanning the same bullshiat hate rhetoric in a troll-bait thread by the usual fanatics, and noticing your usual insinuation that anyone who points out the obvious (i.e. zamboro is a fanatic with a big ass bag of anti-theistic hate) must be an alt.

Honestly, I really don't feel like putting in the effort for a waste of time like you two.

your schtick is beyond old. it stinks like sandy vag syndrome.

kerpal32: "and noticing your usual insinuation that anyone who points out the obvious (i.e. zamboro is a fanatic with a big ass bag of anti-theistic hate) must be an alt."

The sort of people who make that accusation tend to be like you, though. Bevets doesn't care for me either. Neither does Skinnyhead, or Imfallen_angel, or Mongo Cut Wood. All of them, fundamentalists who are habitually antagonistic towards atheists.

I'm not at all troubled by the fact that they hold me in low esteem. I'd be deeply concerned if they didn't.

What do you think of the Farkers who revile you? If you can't name names I'd be happy to provide a sizable list, provided you promise not to have me temp banned for it. :)

kerpal32: depends on whether or it takes more than 2 min of scanning the same bullshiat hate rhetoric in a troll-bait thread by the usual fanatics, and noticing your usual insinuation that anyone who points out the obvious (i.e. zamboro is a fanatic with a big ass bag of anti-theistic hate) must be an alt.


Wow you don't get it! You really don't. Me calling you out has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING you said about Zamboro! It had to do with a couple factors. The main one being that stuff like this


vertiaset: If you stop acting like a ignorant hate filled fundamentalist I might stop treating you like one.


Sounds exactly like you. I've had an inkling of this before but this line especially, the way it's phrased sounds very very much like you.


Saying calling out people as alts is MY usual insinuation is just too rich!


You do realise I don't take you seriously at all right? You know that I know that you know this is just a little game we're playing isn't it?

Kliffoth: Sounds exactly like you. I've had an inkling of this before but this line especially, the way it's phrased sounds very very much like you.

As I said, have the mods to verify. Veritas isn't me. I'm not him. Same as I'm not al the other people who made similar observations and comments.

Funny you seem surprised when other people describe your friend the way he is.

kerpal32: Funny you seem surprised when other people describe your friend the way he is.


Hey if I'm wrong I apologize (to vertiaset) but I will hold my suspicions a bit longer.


And who is the friend you're referring to? I have no friends who are Farkers. Fark is not a site I've ever really considered making friends on. I come here for the lolz, the snark, information, and a good old fashioned arguement. Also to be amused by clowns like you.

One more thing (cause double posts give me wood) isn't saying 'Have the mods verify' kind of like saying 'If I'm wrong may God strike me down...' you KNOW it's not going to happen.

Im sure they'd much rather be watching the Youporn in the other tab or finishing off that 5th of Bourbon than running 'background checks' on Farkers.

kliffoth: "You do realise I don't take you seriously at all right? You know that I know that you know this is just a little game we're playing isn't it?"

Don't let him get under your skin. Underneath all the prickly armor he's not a bad guy, he's even pretty bright. He's just had a lot of blow-up arguments with atheists.

When someone pisses you off, do you stop and consider what you might've done to upset them? Do you wonder if perhaps they've had a bad day or something? Most of the time you just write them off as a jerk, sorting them into your "bad person" folder. You might even treat them accordingly next time you see them, which of course will cause them to perceive you the same way. Escalation may occur and soon you hate one another even though under different circumstances you could've been on good terms.

Over time if you have bad experiences with a lot of people from the same group for reasons related to whatever distinguishes them, you may be tempted to conclude that the group itself is 'bad'. However, unable to resign yourself to condemning an entire group as you know it would constitute bigotry, you rationalize your way out of it by creating a subgroup within the group; the "bad kind" of atheist, for instance. Now you can get out of judging them individually and go back to condemning an entire group without feeling as though you're bigoted! It also gets you out of self-examination; you needn't consider that perhaps the reason so many people from that group take issue with your behavior is because your behavior is especially objectionable to that group.

When atheists dogpile Creationists for not accepting the findings of evolutionary science, moderate Christians nod their heads approvingly and sometimes even join in. When atheists dogpile moderates for not accepting the findings of cognitive neurobiology (for instance) suddenly they cry foul. They don't recognize the parallels. They think we had good reason to dump on the creationists, but no reason to dump on them, and that we are therefore douchebags.

Atheist
Christian 1: Dualist, Divine first cause
Christian 2: Dualist, divine first cause, Creationist
Christian 3: Dualist, Divine first case, Creationist, Flat earther.

The above are arranged according to how many Biblical claims they accept as true, and inversely how much of science they accept.

Christian 3 at the bottom thinks everyone above him is a hellbound heathen who puts too much stock in science, as from his perspective science hasn't proven that the Earth is round, it's an atheist conspiracy to undermine Christianity.

Christian 2 dismisses the Flat Earth as having nothing to do with him or Christianity. He scoffs at him just as we do for clinging to Hebrew cosmology even though it has been discredited by science. However, that's where he draws the line. From his perspective, science hasn't proven evolution and never can, it's an atheist conspiracy to undermine Christianity. Like Christian 4, he thinks everyone above him on the list is a science worshipper and that their acceptance of things like evolution constitutes a religion.

Christian 1 often joins in the atheist, mocking the Creationist and the Geocentrist, but objects when the atheist mocks them as well. They don't recognize that their beliefs any relation to those of the other two. At the same time they think the atheist above them puts too much stock in science, that neither dualism nor a divine first cause can be disproven and that denial of both constitute a religion.

Everyone thinks that the guys above them worship science and don't appreciate its limits, while thinking that the guys below them are misguided fundies. None recognize that they occupy positions on a sliding scale, each believes that science fully supports their position (and that anything which appears to contradict their views is either illegitimate or being misrepresented by those above them) and that those below them have nothing to do with Christianity and are in the tiny minority, while their take on Christianity is the definitive one held by most Christians worldwide.

The weirdest part is all of them are aware of the various other world religions and can understand how their beliefs developed out of tribal superstitions and rituals in a period when we were short on explanations for natural phenomena and in dire need of comfort and purpose given the brutal nature of our existence. However they place their own religion in a whole different category, and recognize no parallels between it and those other, clearly mistaken religions even though they have no more evidence for Yahweh than the Hindu has for Ganesh and Brahma. They think there's simply more to their religion, that the theology is more sophisticated, the prophecies more consistently fulfilled, the apologetics more sound, but that is because they've studied Christian theology, Christian prophecies and Christian apologetics. They haven't grown up studying Hindu theology, Hindu prophecies and Hindu apologetics. If they had, they'd be a Hindu, and regard Christians in a similar manner.

Kliffoth: "One more thing (cause double posts give me wood) isn't saying 'Have the mods verify' kind of like saying 'If I'm wrong may God strike me down...' you KNOW it's not going to happen."

Hey, at least the mods exist. I notified them of the thread and asked them to out whichever of us has an alt. For all I know they'll just throw up their hands in disgust and temp ban us both. I wouldn't blame 'em. This kind of shiat shouldn't be necessary.

Zamboro: Don't let him get under your skin. Underneath all the prickly armor he's not a bad guy, he's even pretty bright. He's just had a lot of blow-up arguments with atheists.

When someone pisses you off, do you stop and consider what you might've done to upset them? Do you wonder if perhaps they've had a bad day or something?


I don't let people on Fark get under my skin, ever. I know emotion doesn't translate well into text but I reply to him because I want to and I find the back and forth, petty and silly as it usually is, to be fun. If he didn't always resort to name-calling and conspiracy theories then I'd debate him. I don't think he really wants a civil debate so I sling shiat back, FARK is the only place I echew the high road if someone wants to sling mud.

I never meant to infer he wasn't intelligent.

Who is your post addressed to anyway? I hope it isn't me. I condemn no 'groups'. I only ever 'condemned' kerpal32 because of the way he debates. You've been far more vocal and...shall we say... vitriolic than I in these threads. Not saying you're wrong, I agree with you most of the time, but you're usually harsher in your arguements than I, not too harsh I think though.

There's only one Farker that springs to mind that I wouldn't sit down and have a beer with, provided we avoided politics and religion (unless we were like-minded), and nobody in this thread is he, and no it's not Bevets.


Zamboro: Kliffoth: "One more thing (cause double posts give me wood) isn't saying 'Have the mods verify' kind of like saying 'If I'm wrong may God strike me down...' you KNOW it's not going to happen."


Hey, at least the mods exist. I notified them of the thread and asked them to out whichever of us has an alt. For all I know they'll just throw up their hands in disgust and temp ban us both. I wouldn't blame 'em. This kind of shiat shouldn't be necessary.


I'm not sure they'd do it anyway, seems rather petty to be bringing to the mods.

Kliffoth: "Who is your post addressed to anyway? I hope it isn't me. I condemn no 'groups'. I only ever 'condemned' kerpal32 because of the way he debates. You've been far more vocal and...shall we say... vitriolic than I in these threads. Not saying you're wrong, I agree with you most of the time, but you're usually harsher in your arguements than I, not too harsh I think though."

Oh no it wasn't directed at you, mainly just thinking out loud.

Kliffoth: "I'm not sure they'd do it anyway, seems rather petty to be bringing to the mods."

There was no punitive intent, I want this cleared up by a mod so he can have authoritative confirmation that he's wrong to accuse me of having alts. I'm hoping that because it doesn't come from me he'll trust it and it will be the first of many examples contradicting his present convictions, and that a pattern of similar examples will eventually reverse his opinion of us.

Zamboro: Oh no it wasn't directed at you, mainly just thinking out loud.


Oh, my apologies then.


There was no punitive intent, I want this cleared up by a mod so he can have authoritative confirmation that he's wrong to accuse me of having alts. I'm hoping that because it doesn't come from me he'll trust it and it will be the first of many examples contradicting his present convictions, and that a pattern of similar examples will eventually reverse his opinion of us.


I understand. Though I'm a bit more pessimistic than you about him reversing his opinion. I think he's a troll, albeit a good one, so I don't think his mind is open to be reversed, or that he really has nothing against us and he's having a bit of fun.

Keep fighting the good fight though!

I don't know just where I'm going
But I'm gonna try for the kingdom, if I can
'Cause it makes me feel like I'm a man
When I put a spike into my vein
And I'll tell ya, things aren't quite the same
When I'm rushing on my run
And I feel just like Jesus' son
And I guess that I just don't know
And I guess that I just don't know

Kliffoth: "I understand. Though I'm a bit more pessimistic than you about him reversing his opinion. I think he's a troll, albeit a good one, so I don't think his mind is open to be reversed, or that he really has nothing against us and he's having a bit of fun."

Everyone can be reasoned with. Everyone thinks of themselves as a reasonable person, anyway. Even if he won't listen to me because he thinks I'm a monster, he'd listen to someone else saying the same things, provided they were more polite about it. It's why I want a clean slate with him, but near as I can tell he hated me from the beginning and he'll hate me no matter what I do or say.

Even so, the moment you throw up your hands and decide they're incapable of being reasoned with, you've become worse than them. Don't let yourself slip into the trap of thinking they're any less able to understand a well reasoned argument than you are, it's just a rationalization to stop putting effort into getting along with them and reaching a point of understanding. It's easier and more comfortable but it means you've given up on ever resolving the issue with them and setting things right. There are billions of people on Earth. You may think you can afford to write off and alienate a few. But you shouldn't rely on that statistical buffer between yourself and the rest of humanity. You should treat every person you argue with as if you're stuck on a desert island with them and you'll need to cooperate to survive. Because in a larger sense, that's true.

Zamboro: Kliffoth: "I understand. Though I'm a bit more pessimistic than you about him reversing his opinion. I think he's a troll, albeit a good one, so I don't think his mind is open to be reversed, or that he really has nothing against us and he's having a bit of fun."

Everyone can be reasoned with. Everyone thinks of themselves as a reasonable person, anyway. Even if he won't listen to me because he thinks I'm a monster, he'd listen to someone else saying the same things, provided they were more polite about it. It's why I want a clean slate with him, but near as I can tell he hated me from the beginning and he'll hate me no matter what I do or say.

Even so, the moment you throw up your hands and decide they're incapable of being reasoned with, you've become worse than them. Don't let yourself slip into the trap of thinking they're any less able to understand a well reasoned argument than you are, it's just a rationalization to stop putting effort into getting along with them and reaching a point of understanding. It's easier and more comfortable but it means you've given up on ever resolving the issue with them and setting things right. There are billions of people on Earth. You may think you can afford to write off and alienate a few. But you shouldn't rely on that statistical buffer between yourself and the rest of humanity. You should treat every person you argue with as if you're stuck on a desert island with them and you'll need to cooperate to survive. Because in a larger sense, that's true.


I'm just saying I think he's looking for an arguement, hence doesn't want to be reasoned with because he's trolling. I'm not saying he can't be reasoned with.

It seems like you really want to get through to him and you really care enough to put up a good arguement. I usually don't post much in these sorts of threads because by the time I get there you've said what I wanted to say... they always erupt when I'm at work dammit. I don't think the time put into arguing on FARK with him is worth it for me, especially since I think it's fruitless. If you think it's worth it knock yourself out. Whether he's honest or not I enjoy wordplay, which is why I respond to him at all.


I think he's farking with you though man.

Kliffoth: "I don't think the time put into arguing on FARK with him is worth it for me, especially since I think it's fruitless."

In one sense it is. In a few others, it isn't.

Kliffoth: "I think he's farking with you though man."

Be that as it may, he's still a human being. If I keep at it, eventually he'll get tired of being adversarial and combative because he'll see that provoking me only escalates aggression and makes productive discourse impossible. For a while I figured that if one of us was going to have to hold out the olive branch and endure a bit of abuse before the other realized they weren't getting any reaction and calmed down, it may as well be me. That accomplished nothing at the time although periodically he seems to mellow out for reasons unknown to me only to flare up again out of nowhere. There's something going on behind the scenes, I just don't have any way of knowing what it is and he'd never share that sort of information with me because he's used my own personal information against me and he assumes I hate him enough to do the same.

