whywontgodhealamputees.com

Dead Zone => The Bottomless Pit => Topic started by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 06:04:32 PM

Title: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 06:04:32 PM
And the answer is no I have not concluded that.

However, from this post, it certainly seems you have:
You can continue to badmouth me with your words, but you're only adding to the evidence that the Bible is true.

"For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride],

And I present you as my evidence this is true.  I'll take being an idiot over that any day.

jst, I've called you an idiot.  I have been explict in detailing the reasons I've called you an idiot.  Right here:
Quote
You are indeed an idiot if you think you can get away with such nonsense without being called on your claims.  There is a point where your own actions have demonstrated a willful inablity to take responsiblity for what you have claimed and think that no one will notice.  This shows a certain lack of intelligence aka being an idiot.   I do try to avoid making a personal observation, but when the facts support it, I will.  Sometimes there is no good reason to be polite especially when the theist shows no interest in being honest.
 

You have continued to display yourself as such so far.  So, I have no problem still considering you an idiot.  I am indeed ridiculing the baseless beliefs you profess *and* your actions.

Well at least you are honest.  That's at least something to respect.  However,

Quote
However, from this post, it certainly seems you have:

If you weren't an idiot you would know this was addressed only to a set of people on this forum:

Quote
You can continue to badmouth me with your words, but you're only adding to the evidence that the Bible is true.

Anyone that is not an idiot could tell I was speaking to those that badmouth me.  Maybe your idiocy is why you don't understand what Jesus was talking about when he mentioned moving mountains.

Quote from: Omen
What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

How about lieing?

The argument for american slavery was 100% biblical.

Semantics JST, they were not the only arguments.  It is not omitted to support a claim that they were ONLY biblical arguments, it is made available ( along with source ) to point out the claim that arguments used to support slavery in the US were based on biblical justifications.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 06:11:15 PM
How about lieing?

The argument for american slavery was 100% biblical.

Semantics JST, they were not the only arguments.  It is not omitted to support a claim that they were ONLY biblical arguments, it is made available ( along with source ) to point out the claim that arguments used to support slavery in the US were based on biblical justifications.

Semantics Jst, obviously not a lie, and it still is 100% biblical since there are no biblical arguments against slavery.

You claimed to have been bad mouthed, no where did I bad mouth you.

All I've ever done is asked you to be accountable for your claims.  Which has caused you to respond psychotically.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 06:13:40 PM
Now again:


What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?

JST ran away again.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 06:15:51 PM
I was attempting to be more precise on the other thread but now here we are.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
I was attempting to be more precise on the other thread but now here we are.

No, you promptly abandoned the thread and refused to respond to people after we took time to respond to you then you came here; where you have attacked the community, made baseless accusations, and whined about being held responsible for your actions.  You then said you were 'leaving', but never actually left.

You can stop excusing yourself from responsibility.

So again:

What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 06:19:32 PM
I did not abandon the thread until all the BS on this thread began.  I did reply to the other thread and I was waiting for more replies.  Why is that a problem with you?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 06:20:53 PM
I did not abandon the thread until all the BS on this thread began.  I did reply to the other thread and I was waiting for more replies.  Why is that a problem with you?

No you didn't, your only response was to say people didn't respond to you, yet they did.  More than one of us actually.

You never returned.  Do you not have the mental capacity to post in more than one thread at a time?

So again:

What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 06:24:00 PM
I did make replies.  I did not reply to all the rebuttals because the remaining scriptures that noone rebutted provide enough evidence by themselves to show the Bible says Satan is the ruler of this world.  To everything else I replied.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 06:26:16 PM
I did make replies.  I did not reply to all the rebuttals because the remaining scriptures that noone rebutted provide enough evidence by themselves to show the Bible says Satan is the ruler of this world.  To everything else I replied.

This is a dismissive response on your part, it does not show it nor do you make the effort to demonstrate how it would.  Many of the rebuttals encompass all of the references since they are within a similar christian theological context.  You had a choice to respond to the rebuttals provided to you, yet you chose to contribute a single sentence in a dismissive un-explanatory manner compared to the effort everyone else put into it.

So again:

What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 06:39:05 PM
Quote
This is a dismissive response on your part, it does not show it nor do you make the effort to demonstrate how it would.  Many of the rebuttals encompass all of the references since they are within a similar christian theological context.  You had a choice to respond to the rebuttals provided to you, yet you chose to contribute a single sentence compared to the effort everyone else put into it.

That is why I asked for answers to the other three scriptures.

Quote
What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

You are antagonistist, accusatory, and just basically an ass hole.  If it wasn't for that we might get along.

Quote
What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Nothing.  Why are others able to do this and we still get along?  But you and I don't?

Quote
Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?

Are you serious?  Am I to believe you don't know you've been an ass hole?

I showed you above where you lied, but you just try to wiggle out of it.  That wiggling may convince others but it doesn't convince me.



Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 06:50:05 PM
How fitting that I should end up in the Bottomless Pit with you.  I truly am in hell. 
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 16, 2012, 06:51:58 PM
I did make replies.  I did not reply to all the rebuttals because the remaining scriptures that noone rebutted provide enough evidence by themselves to show the Bible says Satan is the ruler of this world.  To everything else I replied.
It can say anything it wants(scripture) this does not make it real or true.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 06:52:12 PM
How fitting that I should end up in the Bottomless Pit with you.  I truly am in hell.

Excellent, feel free to answer:

What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 06:55:53 PM
How fitting that I should end up in the Bottomless Pit with you.  I truly am in hell.

Excellent, feel free to answer:

What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?

I already did above.  But let me word it in terms you may understand better.

In my subjectively moral opinion you are an ass hole.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 07:04:32 PM
I already did above.  But let me word it in terms you may understand better.

No, you didn't.  You just avoided the questions by equivocating.

Quote
This is a dismissive response on your part, it does not show it nor do you make the effort to demonstrate how it would.  Many of the rebuttals encompass all of the references since they are within a similar christian theological context.  You had a choice to respond to the rebuttals provided to you, yet you chose to contribute a single sentence compared to the effort everyone else put into it.

That is why I asked for answers to the other three scriptures.

This doesn't answer the previous reply.  I could simply copy paste the same response, because the same response points out that the posts did answer it.

Quote
Quote
What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

You are antagonistist, accusatory, and just basically an ass hole.  If it wasn't for that we might get along.

Why is it antagonistic to ask you to support your claims?

Why don't you want to be accountable for your claims?

Quote
Quote
What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Nothing.  Why are others able to do this and we still get along?  But you and I don't?

Other people ask you with the same tenacity that I do, mods have to be brought in repeatedly because you refuse to argue for your own claims.

Quote
Quote
Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?

Are you serious?  Am I to believe you don't know you've been an ass hole?

Nope, you never tell me no matter how many times I ask.

Quote
I showed you above where you lied, but you just try to wiggle out of it.  That wiggling may convince others but it doesn't convince me.

Obviously, a semantic disagreement is not a lie.  Even if you misunderstood it incorrectly, I could simply say it was a mistake and modify the claim.  That doesn't change the fact that I answered to support my claim the second you asked for it without a moment's hesitation.

You .. can't be bothered to do the same.

Quote
In my subjectively moral opinion you are an ass hole.

I have never insulted you or done anything to you except ask you to support claims that you have made or pointed out when your claims were contradictory.  Insulting me for something you can't point out or describe isn't answering my questions..

So again:

What have I done, except ask you to be accountable for your own claims?

What is wrong with asking you to be accountable for your own claims?

Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 07:22:37 PM
This doesn't answer the previous reply.  I could simply copy paste the same response, because the same response points out that the posts did answer it.

Perhaps I should have been more clear.  So allow me to do so.  I think the three remaining scriptures are enough to still prove my claim that the Bible says Satan in the ruler.  I can reply to the rebuttals but I don't see the need since the other three scriptures still stand.  I was attempting to move on and give evidence this claim is true but I was interrupted.

Quote
Other people ask you with the same tenacity that I do, mods have to be brought in repeatedly because you refuse to argue for your own claims.

Only when you are involved.

Quote
Why are you incapable of finding anything I'm actually doing, that you could describe as wrong?

How about calling me a sicko?

How about comparing me to the mentally ill?

How about continually calling me a liar?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Quesi on May 16, 2012, 07:31:21 PM
May I offer my observations?

Omen, you pounced on Jst the minute he got here, and you were relentless.  He had no idea what hit him, and I think he tried really hard to keep his head above water.

Jst, you often avoid answering questions directly by offering partial answers or changing the subject just a little bit or redirecting the conversation to something else.  I like you, and I enjoy your presence on this forum.  But there are direct questions that I have asked you that you have not answered.  That doesn't frustrate me as much as it frustrates other people on this forum.  But please realize that this failure to address direct questions has resulted in frustration. 
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 07:33:34 PM
You compared horrific biblical slavery to raising children.

I've never called you mentally ill, I asked how do we distinguish your claims from make believe or mental illness.

You have lied repeatedly, even admitting as much.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 07:37:03 PM
Quesi, can you be more explanatory than saying pounce.  Notice, when you're describing jst you include specific details but when you reference me you just say "pounce".
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 07:41:23 PM
May I offer my observations?

Omen, you pounced on Jst the minute he got here, and you were relentless.  He had no idea what hit him, and I think he tried really hard to keep his head above water.

Jst, you often avoid answering questions directly by offering partial answers or changing the subject just a little bit or redirecting the conversation to something else.  I like you, and I enjoy your presence on this forum.  But there are direct questions that I have asked you that you have not answered.  That doesn't frustrate me as much as it frustrates other people on this forum.  But please realize that this failure to address direct questions has resulted in frustration.

If someone has some constructive criticism I will accept it.

Quote
But there are direct questions that I have asked you that you have not answered.

Please direct me to where I have done so.

Quote from: Omen
You compared horrific biblical slavery to raising children.

I described what I do and there is nothing "sicko" about it.  You were simply being hostile.

Quote
I've never called you mentally ill, I asked how do we distinguish your claims from make believe or mental illness.

The comparison is implied.

Quote
You have lied repeatedly, even admitting as much.

No I have not.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 07:49:14 PM
Quote
Notice, when you're describing jst you include specific details but when you reference me you just say "pounce".

I understand what she meant. 
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 07:50:58 PM
Quote
Notice, when you're describing jst you include specific details but when you reference me you just say "pounce".

I understand what she meant.

Just not enough to give explicit details.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 07:53:14 PM
I think the traditional definition is:

1. To spring or swoop with intent to seize someone or something: a cat that pounced on a mouse; watched the falcon pounce on the baby rabbit.
2. To attack suddenly: irregular troops who pounced on the convoy at a narrow pass; a colleague who pounced on me because of a mistake in my report.
3. To seize something swiftly and eagerly: pounce on an opportunity.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 07:54:18 PM
And it's like no matter what I say, you are always there.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Quesi on May 16, 2012, 08:01:59 PM
Quesi, can you be more explanatory than saying pounce.  Notice, when you're describing jst you include specific details but when you reference me you just say "pounce".

I'll try.  First of all, you're really smart, and you're really educated, which are completely different things.  Among your early interactions with Jst, you took single sentences and phrases that he had written, and wrote paragraph-length responses, often using complex vocabulary.  And, (please correct me if I am wrong) I think that you assumed that Jst was another apologetic, rather than a JW. 

In other words, you didn't seem to be aware of "who" this person you were attacking was.  You didn't seem to be aware of, or didn't care about the fact that Jst had self-identified as someone with little formal education, and was of a particular sect of Christianity that is not common here on this forum.

You had, at your disposal, a wide range of arguments ready to rip apart his words, and a format and style he was not familiar with.  In addition, you've got an aggressive personality and debate style.  You demanded that he play by a set of rules that he was not familiar with, and you fired out arguments that you are very familiar with, but which, I think, he was hearing for the first time. 

This is not the strongest explanation, but I'm half in front of the screen and half putting my daughter back to bed over and over.

Please see reply #70 on the Xian C thread in the Atheist Corner. Another forum member used stronger language than I did to describe the welcome you gave him. 
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 16, 2012, 08:05:56 PM
I would like to make an impartial (sort of) observation.

Omen, I do have to ask a question. (keep in mind that I like you a lot and we are on the same side). You don't even have to answer it out loud. Just think about it.

Why are at least 54 of your last 100 posts aimed directly at Jst? I mean, my grandfather died of a heart attack yelling at a Jehovahs Witness who knocked on his door, and I'm not that upset with the guy.

When something isn't working, trying something new has about a billion percent higher chance of success than keeping up the same old same old.

Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: Omen
You compared horrific biblical slavery to raising children.

I described what I do and there is nothing "sicko" about it.  You were simply being hostile.

You were responding by comparing biblical slavery, in an analogy, to raising your children.

I pointed out, and referenced biblical verse to support me, that in biblical slavery you can beat your slave almost to death.. and as long as the slave doesn't die for a couple days then you are free from being punished.

I then pointed out that your analogy was sick and asked you how could you make such a horrific analogy.

Quote
Quote
I've never called you mentally ill, I asked how do we distinguish your claims from make believe or mental illness.

The comparison is implied.

Not liking the comparison is irrelevant, you frequently make assertions that cannot be distinguished from the following categories:

1. The mentally ill.
2. The religious claims of someone else.
3. Make believe.

Since we can't get you to support your claims, I have to ask the obvious question that is begged.  If you would bother to support your claims, then this wouldn't have to occur.

Quote
Quote
You have lied repeatedly, even admitting as much.

No I have not.

Yes, you have.
 
Such as the thread where you began talking about 'evolution', which quickly devolved into nonsense as I and dozens of other individuals began to tear you apart.  You later admitted that you knew there was a difference, but had decided to ignore it because of a certain someone.

You were intentionally lying, for the purpose of trolling on the forum, because you didn't like to be held accountable for your claims.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 08:10:57 PM
Why are at least 54 of your last 100 posts aimed directly at Jst?

A person refuses to be accountable for their claims, there is no reason to allow them to ignore it.  Either he/she is held or accountable or you might as well give up discussion.

I also work at home and have access to my computer virtually 24/7, it takes all of a few seconds to respond to a post.

Quote
When something isn't working, trying something new has about a billion percent higher chance of success than keeping up the same old same old.

There isn't anything new to try, JST can't support his own claims, JST is antagonized by asking him to support his claims.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
So you justify calling me a lieing, mentally ill, sicko?

Is this your subjective morality at work?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 08:25:56 PM
I'll try.  First of all, you're really smart, and you're really educated, which are completely different things.  Among your early interactions with Jst, you took single sentences and phrases that he had written, and wrote paragraph-length responses, often using complex vocabulary.  And, (please correct me if I am wrong) I think that you assumed that Jst was another apologetic, rather than a JW. 

I make no assumptions as to whom or what a person is, either they are capable of supporting their position or not.

Quote
In other words, you didn't seem to be aware of "who" this person you were attacking was.  You didn't seem to be aware of, or didn't care about the fact that Jst had self-identified as someone with little formal education, and was of a particular sect of Christianity that is not common here on this forum.

The 'who' invites what I consider condescending qualifications that are, in my eyes, more insulting initially to the person you're responding too.  It is sort of like saying I should wait to see if he's a moron before I begin deconstructing what he's claiming.

I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt and just roll with it.

I also object to 'attack', why is responding to someone through a means of formal rebuttal an 'attack'?

The term is loaded ( burdened ) with emotional nonsense that only serves to obscure the discussion.

Quote
You had, at your disposal, a wide range of arguments ready to rip apart his words, and a format and style he was not familiar with.  In addition, you've got an aggressive personality and debate style.  You demanded that he play by a set of rules that he was not familiar with, and you fired out arguments that you are very familiar with, but which, I think, he was hearing for the first time. 

I am aggressive, but I do not apologize for it because there is nothing wrong with it.  As far as whether or not he's educated enough, again I think that is initially condescending to him.  You're placing him in the category of being an absolute moron and I don't believe any of my responses require that much of a education to respond too.

Plus, there is a second problem, if he really didn't know initially.. or had never heard of any of it, he could have simply said so.  Which initially, that seemed to be the case in the questioning evolution when he backed off from his dishonesty when he was initially talking about science.  Yet, that didn't last long until he was back to the same dogmatic nonsense.

Quote
This is not the strongest explanation, but I'm half in front of the screen and half putting my daughter back to bed over and over.

Please see reply #70 on the Xian C thread in the Atheist Corner. Another forum member used stronger language than I did to describe the welcome you gave him.

70 doesn't specify any problems.

Why complaining because one person is obviously not equipped to win a debate?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 08:29:07 PM
So you justify calling me a lieing, mentally ill, sicko?

Is this your subjective morality at work?

You have lied.   You lied for the benefit of promoting a religious belief.  If you did not lie, then why did you claim to have studied evolution when you clearly never had?

I've never called you mentally ill.  What are we supposed to do when you refuse to support your own arguments in a manner that allows us to distinguish your claims from being mentally ill, the claims of another religious person, or make believe?

You compared biblical slavery, where it is ok to rape your slaves and beat your slaves to death ( as long as they don't die immediately ), to raising children.  Do you think beating children to death ( as long as they don't die immediately ) or raping your children is sick?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 16, 2012, 08:31:16 PM
You know after thinking about it I think you either demonstrate the qualities of a teenager or a sociopath. 

You seem to know everything and can find absolutely no wrong in your own actions and you demonstrate not a drop of empathy.  Maybe you are the one that is mentally ill.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 16, 2012, 08:32:46 PM
Quote from: Omen
You compared horrific biblical slavery to raising children.

I described what I do and there is nothing "sicko" about it.  You were simply being hostile.

You were responding by comparing biblical slavery, in an analogy, to raising your children.

I pointed out, and referenced biblical verse to support me, that in biblical slavery you can beat your slave almost to death.. and as long as the slave doesn't die for a couple days then you are free from being punished.

I then pointed out that your analogy was sick and asked you how could you make such a horrific analogy.

I would like to use this as an example.

As I remember the exchange, you did the biblical reference and name calling in one post. This gave Jst no time to adjust any of his naive thoughts about how wonderful slavery used to be into something more realistic. He had to go from thinking it was like a minimum wage job with free room and board to being told it was much more horrible than that, and that he was automatically one of the three worst people in the world because of it.

I don't know who in his life to blame for keeping him out of the loop about how biblical slavery wasn't any more impressive than the Alabama kind, but a little time to acclimate to reality might have helped.

What he remembers now is the name calling, not the lesson.

That's the sort of thing that didn't work. Have we tried patience yet? My version of patience, not yours.

Mine is close to infinite. It is often used as an example in math textbooks.  :)

P.S. I guess some of us are commenting on this because we don't dislike Jst at all. And there is a huge disconnect between that attitude and your POV.

My neighbor George is a bible thumping theist who occasionally cries when he thinks about me going to hell. But I still drove him into townlast Saturday to get a new fuel pump for his car.

I agree with him on nothing. But we're still friends. And when we do talk religion, we keep it quite civil.

Also, I have no expectations that he'll ever figure out why I disagree.

And Jst, this might be a good time for you to take a break of something. Your last post, no matter how heart-felt, didn't help your case.



Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 08:51:11 PM
You know after thinking about it I think you either demonstrate the qualities of a teenager or a sociopath. 

You seem to know everything and can find absolutely no wrong in your own actions and you demonstrate not a drop of empathy.  Maybe you are the one that is mentally ill.

Let me know when you can reference in specific examples.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Quesi on May 16, 2012, 09:05:18 PM

I make no assumptions as to whom or what a person is, either they are capable of supporting their position or not. 

You ask people to support their position immediately.  I like to know who they are and what they believe and why they believe it first. 

Quote
 
The 'who' invites what I consider condescending qualifications that are, in my eyes, more insulting initially to the person you're responding too.  It is sort of like saying I should wait to see if he's a moron before I begin deconstructing what he's claiming.

I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt and just roll with it.


Interesting.  I in no way consider "the who" to be condescending.  People are complex, and before I start dismantling their core belief systems, I'd like to know what circumstances influenced the development of those belief systems. 

Quote
  I also object to 'attack', why is responding to someone through a means of formal rebuttal an 'attack'?

The term is loaded ( burdened ) with emotional nonsense that only serves to obscure the discussion.

You are right.  I use emotionally loaded language.  I know I do not have to invite you to call me on it if/when I do it again. 

Quote
 
I am aggressive, but I do not apologize for it because there is nothing wrong with it.  As far as whether or not he's educated enough, again I think that is initially condescending to him.  You're placing him in the category of being an absolute moron and I don't believe any of my responses require that much of a education to respond too. 

Absolutely not.  I said that you were both smart and educated.  I think that Jst is smart, but not familiar with the concept of rational thought.  He hasn't had practice developing logical arguments.  He stated that he was initially intimidated by some of the vocabulary used on this forum.  He later stated that he does not know how to summarize a complex set of concepts in his own words - not because he is incapable, but because it is a skill he has not developed.   I think that he adapted to the style of debate on this forum with astounding speed, and navigated a complex set of arguments quite effectively.  I would have rather seen the speed of the discussion go a little slower, with more room for reflection.  But you set a fast pace of challenges to respond and clarify and define and defend. 

Quote
 
70 doesn't specify any problems.

I didn't suggest that it did!  I think it was said rather affectionately.  (loaded emotional language again)  I just said that the language was stronger than mine. 

I'm probably not going to reply here again this evening because I have some housework to do, and then I'm going to peek at the othe threads and crash.  But i did want to say a couple more things. 

I'm relatively new here, and I certainly defer to the style and culture that was established on this forum by those of you who've been here longer than I have.  However, I have to say that it sort of irks me when a theist arrives and quite a few members of this forum immediately start setting traps (that are easy to set, given the nature of the scriptures) and then start calling the theist a liar for using a reflex response to contradictions or atrocities in the scriptures. 

I don't think that Jst thinks that he is a liar.  I think he, like most theists, has spent a lifetime being taught to gloss over or rationalize the contradictions and atrocities.  And shortly after he arrived on the forum, when I asked him a "bible study" question that he could not answer, he actually went and followed up and provided an explanation that I had never heard before.   I appreciated that. 

Omen - ideologically, I am on your side too.  And I am awed by your ability to dismantle the arguments of your opponent.  I'd love to see you in a live debate. 

Temperamentally, I lean towards a different set of interactions. 

Jst-I'll chat with you another day.  As I'm sure you know, responding to Omen requires a lot of energy.   

Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 16, 2012, 09:16:45 PM
I would like to use this as an example.

Probably because it is the only example you can find.

Quote
As I remember the exchange, you did the biblical reference and name calling in one post.

Just to point something out, there are 274 posts, between my first response to JST to the post where you say I'm 'name calling'.

All the question dodging, all the equivocating, the red herrings, the dismissals.. 274 posts.

And your criticism rests upon 'sicko', for pointing out that someone compared how they raised their children to biblical slavery as if it were perfectly ok ( and syonymous ).

Quote
This gave Jst no time to

There is no reason to make accomodations for someone who makes claims as if they've read the bible when they clearly have not.   They clearly have never invested the time to read it, which invites the question of dishonesty.

Quote
What he remembers now is the name calling, not the lesson.

He's had hundreds of posts to respond prior to this, minus name calling, where he has consistently avoided supporting his own claims.  Again, I am judged for a single post out of hundreds, and he is.. seemingly completely innocent of his actions in your eyes?

Yet.. just this once, I'm responsible.. for using the word 'sicko', that just gave him the chance to not take the post seriously.. as if he were taking any previous post seriously from anyone.

Quote
My neighbor George is a bible thumping theist who occasionally cries when he thinks about me going to hell. But I still drove him into townlast Saturday to get a new fuel pump for his car.

I don't care for this particular type of dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards me, I am not cruel and have not been cruel, this actually kind of hurt my feelings.

Quote
I agree with him on nothing. But we're still friends. And when we do talk religion, we keep it quite civil.

And you get no where, I've had him admit that he didn't know what he's talking about regarding evolution and then admit that he is afraid of confronting the validity of his own beliefs.

What do you know? That he can mindlessly tell you what he believes without telling you why rationally?

What is that going to do ?

Quote
Also, I have no expectations that he'll ever figure out why I disagree.

Neither do I, but it doesn't take much effort to respond and ask him a question.  He obviously knows enough to selectively ignore the more damning challenges to his own claims, hence his resulting equivocating and constant denial of very specific issues.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 16, 2012, 10:08:51 PM
Omen...what is your goal in posting to Jst (and other theists on here in general)?  What do you wish to accomplish?  In terms of actual effects, I mean.  "Hold him accountable for his words" is, for example, a vague and abstract goal.  There is a state of things that exists before you post to him.  Then there is a state of things that exists afterward.  How do you wish for those states to be different, in real terms?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 16, 2012, 10:34:14 PM
Quote
My neighbor George is a bible thumping theist who occasionally cries when he thinks about me going to hell. But I still drove him into townlast Saturday to get a new fuel pump for his car.

I don't care for this particular type of dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards me, I am not cruel and have not been cruel, this actually kind of hurt my feelings.

I did not write those words to dehumanize you. I was telling you that it is possible to have civil intercourse and live on the same planet with theists, even when huge disagreements exist. If you took it as an insult of any sort, I apologize. Here I am, trying to ask people if there might be a way to be nicer to each other and accomplish more in our conversations, and I insult you in the process. Hopefully the answer isn't contained in my incompetence.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Traveler on May 16, 2012, 11:13:50 PM
Stepping in briefly to bookmark the conversation, to say that I believe jst deserves some time and patience, and to say that its very, very easy in here to get overwhelmed, to get overwrought, and to misunderstand each other. I have NOT had the bandwidth to keep up with the conversation between Omen and Jstwebbrowsing, but in the posts I have seen, I have not interpreted Jst's words as ill-meaning by any stretch. I see someone who's trying to discuss, who's curious, and who is not at all used to the type of debate that some here on wwgha demand.

Hang in there ...
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 16, 2012, 11:51:19 PM
is it possible for a reset?

I actually agree with Omen re intent, but recognise within that intent he has given Jst cause to claim offence.
I reckon arguing anything about the "offence" is pointless, as each have opposed views.
I do not think the degree to which the inferred offence has been used by Jst (to not address his claims) is much more than the use of a tool of avoidance.

If Omen can swallow his perception of injustice (in that he believes he gave no specific offence) and retract anything that empowers Jst's feeling offended, then the ball is back with Jst in that he will have no further reason (real or imagined) to not address the forums requirements of substantiating claims with evidence.   
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 01:17:22 AM
I promised myself I'd stay out of stuff like this, but fuck it.


is it possible for a reset?
<snip>

Jstwebbrowsing engaged myself (IIRC) and others in a discussion regarding evolution. He claimed to have no knowledge of evolution or abiogenesis and, in spite of dozens, if not hundreds, of posts explaining the difference between the two, he just didn't seem to understand any of it. Now, unless he actually is retarded, that's just not possible. He didn't say that he doubted our claims. He just continued to discuss it as if it hadn't been explained to him. Later he admitted that he was lying (check his karma log for the specific post) and that he did, in fact, know the difference between the two.

This is not a person who deserves anything but distrust. He is a liar. Plain and simple. His claims of offence and such should be treated as if coming from any other liar - they should be dismissed.

So no, kin hell. It is not possible for a reset. Not only is that literally impossible (people's memories can't be reset, and they will let their emotions get the better of them, eventually), but he doesn't deserve it.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 01:27:57 AM
^fair enough

I cannot comment with any accuracy as I did not follow those threads and have virtually nothing to do with Jst.

So I will not comment.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 01:29:50 AM
Jstwebbrowsing, you've got three choices here, AFAICT. Either you accept the fact that lying damages your reputation (and since you had none here, that's basically the same as saying that those who remember your lies don't trust you) and try to fix it by being honest from now on or you keep whining that everyone is being mean to you and get sympathy from the members who seem to have forgotten your lies (or never read them in the first place). The third option would be for you to leave.

Personally, I'm OK with the first and last ones. If you are honest, I'm sure a lot of information can be exchanged (although the exchange might not be "50/50", so to speak). If you decide to leave, there will be more of you. There is nothing you can say that I[1] can't learn from other sources. It's just a matter of time.
 1. Remember, this is just on a personal level. I do not and cannot speak for the forum.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 01:33:28 AM
I cannot comment with any accuracy as I did not follow those threads and have virtually nothing to do with Jst.

Then, and pardon my expression, but, what the fuck are you doing here? If you don't know Jstwebbrowsing's posting history, you either learn about it, so your input can actually be taken into consideration, or you stay out of it[1]. You're talking about what you don't know. What's the point?
 1. The discussion.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 01:47:57 AM
I cannot comment with any accuracy as I did not follow those threads and have virtually nothing to do with Jst.

Then, and pardon my expression, but, what the fuck are you doing here? If you don't know Jstwebbrowsing's posting history, you either learn about it, so your input can actually be taken into account, or you stay out of it[1]. You're talking about what you don't know. What's the point?
 1. The discussion.

ever heard of fresh viewpoint?

the position within this thread is content enough to judge the content of this thread.
I wasn't judging the legitimacy of either party's perspective, I was addressing the deadlock evidenced within this thread.


I addressed that deadlock, and asked a simple question that you at first answered reasonably from your informed position, your inability to recognise that it was only a question and suggested possible solution that did not need to be sourced from materiel outside of this thread is your error, not mine.

And if you really feel the need to apologise for an utterance before you utter it, then I suggest the apology is a meaningless bit of lightweight obfuscation that makes a farce of itself by its very usage.

Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 01:52:51 AM
ever heard of fresh viewpoint?

Fresh viewpoint from someone who has limited info (at best) regarding Jstwebbrowsing's posts.

your inability to recognise that it was only a question and suggested possible solution that did not need to be sourced from materiel outside of this thread is your error, not mine.

The way that you wrote it made it sound as if it was a suggestion. My apologies.

And if you really feel the need to apologise for an utterance before you utter it, then I suggest the apology is a meaningless bit of lightweight obfuscation that makes a farce of itself by its very usage.

Not really. I cursed for the simple fact that I wanted to.[1] I was not apologizing per se; merely trying (and failing, obviously) to point out that the curse wasn't to insult you, but that it was simply a part of the expression I used.
 1. Long story.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 02:00:54 AM
ever heard of fresh viewpoint?

Fresh viewpoint from someone who has limited info (at best) regarding Jstwebbrowsing's posts.

 you've accidentally snipped the relevant info from my reply that completely addresses this comment

Quote from: kin
the position within this thread is content enough to judge the content of this thread.


your inability to recognise that it was only a question and suggested possible solution that did not need to be sourced from materiel outside of this thread is your error, not mine.

The way that you wrote it made it sound as if it was a suggestion. My apologies.

...thanks but unnecessary mate, ....it was a suggestion, but one fully qualified by the preceding question.

And if you really feel the need to apologise for an utterance before you utter it, then I suggest the apology is a meaningless bit of lightweight obfuscation that makes a farce of itself by its very usage.

Not really. I cursed for the simple fact that I wanted to.[1] I was not apologizing per se; merely trying (and failing, obviously) to point out that the curse wasn't to insult you, but that it was simply a part of the expression I used.
 1. Long story.
understood     .....no harm no foul
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 02:10:28 AM
you've accidentally snipped the relevant info from my reply that completely addresses this comment

Quote from: kin
the position within this thread is content enough to judge the content of this thread.

It wasn't an accident. I don't think that a one page thread qualifies you to make suggestions that other people haven't thought of already and dismissed for some reason.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 02:22:32 AM
you've accidentally snipped the relevant info from my reply that completely addresses this comment

Quote from: kin
the position within this thread is content enough to judge the content of this thread.

It wasn't an accident. I don't think that a one page thread qualifies you to make suggestions that other people haven't thought of already and dismissed for some reason.

That doesn't parse for me.

Do you really mean I cannot recognise an apparent deadlock in a thread, then ask a question on that thread, and hang a suggested solution predicated upon the reply to that question?

Please explain how I am unqualified to do that?

And your accrediting me mind reading abilities (in being able to discern what other people may or may not have already thought of and dismissed) while possibly flattering, is definitely ridiculous.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 02:30:17 AM
Do you really mean I cannot recognise an apparent deadlock in a thread, then ask a question on that thread, and hang a suggested solution predicated upon the reply to that question?

No. I think that while your suggestions may seem good to you, other people already thought about them and dismissed them because they know more about Jstwebbrowsing's posting history than you do.

And your accrediting me mind reading abilities (in being able to discern what other people may or may not have already thought of and dismissed) while possibly flattering, is definitely ridiculous.

I'm not. The point is that (I think) any suggestions you make that haven't been posted already weren't posted for a reason that you're not aware of because you don't know enough about the subject.[1]
In short, all I'm saying is that I think you should learn more before making suggestions.
 1. This sentence seems grammatically incorrect, but I can't put my finger on it.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 02:43:31 AM
...what don't you understand about the question mark?

?

can you not see that it answers your suggestion that I should learn more before suggesting?

I asked the question, as a method of learning, via the answer/s (that are implied as desired) by use of the question mark.

or is it that you don't understand the concept that the following suggestion was qualified by the preceding question?



Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 02:46:37 AM
*headdesk*
You said it was also a suggestion... twice (I misread it the first time, so you pointed it out a second time). If you want to learn, there's nothing quite like doing it yourself by reading Jstwebbrowsing's posts. This thread is/was supposed to address the "Omen versus Jstwebbrowsing" "problem".
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 03:07:35 AM
*headdesk*
You said it was also a suggestion... twice (I misread it the first time, so you pointed it out a second time).

let me help you understand.

the question is posed.

Is it possible that X?

The question offers two possible answers   Yes or No.

Then the following suggestion that I made is fully predicated upon which of the two possible answers my original question received.

If the answer was No. Then my suggestion makes no sense whatsoever. It becomes instantly void.


So the only option that could possibly trigger any consideration of my suggestion is if the original question is answered with a Yes.


What don't you understand?


Your whole foray here regarding my post is based on me supposedly not having enough information on which to judge whether or not my suggestion is valid.
Therefore, so you say, I should not have made a suggestion.

What do you think the purpose of the question was?

Did it not immediately solicit that exact same information you've erroneously asserted I have not accessed before making my suggestions?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 03:14:25 AM
My head is throbbing, so I'll just conclude with this:
If you want to make worthwhile suggestions, don't waste your time by waiting for us to answer your questions; do the research yourself. The information can be easily accessed and is also easily understood. There's no reason why you can't do the research first and make suggestions later.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 03:54:44 AM
My head is throbbing, so I'll just conclude with this:
If you want to make worthwhile suggestions, don't waste your time by waiting for us to answer your questions; do the research yourself. The information can be easily accessed and is also easily understood. There's no reason why you can't do the research first and make suggestions later.

....you really can be a obdurate, manipulative, deliberately dumb, and pontificating dick at times just in order to have the last word.

Perhaps you should use a little intelligence and try and understand that the question allowed for a very easy and swift dismissal of my suggestion with the simplest of answers   ie:  No.

Surely the practise  of approaching the supposed authorities on the subject, (which is what my question did) is a standard research tool?
....and in this case an extremely efficient one where the authoritative summation can be provided with minimum fuss.

Simple no? 

 But you have to add personal commentary and direction don't you?

As you've arbitrarily assumed the authority to direct my behaviour, to so obviously pander to your equally obvious need to win with that parthian shot, let me reply in kind.

You are a judgemental curmudgeon, over endowed with a judgemental opinion that harshly judges others, but fails to exact any consistently rigorous and scrupulous accuracy and honesty from yourself.

If you think I am being harsh on calling you judgemental, just check your smiteful(sic) darwin records.   Oh yes you are the record holder. Congratulations.

And if you take umbrage at being called less than scrupulously honest in debate, please feel free to do the fucking research yourself.


 

Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 04:07:17 AM
First of all, my head throbbing is unrelated to you. I mentioned it as a simple reason for wanting this discussion to end.

Now, I tried to provide constructive criticism by suggesting that you do the research before making suggestions. Approaching the "authorities on the subject" is a poor way to do so when the information is already available to anyone who wants it. Compared to reading, it's a very slow process and you learn very little with only one question. That's why I mentioned those things before.

And now I have to go to school. If you want to keep discussing this, I suggest making a thread in the Chatter section or something. This thread has been derailed (and yes, I admit that this is my fault) long enough.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 05:58:25 AM
I don't care for this particular type of dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards me, I am not cruel and have not been cruel, this actually kind of hurt my feelings.

I did not write those words to dehumanize you. I was telling you that it is possible to have civil intercourse and live on the same planet with theists, even when huge disagreements exist. If you took it as an insult of any sort, I apologize. Here I am, trying to ask people if there might be a way to be nicer to each other and accomplish more in our conversations, and I insult you in the process. Hopefully the answer isn't contained in my incompetence.

Where have I had uncivil discourse?

It's hard not to take it as insulting considering the previous post, the worst you can find me doing is implying someone is a sicko because they compare biblical slavery to raising their own children.  Regardless of that being name calling or not, it is a post selected out hundreds as if that is either the only example worth considering or the general overarching behavior you want to talk about.  Based on that, I am now supposedly cruel enough that the suggestion is that I would normally not help in an analogy where a poor old next door neighbor needs to be driven places regardless of his vindictive attitude towards others.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 06:24:33 AM
Omen...what is your goal in posting to Jst (and other theists on here in general)?  What do you wish to accomplish?  In terms of actual effects, I mean.  "Hold him accountable for his words" is, for example, a vague and abstract goal.  There is a state of things that exists before you post to him.  Then there is a state of things that exists afterward.  How do you wish for those states to be different, in real terms?

Well, to be fair "Hold him accountable for his words" is the final ambiguous product of hundreds of posts where someone equivocates in response to virtually ANY post that challenges him on specific claim or premise left unsupported, to the point where it becomes obscured.  It would of course sound vague and abstract, being disconnected from the constant original attempts to get JST to support a claim.  Needless to say JST has left hundreds of posts discarded for the simple fact that someone, regardless of it being me or not, came around and requested he support a particular claim or premise.  I'm just a convenient target now.

Goals are circumstantial at best, with no primary goal that needs to be achieved until you either know what you're dealing with or know how they are going to respond.  You should already be aware of the tendencies of theist who visit the boards who come here to simply make lists of things they believe, unconcerned by why anyone else should believe it or their own means to describe why they would believe it rationally.  I believe this would describe JST pretty well along with some deeper explanations I talked about here: ( http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22585.msg505008.html#msg505008 ) 

The problem with this kind of person, which tends towards the norm, is how do you respond?  Any kind of discussion on the merits of a religious claim are irrelevant, since this kind of person can and will define their belief or rationalize towards their belief in order to squirm around any issue.  All it does it take you back to the fact that they are literally making up their beliefs as they go along, unconcerned with whether or not their beliefs could reasonably be believed by anyone else or why they would initially believe them at all.  It is a dead end conversation, one where the theist is never taken to task and many of the atheist on this forum end up doing nothing but enabling the theist to confirm his own beliefs in a circular manner.  The only other option is to begin explaining how personal experiences are not evidence of their own claims or that they are confirming what they want to believe in a circular manner, which requires you to force the theist to consider the merits of their own claims either through questioning or analogy.  However, if the theist refuses to respond or personally takes offense at any request for him to support a claim or premise he's making, then you have what is happening with JST.  The goal is then to get JST to support his positions, by simply asking him to do so.

I am being demonized because I type and post fast, but have done little else than what I described above.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 06:31:09 AM
is it possible for a reset?

I actually agree with Omen re intent, but recognise within that intent he has given Jst cause to claim offence.

Why am I responsible if someone claims offense at request for the most basic of inquiries into their own posts?

The only option is to utterly demand that I do not respond to someone on this forum, because each time I do I'm going to require them to support arguments that they are making and they take offense to that.

Quote
I do not think the degree to which the inferred offence has been used by Jst (to not address his claims) is much more than the use of a tool of avoidance.

I am not physically making JST do anything, his equivocating is only serving his own purposes here and demonizing me.  In a previous thread he was told, both by myself and a mod, how to report people and in such instances where he should report people.   He pointed out an example where someone posted in a thread, without contributing anything else other than a slander or insulting label ( http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21994.msg500677.html#msg500677 ), which was at the time being used to demonize the entire forum as well as myself.  He of course didn't report anything, just used it as a talking point to equivocate about how he is treated and to make further accusations against myself that went unanswered/unexplained.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 07:28:35 AM
First of all, my head throbbing is unrelated to you. I mentioned it as a simple reason for wanting this discussion to end.

How amazingly coincidental that your apparent exasperation as expressed by your "headdesk" lead in in reply#52, is now being post engineered as not connected to the (remarkably similar and easy to mistake as synonymous) very first line "My head is throbbing" of your very next reply #54.

What isn't amazing, is the completely typical avoidance dance you undertake whenever you are confronted.

Now, I tried to provide constructive criticism by suggesting that you do the research before making suggestions.

Bullshit. Post engineering bullshit. Hoping that I will tire of chasing accuracy, and thus, by you carefully avoiding the need to address actual points you might just win by attrition.

>snip<
Then, and pardon my expression, but, what the fuck are you doing here? If you don't know Jstwebbrowsing's posting history, you either learn about it, so your input can actually be taken into consideration, or you stay out of it[1]. You're talking about what you don't know. What's the point?
 1. The discussion.
Yeah, and aren't you and I both just overwhelmed by your glaringly obvious desire to respectfully help guide me, in the most constructive manner possible?
I could care less what inspired you to such heights, but constructive critique it aint.


Approaching the "authorities on the subject" is a poor way to do so when the information is already available to anyone who wants it. Compared to reading, it's a very slow process and you learn very little with only one question. That's why I mentioned those things before.

...and this is just asinine. Maybe you just cannot perceive anything beyond whatever is required for you to be right?
 (including how this revisionist bullshit is totally transparent, and shows most clearly to what flawed and desperate lengths you will go to not to have to admit error).

Do you really need me to deconstruct it for you?

Approaching the "authorities on the subject" is a poor way to do so when the information is already available to anyone who wants it.

Why does anybody refer to authorities for their authoritative opinions?
To get their opinion.
Why refer to authorities?
Because they are fucking authorities.
Who has the most concise and accurate information from which to make an opinion?
Authorities?
Who can easily answer my question with just one word as opposed to me reading hundreds of old posts.
Authorities.

So what gormless, turd-dumb, green-brained dribble-lapped, puling berkerk would choose to read those hundreds of posts instead of asking one simple question requiring only a yes or no answer?

...well  ...........apparently you would. 

Who'd a thunk you'd be willing to dismiss whatever credibility you might have for such a indefensible argument?

What's this, the third or forth time I have had  chase you down and drag you kicking and bitching into the light of accuracy and honesty, before you'd even begin to remotely look like not continuing to use every dodge known to monkeys and to finally acknowledge a simple honest truth (but always with just one last wafer thin I-mint-something-different lying on the pillow as though you really hadn't fucked up and forgot to respect it in the morning)?

Borrrrrrrrinnnnggggg!

Here's a tip.

Set your internal dialogue to   >Self> Any>introspection >Activate Mode>brutal honesty.
Cause if you don't see what you do, then you are just lying to yourself, and over such trivial trivial shit bloke.

In future, be brave, man up, admit error immediately, and we wont be forced to repeat these circuitous steps of this irritating dance of clowns ever again.


And now I have to go to school.
>removed inaccuracy< but in deference to your school age.[2]

If you want to keep discussing this, I suggest making a thread in the Chatter section or something. This thread has been derailed (and yes, I admit that this is my fault) long enough.

I don't think you can derail a Bottomless Pit thread.
 2. I wouldn't waste my time on someone useless. You are smart and young and you can get to choose just how you are gonna interact with the world for the rest of your life. Being used to being more capable than most people you'll meet doesn't mean you have to defend errors to win. Winning is for games and war bloke, this is about who you are and how you'll live this one chance. And you're smart enough to be more than just ambulatory protoplasm subject to all emotional imperatives (like hubris).
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 07:50:17 AM
is it possible for a reset?

I actually agree with Omen re intent, but recognise within that intent he has given Jst cause to claim offence.

Why am I responsible if someone claims offense at request for the most basic of inquiries into their own posts?

please note  First, I asked a question, then went on to paraphrase something you said

Yet.. just this once, I'm responsible.. for using the word 'sicko', that just gave him the chance to not take the post seriously.. as if he were taking any previous post seriously from anyone.

you will also note that I didn't say it was a just cause.

and in fact I further limited Jst's cause's legitimacy in what you quote of me next.

Quote
I do not think the degree to which the inferred offence has been used by Jst (to not address his claims) is much more than the use of a tool of avoidance.

My suggestion was only made with the implication that any apology from you would serve no purpose in granting any false legitimacy to the "cause" but might break the obvious logjam.

My unspoken consideration was once the log had been removed, then Jst would have no further wriggle room. Wriggle room that you have passingly acknowledged above as having made possible by your sicko post.

Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 07:59:01 AM
How amazingly coincidental that your apparent exasperation as expressed by your "headdesk" lead in in reply#52, is now being post engineered as not connected to the (remarkably similar and easy to mistake as synonymous) very first line "My head is throbbing" of your very next reply #54.

Actually yes, it is coincidental. Exerting my already overtaxed brain[1] resulted in a massive headache.
Also, "*headdesk*" is just a figure of speech, similar to "*facepalm*" and such. I didn't actually hit my head on my desk.

What isn't amazing, is the completely typical avoidance dance you undertake whenever you are confronted.

I have over 7000 posts.

<snip>
Yeah, and aren't you and I both just overwhelmed by your glaringly obvious desire to respectfully help guide me, in the most constructive manner possible?
I could care less what inspired you to such heights, but constructive critique it aint.

Who the fuck said anything about "respectfully"?[2] I pointed out that you should learn as much as you can before engaging in a discussion.

<snip>
Why does anybody refer to authorities for their authoritative opinions?
To get their opinion.
Why refer to authorities?
Because they are fucking authorities.
Who has the most concise and accurate information from which to make an opinion?
Authorities?

This is about your opinion. Going with what everyone else already thinks isn't really helpful. It doesn't provide new insight. It doesn't provide a "fresh viewpoint". It's just stating the obvious (at best).
In the context of this thread, you don't even have the luxury of saying that you stated the obvious. You just stated what everyone already knew was not an option.

Who can easily answer my question with just one word as opposed to me reading hundreds of old posts.
Authorities.

One question for hundreds of old posts isn't even close to being relevant to the entirety of Jstwebbrowsing's posts. You'd need to ask dozens of questions to get the full picture. Why do so when you can easily access the info? You don't even have to read all of the posts; just 1 out of every 5 should give you a general idea of why people are pissed at Jstwebbrowsing.

<snip>
In future, be brave, man up, admit error immediately, and we wont be forced to repeat these circuitous steps of this irritating dance of clowns ever again.

Pot, kettle, black.

And you'll never know the number of times I have bitten my tongue watching your sometimes somewhat a little less than always accurate posts in deference to your school age.

Why? Do you think that I care if you point out when you think I'm wrong? If anything, I appreciate it. I like when people speak their minds, even if I disagree with what they're saying.

I don't think you can derail a Bottomless Pit thread.

True. I just felt that it still had some purpose, even though it's here (in The Bottomless Pit).
 1. Long story short there's a lot of crap happening in my life right now.
 2. Assuming that by "respectfully" you mean "trying not to hurt my feelings"[1] or something similar.
 1. I'm not saying I did. It was just the only thing that I could think of right now.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 07:59:24 AM
My unspoken consideration was once the log had been removed, then Jst would have no further wriggle room. Wriggle room that you have passingly acknowledged above as having made possible by your sicko post.

What part of making any excuse to avoid conversation do you not understand?

Yet.. just this once, I'm responsible.. for using the word 'sicko', that just gave him the chance to not take the post seriously.. as if he were taking any previous post seriously from anyone.

How many times does JST get to avoid any all rational discussion about the merits of his own claims, before any of you consider his behavior is intentional?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: kin hell on May 17, 2012, 09:00:12 AM
How amazingly coincidental that your apparent exasperation as expressed by your "headdesk" lead in in reply#52, is now being post engineered as not connected to the (remarkably similar and easy to mistake as synonymous) very first line "My head is throbbing" of your very next reply #54.

Actually yes, it is coincidental. Exerting my already overtaxed brain[1] resulted in a massive headache.
 1. Long story short there's a lot of crap happening in my life right now.

OK I fully accept that.

Also, "*headdesk*" is just a figure of speech, similar to "*facepalm*" and such. I didn't actually hit my head on my desk.
Where did I express anything that implied I believed you'd smashed your head on your desk?
No mate, I addressed it as an expression of exasperation, not as an accurate physical description 
(this is an excellent example manipulative re-interpretation)

What isn't amazing, is the completely typical avoidance dance you undertake whenever you are confronted.
I have over 7000 posts.
Not one to one with me you haven't.   Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but my further sentences  made it quite obvious I was talking about a post history we share.
(obfuscation/creative interpretation)

Quote from: OAA
I pointed out that you should learn as much as you can before engaging in a discussion.
And still you carefully manage to accidentally fail to address the glaring fact that I have shown you several times already the effect of the question was to provide me with all the information I needed.
(stubborn blindness)

Quote from: OAA
<snip>
Why does anybody refer to authorities for their authoritative opinions?
To get their opinion.
Why refer to authorities?
Because they are fucking authorities.
Who has the most concise and accurate information from which to make an opinion?
Authorities?

This is about your opinion. Going with what everyone else already thinks isn't really helpful. It doesn't provide new insight. It doesn't provide a "fresh viewpoint". It's just stating the obvious (at best).
In the context of this thread, you don't even have the luxury of saying that you stated the obvious. You just stated what everyone already knew was not an option.

 I will address this in the simplest terms possible.
For those who momentarily need to be unable to understand inferences for the sake winning, here is an alternate post.

Dear thread  ....here is my opinion
It is obvious there is a deadlock, if there was any chance of a reset, my opinion is, one simple way to break the deadlock is by the person who admitted giving "cause" retracting the  statement that gave the supposed cause (real or imagined).
Then the person hiding behind the cause(real or imagined) would be left exposed.
Of course if there is no chance of a reset then my suggestion is invalid.



Quote from: OAA
Who can easily answer my question with just one word as opposed to me reading hundreds of old posts.
Authorities.
One question for hundreds of old posts isn't even close to being relevant to the entirety of Jstwebbrowsing's posts. You'd need to ask dozens of questions to get the full picture. Why do so when you can easily access the info? You don't even have to read all of the posts; just 1 out of every 5 should give you a general idea of why people are pissed at Jstwebbrowsing.

It you look at the question carefully, it might become apparent that I was asking for other's learned opinions.
They are people I have associated with long enough for me to grant then some authority.
I was not asking for a re-run of Jst's post history, I was asking do the people involved consider there was any chance of a reset.
If the people involved can't answer that simple question (having been through the whole fucking process), how the hell am I supposed to make an accurate appraisal reading just one out of five of Jst prolific outpourings?

Now you are just being deliberately and obdurately stupid.
For fuckssake OAA why would I need to ask more than one question to get the exact answer I successfully asked one question for?


Quote from: OAA
And you'll never know the number of times I have bitten my tongue watching your sometimes somewhat a little less than always accurate posts in deference to your school age.

Why? Do you think that I care if you point out when you think I'm wrong? If anything, I appreciate it. I like when people speak their minds, even if I disagree with what they're saying.
I Edited my words above as not accurate  but I see you answered it before the Edit   please note there is a postscript that was not there previously

Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
After reading your post, I realized you made a good point that makes all other topics moot, since you were right. As such, I snipped large portions of your post and addressed only what I considered relevant, both to the thread and to myself.

Where did I express anything that implied I believed you'd smashed your head on your desk?
No mate, I addressed it as an expression of exasperation, not as an accurate physical description 
(this is an excellent example manipulative re-interpretation)

Now I wish I really could smash my head on my desk. :P
I made the connection because, usually, smashing your head against a hard surface results in a throbbing headache. Sorry about that.
Still, what exactly would that accomplish? Even if you did think that my "*headdesk*" was literal, it doesn't make my arguments better or your arguments worse.[1] Why do you assume I was being manipulative?

Not one to one with me you haven't.   Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but my further sentences  made it quite obvious I was talking about a post history we share.
(obfuscation/creative interpretation)

I knew I'd forgotten something... That part was incomplete, as evidenced by the fact that my post count by itself is irrelevant. Allow me to complete it.
I have over 7000 posts. You are not the first one to accuse me of dodging and such, but you are the first one to say that it's a habit. I'm pretty sure that either you forgot to mention you were exaggerating or you're just unaware of my posting history[2].

If the people involved can't answer that simple question (having been through the whole fucking process), how the hell am I supposed to make an accurate appraisal reading just one out of five of Jst prolific outpourings?

You're right.

I wouldn't waste my time on someone useless. You are smart and young and you can get to choose just how you are gonna interact with the world for the rest of your life. Being used to being more capable than most people you'll meet doesn't mean you have to defend errors to win. Winning is for games and war bloke, this is about who you are and how you'll live this one chance. And you're smart enough to be more than just ambulatory protoplasm subject to all emotional imperatives (like hubris).

While I try to remember that I know nothing about the people I'm meeting for the first time (how smart they are), I'm concluding that I'm either overwhelmingly more intelligent than the person/people I'm speaking to or overwhelmingly less intelligent (in specific topics of discussion, obviously). As such, I approach people with humility proportional to my knowledge (or, to be more specific, the confidence I have in it). I see no reason to do otherwise. This comes off as hubris because my knowledge spans various topics of discussion, from physics, to biology, to psychology, to games, to math, to... You get the point. While I realize that this is but a fraction of a fraction of all that we (as a species) have learned, I assure you that it is a lot more than the average person knows.
In short, I am not overly confident or arrogant. I am exactly as confident as (I think) I should be. The arrogance you perceive is an unfortunate side-effect I'm trying to fix.[3]
 1. Ad hominem fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.
 2. And note that you do have the right (in a manner of speaking) to be unaware of my posts, given that there are so many of them.
 3. And by this I mean the fact that you perceive it, rather than its existence.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 12:12:46 PM
kin hell

I would just like to say that this is the sort of BS I go through almost any time I make a comment.  I hope you can appreciate my frustration.

Everyone

Now concerning how I "lied".  I posted a site that showed the probability of life on our planet existing, starting with the Big Bang.  The site grouped everything together and called it "evolution" and I did this too.

I was told this wasn't evolution and a big argument erupted.  And some began to inform me of their defintion of evolution was related only to living organisms.  I later said that I understood the Big Bang was seperate from what they were talking about.  To them, this means I lied.  However, I did no such thing.  In fact, I was the one that was lied to.  In my argument I never said this is the probability of "biological evolution".  My argument was, and still is, that all of it is properly called evolution.  THEY are the ones that kept insisting on the word "biological" be insterted and because at first I did not realize what they were tying to say because they actually never did insert the word "biological".  They just talked like the only sort of evolution that exists is biological.

And this is a lie.  There is such a thing as cosmic evolution just as there is such a thing as biological evolution.  However, without specifying any sort of particular evolution, it is accurate to view the entire process from beginning to end as "evolution", "generic evolution" if you will.  Instead of addressing the numbers on the site there was an argument that showed instead of saying "evolution" as a generic term that I should break all the individual theories of evolution down into their specific parts.

Once I understood they were viewing evolution differently than I, thanks to Lucifer, I still argued a little.  And then I admitted the Big Bang was seperate from "biological evolution" and hence I was said to have lied.  However when I did admit this I did say that my obstinance was because of a certain someone, Omen, was already up my ass. "pouncing".

So all I admitted was that by their defintion of "evolution" I was wrong.  However, my argument that it can all be properly referred to as evolution still stands.

Here is the original argument

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22390.0.html


Also take not of this thread.  This demonstrates what theists are up against and demonstrates my problems here.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22390.0.html

What I get out of this argument is that it is basically impossible to be "nice" to a theist.

Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 12:20:35 PM
Omen...what is your goal in posting to Jst (and other theists on here in general)?  What do you wish to accomplish?  In terms of actual effects, I mean.  "Hold him accountable for his words" is, for example, a vague and abstract goal.  There is a state of things that exists before you post to him.  Then there is a state of things that exists afterward.  How do you wish for those states to be different, in real terms?

Well, to be fair ...  I'm just a convenient target now.

Cool.  That's totally unrelated to the point of my question.  But you knew that.  Carrying on...

Goals are circumstantial at best, with no primary goal that needs to be achieved until you either know what you're dealing with or know how they are going to respond ...

So you're saying that you don't know what you're trying to do?  Or that you do know what you're trying to do?  I'm trying to get you to think clearly about your actions.  I can see you're not eager to do so.

The problem with this kind of person, which tends towards the norm, is how do you respond? ...  It is a dead end conversation, one where the theist is never taken to task and many of the atheist on this forum end up doing nothing but enabling the theist to confirm his own beliefs in a circular manner.

Problems are relative to goals.  You cannot identify a problem, logically, without also identifying the goal for which it is a problem.  And you don't even have a defined goal, apparently.

The only other option is to begin explaining how personal experiences are not evidence of their own claims or that they are confirming what they want to believe in a circular manner, which requires you to force the theist to consider the merits of their own claims either through questioning or analogy.  However, if the theist refuses to respond or personally takes offense at any request for him to support a claim or premise he's making, then you have what is happening with JST.  The goal is then to get JST to support his positions, by simply asking him to do so.

The only other option for acheiving what goal?  You havn't stated that yet.  Without identifying that goal, the rest of what you've said is meaningless.

I am being demonized because I type and post fast, but have done little else than what I described above.

You are also apparently psychic.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: velkyn on May 17, 2012, 12:27:54 PM
jst,  evolution isn't the same for stars as it is for biological entities.  evolution for biologicals is based on natural selection.  Stars etc do not depend on environment effecting them to pass on beneficial changes to descendents;  thus it cannot be seen as the same thing for everything from the BB up.   Evolution can mean simply change, as you quoted "in its broadest sense", but in the context of your thread it does not seem that's how you meant it.   

from your very first post in that thread that you linked to, it seems that you also meant evolution in the biological sense.

Quote
My opinion is yes.  I come to this conclusion through the process of elimination.  I started with the fact that we do exist. 

Firstly I eliminated evolution.  For a scientific theory it seemed very unscientific.
  we aka humans do exist, and then you "eliminated" evolution which seems to refer directly to evolution as a biological effect since you mention humans. 
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 12:30:44 PM
So you're saying that you don't know what you're trying to do?  Or that you do know what you're trying to do?  I'm trying to get you to think clearly about your actions.  I can see you're not eager to do so.

Azdgari, this is superficial questioning at best.. I'm pointing out that goals can't be hammered down immediately because you don't know the circumstances you're dealing with.  The theist in question could be a sociopath, a liar, or actually sincere.  It is as if the goals are as relative as problems.

and then..

Quote
Problems are relative to goals.  You cannot identify a problem, logically, without also identifying the goal for which it is a problem.  And you don't even have a defined goal, apparently.

If you want a more strict goal defined, then allow that goal to be discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically.  However, I was speaking as if you were asking what kind of goal I want from discussing with theist, as if the desire were to convert them.  Don't give me this kind of dismissive characterizing bullshit.

Quote
The only other option is to begin explaining how personal experiences are not evidence of their own claims or that they are confirming what they want to believe in a circular manner, which requires you to force the theist to consider the merits of their own claims either through questioning or analogy.  However, if the theist refuses to respond or personally takes offense at any request for him to support a claim or premise he's making, then you have what is happening with JST.  The goal is then to get JST to support his positions, by simply asking him to do so.

The only other option for acheiving what goal?  You havn't stated that yet.  Without identifying that goal, the rest of what you've said is meaningless.

You omitted most of the prior paragraph describing a situational encounter , the only option available is to address how the argument being made is incorrect.  Which I explained in detail.

Normally, I associate more clarity to your posts adzgari.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 01:05:57 PM
Azdgari, this is superficial questioning at best.. I'm pointing out that goals can't be hammered down immediately because you don't know the circumstances you're dealing with.  The theist in question could be a sociopath, a liar, or actually sincere.  It is as if the goals are as relative as problems.

True, the goal you hold will be different with different people, and you need information about those people before adopting a reasonable goal.  But we were discussing your goals for Jst.  I'm sorry if that wasn't evident.

If you want a more strict goal defined, then allow that goal to be discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically.  However, I was speaking as if you were asking what kind of goal I want from discussing with theist, as if the desire were to convert them.  Don't give me this kind of dismissive characterizing bullshit.

"Having discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically" - I'll assume you mean "where" rather than "whether" here, as the latter makes no grammatical sense.  Alright.  You want to have that kind of discussion.  How's that going for you?  Is your current discussion with Jst one that fits the above description?  Is it likely to become such a discussion, through your efforts?

If so, then I'll be shocked.  If not, then what does that failure say about the rationality of your methods?

You omitted most of the prior paragraph describing a situational encounter , the only option available is to address how the argument being made is incorrect.  Which I explained in detail.

That I snipped it does not mean that I did not read it.  "Only option"?  To achieve what?  If no available option will achieve X, then appealing to the lack of options in order to support one's decision to take a particular action is disingenuous.  If a goal[1] is not achievable, then no action taken in order to achieve that goal is a rational one on that basis.[2]

Normally, I associate more clarity to your posts adzgari.

I hope this last post is clearer.
 1. Such as having a rational discussion.
 2. It might be a rational action relative to a different goal, but then that goal should be identified.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 01:15:53 PM
Quote
from your very first post in that thread that you linked to, it seems that you also meant evolution in the biological sense

How do you get that I was only referring to biological evolution?  When I posted the link you can read, "THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM" (caps not mine)

Does this not clear up what I was referring to?

 
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 01:18:22 PM
If you want a more strict goal defined, then allow that goal to be discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically.  However, I was speaking as if you were asking what kind of goal I want from discussing with theist, as if the desire were to convert them.  Don't give me this kind of dismissive characterizing bullshit.

"Having discussions involving claims and whether those claims are supported logically" - I'll assume you mean "where" rather than "whether" here, as the latter makes no grammatical sense.  Alright.  You want to have that kind of discussion.  How's that going for you?  Is your current discussion with Jst one that fits the above description?  Is it likely to become such a discussion, through your efforts?

It is the only available option.  I can choose to ignore JST, but I instead choose to ask him the most basic questions.  We can't do anything else until he begins making valid arguments, supported by reason and evidence.  His reaction is to be threatened by any question, regardless of who it comes from, and I am just a convenient target.

Quote
If so, then I'll be shocked.  If not, then what does that failure say about the rationality of your methods?

What exactly are my methods supposed to be?

All I do is find claims he does not support and ask him to support them.  I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

If you're going to say I'm doing something 'wrong', I'm going to have to ask you to specify what is I'm doing exactly and why it is wrong.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 01:23:12 PM
I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

I guess this is a matter of opinion.  I would say comparing me to the mentally ill is insulting.  I'm not sure but weren't you involved in the thread in which someone was trying to convince me I really was mentally ill and should seek a doctor?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 01:29:20 PM
I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

I guess this is a matter of opinion.  I would say comparing me to the mentally ill is insulting.

If you continue to deliver claims that make it impossible to determine the truth of your claim from someone who is mentally ill, a person of a different religious persuasian, or random make believe I will continue to ask.  That is not calling you mentally ill or comparing you to being mentally ill, you are being asked a sincere question.

Let's say I have 3 choices:
A. Scientologist.
B. Mental Patient. ( severe psychosis )
C. Another christian for which you disagree with.

You, and them, make claims in a similar manner.  How do I determine the truth of a claim between them, if they all make the same kind of specious arguments?

Not liking the question, doesn't make the problem go away.  The problem are your claims and the veracity by which you make them, ie you don't deliver sound arguments and run away the instant you're required to participate long enough to begin arguing for them.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 01:40:05 PM
Everyone
  I later said that I understood the Big Bang was seperate from what they were talking about.  To them, this means I lied.  However, I did no such thing.

:cough:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22390.msg500176.html#msg500176

Quote
You are right about my knowledge of evolution.  I do actually realize that the Big Bang is separate.  It's just that a certain dogmatic someone gets under my skin.

Notice, how the statements don't match.

Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 01:41:39 PM
Come on, Omen. Now you're just being mean. &)
Jstwebbrowsing, why do you insist on lying? Your words are on the forum for as long as the forum remains here. Lying serves no purpose other than to show how little we can trust you.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 01:46:43 PM
Quote
I'm not sure but weren't you involved in the thread in which someone was trying to convince me I really was mentally ill and should seek a doctor?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 01:50:16 PM
It is the only available option.  I can choose to ignore JST, but I instead choose to ask him the most basic questions.  We can't do anything else until he begins making valid arguments, supported by reason and evidence.  His reaction is to be threatened by any question, regardless of who it comes from, and I am just a convenient target.

You can do all sorts of things.  You can, for example, make dinner.  Or jerk off in the bathroom.  These have, as far as I can see, approximately the same record of success as your present methods.  In all seriousness, that puts them on about the same level in terms of being reasonable means to your end.

What exactly are my methods supposed to be?

I am not suggesting a change of methods.  I am suggesting a change of goals.  If digging to China with a back-hoe isn't working, the more reasonable course of action probably isn't to try to find another method for doing so, but rather to reconsider the entire endeavor.  If goal X appears to be unachievable, then it may be irrational to continue to pursue goal X.  Do you disagree?

All I do is find claims he does not support and ask him to support them.  I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

And how are your methods working?  You keep avoiding that issue.  Why do you not wish to address it?

If you're going to say I'm doing something 'wrong', I'm going to have to ask you to specify what is I'm doing exactly and why it is wrong.

I think your goal is unreasonable, given its apparent unachievability with Jst and with others.  That's what's wrong.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 01:55:36 PM
It is the only available option.  I can choose to ignore JST, but I instead choose to ask him the most basic questions.  We can't do anything else until he begins making valid arguments, supported by reason and evidence.  His reaction is to be threatened by any question, regardless of who it comes from, and I am just a convenient target.

You can do all sorts of things.  You can, for example, make dinner.  Or jerk off in the bathroom.  These have, as far as I can see, approximately the same record of success as your present methods.  In all seriousness, that puts them on about the same level in terms of being reasonable means to your end.

So all you're really complaining about is that I post a lot and fast?

Quote
What exactly are my methods supposed to be?

I am not suggesting a change of methods.  I am suggesting a change of goals.  If digging to China with a back-hoe isn't working, the more reasonable course of action probably isn't to try to find another method for doing so, but rather to reconsider the entire endeavor.  If goal X appears to be unachievable, then it may be irrational to continue to pursue goal X.  Do you disagree?

I do not disagree with the analogy, but the analogy has nothing to do with circumstances.  It takes little effort to respond to a post, seconds even.  I work at home and have access to a PC most of the day.

Plus, what exactly is anyone else doing?

Quote
All I do is find claims he does not support and ask him to support them.  I guess I could be mocking him or insulting him, but I have not and will not.

And how are your methods working?  You keep avoiding that issue.  Why do you not wish to address it?

I am not avoiding anything, either my methods work or they don't.  So far I've gotten JST to admit to being wrong about evolution and then admit that his responses could be out of a fear of the veracity of his own beliefs.  I consider that progress.

Am I not supposed to do anything because I might fail sometimes?

Quote
If you're going to say I'm doing something 'wrong', I'm going to have to ask you to specify what is I'm doing exactly and why it is wrong.

I think your goal is unreasonable, given its apparent unachievability with Jst and with others.  That's what's wrong.

Only in that people like JST invite questions of their own educational background or mental stability.

Which I make an effort to not assume beforehand, because I think doing so is insulting to them.  I don't actually believe most theist are stupid, uneducated, and/or mentally ill; which I think is implied by your conclusion and some of the other hints by people here.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: velkyn on May 17, 2012, 02:08:00 PM
Quote
from your very first post in that thread that you linked to, it seems that you also meant evolution in the biological sense

How do you get that I was only referring to biological evolution?  When I posted the link you can read, "THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM" (caps not mine)

Does this not clear up what I was referring to?

I showed you exactly how I got that, jst.  You saw what I posted from that first post and why it seems to only mean biological evolution.  You mentioned humans, creation and evolution all in the same post.  And to review the rest of how that thread went:

You were then told that the beginning of the universe had nothing to do with evolution, not even of the cosmological kind, after you said this "Evolution has many facets -- how the universe began to how humankind began and beyond.".  You were told that evolution does not relate to abiogenesis, that evolution works on what resulted from that.   You asked if the universe evolves, and it does again, in the broadest sense of the term but ageing physically and changing because of that is not evolution in the biological sense.  You have mistakenly conflated the terms.  That's not a crime but it makes things very confusing.

and because you conflated the terms, you came to a mistaken conclusion, that your god had to be the source of life since you misunderstood how evolution is applied to life.  You claimed that evolution wasn't very scientific but you were finding a mistaken idea of your own to be unscientific. Your process of elimination was based on a faulty idea of what evolution is when applied to life and then your claim that your god created all life. 

You made claims like this “One species evolving into another cannot be observed either way.” and were shown that this is wrong.  They can be shown.  You claim that the ridiculous movie Expelled had any evidence presented in it that disproved evolution. It didn’t.  You have declared that evolutionary theory would automatically make your god and religion wrong, and it was pointed out to you that this not necessarily the case.  To that you replied that you didn’t see your bible mention evolution; and by this you did indicate that you thought your version of your religion was the only right one since there are indeed some theists who have no problem with evolution, albeit being started and/or controlled by this god. 

You also claimed this
Quote
But I have not been able to disprove Jehovah's Witnesses.  Or at least I can't dispove their interpretation of the Bible.  If the Bible is correct then the Witnesses are correct.
  And every theist who finds something that they like says this.  This is something that seems to be hard for you to understand, jst.  All of your claims are nothing new for any theist and your lack of evidence for your claims is also nothing new.  You don’t seem that dumb, jst.  No one has to go to college to know how to think or to use their brain. 

Now, if you want you can just focus on this last bit to see where I'm coming from. If your arguments are just like everyone else’s and you have no better evidence than they do, can you tell me what that should indicate?    Do you see that I have no more reason to accept your claims as you have little reason to accept another Christian sect's or another religion's altogether?       
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 02:14:16 PM
So all you're really complaining about is that I post a lot and fast?

I was primarily asking a question.  But of course there's a motivation behind it:  I find it annoying that the volume and tone of your posts drowns out others'.  I was also curious as to whether your goal was one I agreed with, disagreed with, or even cared about.

I do not disagree with the analogy, but the analogy has nothing to do with circumstances.  It takes little effort to respond to a post, seconds even.  I work at home and have access to a PC most of the day.

Plus, what exactly is anyone else doing?

Adjust the analogy to attempting to dig to China by kicking the driveway a bit on the way home every day, then.  The effort involved is irrelevant to the reasoning I gave.

As for what anyone else is doing, well, we could try to appear to be human beings.  Get to know people.  That sort of thing.  Others have done that with folks like magicmiles.

I am not avoiding anything, either my methods work or they don't.  So far I've gotten JST to admit to being wrong about evolution and then admit that his responses could be out of a fear of the veracity of his own beliefs.  I consider that progress.

Was that the goal?  Or was a rational discussion the goal?  You're confusing me.  Be consistent.

Am I not supposed to do anything because I might fail sometimes?

That's a stupid suggestion.  Who made it?  Are you dishonestly claiming that I made it?

Quote
I think your goal is unreasonable, given its apparent unachievability with Jst and with others.  That's what's wrong.

Only in that people like JST invite questions of their own educational background or mental stability.

Umm.  You're gonna have to connect the dots here, Omen.  What does this have to do with what I said in the quote right above there?

Which I make an effort to not assume beforehand, because I think doing so is insulting to them.  I don't actually believe most theist are stupid, uneducated, and/or mentally ill; which I think is implied by your conclusion and some of the other hints by people here.

Why would you think something like that?  Others, such as Screwtape, have actually articulated their issues with how (not) to successfully communicate with people.  Hell, he even has a thread on it in the Corner.  We humans aren't all that rational.  Interpret that as "we're mentally ill" if you like.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 02:30:06 PM
As for what anyone else is doing, well, we could try to appear to be human beings.  Get to know people.  That sort of thing.  Others have done that with folks like magicmiles.

I don't agree that I don't get to know people.

Quote
I am not avoiding anything, either my methods work or they don't.  So far I've gotten JST to admit to being wrong about evolution and then admit that his responses could be out of a fear of the veracity of his own beliefs.  I consider that progress.

Was that the goal?  Or was a rational discussion the goal?  You're confusing me.  Be consistent.

Sure its a rational goal, to help him understand where he is in error.

Quote
Am I not supposed to do anything because I might fail sometimes?

That's a stupid suggestion.  Who made it?  Are you dishonestly claiming that I made it?

That's the implication.

Quote
Only in that people like JST invite questions of their own educational background or mental stability.

Umm.  You're gonna have to connect the dots here, Omen.  What does this have to do with what I said in the quote right above there?

You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand.  IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

Quote
Which I make an effort to not assume beforehand, because I think doing so is insulting to them.  I don't actually believe most theist are stupid, uneducated, and/or mentally ill; which I think is implied by your conclusion and some of the other hints by people here.

Why would you think something like that?  Others, such as Screwtape, have actually articulated their issues with how (not) to successfully communicate with people.  Hell, he even has a thread on it in the Corner.  We humans aren't all that rational.  Interpret that as "we're mentally ill" if you like.

I didn't claim all humans are rational, but I would disagree that all theists are crazy or stupid.

I'm still not seeing anything from you other than asking me not to respond as fast and often.

Are you claiming the inverse of what I've done to JST, not ask people to support their own claims or not point out when they have not?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 02:45:35 PM
Let's talk a real world example: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22596.0.html

Is the conversation uncivil?

Where and how did it become uncivil?

How many times should a person ask for someone to support their position before it is not ok?

Is it ok if someone is threatened by being asked to support their claims to project that hostility on the one asking them, repeatedly?

Why did a total of 5 people have to ask, unsuccessfully, for JST to support his position?

When does it become ok to question why JST refuses to answer for anything?

When does it become ok to call such behavior open and willful dishonesty?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 02:45:47 PM
Quote from: velkyn
I showed you exactly how I got that, jst.  You saw what I posted from that first post and why it seems to only mean biological evolution.  You mentioned humans, creation and evolution all in the same post.  And to review the rest of how that thread went:

Yes I was mistaken that the site did not include biological evolution at all.  This was an honest mistake.  But how did you reconcile what I said with what you read on the web site I posted? 

Concerning Omen

This is partly my complaint about him.  He is unmovable.  It's not that he can't understand what you are saying it's that he won't.  And even if he does then he will not agree. 

 
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 02:49:56 PM
Quote
You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand.  IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

And another complaint is that he still can't leave out that last part, "sanity".  And yes, I consider this an insult.  So is the intelligence part but not so much as the sanity part.  I mean if you really think I'm crazy then what does that say about someone that would argue with a crazy person?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 02:51:10 PM
Concerning Omen

This is partly my complaint about him.  He is unmovable.  It's not that he can't understand what you are saying it's that he won't.  And even if he does then he will not agree.

I am not moved by bad arguments and I point out why.

Hint: Stop making bad arguments.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 02:53:42 PM
Quote
You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand.  IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

And another complaint is that he still can't leave out that last part, "sanity".  And yes, I consider this an insult.  So is the intelligence part but not so much as the sanity part.  I mean if you really think I'm crazy then what does that say about someone that would argue with a crazy person?

Again, other people here are suggesting to me that I should not engage you because you are either too stupid or insane to know any better.  I give you the benefit of the doubt and treat you the same regardless.

I do ask you how you separate your claims from a person who is mentally ill, a different religious person, or random make believe because you never describe or argue for your claims in a manner that allows other people to differentiate.  You rely upon fallacies, misinformation, and incessantly conclude upon what you want to believe rather than what you can demonstrate.

Why would you expect to be treated any differently?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 02:54:20 PM
I think the argument is that what you are doing isn't working.  Here is a defintion of a crazy person:

Someone that does that same thing over and over while expecting different results.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 02:55:08 PM
I think the argument is that what you are doing won't work.  Here is a defintion of a crazy person:

Someone that does that same thing over and over while expecting different results.

You don't always get the same results, regardless.  Plus, you have already admitted to positions that I consider successes.  Usually people as dishonest as you are booted long before it goes this far.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 02:55:29 PM
I don't agree that I don't get to know people.

Yeah, that's not all that useful in communication unless you combine it with the other thing I mentioned with it there.

Quote
Was that the goal?  Or was a rational discussion the goal?  You're confusing me.  Be consistent.

Sure its a rational goal, to help him understand where he is in error.

I could interpret this as an attempt on your part to be deliberately disingenuous.  Or I could interpret it as a simple misreading.  To which interpretation would you respond better?

That's the implication.

"The Implication.tm"  Not my implication, of course, because you don't have the factual backing to actually accuse me of it.  Not your interpretation, of course, because that would mean taking responsibility for you thoughts.  Instead it's something metaphysical, something supernatural, something outside of time[1] - The Implication!tm  Where does The Implicationtm exist?  How did it come to be?  What relationship does it have to the natural world?  Silly questions for the closed-minded, those...

Seriously, Omen, don't use this kind of weaseling bullshit.  You interpreted me as implying that you should totally disengage out of fear of an instance of failure.  When asked why, you say it's "The Implicationtm".  That's a dodge.

(as a side-note, perhaps I'm being irrational in trying to reason with you in this manner...I don't know)

You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand.  IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

Okay.  Misinterpretation, albeit a reasonable one.  Still doesn't align with the text of what you're trying to clarify, but w/e.  That is not even one of the reasons to change goals here.  Understanding doesn't happen equally under all conditions.  If you want it to happen, then you should try to find conditions that are amenable to it.  I havn't seen you even entertain that idea on here before.  Perhaps I'm in error on that point; I stand to be corrected.

I didn't claim all humans are rational, but I would disagree that all theists are crazy or stupid.

There you go back to that.  Why would you bring in "crazy/stupid" again, for no reason?  It's not an accurate interpretation.  I already explained that to you.  So what's your excuse?

I'm still not seeing anything from you other than asking me not to respond as fast and often.

Then I would suggest actually reading the posts to which you are supposedly responding.

Are you claiming the inverse of what I've done to JST, not ask people to support their own claims or not point out when they have not?

...how would that...be...a claim?  Oh fuck it, I'm done with expecting coherent grammar.  Yes, Omen, that is what I'm suggesting...sort of.  I'm suggesting that it not be the first response.  I'm suggesting that it's a lot less effective from someone who's just an enemy than it is from someone with whom one has a rapport.  What is the nature of the rapport you built with Jst before holding his feet to the fire?
 1. Or something like that.  It's not really defined.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 02:58:44 PM
Quote from: Omen
Usually people as dishonest as you are booted long before it goes this far.

And here you must take yet another jab.

And the "results" were that I was leaving and almost wholly becuse of you.  Is that the goal for which you strive?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:02:10 PM
Quote from: Azdgari
...how would that...be...a claim?  Oh fuck it, I'm done with expecting coherent grammar.

My problem is that I am not allowed to do as you have done and just get tired of dealing with him. 
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 03:03:09 PM
(as a side-note, perhaps I'm being irrational in trying to reason with you in this manner...I don't know)

I have no idea where you're going or coming from on this, so I'm not going to respond to it.

Quote
You're not providing a reason to not engage, other than JST not possess the capacity to understand.  IE Due to intelligence, education, sanity etc.

Okay.  Misinterpretation, albeit a reasonable one.  Still doesn't align with the text of what you're trying to clarify, but w/e.  That is not even one of the reasons to change goals here.  Understanding doesn't happen equally under all conditions.  If you want it to happen, then you should try to find conditions that are amenable to it.  I havn't seen you even entertain that idea on here before.  Perhaps I'm in error on that point; I stand to be corrected.

Ok, I'm starting to get annoyed.

You're not referencing real examples, yet you keep insinuating there are other options, but I can't get any 'other' options clearly set out.

Quote
I didn't claim all humans are rational, but I would disagree that all theists are crazy or stupid.

There you go back to that.  Why would you bring in "crazy/stupid" again, for no reason?  It's not an accurate interpretation.  I already explained that to you.  So what's your excuse?

Because you're not leaving other options available.

Quote
I'm still not seeing anything from you other than asking me not to respond as fast and often.

Then I would suggest actually reading the posts to which you are supposedly responding.

I am reading them, hence I find unsupported claims and I ask them to be supported or point out how they are not explanatory.

Quote
Are you claiming the inverse of what I've done to JST, not ask people to support their own claims or not point out when they have not?

...how would that...be...a claim?  Oh fuck it, I'm done with expecting coherent grammar.  Yes, Omen, that is what I'm suggesting...sort of.  I'm suggesting that it not be the first response.  I'm suggesting that it's a lot less effective from someone who's just an enemy than it is from someone with whom one has a rapport.  What is the nature of the rapport you built with Jst before holding his feet to the fire?

Just casually responding to statements he was making about biblical theology, he was building a typical cherry picked rationale towards what he wants to believe.  I was questioning the consistency of which, which lead down a predictable road of point and counter point.  It became immediately obvious that JST didn't possess the formal education to understand.  I lowered my expectations accordingly, later on JST started making claims about science that went as predictably poor.  JST began to become threatened by me and accusatory, which annoyed me and probably fueled my responses to him.  Many many equivocating and dodging posts later.. here we are.

I posted a link to an example of what I'm talking about, I would love if you could take that example and tell me exactly what is wrong with it.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 03:04:10 PM
Quote from: Omen
Usually people as dishonest as you are booted long before it goes this far.

And here you must take yet another jab.

And the "results" were that I was leaving and almost wholly becuse of you.  Is that the goal for which you strive?

Is lying for the benefit of your emotional security the goal which you strive?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:09:41 PM
Answer my question.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 03:10:12 PM
Answer my question.

Answer my hundreds of questions, you've left abandoned.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:16:30 PM
I do not abandon your questions, I abandon you.  The same as the other poster in this thread has done.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:17:30 PM
If you are willing to return the favor then please do so.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 03:18:12 PM
I do not abandon your questions, I abandon you.  The same as the other poster in this thread has done.

This is equivocating, you abandon support for your claims repeatedly with me or without me being involved.  Hence, dozens have already pointed it out.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 03:19:09 PM
If you are willing to return the favor then please do so.

Return what favor? Lie to your face and treat you like shit?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:20:21 PM
I do not abandon your questions, I abandon you.  The same as the other poster in this thread has done.

This is equivocating, you abandon support for your claims repeatedly with me or without me being involved.  Hence, dozens have already pointed it out.

Show me where.  Show me where I've had problems in which you were not involved.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:21:48 PM
If you are willing to return the favor then please do so.

Return what favor? Lie to your face and treat you like shit?

No.  Just leave me alone
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 03:22:26 PM
Jstwebbrowsing, I recommend you talk to someone[1] about a one-on-one debate. Right now your credibility is... well, it isn't. That's the problem.
If you can stand on your own against one single member without dodging, lying, et cetera,[2] I think it just might be the first step to getting it back.
Assuming, of course, you want it back.
 1. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
 2. You don't even have to win the debate.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 03:24:35 PM
I do not abandon your questions, I abandon you.  The same as the other poster in this thread has done.

This is equivocating, you abandon support for your claims repeatedly with me or without me being involved.  Hence, dozens have already pointed it out.

Show me where.  Show me where I've had problems in which you were not involved.

Your desire to not be honest with me and to lie to my face, isn't examples of me having problems with you.

You have already admitted to lying for the shear fact that you wanted to get back at me, which I quoted you directly in this thread and contrasted it against what you claimed you said.. which again didn't match.  ( strange that )
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:27:14 PM
Jstwebbrowsing, I recommend you talk to someone[1] about a one-on-one debate. Right now your credibility is... well, it isn't. That's the problem.
If you can stand on your own against one single member without dodging, lying, et cetera, I think it just might be the first step to getting it back.
Assuming, of course, you want it back.
 1. Wink wink, nudge nudge.

I wouldn't even know what to debate.  It seems one debate just leads to another.  Any ideas?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 03:28:25 PM
I wouldn't even know what to debate.  It seems one debate just leads to another.  Any ideas?

I'll tell you what I told someone else:
Flip a thousand coins. Chances are you'll get something someone else will want to discuss.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:32:52 PM
Well I have recently watched some debates and they are able to stay on the topic of proving one specific point without having to prove everything around it is true.  For example, they could argue Jesus was resurrected without having to go back and prove God exists.

This is what I need to address before I could debate.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
One-on-one debates focus on one subject and one subject alone. For the sake of discussion, it can be assumed that YHWH is real or that the biblical Jesus is real or even that Leprechauns are actually purple unicorns. It doesn't matter.
However, you can't, say, discuss whether the biblical Jesus really did come back from the dead whilst assuming that the Bible is 100% true or assuming that the biblical Jesus came back from the grave. That's just stupid.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:38:46 PM
To what extent can the Bible be used at all?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 03:39:29 PM
To what extent can the Bible be used at all?

To the extent you and whomever you're debating with agree on.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 03:40:00 PM
To what extent can the Bible be used at all?

You'd have to argue that the bible is reliably evident of the event because of correlating information, such as references to contemporary historical accounts.  ( of course, there are not contemporary historical accounts )
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:47:09 PM
To what extent can the Bible be used at all?

To the extent you and whomever you're debating with agree on.

Okay so who am I most likely to win against?  Haha j/k.  I'm not making excuses but I do lack experience with any sort of formal debate format.  I have argued but never debated.  I once said that if I stated the grass was green that someone would argue.  I didn't go on to say that they would probably win, especially if it was Omen, but this is probably true.

I mean I basically need to learn how to formally debate.  I will try to find some teaching aid about debating, but if I were to partake in such a debate I likely would require some direction throughout the debate.  Would this be a problem?


Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 03:49:37 PM
Dude, all you'd have to do is defend your arguments and/or punch holes in other people's arguments. That's all.

Say, for example, that I argued that people's beliefs altered the universe because the human mind can access the tenth dimension and make the strings vibrate at a different frequency, thus altering reality itself. What would you say in response to this?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 03:52:07 PM
I once said that if I stated the grass was green that someone would argue. 

This was an insulting dismissive statement on your part, in order to avoid responding to requests that you support your claims.

Quote
I mean I basically need to learn how to formally debate.  I will try to find some teaching aid about debating, but if I were to partake in such a debate I likely would require some direction throughout the debate.  Would this be a problem?

You already know many fallacies:

Goal posts shifting is when you change the goal of the debate, red herrings occur when you respond by changing the subject.

Your statements about evolution were adequate strawmen, where you essentially make up a false characterization about something else in order to argue against that rather then the actual subject.

Your various statements regarding me were ad hominems, where you use personal attributes you assign to someone else in part of associating those attributes to their position.

Arguments from personal incredulity, such as it can't possibly be that way!
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 03:56:51 PM
Is the conversation uncivil?

Where and how did it become uncivil?

Well you did start in the very first post by insulting the people you hoped would respond.  That didn't end up being a significant problem in the thread, though, as far as I can tell.  The main problem wasn't the incivility, it was the lack of discussion from the person you'd directed the thread at.

How many times should a person ask for someone to support their position before it is not ok?

It's "not ok" the first time.  Question is, what do you choose to do about it, and why?  Hence my talk about goal/method and whether one of them might best be adjusted.  Goals could be adjusted, as I pointed out, not just methods.

Is it ok if someone is threatened by being asked to support their claims to project that hostility on the one asking them, repeatedly?

Is it ok for a critical mass of U-235 to blow up violently?  Is that even a useful question to ask, given that we can't change the fact?  If someone feels threatened by being asked to support their claims, then perhaps asking them to support their claims is an irrational tool of communication.  Do you disagree?

Why did a total of 5 people have to ask, unsuccessfully, for JST to support his position?

Probably because he's accustomed to poor standards of intellectual discourse (to say the least).  I don't know for sure though.  Do you?

When does it become ok to question why JST refuses to answer for anything?

When the pattern becomes clear.  Oh and questioning, in the sense you're using the word, can be done privately.

When does it become ok to call such behavior open and willful dishonesty?

Depends.  How are you going about it, and to what end?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on May 17, 2012, 03:57:12 PM
One Above All

In theory yeah, but in practice no.  I mean lawyers go to school for several years and learn the "art" of debate.  If it were that simple as just prove your case then their schooling could be shortened.

For example I have noticed that I do tend to "dodge" but this is really not intentional and if I was a lawyer this would be a terrible disservice to my client.  I guess it's just habit.  I dunno.  I just want a chance to clarify anything before I am tagged for "dodging" or for any other derogatory term.

But I will accept a one on one debate.  Are you still available for a debate?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: One Above All on May 17, 2012, 03:58:39 PM
Always, although you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little slow sometimes. I'm trying to deal with some issues which is taking its toll on my head.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 04:06:19 PM
How many times should a person ask for someone to support their position before it is not ok?

It's "not ok" the first time.  Question is, what do you choose to do about it, and why?  Hence my talk about goal/method and whether one of them might best be adjusted.  Goals could be adjusted, as I pointed out, not just methods.

You report to a moderator, moderator responds and asks JST to support issue, other poster come in and explain the same issue.

Result: JST refuses to support own arguments, blames me for not doing so.  No moderation occurs.

And don't give me this 'hence goal/method' bullshit, tell me exactly what you think I should do.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Ambassador Pony on May 17, 2012, 04:18:37 PM
JST will not be answering any further questions in this section of the forum. All his activity is now restricted to the Shelter.  
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 04:42:59 PM
What you should do, Omen, depends on what you want.  If you want to have a meaningful discussion of religion, then you should find someone who is better suited to it than Jst.  That's my advice to you.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 04:49:17 PM
What you should do, Omen, depends on what you want.  If you want to have a meaningful discussion of religion, then you should find someone who is better suited to it than Jst.  That's my advice to you.

So you're ok with accommodating lying for the purpose of discussion denial and avoidance?

Now, don't respond by accusing me of twisting that around on you.  Whether or not you think I should just ignore it and move on, JST is being enabled by refusing to engage openly and honestly.  He's not held accountable and the moderation was irrelevant, we might as well not have rules.   ( Which I'm totally fine with )  In the end I am made out to be a bogey man, because I took it upon myself to bother taking him to task over it.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 04:54:53 PM
Well it's most likely either doing that, or banning him.

As for you, your goals are all over the place.  Now it's not a meaningful and rational discussion you're looking for, it's justice.  Fuck man.  I don't know what you should do now, because you aren't even clear about what you want to accomplish in the first place.

I think that the decision that Pony just announced is great.  He's not ready for the kinds of discussions that this forum expects one to be able to engage in.  This keeps him out of the way.  Let's see how it goes.  It's not likely to go as poorly as all this.

Quote
In the end I am made out to be a bogey man, because I took it upon myself to bother taking him to task over it.

Oh, get off your damned crucifix.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 04:58:17 PM
Quote
In the end I am made out to be a bogey man, because I took it upon myself to bother taking him to task over it.

Oh, get off your damned crucifix.

Stop kicking me when I'm down.  Don't get angry at me after I'm frustrated of being accused of something I didn't do.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: nogodsforme on May 17, 2012, 05:00:23 PM
How do you make a comment in the Shelter? There is no reply button. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 05:01:38 PM
Yeah.  This is kicking you.  It's painful.  It's aggressive.  It's damned violent.

As for being angry - a bit of light profanity does not always mean anger.

And as for you being falsely accused...of what again?  I don't recall doing this.

EDIT:  And as for your smite...you smote me for not being your friend?  Wtf?  I mean, I don't really care about having the smite on my record.  But I do admit to having a "wtf' moment.  This seems out of character for you.  It's so...petty.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Alzael on May 17, 2012, 05:05:49 PM
How do you make a comment in the Shelter? There is no reply button. Am I missing something?

It's restricted to certain members. Basically the nice ones.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 05:15:02 PM
And as for you being falsely accused...of what again?  I don't recall doing this.

EDIT:  And as for your smite...you smote me for not being your friend?  Wtf?  I mean, I don't really care about having the smite on my record.  But I do admit to having a "wtf' moment.  This seems out of character for you.  It's so...petty.

I've been harassed for most of the day for something I never fucking did; without explanation, without citation, and for the most part while being completely ignored by anyone practically begging for an explanation.  It doesn't exactly place one in a nice friendly mood.  Your initial response wasn't to address what I'm accused of, of being 'uncivil', but instead to go off on a tangent about 'goals' where ultimately you're just going to conclude that we should allow people to lie to our faces and treat us like shit.  Accommodating the religious fantasies of others doesn't accomplish anything more than asking them to support their positions ad nauseam, the only net result is that the community is disrupted by someone that has little to contribute.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: nogodsforme on May 17, 2012, 05:17:41 PM
How do you make a comment in the Shelter? There is no reply button. Am I missing something?

It's restricted to certain members. Basically the nice ones.

Am I not nice? Dammit! >:(
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Traveler on May 17, 2012, 05:30:28 PM
Am I not nice? Dammit! >:(

I nominate nogodsforme for Shelter privs. Not that I have any power whatsoever around here, but they let me in, so maybe my vote counts for something.  :police:  You certainly know more about the bible than I do, so could provide more meat for the current discussion he's started.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Azdgari on May 17, 2012, 05:33:47 PM
I've been harassed for most of the day for something I never fucking did; without explanation, without citation, and for the most part while being completely ignored by anyone practically begging for an explanation.

Oh, that.  Meh, you're not uncivil.  You're just a pain to bother to talk to.  Hell, I actually know what all the words mean in your posts, and it's still a pain to try to sort it out a lot of the time.  Communication isn't priority #1 there.

It doesn't exactly place one in a nice friendly mood.

Why should that sort of thing affect your posts?[1]

Your initial response wasn't to address what I'm accused of, of being 'uncivil', but instead to go off on a tangent about 'goals'

I was not aware that the accusations of incivility were the only permitted topic of the thread.  I consider my line of questioning to be entirely on-topic to the spirit of the thread, albeit not to those accusations you mention.  I wasn't making them in the first place, so I'm curious as to why I should have only commented on them?

where ultimately you're just going to conclude that we should allow people to lie to our faces and treat us like shit.

Or restrict them to the Shelter.  An action that I already lauded before you made this post.  So why do you state this falsehood?

Accommodating the religious fantasies of others doesn't accomplish anything more than asking them to support their positions ad nauseam, the only net result is that the community is disrupted by someone that has little to contribute.

Depends on what they're talking about, and what they need.  Why do you think that Jst is still here?  He must know that we're not going to ever convert to be JWs.  I'm not suggesting that he's about to become an atheist, but what purpose do you think that this forum serves for him?
 1. Rhetorical question.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 05:51:07 PM
It doesn't exactly place one in a nice friendly mood.

Why should that sort of thing affect your posts?[1]
 1. Rhetorical question.

Because I'm a human being and, despite my ability to disconnect emotionally from most posts, I can occasionally have my feelings hurt.

Quote
Your initial response wasn't to address what I'm accused of, of being 'uncivil', but instead to go off on a tangent about 'goals'

I was not aware that the accusations of incivility were the only permitted topic of the thread.  I consider my line of questioning to be entirely on-topic to the spirit of the thread, albeit not to those accusations you mention.  I wasn't making them in the first place, so I'm curious as to why I should have only commented on them?

It is the only thing that has dominated in AC, as well as virtually any interaction between JST and I after he began trolling in response to virtually everything/one.  I don't consider your discussion of 'goals' as necessarily on subject or even fruitful, since the end result is to accommodate dishonest equivocating behavior.  I already explained why I responded so often, having done so is irrelevant to me, and only other people seem to have any issue with this.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Zankuu on May 17, 2012, 07:14:36 PM
Omen, I’m a little late to this party and I’m short on time, but I’ll toss in my unorganized two cents.

Your posting style is prickish.

The tone of your posting style has been brought to your attention before. Hell, one of the last threads from the old forum in 2008 has you defending yourself from being “uncivil”, but I guess that's neither here nor there.

I’ve mentioned this to you before. Why do I give a shit? I give a shit because I view your overly aggressive style as enabling. It makes theists want to run off and enables them to do just that by giving them an emotional out: “Omen is mean, goodbye cruel forum”. Take Jst for example: Grimm crafted a specific thread for Jst, extending a warm and friendly hand, and you beat the ever loving snot out of him in that thread. To what end? What was the purpose? What is your goal with Jst? I think Adzgari’s question concerning goals was a legitimate one that you avoided.

With that said I doubt you intend to come off as a prick, but people who visit WWGHA that don’t know you think you’re a prick, like Jst. Yes, you want support for claims, you want accountability, you want them to realize and correct the logical fallacies they commit (I want all of that too). But it seems like you want it all to happen in the very next post. It won’t happen of course. Most of the theists we get here have been indoctrinated since birth. And you’re right, indoctrination doesn’t excuse their behavior, but it is the reason they aren’t able to instantly admit their reasoning is wrong. They know for a fact Jesus rose from the dead and all the other nonsense, so when you present them with contradictions or cold hard facts or anything solid that goes against what they “know”, then it gets confusing and the mental gymnastics begin. It’s precisely the reason you get the dodging, etc.

Do theists dodge my questions? Yes. A theist recently dodged me hard about his god and it’s obsession with blood. Did I allow it to happen? Yes, because I realize my goal of freeing him along with other theists from their mythology won’t happen overnight. It’s going to take time and that’s why I try to be patient with them. It’s why I don’t use your approach and bludgeon them over the head in every single reply, demanding they face the facts. It doesn’t work. If anything it creates hostility and bitterness- neither of which help in a discussion. Yes, some do lie to save face and you’ve rightly called them out on it. But there are those that are lying to themselves and don’t realize it, and you get the unintentional byproduct of that. I think because you were never indoctrinated, the inability for a theist to instantly cut through irrationality will probably always be alien to you.

And I've mentioned this before also, but I don’t think you and some of the others have been particularly patient with the recent theists. For instance Alzael mentioned he has put in “so much” effort with Jst. Jst only has 550-ish posts under his belt. Effort and patience were displayed by those that helped chip away at Vynn’s convictions on the old forum. Before the WWGHA members helped free Vynn he had upward 7,000+ posts as a theist.

I like you, Omen. You have a better bullshit detector than I do and you’re able to recognize flaws in theists’ arguments from more angles than I can, and to that I tip my hat to you. But as far as being personable and caring about the people you’re having a discussion with- you’re a goddamned robot. What Christian is going to listen to the hostile "angry atheist" that seems like he has a chip on his shoulder? Present your compelling facts and hold them accountable, but damn it man, be as polite as you can.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Omen on May 17, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Omen, I’m a little late to this party and I’m short on time, but I’ll toss in my unorganized two cents.

Thanks Zankuu, you're the first person I think that has contributed some useful criticism.  My concern is whether or not I'm being uncivil unfairly, which I have been accused of repeatedly with little regard to promoting solid criticism of realistic examples.  This has increasingly made me angry as people keep making accusations, but never adequately support the kind of accusations they make.

Quote
Your posting style is prickish.

The tone of your posting style has been brought to your attention before. Hell, one of the last threads from the old forum in 2008 has you defending yourself from being “uncivil”, but I guess that's neither here nor there.

I’ve mentioned this to you before. Why do I give a shit? I give a shit because I view your overly aggressive style as enabling. It makes theists want to run off and enables them to do just that by giving them an emotional out: “Omen is mean, goodbye cruel forum”. Take Jst for example: Grimm crafted a specific thread for Jst, extending a warm and friendly hand, and you beat the ever loving snot out of him in that thread. To what end? What was the purpose? What is your goal with Jst? I think Adzgari’s question concerning goals was a legitimate one that you avoided.

I'll agree with you that I am very aggressive and very unapologetic.  However, I don't perceive these things as 'bad', where as some other people do.  I also don't agree with Adzgari's reasoning about what kind of goal I have or even the notion that I avoided explaining myself.  I told him up front that goals change based on what/who you're talking too, which he then later agreed with me.  He seemed to want a more precise goal and I said I wanted the goal of rational discussion, which as a goal has never once strayed from any of my posts.   I do not see the attempt to discuss 'goals' as relevant to the problem, since my goal has never changed.  The complaint seems to extend from having posted a lot and posted aggressively, which I unabashedly admit too.

The primary issue, for me anyway, is this:

How can you have a rational discussion with someone if they refuse to cooperate with supporting their claims?

Now, you say that I am 'enabling' the theist to not take posts seriously, but I can't agree with the criticism considering the theist in question was never taking posts seriously before, during, or afterwards.  My involvement is just one of a long list of convenient excuses as to not take any post seriously, just as I posted the example[1] for azdgari to consider since my primary concern was to get a description of my posting behavior and what is wrong with it.  In that particular example, dozens of individuals and moderators literally plead with the individual to just respond, but his desire to get back at me overwhelms his desire to be honest.  The irony is that some of our 'nice' posters supposedly contributed in this particular thread and unsurprisingly they were as discarded as easily as I.  No matter how nice you are, the result was the same.  Now, there is a lot of ambiguity in this and I'm not saying you're wrong, but the primary example is in my favor here.  Most theist come here with no intention of learning or listening, their primary goal is more often than not to do nothing but confirm what they want to believe.

Quote
With that said I doubt you intend to come off as a prick, but people who visit WWGHA that don’t know you think you’re a prick, like Jst. Yes, you want support for claims, you want accountability, you want them to realize and correct the logical fallacies they commit (I want all of that too). But it seems like you want it all to happen in the very next post. It won’t happen of course. Most of the theists we get here have been indoctrinated since birth. And you’re right, indoctrination doesn’t excuse their behavior, but it is the reason they aren’t able to instantly admit their reasoning is wrong. They know for a fact Jesus rose from the dead and all the other nonsense, so when you present them with contradictions or cold hard facts or anything solid that goes against what they “know”, then it gets confusing and the mental gymnastics begin. It’s precisely the reason you get the dodging, etc.

They have a support system built upon emotional dependencies and often other kinds of rhetorical reinforcements for which to rely upon ( such as tautological in group language in the bible, that either praises those who believe or condemns those who do not believe ).   This is a well known phenomenon and one I've deeply thought about, but I disagree on who is or is not 'enabling' them.  I find that enabling them involves encouraging their confirmation bias through any means possible.  Now that includes being aggressive and unapologetic, but it also includes not challenging their presumptions or engaging in rhetorical games where as long as you never address their presupposition they will always rationalize towards that presuppositional unquestioningly.

Biblical contradictions is the best example of this, where effectively a person has assumed a context for a conclusion that all future rationalizations are made towards.  Whenever you point out a biblical contradiction, that person will always rationalize it through any effective means available to reach the conclusion that they've already assumed.  I see this too often to count when atheist are busy going in little circles, seemingly perplexed at how a theist literally makes up an answer to confirm what they want to believe without ever questioning why they would initially ever believe it.  This is a little bit of a pet peeve of mine watching other non-believers engage in it, but I am not saying this to distract from any other criticism.

Quote
Do theists dodge my questions? Yes. A theist recently dodged me hard about his god and it’s obsession with blood. Did I allow it to happen? Yes, because I realize my goal of freeing him along with other theists from their mythology won’t happen overnight. It’s going to take time and that’s why I try to be patient with them. It’s why I don’t use your approach and bludgeon them over the head in every single reply, demanding they face the facts. It doesn’t work. If anything it creates hostility and bitterness- neither of which help in a discussion. Yes, some do lie to save face and you’ve rightly called them out on it. But there are those that are lying to themselves and don’t realize it, and you get the unintentional byproduct of that. I think because you were never indoctrinated, the inability for a theist to instantly cut through irrationality will probably always be alien to you.

I don't walk into any conversation with the assumption that I'm going to convert anyone and I find the idea a little obnoxious.  Most conversations I choose to take part in are often in the defense of science or human rights, but occasionally a theist can draw my ire if they behave more condescending than I like.  I also disagree with whether or not my tactics do not or have not worked, on the contrary I have had results.  You're going to mention Vynn in the next paragraph, but I really was a fundamental part of those discussions with Vynn and we became close friends.  I bludgeoned him with the same unapologetic fervor as I bludgeon anyone else.  I am also not some kind of inhuman force, I recognize the need for compassion and during the period with Vynn we talked privately quite often, he became a very important friend in a very dire time in my personal life ( the murder of my wifes brother ).  They are not always going to have the same results, just as consistently not calling them on their behavior is going to have any result.  If you don't challenge them emotionally on what they believe emotionally, they'll never budge from their pedestal.

Quote
And I've mentioned this before also, but I don’t think you and some of the others have been particularly patient with the recent theists. For instance Alzael mentioned he has put in “so much” effort with Jst. Jst only has 550-ish posts under his belt. Effort and patience were displayed by those that helped chip away at Vynn’s convictions on the old forum. Before the WWGHA members helped free Vynn he had upward 7,000+ posts as a theist.

I like you, Omen. You have a better bullshit detector than I do and you’re able to recognize flaws in theists’ arguments from more angles than I can, and to that I tip my hat to you. But as far as being personable and caring about the people you’re having a discussion with- you’re a goddamned robot. What Christian is going to listen to the hostile "angry atheist" that seems like he has a chip on his shoulder? Present your compelling facts and hold them accountable, but damn it man, be as polite as you can.

Your description of being robotic is one of a habitual exercise for me, I've already admitted to being OCD in the past and in order for me to operate 'normally' in real life I often have to concentrate on multiple tasks to keep my brain busy.  I am not without emotion, but when I'm just analyzing a post, there really is no investment of emotion in it for me.  The emotion only becomes apparent when a theist refuses to be honest.  I am capable of being nice and don't really believe that I haven't been nice, I think the worst anyone can say is that I have been consistently aggressive and unapologetic.  I do hear your criticism about whether theist will listen or not, but in my experience I've never seen a person come here and convert that wasn't a fence sitter anyway.  On the other hand, I see not taking them to task on their claims as simple enabling them by confirming what they want to believe.

In my personal life I'm married to a wonderful woman, who is a believer, and I do not have a single friend who is an out non-believer.  I have a strange collection of friends from differing religious backgrounds, including a former JW who has progressed out of the cult with my friendship.  Emotional experiences are obviously not alien to me.
 1. ( http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22596.0.html )
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Anfauglir on May 18, 2012, 06:43:03 AM
How do you make a comment in the Shelter? There is no reply button. Am I missing something?

It's restricted to certain members. Basically the nice ones.

Am I not nice? Dammit! >:(

Not everyone is.  I'm not!
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: Zankuu on May 18, 2012, 02:30:18 PM
Omen, I almost regret posting that reply. I was lurking the new forum when it first came on the scene roughly four years ago. In that time I’ve read nearly every one of the thousands of replies that you and the other big timers have posted, so I sometimes forget that you guys don’t know me nearly as well as I like to *think* I know you all. As sad as it sounds, I consider the regulars here like family- both the self dubbed “unfriendlies” and “friendlies” alike (I also don’t like dividing the house like this, but that’s another topic). I connect with you all in a way I can’t with my deluded friends and family. I guess that’s why I didn’t hesitate to call you on this, and I expect you all to do the same if you don’t agree with me. Geez, that sounded mushy…

Thanks Zankuu, you're the first person I think that has contributed some useful criticism. My concern is whether or not I'm being uncivil unfairly, which I have been accused of repeatedly with little regard to promoting solid criticism of realistic examples.  This has increasingly made me angry as people keep making accusations, but never adequately support the kind of accusations they make.

No worries, I knew your thick skin could handle it. I just don’t see how being uncivil at any time is helpful in any circumstance. Can you cite an example? I’m open to the idea that it could be useful, but I’ve never viewed an instance where that was the case and where patience and civility wouldn’t trump it.

Most theist come here with no intention of learning or listening, their primary goal is more often than not to do nothing but confirm what they want to believe.

I absolutely agree here. But don’t forget that we’re encouraging that type of Christian to engage us. Hell, look at the link on the front page- it’s as if we're begging to be converted:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a devoted, unwavering Christian?

If you are a devoted, unwavering Christian, you know that God is real because you have seen him work in your own life. You have also seen God's love work in the lives of many other people, perhaps at your church or in your local community.

Obviously your belief is powerful and very meaningful to you.
 
Would you like to spread your belief to others so that they can see what you see? If so, we would love to hear from you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s a trap if I’ve ever seen one (I think Gray pointed this out also), but it’s a very useful trap in getting Christians to post on the board. I believe the “devoted, unwavering Christian” that we goad into visiting won’t respond to the bludgeoning that perhaps a more open minded Vynn did well with. But to semi quote the Dude, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man."

They have a support system built upon emotional dependencies and often other kinds of rhetorical reinforcements for which to rely upon ( such as tautological in group language in the bible, that either praises those who believe or condemns those who do not believe ).   This is a well known phenomenon and one I've deeply thought about, but I disagree on who is or is not 'enabling' them.  I find that enabling them involves encouraging their confirmation bias through any means possible.  Now that includes being aggressive and unapologetic, but it also includes not challenging their presumptions or engaging in rhetorical games where as long as you never address their presupposition they will always rationalize towards that presuppositional unquestioningly.

Hmph. Makes sense, damn it. I think I’ve made the mistake of grouping all theists together and thinking that one style and approach works, rather than treating them as individuals and acknowledging the uncompromising and confrontational strategy can produce results.

Whenever you point out a biblical contradiction, that person will always rationalize it through any effective means available to reach the conclusion that they've already assumed.  […] This is a little bit of a pet peeve of mine watching other non-believers engage in it, but I am not saying this to distract from any other criticism.

Confirmation bias is a bitch, indeed. I won’t pretend I’m not above it happening to me. There was a badass journal article with a study done on confirmation bias and just how much it affects us. I’ll see if I can find it. It’s worth a read.

You're going to mention Vynn in the next paragraph, but I really was a fundamental part of those discussions with Vynn and we became close friends.  I bludgeoned him with the same unapologetic fervor as I bludgeon anyone else.  […] If you don't challenge them emotionally on what they believe emotionally, they'll never budge from their pedestal.

Good point. I’ll have to really think about this as well. A couple questions: Do you think you were as aggressive with Vynn right out of the gates as you are with our recent theist visitors? And do you think your level of patience with theists has changed at all since hearing the same old arguments over and again?

I do hear your criticism about whether theist will listen or not, but in my experience I've never seen a person come here and convert that wasn't a fence sitter anyway.  On the other hand, I see not taking them to task on their claims as simple enabling them by confirming what they want to believe.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that TOT wasn’t sitting on the fence when he arrived, nor was Vynn. But you’d have to ask TOT and you’re more familiar with Vynn than I am, so you tell me. *shrugs*

I guess what I'd like to see from the members is the ability to evolve and adapt to the theists we get. If a logical castration is resulting in hostility and heavy bleeding from the decent theists, let's try something else. The same would go for when a less than innocent theist is taking advantage of the more gentle approach, then release the hounds. On the other side of the spectrum I've realized I'm guilty of letting too many dodges go unpursued. But I'm not suggesting we change our personality and become someone we're not, however, I do think a little flexibility would be good for the forum.
Title: Re: JsT and Omen try to get along
Post by: rickymooston on June 10, 2012, 07:15:57 PM
Omen the theology of slavery your opponent used is very similar to the one used by the abolishionist league during the civil war.

I think you've raised some fair points though. I recall you quoting Moses's rules.

In terms of Christian slavery, the New Testament instructs believing slaves to serve their masters, including Christian ones with honor.

It should be noted, in Rome, some of the slaves were academics rather than the manual labourers in american slavery.

It is curious that both sides in the civil war judtified their views with the bible.

SPAG?