Les, you know that you’re quoting Brock and David out of context, don’t you?

Wow, Les, THANK-YOU! I knew I’d been here a while and that I had said a couple of things worth the virtual ink on this cyber page, but I’m proudest of my battles with David and people not unlike him. His beliefs, methods of argument and biases seem to represent, in one individual, nearly every religious personality I’ve ever met. We’re so lucky to have him here!

But I’ve never had a thread starter here dedicated to me. I wish everyone could experience the way that has made me feel. You really gave me a compliment with, and specific compliments within, this post. Sorry I kept you up with this so late, though.

I’m glad I’ve made you laugh. I’m confident that, in nearly every case, I intended to do so. The other times, if they came to pass, bother me in the least ways. Everyone should be seen as foolish now and then: It helps keep our egos in check. 

And I’m pleased we have the ability to speak here. Many blog writers don’t even want others mucking up their carefully designed expositions - That you invite and enjoy feedback says a lot that is positive about you. This site is truly one of a kind and easily one of the very best on the net. That’s why I’m still here!

So now that you’ve made me famous, you’ll excuse me, I’m sure, to go sign a few autographs.

Elwedriddsche, yeah that occurred to me after I had posted it, but I figured, what the hell…

Brock, I don’t know how famous I’ve made you. Infamous perhaps, but famous? I didn’t say anything that I didn’t honestly think is true about you, or David for that matter, but thank you for the kind words just the same.

And I’m pleased we have the ability to speak here. Many blog writers don’t even want others mucking up their carefully designed expositions - That you invite and enjoy feedback says a lot that is positive about you. This site is truly one of a kind and easily one of the very best on the net. That’s why I’m still here!

I totally agree with Brock on this.  From what I’ve seen on the net, this is my favorite forum by far. 

For someone like me, who doesn’t know jack about debate, reading your responses and explanations is quite educational.  Even if you feel you’re banging your head against the same old arguments, just think about those who are lurking and reading them for the first time.  In the “Kent Hovind” thread, if I remember correctly, you said something at one point about giving arguments against creationism before, but for me, it was the first time I had read some of them.  The Hovind thread was one the first threads I’d read when I found your site.  I can’t remember what I was googling when I found SEB…

Keep up the good blogging!

These days you could have been “Googling” for practically anything. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve entered search criteria and gotten SEB listed as a resource.

We’re ALL gonna be famous I tell you!

- I could be a commercial for SEB -:

{Fade-in to actor sitting at a table in a small restaurant. He looks up from his menu and directly into the camera}

Actor: You know something. I used to be wishy-washy! People would come up to me all the time and say ‘Brock, I like you, but you’re so wishy-washy!‘ and I would hang my head, embarrassed.

But then I found Stupid Evil Bastard!
I began to read the site and then I started commenting. Since then I’ve turned out to be one of the regulars and I’ve developed my commenting style into a much more assertive approach. No longer am I wishy-washy! There I’ve utilized some of the most enduring stock comments like “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck’ and ‘Stop Trolling!‘ and ‘I know what you think you said, but that isn’t how it came across’ and even ‘Dave, you ignorant slut!‘

Why the opportunities I’ve had to use “LOL” alone would astound you. I’ve even ‘come out’ there, and they don’t care what I am - Most of them like me for the worth of what I say.

So if you often see yourself as trying too hard not to offend others but you’d like to be engaging, and you aren’t a wiz with punctuation and grammatical style, come on over to SEB. They’re used to those shortcomings and simply want to know how you think. Besides, you need the debating practice. Am I right? LOL, yes I KNOW I am. Good! So I’ll see you there?“

Actor (to waiter): “Yes, I’ll have the cheese and pate’ sampler to start. Oh, and could you change my silverware please.“

(Looking back to camera) Actor: “See! The communication skills you’ll hone at SEB will serve you throughout your life. Go on! Get on over to Stupid Evil Bastard, ya bastard! Though, if the only thing you have to wear is a chip on your shoulder, I‘d change first. ROFL!”

Oh man! And this is why I love Brock! Oh that was great!

Hmmm. I wonder if Eric’d be willing to do a little flash animation? Get Brock to record voice for it. Hmmmmm…

Hey, I’m game if Eric is!

Thanks, Les.

Now, seriously, GO TO BED!

Could we change the guy in the restaurant to a guitar strumming fetus singing the commercial ala the Quizno’s rats?

Come to our site!
It is a bastards site!
We do debate…
about religion and Iraq, about Gee Dubya and gay marriage!

We got a pepper bar!

Sorry, it really is time for bed…

Okay, I know I am committing the great sin of double posting but an idea came to me in the shower where most of my good ideas come to me (except the idea to taste the shampoo, that one sucked).

How about some of the crazier posts read by the different posters around here ala those horrible Direct TV testimonials, like Brock reading the “u r n idi0t!...“ post (you know the one Les). They could end it just like the commercial by saying “This is a real letter (or maybe post in this case)“ and ad some sort of snarky barb ending with offstage laughter and applause just like in those truly awful ads. I really hate those ads but it might be fun to parody them.

I like the idea. Let’s do it. I’m sure I could convince a few people to record some sound bites. Not like there isn’t plenty of source material around here to use.

Well I’ll throw my 3 cents in just for the hell of it.
I don’t blame poor deluded David for his ignorance as iv said before I truly pity such individuals and there are MANY just like him. Several hundred Million to be exact which is to me at least a very scary thought.
David is what I call a byproduct of social control institutions namely religious that prey on gullibility & ignorance to maintain control of the masses in order to keep known false religious beliefs alive & well.

David & the millions just like him show behavior that is largely a function of individual perception, a combination of learned material, the individual’s environment and the physiology of the individual.
Perception is the overriding determinant of human behavior. As a learning machine, the human animal will exhibit behavior that reflects not only what it has learned, but FAILED to learn.  Human behavior reflects delusion and ignorance as well as one’s factual knowledge.  The delusion and ignorance of the individual is largely a function of socialization, reflecting a society’s beliefs and norms.

Throughout human history, man has made continuing progress in gaining real knowledge about the Earth environment and the nature of existence, the laws and functions of nature etc. this knowledge has almost without exception been the result of individuals that have shed these “beliefs” in magic or the “Supernatural” either completely or in part.  However, during this same period, little progress has been made in terms of human social systems.  Human societies are fundamentally the same as they have always been, based on the same premises as formulated by the earliest social groups, those of our stone age ancestors.  All human social control institutions are based on a belief in the supernatural, accepting neither the real nature of existence nor that of the human animal.

While man has gained the technology to engineer his and her own future, moving out into space, building environments as needed, human populations are still maintained as chattel of the controlling institutions.  They are largely controlled by manipulated perception and maintained at levels of delusion and ignorance that will insure continued control by the authoritarian institutions.

We are born into ancient systems of social control that maintain primitive ideas and systems of belief, distorting popular perception and suppressing behavior and information that would threaten these concepts and the institutions that function to maintain them.  Every society expends the larger half of its energy and resources in the continued indoctrination of people, the continuous propaganda and rhetoric, necessary to maintain institutional control, and in the routine activities of these institutions. Just imagine if all this effort were put into REALITY.

The governing systems of every society on Earth are still authoritarian, imposing arbitrary control upon populations.  Such governing systems are not oriented to factual reality.  Each and every one of them is based upon, and maintains, large amounts of cultural delusion, primitive concepts and systems of belief that is instilled in populations and functions as control by decompensating the individual and increasingly suppressing any behavior not in line with institutional agendas. This can be seen quite clearly today if you just look at various Christian propaganda such as The Christian Coalition, also just look at what these institutions desperately try to impose upon society like denying Evolution in schools in favor of the pure unabated ignorance of Creationism, they will rewrite history when ever possible to hide past atrocities or to bolster their own self worth, a clear example of this is well, when is the last time you have talked to ANY Christian that admits to the fact that many of the founding fathers of the USA were indeed Deist or agnostic & this is without a doubt a secular nation. I would imagine there has to some somewhere but I have as yet met one, they invariably will all blindly follow Christian lies over factual reality every time. This brainwashing is what the David’s of the world emerge from & the brains own protective function “Cognitive Dissonance” keeps them there firmly entrenched in their delusions.

Although there are mountains of evidence to the contrary and zero evidence in support of the cultural delusions and beliefs, they are never the less maintained within every society.  By instilling belief, the individual will stand obediently to be shorn of autonomy and the ability to make his or her own decisions, while supporting the oppressor.  Such is the power of belief, when used to distort and control perception.

The thing that makes this most difficult is that the individual has been made a “believer” and will reflexively defend every delusion, rejecting factual information in the area of a belief. Cultural delusions will have been the main reason for the ignorance in the first place.  Ultimately, it is only the individual who can effectively change or rescue ones self. It is only the individual who can accept or reject the necessary information.

Human populations have ever been maintained at high levels of delusion and reciprocal ignorance.  At this point in time, every culture propagates and instills large amounts of delusion. The individual is made to be a believer, to accept and to support the premises and systems of the culture. The citizen becomes a ‘blind operative’ of the system, largely unaware of the role he or she is playing and becoming a tool in the service of institutional agendas.

In this relationship, the individual is lead blindly, deferring reason and judgment to authority and standing obediently to be sheared of freedom and the ability to make determinations. The individual sacrifices self for the benefit of the institution, dementing the one’s own children in the process. Religion just becomes a vicious mind fuck circle.

This form of control ties individual behavior to the arbitrary motivations of the leadership, not the principles and requirements for human effectiveness and long term survival and progress for the species. This form of control (of governing), largely adrift from factual reality, has little ability or motivation to address the real problems within societies and a rapidly changing Earth environment. Nor, is it directed toward nurturing a rational human being. Its predominant drive is toward the maintenance, and growth of institutional power and domain, controlling and exploiting a population. Our governments busy themselves with symptomatic problems and the creation of diversions, carefully avoiding an examination of premises and the real nature of things.  The fundamental cultural pathogen, common to all cultures, is the maintenance of one of the earliest human concepts, a belief in magic or the supernatural.
Science for lack of a better word has shown this “belief” to be Bullshit.

Through the scientific method of those of us that have either shed or if fortunate just never been indoctrinated into primitive ignorance, we know that life evolved on Earth through many species before the emergence of a humanoid form of animal. As it’s intelligence increased, so did it’s cognizance of environment and its ability to manipulate its environment in terms of symbols, conception, reasoning and language.

    The basis of intelligence is the ability to conceptualize and discriminate. Brains are the outgrowth of simpler systems for sensing and adjusting to the environment. In other words, the brain has evolved as a mechanism for interfacing with the environment.
The human brain displays the progression of its development. The more primitive brain systems and brain stem are internal, the cognitive and reasoning functions having developed upon this. The cortex, where inductive reasoning occurs, the highest level of reasoning and the latest development, is the outermost layer of the brain. The brain is an organic computer, coprocessing in a multitude of ways, and is the site of personality, or “soul”, if you will.

As intelligent life emerges, there are far more concerns and questions than for which there is knowledge. In the absence of knowledge, intelligent life fills the voids with perception. This perception, in the beginning, bears little relationship to factual reality, especially in terms of the fundamental nature of things and how things work. As language and the ability to communicate perception develops, highly delusional cognitive systems come into place, further degraded by any deliberate insertion of false concepts.

The primitive humanoid cannot understand the forces of nature and the unpredictability of fortune. It sees it’s own and other’s ability to affect changes through “force” and thinks there must be greater unseen powers affecting those areas outside of individual control. The fabrication of “gods” will be common to any emerging intelligent life form. Social control begins in terms of force and authoritarianism. All social systems function to maintain control ultimately by force, although the emerging intelligent life form quickly learns that behavior will follow “belief”.

Eventually, belief becomes the main means of controlling behavior consistent with the agendas of human institutions, force being brought to bear when indoctrination, dogma and coercion fails. Thus we have barbaric events in human history such as “The Crusades”  “The Inquisition” Genocide and so on,  This form of control is authoritarianism. It is arbitrary, determinations being by made by the authority, to any extent possible or desired. Human history is largely a repeating story of a struggle for power by competing authorities. In such systems, rationality and solutions to problems remain relatively incidental to social control processes.

All social control institutions, predominately religion and government, are fundamentally authoritarian, focused primarily on maintaining and increasing control over populations. Such control, being arbitrary, is eventually destructive to a population and the species, resulting in divergent beliefs, conflict and parasitical behavior destructive of the host environment. Remember we are an animal and the host environment is the Earth for which we stand.

At the present stage of human development, populations continue to be controlled largely by belief and religious propaganda. The institutions maintain the cultural delusions, generation after generation. Even in the most advanced technological society, the fundamental premises remain those of ancient peoples, concepts highly divergent from “factual reality” and insuring pathological levels of reciprocal ignorance. In order to maintain a belief, the reciprocal reality must be rejected. This phenomenon can be witnessed every time you try and have any intelligent conversation with ANY highly or fundamentally religious individual. Any information that is perceived as a threat to a presently held belief will trigger an emotional aversion to it, usually causing an avoidance of such information.

The fundamental conceptual pathology is that of a “god” model of the universe, where all creation, energy and control is IMPOSED from beyond nature, the supernatural, essentially a belief in magic. This corruption of our most fundamental concepts,  involving the nature of existence, distorts virtually all subsequent human thought. Belief generates the greatest barrier to learning and is the primary reason for the low mentality levels of the masses. Human populations are kept buffered at levels of belief, ignorance and dependency that will not present a threat to authoritarian institutional control.

This can be seen by just examining that basic facts, in general the higher your education the less likely you are of falling for the god model of the universe, college grads have much lower percentages of religious fundamentalist than do those stopping at the high school level, in general the higher your IQ the less likely you are to fall for religious bullshit that clearly has no basis in factual reality.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Yeah I know it’s a link, but it’s a link to factual information gathered over about 80 years through many studies, some very extensive which collaborate each other. So believe what you will but facts is facts.

Authoritarian social control has brought humanity to its present most dangerous condition, an explosive mixture of over-population, mass ignorance, anger, frustration and power mongering, where the technological ability to destroy a planet comes under the control of people with essentially the mind-set of savages.

This is the scary part, we have scientist which have for years broken out of that primitive ignorance that society in general tries to impose upon them, this is why we have the technological advances we do today most are harmless, many very helpful such as medications etc. but there are also the areas of science that have brought into light very destructive forces such as all the various WMD be they Chemical, Biological, Nuclear created by those on a higher level of Consciousness , which is handed to what amounts to humans with no more base intelligence than that poor deluded human several thousand years ago whom perceived that thunder storm that just rumbled though his campsite as a sign of some supernatural godman that’s pissed & hurling thunderbolts at him for reasons he can only imagine.

Think not? How many times have you heard religious individuals blame things be they good or bad on some supernatural force that’s beyond our control?

If its good then of course “god” did it don’t matter what it is God had a hand in it somehow.

If its bad then the devil did it.

None of this has of course ANY basis in factual reality, there is not one single shred of evidence that any so called supernatural being of your choosing is real, yet like that poor deluded ancient human 1000s of years ago shaking out in the rain wondering what he did to deserve the wrath of the gods, the poor deluded human today has not evolved past that ignorant mind-set. Its a cultural delusion passed on generation to generation.

The belief in a soul and an afterlife is a part of this system of control, any delusion paving the way for further delusion. There is naturally high motivation to believe in an afterlife, no one likes the idea of dying. This provides high, natural motivation to maintain the “God model of existence”.

Religion, wherever it exists, is truly a social pathology, an instituted disease. It suppresses individual mentality, blocking one from any and all reciprocal reality, instilling the ‘mother’ of all learning disorders.

Ok that was 98 cents worth I guess

Well, if nothing else, at least I don’t have to feel I’m the only person around here afflicted with being overly verbose…

You haven’t been, anyway, since the time I arrived!

Well, well, Les, nothing like using the ol’ bully pulpit. I never minded, much, that I was taking on a large number of individuals on a web site that was clearly contrary to my opinions. I’d hoped, as I’ve stated from the beginning, to both find out from you all, and mayhap get you to think about, what makes something right or something wrong. This of course requires some desire to know truth. I see that with this great entry here that truth is merely something that is a sometimes convent ally for you, and not a goal at all. Which makes my hope of finding anyone here thinking about right or wrong pretty absurd. Oh well, at least you were sometimes entertaining, and a few folks even presented thoughtful comment. In particular, I’d like to thank elwedriddsche, for his informative recent arguments and who pointed out that what you said here was out of context. To which you responded “yea, I thought about that, but hell, I was mad, so screw David” or something really close to that. I also have been impressed by nowiser, who actually reads somethings that not on the web for his information sometimes and clearly thinks for himself. Also, ragman has been interesting, even Geekmom at times. The exceptionally long post I scrolled by of Nunyabiz’s I can only assume was filled with praise for you over what you said, which should be a good clue to you, and everyone, about how accurate, insightful, and even-handed your post is. If his is the type of rabid behavior you applaud (or whose applaud you seek) then I can only hope some of these folks I’ve mentioned that are clearer thinkers and that you still do respect may help to bring you someday back into the light.

As for Brock, there have been moments where it looked like he might actually debate something, but then he “returned to normal” and became belligerent. I’ve tried many times to build a dialog with him, only to be rebuffed because he could not accept my reasoning, not because it was wrong but because “all you Christians are alike”. Which is pretty funny coming from such a “free thinker” as randall calls you.

This is the only post I’m going to make in this thread. I’m not going to get into another contest of how things are perceived about my motivations or others. In other words, I will not allow you to derail the truth I have been talking about by letting you make our interaction about unprovable personal issues.

What follows is my objections to your mis-characterizations of this topic:

Assertions like his supposedly in-depth study of philosophy at the age of 14 which rivaled what others might be exposed to in college or how he’s presented his views on the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution to PhD level biologists (and avowed Evolutionists) who had no recourse but to admit he had managed to stump them

By 14 I’d read and understood at least 3 major philosophical works. I’m unsure which ones or exactly how many because this became a hobby of mine, and I do a lot of reading. I can no longer remember the exact dates I read what. But I started with Descartes and moved to Plato, after that, I’m not sure. I did not intend to stack my exposure against a philosophy major, but rather the average college student who may take one course (probably none) in philosophy. And even the ones that do, tend to read selected sections of several philosophers. When I was in college taking biology, I asked my prof (a PhD in Bio) about why grass is not black. We discussed it on and off for over 3 months. I never said it stumped anyone, I said your answer was simplified. However, to be honest, we never did come to a conclusive reason. As I have mentioned, my wife is a PhD chemist, who works for a pharmaceutical company. We’ve had a number of friends that are PhD biologists, and we’ve discussed this topic. Again, the answer is not as simply as you’d like to think it is. But again, I wouldn’t say anyone was stumped, just never came to a conclusive resolution. It is a far more complex topic than you’ve given it here. As I’ve mentioned, you’d prefer to have a simple, yet intellectual sounding argument. That way, when the uneducated comes along, you can dazzle them with your argument that sounds like you know a lot more than they do. In fact, you will go to just the level of complexity you need to get an argument that agrees with your predetermined point of view. I’ve seen that happen a lot here, and it’s taught me perhaps the only lesson available here. Which is this: People like to think that they have the truth, even when they know they do not. It seems that folks in that position get more angry and desperate the more you box them into a corner with the actual truth, because what they are preserving is not truth, but self-determination. You desire that there be no God, so that you need only justify your behavior to yourself. Truth seekers welcome revelation with open arms. People like you will fight to the death to avoid hearing it.

OK, so let’s break this down starting with the easiest assertions to verify such as…

    “If you will remember our first encounter was over the gay “marriage” topic.”

I posted almost immediately, retracting this statement. When I went back and searched I found that I had interacted with Brock during our original debate of the existence of God under the “4 teens…” topic. I additionally stated that our interaction at that time was civil, but that I had forgotten his name. Several months passed before I posted on SEB again. I then got involved in a very pleasant debate with nowiser about the civil war. So when I wrote the above statement, I was thinking Brock and I had our first encounter under the gay “marriage” topic. And he was very obnoxious under that and some related topic. To the point where several of you pointed out that he was being over the top about his hatred and thereby hurting his own case.

This is a most transparent self-serving, prideful thing to undertake. I at least will not believe for one moment that your desire for my, or anyone’s soul’s safety, is the reason for you “talking” here. Plain and simple, you want to be perceived as wise, as patient, as reasonable and as “saved” as a person could hope to be. You want to magnify your own worth, as it were. That has been glaringly obvious in most everything you have written here. Though you talk of pride as though it is evil, your words suggest you have much pride in your own intellect and deeds. While pride in one’s self is not a bad thing, denial of another’s rights to have pride in his or her accomplishments and reasoning ability is.

This is from Sept 8. (along with the 2 other quotes), in the original discussion I was just once again calling civil. Now, there are many not-so-nice things in here about me, but I’m still writing that he was relatively civil during that period. And I would point out that the quote attributed me was in direct response to Valhalla and Les over an apparent paradox between freewill and fore knowledge. If you read their arguments, I think you’ll agree with my assessment. But in no way was it directed at Brock, despite the things he was writing about me.

Critical? Surely, but not obnoxious, abusive or uncivil.

Pardon me? Although I was not calling it uncivil (as I didn’t even recall these comments at the time I made the comment concerning Brock’s lack thereof) Calling a Christian self-serving and prideful is about as nasty as it gets. Plus he’s telling me how, what and why I think what I do. How many times have many of you taken me to task, in no kind words, for making such claims about you? Or would all of you, particularly you, Les, like to take back pretty much everything you posted under the topic “You guys have been busy”?

... Brock for awhile that don’t say anything particularly negative about David other than to ask newcomers who argue in a similar style “Have you met David?”

So, it’d not be in the least insulting to you, Les, if someone like Nunyabiz was arguing in his typical raving lunatic style, and I came back with “Man, you are an complete idiot, your mom must have been a heavy drinker, in fact you remind me of someone, Have you met Les?” You see it as a similar style because, like brock, anyone who disagrees with you must have all gone to the same lecture on how to argue with an atheist or be a homophobe, or any other label you can use that will vilify your opponent. Anything to avoid having to give serious weight to his argument. It never occurs to you that maybe your arguments are common and that folks with sense see through them rapidly and point out the same deficiencies. On the order of:
Les: The sky is red.
Poster: No, it’s blue. Blue is defined as the color with the wavelength between 492-455nm, And my spectrometer, when pointed at the sky on a clear day, reads 481.
Les: What is this, did you all go to the same class on color? I believe it’s red, so therefore, it’s red. Don’t confuse me with any facts, I went to a website that said all visible light has some infra red in it, therefore, since you can see the sky, it’s red.

Brock doesn’t really lay into David until the Eric’s entry from February 23rd of this year on efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages

Duh. This seems to be exactly what I maintained. As soon as I realized that we’d had some previous interactions, I retracted what I’d said. But ever since I began posting here after that several month break, Brock has been quite the jerk towards me. I suspect that the dislike he showed under that original topic grew in my absence, and as soon as I re-appeared, he dug into me.

Brock on Feb 24:
randall said:
“homosexuality is a perversion”

Dude you are fucked up, but you’re true to the mold of the garden variety Christian: hateful, judgmental, ignorant, proud of self, fearful, vitriolic! You really need to stop going to church and start witnessing life.

I tend to think hunting is a perversion, but you have a Constitutional right to be a hunter. There’s nothing I can do to deny you your right. But if I ever do have the right, in spite of people like you, to get married; just to show you how accepting I am, I’ll let you dance at my wedding. How’s that sound?

[Quote] Brock on Feb 25:
You easily define natural inclinations, like sexual interaction between persons not married, as perverse and seem to expect us to thank you for taking the time to decree the shamefulness of our actions.

Note these were both in the thread right before I started posting (after my debate on the civil war) and was the first stuff that I remembered ever being posted by Brock.
And then I made the statement (on Feb 28)“Why don’t you come clean?” But it was not a veiled invitation for Brock to out himself, he already had. It was a response to Brock’s insinuation in his posts that I had a hidden agenda, that I was not really being honest about how I felt about gays, a closet homophobe.

Brock on Feb 27:
Your disdain for gays and their little complaints is so apparent to me that I wonder why you bothered to state that you have no problem with same sex unions…. Put your true feelings unapologetically out there and we can deal with them.

In short, calling me a liar, much as Les does here:

It leaves one to wonder what it is about Brock that makes David feel so put upon. Could it be that Brock’s sexual orientation bother’s David more than he claims it does and thus heightens any perceived slight coming from “the queer guy?”

And of course, this one was really mangled out of context:

I’m not saying I did the research myself, but I’m tired of having the validity of my arguments attacked because they don’t like the source of the information, without ever actually examining the truth or falsehood of the data.

Since only a couple of days later, when I was asked again, I gave the sources. But it is funny that you chose to quote me giving the readers a hard time for what has become so clear: You will attack the source, as you have just done

This is why I find it very hard to accept anything that David has to say as being remotely credible. If he were to tell me the sun will rise in the east tomorrow I’d be very tempted to stay up and make sure for myself…

because you cannot conquer the facts.

I also note that instead of actually coming up with the facts about my supposed insults in return, you just state I’ve made many. Let’s just say that after reading your above complete misrepresentations of reality (what a surprise, an atheist that has a skewed view on reality!) I’m not likely to just accept your saying so as reality.

Maybe next time you try to “dig up the dirt” on me, you should do it when you’re not so sleep deprived. Not that you’ll be any closer to the truth, but you just might do a better job of finding stuff that will stick.

It sticks just fine, David. What really amuses me is that every thing you accuse me of here, that I have no desire to know the truth, that I only go so far as will support my arguments and so on is stuff I have heard said about you time and time again by just about anyone who’s bothered to comment on your replies. There’s practically a drinking game based on how many times you resort to the Argument from Authority alone, but we’re worried we’d get alcohol poisoning if we played it. You carry on about Brock and I and others being insulting and obnoxious when, in your own special way, you’re just as guilty of that crime. Your love of cheap shots is only matched by your own over-inflated ego and simply because you don’t use naughty words doesn’t mean you’re not being insulting.

The sad thing is you won’t (or can’t) own up to a single one of your own personal failings preferring instead to project them onto others and present yourself as the only rational person here despite how irrational most of the claims and arguments you make happen to be. The tone of your replies are almost consistently smug and condescending. You keep trying to put yourself above such petty discourse such as this by claiming you don’t really care what we here think of you, but it’s clear from the amount of time you’ve spent in your reply here that you are, quite literally, lying either to us or yourself about how much it bothers you. I especially loved:

because you cannot conquer the facts.

Which is so very true about you and you don’t even realize it. I don’t need to be better rested to come closer to the truth as every fact I stated in this thread is verifiable by anyone who wants to dig through the entries here in the archives and the parts of my statements that aren’t factual are clearly my personal opinions about you, Brock and the nature of the situation.

You’re an asshole, David. Pure and simple. Whether you feel that to be true or not is irrelevant as it’s my personal opinion about you and how you’ve behaved ever since day one. I’ve heard from plenty of people who agree with that assessment as well. Your supporters, on the other hand, have been remarkably absent.

People like to think that they have the truth, even when they know they do not. It seems that folks in that position get more angry and desperate the more you box them into a corner with the actual truth

Much as I hate to alienate anyone who says of me that “I think for myself,“  I have to say that, recently, I’ve begun to think that your statement, here, could be applied to you, yourself, David.  Don’t worry, I’m not going to start spouting about beams and motes, just making an observation.

Much as I enjoy discussing CS Lewis’ philosophy, or considering irreducible complexity [micro or macro, I’m not picky], I still think that many of the arguments that you presented are logically flawed.  And I’ve tried to point out why, although I think my tendency to make jokes has sometimes undermined the seriousness of my intent.

I don’t think the reason that many of your ideas have been rejected, here, is because of a predisposition on the part of the readers.  I think the truth is that many of those ideas are deeply flawed.

You said

I can only hope some of these folks I’ve mentioned that are clearer thinkers and that you still do respect may help to bring you someday back into the light.

If that was, in any way, a reference to my small contributions to this board, then I have to say—I won’t be “bringing” Les, or anyone else, back to the “light.“  The truth is, I have disagreed with almost every damn position that you’ve taken on this board.  I’ve tried to point out that some of the sources that you used (most notably Xiridou) were clearly irrelevant to the arguments that you were using them to support.  I know that you still believe that CS Lewis provides a ‘ground’ for an absolute morality, although that issue was put to bed a -long- time ago in my mind.

As for the sniping, and bashing, etc.  (shrug)—It’s the internet.  In real life, you can make faces at a person that you’re conversing with, or raise an eyebrow when you think they’re smokin’ crack.  Here, you just flame someone when they test your patience.  Hell, it’s not like this is a peer-reviewed academic journal.  It’s a blog.

what a surprise, an atheist that has a skewed view on reality!

Stay. Go.  Whichever you choose to do, at least -consider- the possibility that some of us -are- standing in the light.

(and now it’s time for me to go engage in a tasty fps gibfest!  Because life is short—frag hard!)

My, my, David—that’s gotta be at LEAST a 20-hand horse you’ve got there.  Nice steed.

As usual, GM manages to say the most by saying the least.

Nowiser, what game and which server? I want in on that action.

Usually, it’s UT2004, Team Deathmatch, on the Atari West main server.

But today, my connection is shite—I’m ping 140ms to my freaking -gateway-.

Looks like I’ll be playing off-line today.  S’Ok, though.  If I want to win, I’ll switch the bots to “adept.“  If I want to get my ass handed to me, I’ll set them for “masterful.“

Ooooh.  “masterful.“  It’s like porn, only you get to blow shit up!

Hehe Brock and David still going strong, it reminds me of some of the ding dongs I had with the saved one.

I used to be a christian myself, well I was terrorised into being one by my parents anyway. From what I remember of the christian mentality, it always looked like David was trying to earn some brownie points from the god with a ‘G’.

Public exclamations of faith or something like that, and of course if you are ridiculed and scorned for them then all the better as it gives you a power up on the saintly-o-meter.

People who go on about ‘the way(tm)‘ always make me chuckle, of course there is only one way, the irony is that they seem to think it’s the same way for everyone.

You desire that there be no God, so that you need only justify your behavior to yourself. Truth seekers welcome revelation with open arms. People like you will fight to the death to avoid hearing it.

I find it both hilarious and disturbing when brainwashed religious zealots which have in reality ZERO evidence of the tripe they “believe” continually try and turn the tables on us “Free Thinkers” “Atheist” “Agnostics” by saying we are the ones *avoiding truth* and will fight to the death to justify our ignorance.

Sorry there David that distinction is saved for religious zealots.
This can be proven like such, I can list a site that has all the information any SANE non-brainwashed individual could read through, comprehend the information, check the information by cross referencing other sources, then come back and say OK I have to admit there are MANY valid points there that clearly give credence, leaving serious doubt about both Christianity & Jesus.

http://www.jesusmyth.homestead.com/index.html

Now a “Believer” a religious zealot will look at that site and see nothing but blasphemy and lies and the only “cross referencing” you would do would be opening a Bible. LOL

You will refute every last word even though it is Archeological FACT complete with hard tangible artifacts & text.
In other words like I stated above “the fundamental premises remain those of ancient peoples, concepts highly divergent from “factual reality” and insuring pathological levels of reciprocal ignorance. In order to maintain a belief, the reciprocal reality must be rejected”

You will reject reality at all cost because you *must* in order to maintain your ignorant “belief” which is based entirely on nothing but “faith” in something scientific & Archeological FACTS prove to be pure MYTHOLOGY.

Now IF you could present any hard facts of any kind whatsoever to support Christianity then as a free thinker or Atheist we are not in any way held back by delusions or false gods & beliefs in mythology and would gladly look at this information with an open mind that is NOT corrupted with religious propaganda & IF even a shred of it showed signs of being factual or verifiable we would respond accordingly since that is ALL we are looking for, real Falsifiable/verifiable evidence.
The only proof of anything we are looking for is Reality.

Religion is just about as far from reality as you can get.

I meant it when I said we are lucky to have David here and though it may seem that I’m against him, I’m not so much against him as I am averse to the regimented, safe and satisfied mind-set his viewpoints often represent. But he has taken the brunt of our counter arguments and put-downs more often than many would, and yet still be here. I respect him for that.

Love is a feeling Christians profess to have for those they consider lost and unenlightened. Love is the greatest emotion they claim to understand, though their actions and considerations often demonstrate otherwise. Love is the supposed cornerstone of the faith, but the faith seems to generate precious little in the way of loving allowances.

Do I suspect David is homophobic? Yes, and I also suspect he doesn’t even realize it. It’s possible to think you love a mate and beat him or her senseless on a regular basis. It is all too common for some to lie incessantly to those they love and call it consideration. Christians often propose and attempt to implement that which is best for others, negating personal rights and deserved opportunities in the process. But this isn’t love in action - at least not love for another. It’s more a demonstration of passion for self and all too often, this is the “love” Christians manifest.

David gets my back up as easily as anyone I can think of. But while that is happening, I am forced to consider why he has an effect on me. I begin to understand how he perceives the world, and how that perception can affect me in positive or negative ways.

David is not a distraction to us. He is an interactive representative of the world we live in. He’s the other person we must comprehend and attempt to communicate with, so that our hopes, uber values and base perceptions can be revealed and demonstrated. He’s the immediate chance we have to correspond with someone who is not so much the enemy, as he is the friend we haven’t met yet.

Thanks for being here David. I really mean that!

I’ll have what he’s having.

*grin* I knew I was setting myself up for that! I apologize if my post came across sounding like a Hallmark Greetings card - When you care enough to “say” the very best!

Somehow, I’ll get my reputation back.

LOL, I nearly typed in my email address as @hallmark.com

Maybe I should get off and watch some Fox news. That always puts me back in a foul mood.

I know I wrote that I was only going to post here once. However, Brock’s post came from a completely unexpected direction, so I think I need to respond to it in some way.

Brock, if I posted anything like what you posted, you’d likely accuse me of being disingenuous. In fact, such a thing has already taken place. But, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I will make this deal, this covenant, if you will:
I will refrain from directly insulting you, if you will do the same for me. To make sure we understand each other, this does not mean that I’m changing my stance that homosexuality is wrong, or that I will never disagree with you openly. It does mean that I will not make any sarcastic or condescending comments concerning you, and that any disagreement I have with you, I will produce my reasoning on it in the most respectful terms possible. All I ask is that you do the same in return.