Eventually his better nature will win out and we'll be able to have a productive exchange of ideas. For that to happen I've got to let everything he says slide. It's tough. I have quite a temper and once I get going it's hard to stop. But at this point it's more about the principle of the matter, I need to know it's possible to talk someone down from a dug-in position like his, and I need him to know that the reactions he gets aren't due to some atheists being horrible monsters, it's because his conception of them and their reasons for being the way they are is intensely demeaning.

Wait and see. I'm not promising anything as most of my enthusiasm for the endeavor bled away months ago but even if I get nothing else out of this, I'll have improved my ability to brush off provocation.

Zamboro: Kliffoth: "I don't think the time put into arguing on FARK with him is worth it for me, especially since I think it's fruitless."

In one sense it is. In a few others, it isn't.

Kliffoth: "I think he's farking with you though man."

Be that as it may, he's still a human being. If I keep at it, eventually he'll get tired of being adversarial and combative because he'll see that provoking me only escalates aggression and makes productive discourse impossible. For a while I figured that if one of us was going to have to hold out the olive branch and endure a bit of abuse before the other realized they weren't getting any reaction and calmed down, it may as well be me. That accomplished nothing at the time although periodically he seems to mellow out for reasons unknown to me only to flare up again out of nowhere. There's something going on behind the scenes, I just don't have any way of knowing what it is and he'd never share that sort of information with me because he's used my own personal information against me and he assumes I hate him enough to do the same.

Eventually his better nature will win out and we'll be able to have a productive exchange of ideas. For that to happen I've got to let everything he says slide. It's tough. I have quite a temper and once I get going it's hard to stop. But at this point it's more about the principle of the matter, I need to know it's possible to talk someone down from a dug-in position like his, and I need him to know that the reactions he gets aren't due to some atheists being horrible monsters, it's because his conception of them and their reasons for being the way they are is intensely demeaning.

Wait and see. I'm not promising anything as most of my enthusiasm for the endeavor bled away months ago but even if I get nothing else out of this, I'll have improved my ability to brush off provocation.


You're quite the optimist. I'd like your hopes to be founded, it'd be interesting to see you two debate without the ad-hominims and bile.

Zamboro:You accuse me of having alts all the time, but I have none and invite any moderators present to confirm it for kerpal. If I have even a single alt, permaban me on the spot.

Yeah yeah... so help me if I'm lying may Mod strike me down where I stand.

Silly atheists, always deifying something.

/Where is your Mod now?

I'm a little late... but nice work subby!

it never ceases to amaze me how debates of this nature in which one side attempts to extol the virtues and legitimacy of a belief based on the teachings of a man (real or fictional) whose message was "love thy neighbor", "live and let live", acceptance, and ultimately forgiveness, degenerate into animosity and intolerance. I guess sometimes the message is lost for me when the messenger is more concerned with making others share his beliefs than actually practicing them himself.

I may be going to hell for this one... but I already live in CT, so it will be a lateral move - but hey, we've got the son of jesus, what does your state have?

Athiests stop prosyletizing You're worse than the farkin fundamentalists! Believe what you want and extend the same courtesy to others. Like Jefferson said 'I care not whether my neighbor worships no gods or many. For it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.' Live and let live, Jesus!

Crewmannumber6: Athiests stop prosyletizing You're worse than the farkin fundamentalists! Believe what you want and extend the same courtesy to others. Like Jefferson said 'I care not whether my neighbor worships no gods or many. For it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.' Live and let live, Jesus!


First it's 'Atheist'. Second we aren't allowed to express our point of view without being accused of prosyletizing? How dare we even discuss religion!

I don't care who believes what as long as their beliefs don't infringe upon my personal freedoms and well-being. How dare we comment about religion in a topic about religion on a message board. The gall!

Kliffoth: Crewmannumber6: Athiests stop prosyletizing You're worse than the farkin fundamentalists! Believe what you want and extend the same courtesy to others. Like Jefferson said 'I care not whether my neighbor worships no gods or many. For it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.' Live and let live, Jesus!


First it's 'Atheist'. Second we aren't allowed to express our point of view without being accused of prosyletizing? How dare we even discuss religion!

I don't care who believes what as long as their beliefs don't infringe upon my personal freedoms and well-being. How dare we comment about religion in a topic about religion on a message board. The gall!

So we're in agreement, except for my spelling. I'll scan upward and see if all your doing is 'expressing your point of view' although I don't see a lot of farkers on either side who are willing or able to leave it at that