Hello
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2013, 12:51 AM
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 09:39 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Okay, chippy (love Tim and Eric by the way, one point for you). You've obviously come here to muck up a shitstorm, and have succeeded. I'm just not seeing the point.

Why are you here? I noticed in a post somewhere you made (I'm not gonna trouble myself to look it up on my mobile) that you find this work tedious (I know, you phrased it differently), so again, why?

If your aim is to spread knowledge, which you obviously have some, why the hostility? You came here to talk shit. You love confrontation. That's okay, but at least own up to it. You put up a good fight, but then deflect the accusation of being confrontational.

The reason you are being called a cunt is because you are acting like one. Everyone here respects a knowledgeable perspective, and most here will concede to a better argument if it is presented respectfully. You have shown contempt and disdain from the get go and so you receive the same.

We are a community of atheists. Yes, we have our faults as a community, show me one that doesn't. I, for one would love to hear some constructive criticism, but that's not what you are offering.

You are obviously here for a fight, and you got it. That makes you a cunt. I'd just like a statement of purpose, if you have one. If your purpose is just to be a cunt, so be it, I can respect that and give you credit for a job well done. If you seek any sort of respect, I suggest you change your tone.

Honestly, you seem to be a very smart dude, with a lot of good stuff to contribute. You just don't seem too keen on communication. Kinda like absols.

I'm not going to dignify you or your post by participating in an online kangaroo court. You aren't an impartial witness. If you don't like what I post then fuck off and don't read it. I don't recall PMing you anything and thereby imposing myself on you or anyone else.

Also, if you had any honour you wouldn't resort to a "backchannel" to serve insults. You and the others are calling me a cunt--on a backchannel--because you (and the others) are unable to engage me on the level of argument. It is a compensatory self-therapy; calling me a cunt helps you and the others to reconstitute your self-concept which sits on flimsy foundations. You and the other members of the circle jerk are "bad ass atheists that know all that is worth knowing about philosophy and religious people are stupid". When that puerile self-concept is assaulted of course you will react with a cowardly expression of hostility.

If you value clear-thinking and knowledge then you'd be concerned more with the substance of my posts rather periphery and incidentals. If I am such cunt then why is my exchange with I and I so dispassionate and patient? Perhaps it's your attitude that needs adjustment rather than my behaviour.

Now you've made this plaintive/demanding/ingratiatory post that invites me to castrate myself before 10 or so cuntasses that have reverted to mere name calling--even the pretense of argumentation has been dropped. I've already explained my motivation in the post you alluded to. If you don't like that then go fuck yourself.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: Hello
(04-10-2013 12:51 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-10-2013 09:39 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Okay, chippy (love Tim and Eric by the way, one point for you). You've obviously come here to muck up a shitstorm, and have succeeded. I'm just not seeing the point.

Why are you here? I noticed in a post somewhere you made (I'm not gonna trouble myself to look it up on my mobile) that you find this work tedious (I know, you phrased it differently), so again, why?

If your aim is to spread knowledge, which you obviously have some, why the hostility? You came here to talk shit. You love confrontation. That's okay, but at least own up to it. You put up a good fight, but then deflect the accusation of being confrontational.

The reason you are being called a cunt is because you are acting like one. Everyone here respects a knowledgeable perspective, and most here will concede to a better argument if it is presented respectfully. You have shown contempt and disdain from the get go and so you receive the same.

We are a community of atheists. Yes, we have our faults as a community, show me one that doesn't. I, for one would love to hear some constructive criticism, but that's not what you are offering.

You are obviously here for a fight, and you got it. That makes you a cunt. I'd just like a statement of purpose, if you have one. If your purpose is just to be a cunt, so be it, I can respect that and give you credit for a job well done. If you seek any sort of respect, I suggest you change your tone.

Honestly, you seem to be a very smart dude, with a lot of good stuff to contribute. You just don't seem too keen on communication. Kinda like absols.

I'm not going to dignify you or your post by participating in an online kangaroo court. You aren't an impartial witness. If you don't like what I post then fuck off and don't read it. I don't recall PMing you anything and thereby imposing myself on you or anyone else.

Also, if you had any honour you wouldn't resort to a "backchannel" to serve insults. You and the others are calling me a cunt--on a backchannel--because you (and the others) are unable to engage me on the level of argument. It is a compensatory self-therapy; calling me a cunt helps you and the others to reconstitute your self-concept which sits on flimsy foundations. You and the other members of the circle jerk are "bad ass atheists that know all that is worth knowing about philosophy and religious people are stupid". When that puerile self-concept is assaulted of course you will react with a cowardly expression of hostility.

If you value clear-thinking and knowledge then you'd be concerned more with the substance of my posts rather periphery and incidentals. If I am such cunt then why is my exchange with I and I so dispassionate and patient? Perhaps it's your attitude that needs adjustment rather than my behaviour.

Now you've made this plaintive/demanding/ingratiatory post that invites me to castrate myself before 10 or so cuntasses that have reverted to mere name calling--even the pretense of argumentation has been dropped. I've already explained my motivation in the post you alluded to. If you don't like that then go fuck yourself.

Fair enough. At least you're honest. The name calling has been reciprocal from what I've seen.

No, I can't speak to your arguments, I'm not that educated and I know it. I'm merely calling you out for being a dick. You don't care, and that's too bad. For all of us.

As it pertains to the substance of your posts, I like what I'm seeing. That's the only reason I'm engaging you in the first place. It would be nice to hear what you have to say without feeling insulted.

Quote: You and the other members of the circle jerk are "bad ass atheists that know all that is worth knowing about philosophy and religious people are stupid

Wow, thanks for that label. As if you know a goddamned thing about me. Now, I value knowledge, but that's not why I'm here. I'm here primarily for the community. There's a lot of good people here and I don't like it when someone marches in here thinking they're better than everyone else and acting like a dick. That's all I'm saying. So fuck you too, now that we understand each other we can move on to ignoring each other. Tell you what, I'll even take off my neg rep, and we can both grow up and act like big boys.

Have a nice day.

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
04-10-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Hello
One question remains , why do pompous presumptuous cunts like chippy draw so much attention?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
04-10-2013, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 01:51 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Hello
(04-10-2013 12:10 AM)Chippy Wrote:  You have no point to miss. You are tilting at windmills. The argument itself is bunkum based on the pseudo-history of Morey and it is used for proselytizing Muslims by telling them "my god is better than your god".

(04-10-2013 12:10 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Your point is invalid and your attempt to promote what appears in a Chick tract as serious scholarship is demonstrative of your charlatanry. That you've purloined an idea from the lunatic fringe of Christianity and attempted to promote it as relevant to atheology shows you up as simple-minded and misguided.

Not because you assert it so, your holiness. But thanks for taking the bait, and thanks for providing yourself, yet another opportunity, to demonstrate your presumptuous ignorance of the very shit you think you speak about. Thumbsup

Your little 5 second internet search has not served you well, I'm afraid, your holiness. But, I guess, now we see how you did your research for your Dawkins rant.

I did not get it from "Chicks" or Morey. In fact I show it PREDATED MOREY. Morey picked it up. He did not originate it. Maybe before you spout crap, you need to actually gather some facts.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ns?page=25 (post 247)

I know you are too lazy to actually read that link which was written in 2012, long before you ever darkened the door at TTA, so I'll copy a few of the points. You won't acknowledge them, but they're there for anyone to see.

1. Archaeology and location. The cult of Yahweh flourished to the North and West, of the sites where the Sin was prevalent.The artifacts are different. The "consorts", (wives) are different. Sin had mythological children. Yahweh did not. They cannot be the same god.

2. Scholarly consensus.

"Allah is found ... in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam" (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643)

"The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshiped, a supreme god called allah" (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Houtsma, Arnold, Basset, Hartman; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1913, I:302)

"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities" (Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406)

"Ilah ... appears in pre-Islamic poetry ... By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry" (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Lewis, Menage, Pellat, Schacht; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1971, III:1093)

"The name Allah goes back before Muhammed" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, "The Facts on File", ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:41)

The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, I:326)

Scholar Henry Preserved Smith of Harvard University stated:
"Allah was already known by name to the Arabs" (The Bible and Islam: or, the Influence of the Old and New Testament on the Religion of Mohammed, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, p.102)

Dr. Kenneth Cragg, former editor of the prestigious scholarly journal Muslim World and an outstanding modern Western Islamic scholar, whose works were generally published by Oxford University, comments:
The name Allah is also evident in archaeological and literary remains of pre-Islamic Arabia" (The Call of the Minaret, New York: OUP, 1956, p.31)

Dr. W. Montgomery Watt, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Edinburgh University and Visiting Professor of Islamic Studies at College de France, Georgetown University, and the University of Toronto, has done extensive work on the pre-Islamic concept of Allah. He concludes:
"In recent years I have become increasingly convinced that for an adequate understanding of the career of Muhammad and the origins of Islam great importance must be attached to the existence in Mecca of belief in Allah as a "high god". In a sense this is a form of paganism, but it is so different from paganism as commonly understood that it deserves separate treatment" (Mohammad's Mecca, p.vii. See also his article, "Belief in a High God in pre-Islamic Mecca", Journal of Scientific Semitic Studies, vol.16, 1971, pp.35-40)

Caesar Farah in his book on Islam concludes his discussion of the pre-Islamic meaning of Allah by saying:
"There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews" (Islam: Beliefs and Observations, New York: Barrons, 1987, p.28)

According to Middle East scholar E.M.Wherry, whose translation of the Qur'an is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1973, p.36).
"In ancient Arabia, the sun-god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah (op.cit., Islam, p.7)
"The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to the other titles that could be given to him.
"Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called 'the daughters of Allah'. These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
"The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as "high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities" (Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1977, pp.50-51).

The Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend records:
"Along with Allah, however, they worshiped a host of lesser gods and "daughters of Allah" (op.cit., I:61).

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "'Al-Ilah' is a pre-Islamic name ... corresponding to the Babylonian Bel" (ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1908, I:326).



Now that everyone sees how you throw unproven false accusations around, you fucking liar, it certainly puts into doubt any complaint you have about the origins of Dawkins' ideas. You can't stand it that anyone has the supreme effrontery to not allow your patronizing pomposity to rule. In fact, debunking the god of one of the major religion, could NOT be a MORE appropriate topic for atheology.

Maybe someday this idiot will grow up, and figure out that his personal opinion of what one is, or is not "allowed" to study and speak about, is utterly irrelevant to anyone else. How old is he ? Like 2 ?

"Atheology" ? Snort. I guess I'll be going to atheology hell then.
Seriously, please, sir, if you have the time in your pontifical pronouncement schedule, post the official list of allowed topics, and banned topics that are acceptable in the papal Chippy presence. (Pardon me, if I don't kiss your ring).
Maybe you can call it "Pontifex Maximus Chippi Locorum Prohibitorum", and feel all papal and "authoritative" about it.

Fucking jerk.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: Hello
Seriously? Dick fight? In the introductions forum?




Drinking Beverage

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 11:55 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-10-2013 10:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Try as I might, I fail to see any reasonable grounds on which Bucky's statements could be so interpreted.

It is a "my god is better than your god argument" that originated from the books of Christian pastor Robert Morey and it is employed for the purpose of proselytizing Muslims. It makes zero sense for an atheist to repeat it.

Yeah.

But that's not what he said.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:29 AM
RE: Hello
(04-10-2013 10:04 AM)kim Wrote:  Seriously? Dick fight? In the introductions forum?




Drinking Beverage

Mine's bigger. Rolleyes

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Hello
(04-10-2013 10:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 10:04 AM)kim Wrote:  Seriously? Dick fight? In the introductions forum?




Drinking Beverage

Mine's bigger. Rolleyes

That's what she I said. Dodgy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
04-10-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Hello
(04-10-2013 10:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 10:04 AM)kim Wrote:  Seriously? Dick fight? In the introductions forum?




Drinking Beverage

Mine's bigger. Rolleyes

Prove it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: Hello
(04-10-2013 10:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 10:29 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Mine's bigger. Rolleyes

Prove it.

You wanna take a step back? Yer standing on it.

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: