Drich, Answers to my questions
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2014, 03:06 AM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2014 04:17 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Drich, Answers to my questions
When I ask "Are you missing anything out of your account of your conversion?" you reply "Yes, I am missing answers to my questions"

You do remember that I am only allowed to ask questions and you are only allowed to answer them don't you? (see thread title and first post which explain the rules)


Why in all these 21 pages over two months did you never mention that you had motivation to become a christian because you met a girl from whom you found Jesus?

From your short bio in your profile page on atheistforums.org

Quote:... then found Jesus via a girl who went to church and said she would not date a nonbeliever.. Then found God. (I've posted about that in detail be happy to share if asked)

https://atheistforums.org/user-3164.html
http://i61.tinypic.com/2hqc7wi.png
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
21-04-2014, 06:07 AM
RE: Drich, Answers to my questions
(21-04-2014 03:06 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  When I ask "Are you missing anything out of your account of your conversion?" you reply "Yes, I am missing answers to my questions"

You do remember that I am only allowed to ask questions and you are only allowed to answer them don't you? (see thread title and first post which explain the rules)
That's fine because I really did ask any questions. I made charges against your integrity sighting several instances. "Answering them" is an illiteritive term describing how one is to respond to a charge.

Quote:Why in all these 21 pages over two months did you never mention that you had motivation to become a christian because you met a girl from whom you found Jesus?

From your short bio in your profile page on atheistforums.org

Quote:... then found Jesus via a girl who went to church and said she would not date a nonbeliever.. Then found God. (I've posted about that in detail be happy to share if asked)

https://atheistforums.org/user-3164.html
http://i61.tinypic.com/2hqc7wi.png
Wow your getting desperate.

I know you think your so close to proving me a hypocrite or liar it does not matter what is known or can be proven about you.

But just to show you your goal is far from reach I will answer this question

Romans 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Before my dream that girl invited me for weeks if not months (I did not want more of the same arguing and fighting as with my last experience, especially on their turf.) After I went.

"Finding Jesus" is a religious term in that church that identifies ine with having confessed their sins and being baptized.

I have mentioned this yet because we can't seem to get past the initial 'a/s/k'

So now what are you going to pretend that you did not just default to another red herring to try and put me on the defensive? Are you going to pretend that is not a dishonest move? Will you maintain that I am the one wrong in this conversation?

Again look at how much dishonesty and underhanded tactics you must use to make even a coherent objection. Never mind that it is based off of dishonesty and speculation. You have sold your integrity just on the off chance I will say something that you can use to frame me as someone that you yourself have proven to be over and over and over and over again in this thread.

So far I have been able to show that you are dishonest
(Intellectually and otherwise.)

I can demonstrate that your hypocrisy runs deep into your character

And I'm beginning to work on questioning your general competency. All I need is one or two more post from you that has you try and frame me as the type of person you have proven to be, while ignoring everything except your target locked goal, then I will have enough evidence to dismiss you as someone who does not have the fundamental intelligence to defend themselves. Even in a MMA 'match' the fight is called when one opponent can not defend themselves.

Because again even a convicted felon knows his 'word' has very little meaning against someone who has Never been convicted of anything. Yet here you are convicted by your own words and thoughts, yet you are still trying to convict me of the same thing you yourself have proven over and over that you are guilty of.

If you want resolution and the right to continue this match admit to your wrong doing and pledge to turn from it.[/quote]

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
21-04-2014, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2014 07:43 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Drich, Answers to my questions
Drich. All I did was ask you questions based on the answers you gave me. It was quite often extremely difficult trying to figure out what you were saying but I tried. When those questions show how you are inconsistent you resort to ad hominems without any form of explanation and have now stopped even trying to answer for the most part.

Now I could employ your favourite tactic when people accuse you of being disingenious, intellectually dishonest and inconsistent by asking for you to cite specific examples knowing very well that you won't be bothered doing it.

I am not sure how this thread can continue if you now refuse to answer questions and instead accuse me of underhanded tactics (without explaining how that can be possible if all I can do is ask questions based on the answers you give).

But here is one final question before my final piece:

Why should anyone on this forum, or any other forum, bother debating with you if you omit vital information as above, are unable to admit to being wrong (p200, p202, p198, p209), are hypocritical (p205, p150), use strawman arguments (p205, p150), are condescending (p25, p156), avoid defending statements because they are 'taken out of context' (p54), avoid answering questions (p68, p70, p72, p78, p103, p105, p162, p176, p184, p186, p188, p190, p192, p196, p198, p202), answer other questions that were not asked instead that you want to answer (p72, p136), are inconsistent (p96, p159, p195, p197, p201), willing to say something 100% factually wrong and will stand by it even when asked (p128 & p130, p147, p156), will come up with the most feeble of excuses when shown your own inconsistencies (p200, p204), do not read the links that you post (p146, p156, p190), play word games and resort to definitions as a distraction (p149, p153, p204), attack the other person's methods as a form of distraction when the questions get tough (p156, p205, p207, p212) and do not understand the logical fallacies you accuse other people of committing (p190) ?
Find all posts by this user
[+] 9 users Like Mathilda's post
21-04-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: Drich, Answers to my questions
(21-04-2014 07:35 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Drich. All I did was ask you questions based on the answers you gave me.
This is an out right lie. You have been for some time sourcing material anywhere you can find it to try and find fault in what I have said to you. You have failed each and every time you made an attempt.

Quote: It was quite often extremely difficult trying to figure out what you were saying but I tried.
and after 21 pages do you think yours was the only effort made?

Your incomperhension maybe blamed on me, but in reality you simply did not understand what was said because Biblical Christianity is a complete unknown. you kept trying to apply or make fit a general catholic based understanding of the bible and God to what was said by me. Rather than take what I said under it's own merrit.

Quote:When those questions show how you are inconsistent you resort to ad hominems without any form of explanation and have now stopped even trying to answer for the most part.
This is an out and out lie/ad hominem unless you can proove this statement with an example.


Quote:Now I could employ your favourite tactic when people accuse you of being disingenious, intellectually dishonest and inconsistent by asking for you to cite specific examples knowing very well that you won't be bothered doing it.
What are you talking about? I have referenced entire posts. Do you only read old non revelant posts from other web sites? If so then know you are right, in that my old posts from those sites contain nothing concerning your wreckless and and dishonest nature. If you want an example of that then look no further than my last post to you. That post is built off of 207 where I go line by line and demonstrate everything I have charged you with. To which your responded by trying to put me on the defensive in 209 by playing to perceived insecureities concerning what I have said to you in the past, and again in 211 you tried a feeble appeal to some foolish rule you institued in post one that I only assume you thought saved you from being identifed as a hypocrite. Consider Not sure how that works exactly, but never the less rather than admit to your wrong doing you continue with ad hominem attacks.

Which brings us to the paragraph above the last. I charged you with being a liar or providing proof for what you labled as an ad homin attack.
(Oh the irony on that one, feel the burn?) No? allow me to explain, you charged me with an ad hominem attack, then provided no supporting proof. This allows me the option to dismiss your objection as an Ad hominem attack in of itself as it references some obsceure or unfounded fact concerning the author. (me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote:I am not sure how this thread can continue if you now refuse to answer questions and instead accuse me of underhanded tactics (without explaining how that can be possible if all I can do is ask questions based on the answers you give).
If you want a way out this is it, but do not fool yourself into thinking I have refused to answer your questions. I simply ask that you not misrepersent my answers just to give yourself something to argue.

Quote:But here is one final question before my final piece:

Why should anyone on this forum, or any other forum, bother debating with you if you omit vital information as above, are unable to admit to being wrong
I have admitted being wrong each and everytime time a member here or any where else has proven to be right. Matter of fact my debate with DJL in this very 'arena' ended with such an admission.

So the question now becomes can you admit to being wrong about me?

Quote:(p200, p202, p198, p209), are hypocritical
Hobo
Your just spouting numbers in hopes none of your followers will not check your work
Appearently there are at least 6 fools who didn't.

I guess the "Thinking Atheist" references something of a mystical creature, because there are at least 6 d-bags who has let mathilida do all of the their thinking for them.Laugh out load As we are about to find out that 'thinking' was at best limited.

Because In post 200 I am responding to a request by you to 'correct you if your wrong.'

So I did. Where is the hyprocrisy there?

Post 198 I simply state one of us is confused about the topic, and asked you to clarify...
Again show me how this relates to hyprocrisy

Post 202 is the same as post 198. I simply state one of us is confused...

(Maybe you should define hyprocrisy before using the term you do not seem to understand what it means.)

Post 209 I give you the oppertunity to recant some hypocritical statements you made.. Again where is the hyprocrisy?

Shall we proceed?

Yes I Think so, why? to show everyone who kudo'ed you what a fraud you are. To show them that their hero randomly assigned numbers to ad hominem attacks in hopes no one would call her failed bluff.


Quote:(p205, p150), use strawman arguments (
:banana-dance:This is great! because here you either do not understand what a straw man arguement is. (if that is the case you should not be using this term against someone) -or it is further proof that you just randomly assigned numbers to ad hominem attacks.
Here is the defination of a Straw Man fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

In 150 I did not repersent your arguement in any form or fashion. I simply said shame on you for playing word games. a word game I identified in 149.

In 205 I challenged you to honor what you have been shown over these last two months, then asked a series of questions. I did not misrepersent your position. So again no straw man.

Quote:p205, p150), are condescending
Because you were caught and feel shame for playing underhanded word games and caught manupilating my position (ironically via straw man and word games) I am in the wrong for point out your decipitions? What kind of person blames another for feeling bad because they were caught doing something wrong?

(This review is lots of fun, it's like youre serving the worst parts of your self and the weakest points of this whole 'boxing match' up to me on a silver platter, can't wait to see what is next on the menuSmile

Quote: (p25, p156), avoid defending statements because they are 'taken out of context'
In 25 I challenge you to show me where I avoided anything I literally went line by line with you and answered everything you had to say.

In 156 you attempted to change the meaning of the text you challenged and tried to apply a defination to what I said that did not apply.
That is a red herring, it was then when I first pointed it out in 156 and it is now. what person pretends to be right when they've been caught in a logical fallacy? twice now.Facepalm

Quote:(p54), avoid answering questions
wowGasp at the dishonesty.
YOU DID NOT EVEN ASK THE QUESTION! or again is this an example of you just throwing out post numbers to prop up yet another failed compilation of word games and deception?

Quote:(p68, p70, p72, p78, p103, p105, p162, p176, p184, p186, p188, p190, p192, p196, p198, p202), answer other questions that were not asked instead that you want to answer
again it looks like mathie is just assigning random numbers.
In 68 I simply pointed out a logically fallacy (You begging the question) no answer was given due to the falacious nature of your fundimental ablity for basic reasoning.

70 I asked you to define a word again no answer given.

In 72 You asked a question I answered it completely I even answered some follow ups I saw comming.

78 is an example of you superimposing what you understand of christianity on to what i was teaching. The mere fact you asked that question meant you did not fully understand what was being discussed.
It's like a small child asking you why is the sky left? Well the sky is not left, 'left is not a word that describes what is known as the 'sky.' My task is to provide clarity here. Post 78 was an attempt to help you move past the dark age version/understanding of Heaven and Hell. "Heaven good/Hell bad"

103 has you asking me a question I had answered just one page prior. You shown yourself to be adept in looking up pasts posts, me taking time to remind you of a past post is not something I should have had to do, if you were not playing games.

105 clearly starts out by correcting a misunderstand you had that spured a series of question. (another why is the sky left question) I could not answer the question because the sky is not left.

162 "You had invented a term in 161, i simply asked you to define the term you invented.

176, 184, 186, and on to 202 I literally went line by line and addressed each and every point you made. Again here you just throwing out numbers to padd your bluff.-or- you simply do not have the capasity to understand the answer given. I would lean toward the second assessment simply because you kept asking why is the sky left and would not accept any answer other than what you were looking for.

The problem we had was one based in the fact that you think you understand basic christianity when in truth you have no clue biblical Christianity is a complete unknown to you. You do have a basic religious understanding of a version based in what appears to be catholisim. This basic understanding has you ask questions to which your expecting to get a certain type of answer, when you don't you believe the fault is with me.

Never mind the fact that you and people like you have already proven that your version of christianity is not viable, but what fool believes and persists to look for their failed brand in a viable faith? In other words why would you expect the same 'faith' in me, that did not work in you?





Quote:(p72, p136), are inconsistent
show me. If you thought they were then why hasnt this been addressed one of your many 'time lines?'

Quote:(p96, 159, 195, 197, 201)willing to say something 100% factually wrong and will stand by it even when asked
I KNEW THAT IF I KEPT WITH IT LONG ENOUGH I WOULD CATCH YOU JUST THROWING OUT NUMBERS!!! those are your posts not mine!!!Laugh out load

on that note the rest of your work can be rightfully dismissed. You a pretender, a fake a fraud. You were caught in several under handed intelectually dishonest and out right lies, and your response? In plain english, you made up a bunch of crap and hid it in so many quotations that your hope was that no one would check.

Now that said, May I ask you can you admit when you have been PROOVEN to be wrong?

If so just admit your wrong doing and pledge to do you best to stop and we can proceed with more questions.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
22-04-2014, 03:03 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2014 04:02 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Drich, Answers to my questions
To everyone else except Drich.

Thank you for following this thread. The idea for it was born from an earlier thread where I proposed only asking questions as a way of showing up logical inconsistencies. The thread was not very popular and some people said that it would be better suited to a boxing match. So I waited for the next suitable candidate to come along and picked Drich because he was arrogant and provocative, either unwilling or unable to change his position, and most importantly believed in ill-defined concepts.

The first thing I wanted to determine was whether the question and answer format could be used to nail down nebulous concepts. I now know that the format can be used to obtain unambiguous answers but the concepts being expressed by the troll will remain ill-defined.

Secondly I was curious as to how a religious troll would react when their logical inconsistencies were laid bare with as few words as possible to hide behind. Would they be a screamer and react angrily, dismissing me as a poster and the the form of interrogation? Or would they be a pillow biter and go off and rejiggle their fantasy world, possibly by better defining the nebulous concepts they cling to? I hoped for the latter because it would suggest that there is hope to rationalise with such people. Unfortunately I found the former, although this useful in informing me about trollish mentality.

Being constrained to only asking questions made it apparent to me just how such religious trolls rely on throwing out distractions to the main thrust of the debate. I have since found out that this is referred to as a 'Gish Gallop'. It was extremely frustrating having to ignore them and focus on the main point that I was after. I am extremely grateful for the existence of the two commentary threads that discussed these points that I had to ignore. The advantage of only answering questions is that it reduces the number of posts that are walls of text and allows people to more easily follow the debate.

Over time I began to realise that Drich was pathologically unable to admit to being wrong. Even the method by which he converted revealed how he had to convince himself that he was not wrong in the first place. Even if you point out something glaringly wrong or contradictory he will be unable to admit to it. I suspect that this probably explains the ego, arrogance and condescension. We all hope that deep down there is a rational mind behind a religious zealot that can be reasoned with and that we just need to find the right argument. But if they are pathologically incapable of changing their mind for whatever reason then it becomes a futile endeavour. No matter what you say the debate will always end with them convinced that they have won.

Drich tried to flounce at the beginning of the thread but by attacking his ego I managed to manipulate him into stubbornly staying the course of the thread no matter how hard it got. Although do note that in the last few posts he has been talking about me having to admit to some of his accusations in order for the thread to continue, this despite the rules of the thread regarding questions and answers. This stubborness on his part enabled me to see how far Drich would go in contriving answers. Many people recognised that my questions provided rope for Drich to hang himself. When faced with difficult questions he tried to patch up the inconsistencies with more convoluted and contrived answers.

Over time Drich stopped posting on the forum and only responded to my thread once every two days. The experiment came to an end when, faced with completely contradictory answers, he revealed himself as a screamer. I have only skimmed the last few rants of his and have not read them properly. If I were to respond to them then it would allow him to use a Gish Gallop.

I will need to repeat the experiment with another troll but this time not constrain myself to only asking questions and for them to answer them. This will act as a control to see whether the method does allow for logical inconsistencies to be plainly revealed. The experiment also needs to be repeated so that I can learn to recognise the screamers from the pillow biters.

A secondary benefit to this thread is that I can now provide a list of things that Drich believes in. This means that he will be severely limited in any future debates because he won't be able to make up answers on the spot. So for example, the next time he tries to manipulate people's conditioned fear of Hell people can point out how he is unable to say that Hell is necessarily a bad place for people who value their freedom.

I shall create a list of his explicitely stated beliefs in another post, and this will be my final post on this thread.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
22-04-2014, 03:11 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2014 07:01 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Drich, Answers to my questions
Drich's beliefs

Below is a list of things that Drich has explicitely stated. As with my question regarding his debating style in post 213 it can be difficult to pick the best post in order to make the point most apparent. Therefore you may need to find a single sentence in a large body of text or read posts before and after. This is my last post on this thread.
  • Free will is an illusion (p19, p59)
  • Thinks that people who died before Jesus who were not Jews are either in Hell or given another go around after Christ, i.e. reincarnation (p35)
  • Worships a god who is not considered fair and merciful by most people because he does not depend on "logical fallacy" (Argumentum ad populum) to pick his god. (p42)
  • Believes in absolutes (p49) but we should refrain from speaking in absolutes (p118)
  • Hell is an alternative to forced slavery under God (p51), there will be jobs in Heaven (p53) and some will be doing heavy lifting / slave labour (p53). Believes being a slave labourer under God in Heaven for an eternity will be a pleasant experience because people elected this fare and were designed that way (p59)
  • God can only find 1 our 3 individuals that have the design that he wants (even though God designed them) (p66)
  • Can't say that being free in Hell is unpleasant except for those that want to be with God (p62, p78). Thinks that being entombed in Hell is better for some people and isn't trying to scare people about Hell (p83). Some will find Hell unpleasant, others won't, it depends upon how much they hate God (p80)
  • Chose to love God because he experienced a nano-second of his love (p85) and before this he chose to not believe (p89). Had a choice about loving God before a/s/k'ing but not afterwards (p45)
  • Thinks that his knowledge of God was experienced and verified through an outside source (p110)
  • Thinks that he uses the scientific method for determining truth (p143) yet does not understand what the scientific method is (p145, p154, p156)
  • Thinks A/S/K is not a general theory but a formula (p156)
  • Thinks that formulas consist of parables (p168)
  • Beating up christians was his way of honouring and seeking God. For Paul of the Bible it was hunting them down and killing them (p170, p180). God commanded him to do this (p180)
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
23-04-2014, 05:44 AM
RE: Drich, Answers to my questions
(22-04-2014 03:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Drich's beliefs

Below is a list of things that Drich has explicitely stated. As with my question regarding his debating style in post 213 it can be difficult to pick the best post in order to make the point most apparent. Therefore you may need to find a single sentence in a large body of text or read posts before and after. This is my last post on this thread.
  • Free will is an illusion (p19, p59)
  • Thinks that people who died before Jesus who were not Jews are either in Hell or given another go around after Christ, i.e. reincarnation (p35)
  • Worships a god who is not considered fair and merciful by most people because he does not depend on "logical fallacy" (Argumentum ad populum) to pick his god. (p42)
  • Believes in absolutes (p49) but we should refrain from speaking in absolutes (p118)
  • Hell is an alternative to forced slavery under God (p51), there will be jobs in Heaven (p53) and some will be doing heavy lifting / slave labour (p53). Believes being a slave labourer under God in Heaven for an eternity will be a pleasant experience because people elected this fare and were designed that way (p59)
  • God can only find 1 our 3 individuals that have the design that he wants (even though God designed them) (p66)
  • Can't say that being free in Hell is unpleasant except for those that want to be with God (p62, p78). Thinks that being entombed in Hell is better for some people and isn't trying to scare people about Hell (p83). Some will find Hell unpleasant, others won't, it depends upon how much they hate God (p80)
  • Chose to love God because he experienced a nano-second of his love (p85) and before this he chose to not believe (p89). Had a choice about loving God before a/s/k'ing but not afterwards (p45)
  • Thinks that his knowledge of God was experienced and verified through an outside source (p110)
  • Thinks that he uses the scientific method for determining truth (p143) yet does not understand what the scientific method is (p145, p154, p156)
  • Thinks A/S/K is not a general theory but a formula (p156)
  • Thinks that formulas consist of parables (p168)
  • Beating up christians was his way of honouring and seeking God. For Paul of the Bible it was hunting them down and killing them (p170, p180). God commanded him to do this (p180)

More or less. Glad to see it the last two months wasn't a total waist of time.

I know Your wanting to paint a contrast between what you believe to be 'known Christianity' and "what I believe," so as to make it appear foolish or way out there... But, again here's your problem.

I have spend the better part of 20 years studying and researching Christianity, and the picture I bring to the table while it does not conform to a specific denominational 'doctrine' does indeed repersent biblical Christianity. Further more every point I assert (not the ones I admit to guessing to; like what happens to those non Jew souls before Christ) can be biblically supported with book chapter and verse, no matter how far fetched for you.

Which brings us to a point I have made a few time now that you just can't seem to grasp. Your understanding of Christianity even though popular and shared by most of your peers is proven to contain fatal and logical flaws. You people point them out all the time. The majority of your beliefs seem to be based is traditional catholism. The majority of those beliefs were developed durning the dark ages and few have changed, even though our understanding of God has changed. Even among fellow believers there was a need to seperate from this school of thought (about 400 years ago) from this seperation many different church movements began, and of these denominations the vast majority based their worship on catholism. And they themselves have changed very little. Even though our knowledge of God has increased (they were not faithful to what they have been given.) the core beliefs the denominational established still remain based on the same dark age stuff the Catholics hold to.

No doubt it is from one of these unchanging centuries old system of belief that you have taken a Sunday school interest in, and it is this same centuries old fragmented study of Christianity you now try and grade my work against. You have set yourself up to argue centuries old traditional beliefs against real time research and study. In practice you are no different than those who went on crusades or those who instructed the spainish inquisition. Your thought processes are the same. The content is what differs.

So Again, if your beliefs have failed you, and you do not know God because of them, then why is it you believe that I too would hold your beliefs but somehow still maintain a solid faith? If I know God and you do not, it is reasonable to assume that I found something that works and you have not. Therefore why expect to see me follow the same failed religious path you followed?

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: