God is a Fake

[falcon9]

Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.

I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted.  That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum.  As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents).  Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions.  In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.

Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.

In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted.  Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer').  That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.

[jcribb16]

Falcon,

Enough is enough.  People have had more than enough of your "big words" and "know-it-all" attitude.  Who cares if you look at "empty" assertions and opinions?  Who cares if people post and go post something somewhere else?  They aren't required to come back in unless they so choose.  Who cares if you call it not backing some up?  Who cares, who cares, who cares?  You seem to be the only one who cannot handle letting things go and letting people voice things without being challenged in the same ole recorded ways and words.  

Many are concerned at the way you treated tigerlily's thread when she wanted prayer for something.  Yes, you can post where ever you want.  However, kindness and decency to another human being struggling with something and asking fellow Christians for prayer is courtesy and respect - you should not have to be told, like a little kid, to mind your manners.  You could have eased back out of that thread since you yourself say you are not a Christian, or you could have at least said something kind, such as hope all is okay, etc.  Just because we post in this forum, doesn't give anyone the right to be discourteous to others like tigerlily, and to others who wish not to go so far in debate with you because you dissect to the point of confusion for some and ridiculousness for others.

Just be the adult you are and include some courtesy with some posters - prove you are actually human at times, instead of a broken recording.  Enough is enough.

[jcribb16]

Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.

I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted.  That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum.  As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents).  Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions.  In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.

Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.

In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted.  Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer').  That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.

The specifics of the prayer need were obviously "PRIVATE" and God knows what they are, so I don't accept (a word you use often) your intention of being "helpful."

[jcribb16]

quote by falcon

Your baseless assessment of "toxic personality" falls under direct insult and is merely an unsupported opinion.  The further estimation that I'm the "one most FC members have on "ignore" " is a speculation without basis.  It can be concluded, (based upon the extent of this evidence), that your tendency for making unsupported assertions limits the veracity of what you assert.

Ya think so?  I remember seeing other posts where people stated their opinions of you and if you have studied "toxic personalities" at all...well, the shoes fit.  Furthermore, there have been quite a few that have stated they have you on "ignore".  I have no problems looking at the evidence that exists and drawing the same conclusions others on FC have.  It's you that has to try and make the evidence project whatever conclusion it is you are trying to drive home.  (No need to repeat it, like jcribb says, 'it plays like a recording"...) 

jcribb---LOVED your last post so much!   The quotes were awesome too!

Thank you, Sheryl.  Did you happen to notice, too, that he even disagreed with a couple of them - which is challenging the creators of their own quotes?   

[falcon9]

The specifics of the prayer need were obviously "PRIVATE" and God knows what they are ...

So, the assessment that the request was vague and general was accurate.  Further, generalized 'prayers' were requested for vague assistance.

so I don't accept (a word you use often) your intention of being "helpful."

Your acceptance is immaterial to what my intent was, (unless you're presuming to know that my intent was contrary to what I intended ... being the one who expressed that intent and all).  Again, my suggestion to seek more viable alternatives can be shown to be more pragmatically "helpful" than vaguely general wishful-thinking.

[jcribb16]

The specifics of the prayer need were obviously "PRIVATE" and God knows what they are ...

So, the assessment that the request was vague and general was accurate.  Further, generalized 'prayers' were requested for vague assistance.

so I don't accept (a word you use often) your intention of being "helpful."

Your acceptance is immaterial to what my intent was, (unless you're presuming to know that my intent was contrary to what I intended ... being the one who expressed that intent and all).  Again, my suggestion to seek more viable alternatives can be shown to be more pragmatically "helpful" than vaguely general wishful-thinking.

You do not profess to be a Christian.  Therefore, when one asks for prayer for something, God knows what it is, even if we don't.  When we pray for the person and the need they are asking prayer for, that's all we have to do - is pray for the person and that God will answer or take care of the need is His way, will, and timing.  So there is no need for any of us, including you, who does not pray, to be seeking more "viable" assistance of specifics.  Period.

[Falconer02]

In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted.  Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer').  That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.

I guess I see all the pieces to the puzzle now. I'll try not to dive into the drama, but I will say that even though you were realistically trying to find the problem and help by offering authentic tried-and-true advice for someone, you're arguing with people who do not value such things. An example would be telling someone with a bad cold/flu to not take homeopathic medicine and instead go see a doctor, even though they adamantly believe that 'meds' work and (irrationally) value it greatly. Ultimately they're in charge of wasting their own money. There's a point where one should just roll their eyes and walk away from such silliness.

http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/1526/8208_4bfe.gif

(btw if I sound antagonistic towards any of the parties here, I apologize)

[falcon9]

Falcon,

Julie, it's "falcon9", (so as to avoid conflating respondants).

Enough is enough.  People have had more than enough of your "big words" and "know-it-all" attitude.

Conversely, while there's been enough attempts to suppress/censor dissent, I have not proclaimed any similar intention to silence the evangelising religious opinions which are being challenged. 

Who cares if you look at "empty" assertions and opinions?

'Care' is irrelavent; if an opinion or assertion is empty, (lacks veracity), I'm as free to challenge it as the OP is to delare it publically. 

Who cares if people post and go post something somewhere else?  They aren't required to come back in unless they so choose.  Who cares if you call it not backing some up?

For someone who is using that word repetitiously, one might conclude that _you_ "care" enough to try a 'so what?' "rebuttal".  Such does not actually constitute a rebuttal; it's a non sequitur.  To reiterate; it is not mandatory/forced/required/polite for anyone to back up an empty assertion/opinion.  It is also not mandatory/forced/polite/required to "accept" such at face value nor, to let such go unquestioned/unchallenged.

Who cares, who cares, who cares?  You seem to be the only one who cannot handle letting things go and letting people voice things without being challenged in the same ole recorded ways and words.

If you don't "care", one solution is to actually "ignore" such challenges and dissenting opinions as cause sufficient discomfort to "ignore" them by not ignoring them.  This is your choice.  If the choice is made to keep posting the same old religious beliefs over and over and over again, the ones doing so seem to have the oddly unreasonable expectation of different forms of dissent/challenge.  Maybe it isn't all that odd, given other inherent/pre-existing unreasonable expectations possessed by so many religious adherents.
 

Many are concerned at the way you treated tigerlily's thread when she wanted prayer for something.  Yes, you can post where ever you want.

Gee thanks; good to know I have your unneeded permission to do so.  Until the religious adherents came after me in that thread, my sole contribution was to suggest more viable alternative practical solutions.  Apparently, such a suggestion was considered by some to be less helpful to a generalized problem than some really vague wishful-thinking, ('prayers'). 

However, kindness and decency to another human being struggling with something and asking fellow Christians for prayer is courtesy and respect -

Why is it that a more pragmatic suggestion to seek viable solutions is considered by xtians to exclude "kindness and decency"?  After all, xtians don't have the market cornered on such attributes and it is extremely presumptuous to implicitly assume that non-xtian suggestions were 'unkind'/'indecent'/'rude', etc..  In fact, I could consider such presumption to be rude and unkind of the xtians stating implying it.

you should not have to be told, like a little kid, to mind your manners.

Whereas you "should" not have to be told that attempting to impose your personal notion of "manners", (a misnomer for an attempt to suppress a dissenting viewpoint), on others.
 

You could have eased back out of that thread since you yourself say you are not a Christian ...

That could have been done; if the thread was an exclusive xtian country-club.  Alas, it isn't; it was publically posted in an open forum, (not a private list, whether or not a declaration excluded non-xtians was made).
 

or you could have at least said something kind, such as hope all is okay, etc.

Again, a suggestion to seek more viable solutions than well-wishing wishful-thinking was made to be helpful and "kind".  After all, no one forced me to reply at all; that was my choice.  Your attempts to censor my choice notwithstanding.
 

Just because we post in this forum, doesn't give anyone the right to be discourteous to others like tigerlily, and to others who wish not to go so far in debate with you because you dissect to the point of confusion for some and ridiculousness for others.

The characterization of being "discourteous" is largely subjective, (especially in this instance of religious bias, as opposed to non-religious dissent).
One solution to avoid debating empty opinions/assertions is to not engage in them, (rather than trying to suppress/censor what you find confusing or, challenging point of view).

[falcon9]

You do not profess to be a Christian.

Correct; I've neither stated nor, implied otherwise.  The part we disagree about concerns the same freedom to post on a subject as xtians have, (and repeated attempts to suppress opposing viewpoints, which are becoming tediously repetitious).
 

Therefore, when one asks for prayer for something, God knows what it is, even if we don't.  So there is no need for any of us, including you, who does not pray, to be seeking more "viable" assistance of specifics.

Following that "line of reasoning", (which admittedly does not involve anything approaching reasoning in regards to religious beliefs - it's more a figure of speech in this instance); such a deity is presumed by xtians to 'already know' what's being prayed for therefore, there is no need to ask.  If the asking part is required, then it can be maintained that suggesting viable solutions instead is just as required.  Favoring the religious options over the secular ones is less likely to produce a solution to the problem and is ultimately more 'unkind' and 'unhelpful' than the proposed alternatives.

[falcon9]

I guess I see all the pieces to the puzzle now. I'll try not to dive into the drama, but I will say that even though you were realistically trying to find the problem and help by offering authentic tried-and-true advice for someone, you're arguing with people who do not value such things.

While I realised from the context of the thread that more unrealistic well-wishing was being sought, (presumably for a sense of emotional comfort, rather than alleviating the underlying problems), my intent actually was to be more pragmatically helpful than that.  Whether or not such advice is valued or taken isn't really my responsibility; that rests upon others.

An example would be telling someone with a bad cold/flu to not take homeopathic medicine and go see a doctor, even though they adamantly believe that 'meds' work and (irrationally) value it greatly. Ultimately they're in charge of wasting their own money. There's a point where one should just roll their eyes and walk away from such silliness.

http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/1526/8208_4bfe.gif

Despite such ingratitude as may be expressed by some, I remain cautiously-optimistic that not everyone is a complete idiot.

(btw if I sound antagonistic towards any of the parties here, I apologize)

I found nothing whatsoever "antagonistic" in what you've posted.  Any apparent abounding misperceptions from others notwithstanding.

[Falconer02]

Despite such ingratitude as may be expressed by some, I remain cautiously-optimistic that not everyone is a complete idiot.

I do too, though I generally try to focus my energies on people that are my age or younger. The older generations tend to be more susceptible to superstitious thinking just because they've grown so accustomed to it throughout their lives and fear any changes to these ancient ideas (ironically enough).

[falcon9]

though I generally try to focus my energies on people that are my age or younger. The older generations tend to be more susceptible to superstitious thinking just because they've grown so accustomed to it throughout their lives and fear any changes to these ancient ideas (ironically enough).

While I can certainly see the efficacy of your approach, I still maintain that the possibility of open-mindedness remains, (even within older, indoctrinated generations), no matter how improbable that may be.

[SherylsShado]

Thank you, Sheryl.  Did you happen to notice, too, that he even disagreed with a couple of them - which is challenging the creators of their own quotes?  

  Yes, I noticed...and I could care less what he disagrees with because he's so full of hot air that it's ridiculous.  He also seems to have a ridiculous amount of time to waste on FC...    

      "He is a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself." Benjamin Disraeli
    

[cbrown25]

Why is everybody arguing about this [***]? Can somebody not believe in what they want nowdays? This is some bull..

[admin edit: profanity]

[falcon9]

I could care less what he disagrees with because he's so full of hot air that it's ridiculous.

The evidence of your previous multiple replies contradicts your claim about not caring while conversely providing no evidence to support your "hot air" opinion.  On the other hand, several examples of your making empty assertions, ("hot air"), exist to validate a counter-claim.

He also seems to have a ridiculous amount of time to waste on FC...

While it doesn't take as much time as apparently assumed, what does that have to do with your abymal inability to meet challenges to your "hot air" claims?     

      "He is a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself." Benjamin Disraeli

Your Disreali quote does not apply to my questioning of unsupported claims; the arguments made are not "inconsistent" and neither do they seek to "malign an opponent", (they do however, seem to bring out a tendency for opponents to malign me - as this misapplied maligning post shows).