Poll: Which fundie was the craziest?
voxxpopulisuxx
LouisIX
mikemac
Kaesekopf
Archer
[Show Results]
 
Real debate with fundies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2013, 10:07 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 06:15 PM)Chesterbelloc Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 05:34 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Don't know who told you that. Enlightened would be fair, at least compared to you. Other than that we're just people, buddy. Some of us are more civilized and tolerant than others.

You banned a member of your forum for their behavior outside of your forum? That's just petty. Bad form.

I don't suppose you have a thread discussing atheists over on your forum you could direct me to so I can see how civilized and tolerant you all are of our views?


If there is a thread discussing atheism on Suscipe Domine, please direct me to the one with a poll attached to it meant to deride the members of this forum. And find me a thread here where someone from SD pretends to want to have a sincere dialogue, while snickering about it at another forum. Thanks in advance.

Your posters said some of the most disgusting things things against homosexuals I have ever heard. That was pure homophobia.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:16 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 08:33 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  1) In a handful of exchanges you've determined that you know more about Catholicism than I do?

Yes but he does that with all topics so at least he is consistent. Here is Bucky Ballsack opining on econometrics. It doesn't occur to Ballsack that one or more of the people that he is calling "idiot"s may have actually studied the topic at university.

Quote:You know nothing about my background or what I do with my life, yet you present this as truth without any evidence. Do you always jump to conclusions, especially ones which allow you to claim that you know more than whomever you're speaking with?

Yes, he does that unconditionally. If you want to see more examples of this then search my posts.

Quote:Your grandfather being a "Vatican insider" (whatever that means) means nothing.

He was a cleaner.

Quote:Was he a theologian?

Probably not but that should be no impediment to being an expert on all matters Catholic.

Quote:What if my grandfather was an atheist? Can I claim greater knowledge?

Yes but only if you are Bucky Ballsack.

Quote:And isn't this the logical fallacy of arguing from authority?

Only when you do it. My brother has a doctorate in chemical engineering so I inherit his expertise by virtue of being genetically related to him. So fuck you.

Quote:2) I'm not using Latin to intimidate people, but once again, you assume the worst of the person that you're speaking with and attack their character instead of what they say.

No he is debating and so is Cathy. It's debating and you just don't understand.

Quote:I used Latin because it's the language of the Church and thus the language of theology. Many of the theological terms we're using are better understood in Latin and are often referred to in Latin.

You are fucking up this debate by introducing facts and logic into it. Fuck off.

Quote:3) Where did I ever say that my beliefs should be imposed upon others? I think that sodomy is immoral and should be made illegal, but I did not say that everyone must believe that it is sinful. You don't have to think that speeding is unjust, but you do have to follow the speed limit. Before you get all wound up, I'm not attempting to compare speeding with sodomy. I'm merely making a distinction between imposition of an action and imposition of a belief. The law already does a lot of imposing on our actions.

Bucky Ball and Cathy are the Medieval peasant that has just returned from ploughing his field. Dirt caked under his nails, smelling of manure, you are asking that peasant to read to you a passage from Abelard and explain it. The peasant scratches his bollocks, spits out a gob of earth stained phlegm, farts and tells you to fuck off.

Quote:4) Catholics believe that God is immutable and yet can act because he is pure act, pure being, or pure esse. Here is where a little break down into Thomistic metaphysics is helpful, especially the distinction between potency and act, but I'm sure you already know all about that.

Yes he does, he inherited that from grandfather.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
17-10-2013, 10:26 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 04:06 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  You were banned because we welcomed you to our forum in respect and you've been sitting here mocking us the entire time. I thought Christians were supposed to be the intolerant ones? This is pretty juvenile behavior from a group that is supposedly enlightened, civilized, and tolerant.

It wasn't very nice of me to mock you, I'll grant you that. However, I did my best to remain respectful while in the midst of horrible bigotry that you, as a moderator, allow on a consistent basis. Christians are seen as being intolerant because of the terrible things they say about homosexuals, as one example.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:28 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 08:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 08:33 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  I don't even know where to begin.

1) In a handful of exchanges you've determined that you know more about Catholicism than I do? You know nothing about my background or what I do with my life, yet you present this as truth without any evidence. Do you always jump to conclusions, especially ones which allow you to claim that you know more than whomever you're speaking with?

Your grandfather being a "Vatican insider" (whatever that means) means nothing. Was he a theologian? What if my grandfather was an atheist? Can I claim greater knowledge? And isn't this the logical fallacy of arguing from authority?

2) I'm not using Latin to intimidate people, but once again, you assume the worst of the person that you're speaking with and attack their character instead of what they say.

I used Latin because it's the language of the Church and thus the language of theology. Many of the theological terms we're using are better understood in Latin and are often referred to in Latin.

3) Where did I ever say that my beliefs should be imposed upon others? I think that sodomy is immoral and should be made illegal, but I did not say that everyone must believe that it is sinful. You don't have to think that speeding is unjust, but you do have to follow the speed limit. Before you get all wound up, I'm not attempting to compare speeding with sodomy. I'm merely making a distinction between imposition of an action and imposition of a belief. The law already does a lot of imposing on our actions.

4) Catholics believe that God is immutable and yet can act because he is pure act, pure being, or pure esse. Here is where a little break down into Thomistic metaphysics is helpful, especially the distinction between potency and act, but I'm sure you already know all about that.

Then why didn't you write the ENTIRE post in Latin ? Nice try. You used it, because you thought it gave "authority" your nonsense. In fact the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, says all languages are of EQUAL value. There is nowhere that says Latin is "the language of the church".

You can play with the lingustics, and twist them anyway you like. Saying you believe in something (even while Special Pleading the terminology) is worthless nonsense.
Thomistic metaphysics is also worthless. You have answered NONE of the objections.
There is no such thing as "pure act". Actions REQUIRE time, by definition, or the word "act" has no linguistic value.

You said men were not free to hold what they believed, but only your cult members were free. Nice try at evasion, and deflection. Fail.

I honestly don't think I've ever met anyone (even on the internet) that is as quick to jump to conclusions and make inferences.

I didn't say that one could only speak in Latin. Haha. Go back and read my post. I said that certain technical phrases are better expressed in Latin. But since you seem unable to accept this and unable to come to any conclusion other than I'm trying to pull a fast one on you, I will refrain from posting anything in Latin. You might consider, however, that Latin is familiar enough to us that we use it often without thinking much of it. You'll see a lot of Latin on our forum. Are we trying to intimidate one another?

Honestly, if your best argument against Thomistic metaphysics is calling it "worthless" without even pretending to give a reason for saying so, then addressing you is not worth my time. If having a gentlemanly conversation involves posting "fail" then I see no point in going further with you. You're just taking the opportunity to give a Christian what he's got coming and you sure as hell aren't willing to listen and discuss.

I'll spend my time responding to someone who at least attempts to discuss like an adult.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:28 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:07 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  Your posters said some of the most disgusting things things against homosexuals I have ever heard. That was pure homophobia.

I have strong liberal leanings but I think the concept of homophobia is bullshit. It is an example of "psychologism" and I mean that in the worst possible sense of the word. It is nothing more than a rhetorical attempt to push the matter into the realm of psychopathology. It is the mirror image of the pathologising of homosexuality. So homosexuals were pathological (which I think is bullshit) but now those that are opposed to homosexuals are pathological (which I think is bullshit).

People say "offensive" things about all sorts of people, there is no need to invoke an exotic explanation for some cases of this general pattern of human behaviour.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
17-10-2013, 10:30 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
This whole thread is an exercise in futility and a prime example of how childish some of our users can be. What was the point of this whole thing? OP, you knew what you were getting into, why even bother?

You would think someone trying to be a part of a political movement still in it's infancy would understand the importance of respectful discourse when trying to change minds. This wasn't debate, it was a poor troll attempt. If you can't control your emotions in the heat of debate, you have no business being there in the first place as all you do is bring shame to yourself and anger others instead of doing any kind of good. If you're going to troll, commit to it. Likewise if you want to debate.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:34 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 09:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  "I don't even know where to begin.

1) In a handful of exchanges you've determined that you know more about Catholicism than I do? You know nothing about my background or what I do with my life, yet you present this as truth without any evidence. Do you always jump to conclusions, especially ones which allow you to claim that you know more than whomever you're speaking with?

Your grandfather being a "Vatican insider" (whatever that means) means nothing. Was he a theologian? What if my grandfather was an atheist? Can I claim greater knowledge? And isn't this the logical fallacy of arguing from authority?"

Touché, my friend,



"Where did I ever say that my beliefs should be imposed upon others? I think that sodomy is immoral and should be made illegal, but I did not say that everyone must believe that it is sinful. You don't have to think that speeding is unjust, but you do have to follow the speed limit. Before you get all wound up, I'm not attempting to compare speeding with sodomy. I'm merely making a distinction between imposition of an action and imposition of a belief. The law already does a lot of imposing on our actions"

Yes. You did. You don't agree with homosexuality due to your religion. You said as much as therefor homosexuals are infringing on your right by demanding the same rights under federal and state marriage you

I never said that. I wouldn't put it in those terms. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. Do you have a quotation? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else from SD?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:26 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 04:06 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  You were banned because we welcomed you to our forum in respect and you've been sitting here mocking us the entire time. I thought Christians were supposed to be the intolerant ones? This is pretty juvenile behavior from a group that is supposedly enlightened, civilized, and tolerant.

It wasn't very nice of me to mock you, I'll grant you that. However, I did my best to remain respectful while in the midst of horrible bigotry that you, as a moderator, allow on a consistent basis. Christians are seen as being intolerant because of the terrible things they say about homosexuals, as one example.

I am intolerant of homosexuality, not necessarily homosexuals. I understand that that seems bigoted to you and that perhaps you believe this distinction to be a false one. Again, I know that the following will sound bigoted to you, but at least try and understand the logic even if you think a premise is false.

You find rape to be abhorrent, I'm sure. Therefore you'd have no problem posting as such and allowing others to post as such on your forum. This is similar (though not the same) to how I feel about sodomy (I understand that one is a more violent act than another, so please recognize that I'm not comparing the two absolutely). For that reason, I have no problem with people speaking out against sodomy on our forum (which I only moderate and do not own, btw).

For this reason, calling my belief "bigotry" or "intolerant" doesn't sway me. If someone told you that your rejection of pedophilia was "intolerant" you wouldn't care less.

My point is that this discussion would have to be about sodomy itself. Telling me that I should change my views because they are bigoted is sort of begging the question.

Anyway, just for the record, I do not go out looking for homosexuals to chastise. I am not a Westboro Baptist. I get the feeling that some of you picture us as the idiots holding signs that say "God hates fags" at university. I don't do this. I'm too busy with work, my studies, my family, etc. (not that I would otherwise).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:53 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:28 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 08:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then why didn't you write the ENTIRE post in Latin ? Nice try. You used it, because you thought it gave "authority" your nonsense. In fact the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, says all languages are of EQUAL value. There is nowhere that says Latin is "the language of the church".

You can play with the lingustics, and twist them anyway you like. Saying you believe in something (even while Special Pleading the terminology) is worthless nonsense.
Thomistic metaphysics is also worthless. You have answered NONE of the objections.
There is no such thing as "pure act". Actions REQUIRE time, by definition, or the word "act" has no linguistic value.

You said men were not free to hold what they believed, but only your cult members were free. Nice try at evasion, and deflection. Fail.

I honestly don't think I've ever met anyone (even on the internet) that is as quick to jump to conclusions and make inferences.

I didn't say that one could only speak in Latin. Haha. Go back and read my post. I said that certain technical phrases are better expressed in Latin. But since you seem unable to accept this and unable to come to any conclusion other than I'm trying to pull a fast one on you, I will refrain from posting anything in Latin. You might consider, however, that Latin is familiar enough to us that we use it often without thinking much of it. You'll see a lot of Latin on our forum. Are we trying to intimidate one another?

Honestly, if your best argument against Thomistic metaphysics is calling it "worthless" without even pretending to give a reason for saying so, then addressing you is not worth my time. If having a gentlemanly conversation involves posting "fail" then I see no point in going further with you. You're just taking the opportunity to give a Christian what he's got coming and you sure as hell aren't willing to listen and discuss.

I'll spend my time responding to someone who at least attempts to discuss like an adult.

And this is adult ?
""False religions need no liberty. Part of our problems stem from the fact that we've convinced ourselves that any man has a right to worship any god he wants. Only the Church has a right to freedom. We may tolerate other religions, but no man has a God-given right to be a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Muslim"

LMAO
There is nothing "technical" about "imago Dei", that is not conveyed equally well in English. You gave no reasons to support Thomistic metaphysics, so why should I bother to try to read your mind ?

Tell us EXACTLY what the criteria you use to determine "false religions" from "true religions". I assume you know Vatican II's Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), says that the Catholic Church is "subsumed" with in the Church of Christ. Therefore to assume it is the ONLY true church, is NOT what your own church teaches.

I hope you realize that "sodomy" is practiced as much by opposite sex couples, as same sex couples. Have you ever ranted about that ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:54 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:28 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  I honestly don't think I've ever met anyone (even on the internet) that is as quick to jump to conclusions and make inferences.

Bucky Ballsack is the Dickhead Laureate of this forum. He is very well distinguished in the field of Internet Dickheadedness. He is a pole star for the lesser dickheads of this forum, illuminating their path.

Quote:I didn't say that one could only speak in Latin. Haha. Go back and read my post.

It doesn't matter what you actually posted, Bucky Ballsack creates a simulacrum of whatever you post and answers that. That is the Dao of the Dickhead.

Quote:I said that certain technical phrases are better expressed in Latin. But since you seem unable to accept this and unable to come to any conclusion other than I'm trying to pull a fast one on you, I will refrain from posting anything in Latin. You might consider, however, that Latin is familiar enough to us that we use it often without thinking much of it. You'll see a lot of Latin on our forum. Are we trying to intimidate one another?

Yes Buck Ballsack (mis-)uses "ad hominem" all the time. He and others think it means "insult". I believe that using "ad hominem" to mean "insult" ("insult" in Latin is contumelia or probrum) is taught in one of the basic teachings in the Dao of being a dickhead.

Quote:Honestly, if your best argument against Thomistic metaphysics is calling it "worthless" without even pretending to give a reason for saying so, then addressing you is not worth my time.

Bucky Ball doesn't have arguments so calling his vacuous emoting an argument is a misrepresentation. The Dao does not have any use for arguments.

Quote:If having a gentlemanly conversation involves posting "fail" then I see no point in going further with you. You're just taking the opportunity to give a Christian what he's got coming and you sure as hell aren't willing to listen and discuss.

You aren't a dickhead so engaging with a Dickhead--one that has studied and mastered the Dao--will be necessarily difficult.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: