Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2010, 08:15 PM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
QUESTIONS THAT MARTINB59 NEEDS TO ANSWER:

- Do you still believe that the Bible contains evidence of dinosaurs?
- Where in the Bible is Leviticus 20:13 repealed?
- Where did you find this "fallacy of the crucial experiment"?
- How is my understanding of the Kalam cosmological argument deficient?
- Are the things you post your own thoughts?
- Why do you think that I should defend a position that I do not hold?
- Where is your evidence that there is a "target" to evolution/change?

And do you still think that there is no such thing as an atheist?

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2010, 09:23 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2010, 11:36 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(15-03-2010 08:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  QUESTIONS THAT MARTINB59 NEEDS TO ANSWER:

Unbeliever,

I know you think this is a good idea, but you need to realise that humouring this person, in any way, is making the board unreadable. The only sensible solution to a troll is to ignore them or ban them.

He will not stop responding to every post, he will not stop his circular reasoning, he will not concede any point, he will not learn or change. He cannot because he would have to admit vulnerability. He cannot admit vulnerability this late in the game; his faith is so intertwined with his daily existence that to question it, even a little, would destroy him. It could, quite literally, destroy his family. He cannot change.

He is not here to solidify his faith, he is not secretly looking to let go of god, he is not here for help. He is here to earn god. He does not want to change.

So, please, do him, yourself, and the rest of us the favour of letting him go. He will eventually find somewhere else to serve his mental masturbation. You will find greater arguments to flex your superior brain. I promise.

I would suggest to you and to all on this board, including the religious, to completely ignore trolls of any kind. Responding in any way will only further encourage them.

Regards,

Kelly

P.S. A few points:
Yes, I joined to make this comment but I have been reading, albeit casually, for a while.
I do not intentionally respond to trolls, so if you see me ignore direct questions that will probably be the reason.
I seriously do not give two fast fucks what the response to this is as I am comfortable with discontinuing my reading this board, entirely, if the trolls persist and it is no longer of any use to me. That said, before you or anyone else fires off a "fuck you" response, keep in mind that I may be the verbal (or textual, in this case) representative of many more who feel the same. I hope anyone who wishes to see this board remain interesting and useful to to think about this before writing me off.
Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 07:25 AM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
LOL Kelly.... I had a chat about this with Unbeliever just last night.

I agree.... sorta.. I find it sometimes fun to see martin chase his own tail... in a sick sorta way.
Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 10:30 AM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(15-03-2010 09:23 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Finally!!!! Something from you, I will answer all of them.

Good.

Quote:It's not your own thoughts, you are responding to things I have said

By that logic, nothing you post is your own thoughts, because you are responding to things others on this site have said.

Quote:So when I answer them what will your response be? Ridiculous fallacies, or something form you? If it is ridiculous fallacies miss-applied, then it is a waste of my time, if it is something from you then I will spend my time and respond.

If you commit fallacies, then yes, I will point them out. But even those are "something from me".

(15-03-2010 11:36 PM)Cranky Wrote:  Unbeliever,

I know you think this is a good idea, but you need to realise that humouring this person, in any way, is making the board unreadable. The only sensible solution to a troll is to ignore them or ban them.

He will not stop responding to every post, he will not stop his circular reasoning, he will not concede any point, he will not learn or change. He cannot because he would have to admit vulnerability. He cannot admit vulnerability this late in the game; his faith is so intertwined with his daily existence that to question it, even a little, would destroy him. It could, quite literally, destroy his family. He cannot change.

He is not here to solidify his faith, he is not secretly looking to let go of god, he is not here for help. He is here to earn god. He does not want to change.

So, please, do him, yourself, and the rest of us the favour of letting him go. He will eventually find somewhere else to serve his mental masturbation. You will find greater arguments to flex your superior brain. I promise.

I would suggest to you and to all on this board, including the religious, to completely ignore trolls of any kind. Responding in any way will only further encourage them.

I understand what you're saying, but I still don't agree. I think he should be allowed to stay, with the condition that both he and I keep our vendetta to this thread. As somebody famous once said, "I don't respect what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
...Or something to that effect, anyway. Free speech is important, even if what is said is mind-numbingly stupid.
However, this forum isn't my personal playground. If expelling martinb59 is what everyone else thinks we should do, then I can't stop you. But I would warn that this forum wasn't exactly the most active before he arrived. Banning the sole voice of the opposition is bound to lower activity. It's like having a token liberal on a conservative board. Everybody hates him, he's annoying as hell and everyone wishes he would go away, but if he disappears it's suddenly very quiet. After all, without the liberal, there's nothing to do but sit around and say "Hey, isn't conservatism great?"
I also feel a little empathy for martinb59. I'm in his exact situation over on a few other boards - one where I am the sole skeptic in a board full of paranormal believers... and AboveTopSecret. Confused

ETA: There is another option. This forum supports ignore lists. Anyone who doesn't want to listen to martin can simply ignore him; his posts won't show up.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 10:40 AM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(16-03-2010 10:30 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I understand what you're saying, but I still don't agree. I think he should be allowed to stay, with the condition that both he and I keep our vendetta to this thread. As somebody famous once said, "I don't respect what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
...Or something to that effect, anyway. Free speech is important, even if what is said is mind-numbingly stupid.
However, this forum isn't my personal playground. If expelling martinb59 is what everyone else thinks we should do, then I can't stop you. But I would warn that this forum wasn't exactly the most active before he arrived. Banning the sole voice of the opposition is bound to lower activity. It's like having a token liberal on a conservative board. Everybody hates him, he's annoying as hell and everyone wishes he would go away, but if he disappears it's suddenly very quiet. After all, without the liberal, there's nothing to do but sit around and say "Hey, isn't conservatism great?"
I also feel a little empathy for martinb59. I'm in his exact situation over on a few other boards - one where I am the sole skeptic in a board full of paranormal believers... and AboveTopSecret. Confused

ETA: There is another option. This forum supports ignore lists. Anyone who doesn't want to listen to martin can simply ignore him; his posts won't show up.

I have made my voice known in Martin's thread asking the very question. However, I side with Unbeliever in this. I want Martin to calm down some, don't not to leave. It's good to have opposition, Martin is a bit overly passionate, but I still don't want him gone.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 11:23 AM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(15-03-2010 08:15 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  QUESTIONS THAT MARTINB59 NEEDS TO ANSWER:

- Do you still believe that the Bible contains evidence of dinosaurs?
- Where in the Bible is Leviticus 20:13 repealed?
- Where did you find this "fallacy of the crucial experiment"?
- How is my understanding of the Kalam cosmological argument deficient?
- Are the things you post your own thoughts?
- Why do you think that I should defend a position that I do not hold?
- Where is your evidence that there is a "target" to evolution/change?

And do you still think that there is no such thing as an atheist?

BTW the links you provided went to the whole page, so I am not sure what you mean but I will try my best.
1. The word Dinosaur was coined in 1842, the word means “terrible lizard”. Do I believe based on what the Bible says that there were “dinosaurs” absolutely? And MOST bible believers do not disagree, not ALL, I have to watch myself with you.
2. The laws in the Old Testament were Jewish laws don’t forget. Christians believe that the Old Testament Law has been fulfilled in Jesus; He Himself said so. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin and needs to be dealt with in the same way another sin is dealt with. Prior to 1962 ALL states had “sodomy” laws on their books. According to sodomylaws.org, Virgina still has a law and continues to prosecute, five years in jail. Oklahoma 10 years. So if you look at the Bible since Jesus there was no penalty for homosexuality, it was sin like any other sin.
3. Let’s use the common term “Smoking Gun”.
4. I have responded twice to that question, look up the previous posts. Do your research don’t ask me to do it for you, I showed you the issues that have to be addressed by the first two premises that you responded to with “Virtual particles are things which begin to exist with no cause.” I asked you to show your proof of that and under what conditions, and so far you haven’t and you keep asking the same questions.
5. I guess the simple answer is yes, since they came from my brain no matter how they got there. Your posts to me, they are the same atheist responses that have been around for years. Look at your ”Arguments” not one is certainly original and your responses are equally as old. Except for your response to your “Argument from Morality” Where you responded with, and I quote “No, they don’t”. Others have put way more thought into their responses, and even though we don’t agree, it made me think, and maybe I made them think, after all the name of this site is the “The Thinking Atheist” Not the “dredging up the same old junk and responding the way everyone else does”
6. Not holding a position is “A POSTION”, saying I don’t believe in leprechauns don’t exist, is a position, saying God does not exist IS A POSITION, sorry! You need to defend your position, it is what the burden of proof is all about, I have talked about burden of proof before and you shrug it off.
7. Sorry, Dawkins points to a “beautifully designed animal” emphasis on “DESIGNED ANIMAL”, that was on top of a mountain, he then showed a mountain with a cliff on one side and a gently sloping path that lead to the “BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED ANIMAL”, He then showed us the nice path that lead to the “BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED ANIMAL” sorry, I need to stop here. The poster child of atheism in the following video said, at about 40 seconds “and somehow we have to imagine” The word “imagine” must make all you scientists cringe! Anyway, I was using Dawkins as my reference, maybe I shouldn’t have.
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfxSazfyJAw&feature=related
Dawkins: Lecture 3. Climbing Mount Improbable (7 of 8 )
8. Yes I still believe that there are only agnostics.
Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 11:36 AM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(16-03-2010 11:23 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  7. Sorry, Dawkins points to a “beautifully designed animal” emphasis on “DESIGNED ANIMAL”, that was on top of a mountain, he then showed a mountain with a cliff on one side and a gently sloping path that lead to the “BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED ANIMAL”, He then showed us the nice path that lead to the “BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED ANIMAL” sorry, I need to stop here. The poster child of atheism in the following video said, at about 40 seconds “and somehow we have to imagine” The word “imagine” must make all you scientists cringe! Anyway, I was using Dawkins as my reference, maybe I shouldn’t have.
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfxSazfyJAw&feature=related
Dawkins: Lecture 3. Climbing Mount Improbable (7 of 8 )

Dawkin is an atheist. He doesn't believe animals were designed in the sense that you do, since he doesn't believe there was a designer. He has written several books to that effect. I have made the same mistake before when talking about evolution, and I had trouble finding a word for natural selection that didn't imply intelligence.

A slip of the tongue doesn't refute hours of lectures and books that claim there is no god. Dawkin is still an atheist.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 11:42 AM
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
(16-03-2010 11:23 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  BTW the links you provided went to the whole page, so I am not sure what you mean but I will try my best.

I thought they went to single posts. Sorry.

Quote:1. The word Dinosaur was coined in 1842, the word means “terrible lizard”. Do I believe based on what the Bible says that there were “dinosaurs” absolutely? And MOST bible believers do not disagree, not ALL, I have to watch myself with you.

What does this mean? You're missing several vital pieces of punctuation. I can't tell what it is that that you're saying.

Quote:2. The laws in the Old Testament were Jewish laws don’t forget. Christians believe that the Old Testament Law has been fulfilled in Jesus; He Himself said so. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin and needs to be dealt with in the same way another sin is dealt with. Prior to 1962 ALL states had “sodomy” laws on their books. According to sodomylaws.org, Virgina still has a law and continues to prosecute, five years in jail. Oklahoma 10 years. So if you look at the Bible since Jesus there was no penalty for homosexuality, it was sin like any other sin.

Chapter and verse, please.

Quote:3. Let’s use the common term “Smoking Gun”.

This doesn't answer the question.

Quote:4. I have responded twice to that question, look up the previous posts. Do your research don’t ask me to do it for you, I showed you the issues that have to be addressed by the first two premises that you responded to with “Virtual particles are things which begin to exist with no cause.” I asked you to show your proof of that and under what conditions, and so far you haven’t and you keep asking the same questions.

This has nothing to do with the question. You have stated previously that my summary of the Kalam cosmological argument - not the rebuttal, mind you, but my summary of the argument itself - is deficient. Explain how.

Quote:5. I guess the simple answer is yes, since they came from my brain no matter how they got there.

Exactly. This is why I find this whole "are these your own thoughts?" thing to be the dumbest thing you have said on this site. My posts come from my brain, too, no matter how the ideas got there in the first place.

Quote:Your posts to me, they are the same atheist responses that have been around for years.

Your posts look the same way to me. Every single objection you have raised so far has been raised at some other point in time.

Quote:Look at your ”Arguments” not one is certainly original

The arguments? No, because I copied them from theists that I have encountered over the years. My rebuttals? Yes, they are. I came up with each of those on my own; whether or not someone else came up with them another time, I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

Quote:Others have put way more thought into their responses

Drop the insults, please.

Quote:after all the name of this site is the “The Thinking Atheist” Not the “dredging up the same old junk and responding the way everyone else does”

If you think that refuting these arguments is a waste of time, then what, exactly, is the point of this forum?
It is a gathering point for atheists. A crucial part of "thinking" is critical thinking and logic. And atheistic critical thinking involves refuting theist arguments.

Quote:6. Not holding a position is “A POSTION”, saying I don’t believe in leprechauns don’t exist, is a position, saying God does not exist IS A POSITION, sorry! You need to defend your position, it is what the burden of proof is all about, I have talked about burden of proof before and you shrug it off.

This doesn't answer the question, but I'll answer it anyway:

I've explained why I "shrug off" the burden of proof. You simply ignore it every time.
"God does not exist" is a negative claim.
"God exists" is a positive claim.
The burden of proof is always on those making a positive claim.

Quote:7. Sorry, Dawkins points to a “beautifully designed animal” emphasis on “DESIGNED ANIMAL”

Figure of speech. Even if it weren't, this isn't evidence. This is the appeal to authority fallacy. Again, where is your evidence that there is a target to evolution?

Quote:8. Yes I still believe that there are only agnostics.

Thanks for answering.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2010, 12:13 PM
 
RE: Unbeliever vs. martinb59: General Bickering Thread
Quote:
7. Sorry, Dawkins points to a “beautifully designed animal” emphasis on “DESIGNED ANIMAL”

Miss quotation once more.

Dawkins is talking retrospectively. We already know how the modern animal looks like.. he is simply working backwards.. he is not saying nature was 'aiming' to end in what we see today. But that organisms evolve gradually through time by adapting to their changing environment arrived at the advanced forms we see today.


I have read Dawkins and I never got the impression he was talking about 'targeted evolution'. It is quite clear what he was saying, using the term "design" to punctuate where the theists reasoning was wrong.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: