Christian inspiration

[Falconer02]

If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.

...says the 12 year old religious zealot who has never posted a coherent argument...

[duroz]

If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.

...says the 12 year old religious zealot who has never posted a coherent argument...

12 years old, hmmm?   Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then -

[duroz]

If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.

How does someone's rational questioning of posted NON-factual comments and statements, which provide absolutely no proof or evidence to back them up, become "intolerant hatred of all things biblical"??

It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).         

[falcon9]

If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.

How does someone's rational questioning of posted NON-factual comments and statements, which provide absolutely no proof or evidence to back them up, become "intolerant hatred of all things biblical"??

It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).         

That's probably due to JJ being 'confused' as to the difference between "intolerant hatred", (like he has of the ability to reason), and a rational conclusion that religious superstitions are illogical and opposed.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

[Abrupt]

You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation.  I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence').  The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it.  Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.

Abrupt's trying to redefine another word now?

I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word.  I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool.  This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'.  If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school.  Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.

[Abrupt]

Abrupt's trying to redefine another word now?

Apparently so however, doubtless he will deny that he's attempting redefinitions, (despite his posts where he attempts redefinitions), nor cherry-picking definitions.  Heck, if you look, you'll see that he even denies denying some things.  As they say, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
 

It was you that cherry picked definitions and I proved this with dramatic emphasis.  When I took a definition from your same source and presented it in contrast to the one that you used you  balked and stated it was not valid.  The definition I am using is sourced to be over 2000 years old, how old is your definition?

[Abrupt]

I know your mental capacity ...

No, you don't.  As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster.  I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
                                       

Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.  You seem to think that your close guardedness and frequent attacks seem to afford you some secrecy, but you fail to realize they actually spotlight you and highlight your weaknesses.

You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious.  Speaking of trolls I found a video about you:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your specious diatribes and claims and attacks.  My religion does not blind me, it actually makes me aware of far more than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.

That's a great video,Abrupt.That's exactly the way I picture Falcon9.

If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.

It was just a random video I found and apparently it was a family video of his, or at least he said it was but you know how he lies.

You are correct about his blindness and such is all the more hilarious with hypocrisy of him labeling others that way to never even get a glimpse who holds that position most of all.  He claims to hate preaching and religion more than most I have ever met yet he preaches his religion more than any southern revivalist 'bible thumper'.  He loves to accuse faith of being blind, without understanding what faith even is and is entirely unaware of his own (complete) blindness.  The stark contrast between his accusations and the reality of his qualities is unbelievably clear for all to see and it amazes me that none in his flock are aware of this anymore than he is (and this is made more comical when you factor in all the blustering they put on about critical thinking and logic and rationality).  You are dead on accurate here with your conclusion.

[Abrupt]

It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).         

It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often.  He is rather like that Clark character in 'Good Will Hunting', except that in his case he seems to have even less of a petulant understanding than Clark possessed.  Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.

[falcon9]

It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).         

It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often.

You're quite the gossipy little girl, aren't you? It's doubtful that you have more than "a bit of education" nor developed sufficient reasoning skill to debate without interjecting slander, attempting to redefine words which already have consensual meanings and engaging in outright lies.
 

Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.

Such an empty assertion is nominally made by those who have a limited intellect, ability to reason and consider words with more than one syllable to be "jargon", (which merely emphasizes their own lack of vocabulary and their resorting to 'flames' in lieu of debate).


"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

[falcon9]

He claims to hate preaching and religion more than most I have ever met yet he preaches his religion ...

I don't have a religion to preach, you abject moron, (flame-for-flame policy in force). 

He loves to accuse faith of being blind, without understanding what faith even is ...

The term has already been defined, (both illogically/in a circular manner by 'true believers' and logically, by those not restricted by irrationality).

The stark contrast between his accusations and the reality of ...

The "stark contrast" there regards the specious emptiness of "faith" without substance and recognising the difference between things that don't require "faith" to exist because they have substance.  Granted, psychologically-unstable people will often believe in things that aren't 'there'.

... it amazes me that none in his flock ... 

No flock, no preaching - that's for your mind-blinded xtian fundies and for those who can reason to oppose if they choose to.  You lies are beyond tedious, "Abrupt" and such trolling is transparent even to the dimmer xtians, (although it still eludes you, who denies every lie - sometimes immediately following your lies - possibly because even Ron White can't fix your abject stupidity).

"Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer

[Falconer02]

I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word.  I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool.  This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'.  If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school.  Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.

Oh please. I don't feel the need to again backtrack and quote since your ego will simply brush it off as something completely different from what I could quote. You display selective hearing. You can't admit when you're wrong. You don't know how to compromise. You even name call when there's no foundation for it. I've already learned my lesson from your arguments. Strangely it would seem Falcon9 hasn't, and he has been arguing with you for much longer. So you know what? Let's just forget about the massive amount of facts presented against your flawed arguments. Let's forget about the numerous logical fallacies you present in every one of your posts. Atheism is a religion. Religious faith isn't blind. Just because you and your very few cherry-picked instances say so. Congrats.

12 years old, hmmm?   Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then -

I enjoyed this so much, I looked it up on google and was surprised you didn't show the bottom of the page which said "Customers who bought titles by Pastor Deacon Fred also bought titles by these authors: Adolf Hitler, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, George Bush, Jorgé Luis Borges" HA!

[falcon9]

[quote from Abrupt liar]I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word.  I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool.  This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'.  If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school.  Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.[/quote]

Oh please. I don't feel the need to again backtrack and quote since your ego will simply brush it off as something completely different from what I could quote. You display selective hearing. You can't admit when you're wrong. You don't know how to compromise. You even name call when there's no foundation for it. I've already learned my lesson from your arguments. Strangely it would seem Falcon9 hasn't, and he has been arguing with you for much longer.

I'll admit to giving the "Abrupt" liar additional rope to 'hang himself' since he'd accomplished that by now, (and has provided sufficient evidence here of how far some faith-blinded religious fundie xtians will go in their superstitious self-deceptions). The extra rope was provided to gage whether or not the fundie liar would continue to represent otehr xtians in such a 'good light'.  Kudos, nyet?

So you know what? Let's just forget about the massive amount of facts presented against your flawed arguments. Let's forget about the numerous logical fallacies you present in every one of your posts. Atheism is a religion. Religious faith isn't blind. Just because you and your very few cherry-picked instances say so. Congrats.

[quote from Abrupt liar]12 years old, hmmm?   Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then - [/quote]

I enjoyed this so much, I looked it up on google and was surprised you didn't show the bottom of the page which said "Customers who bought titles by Pastor Deacon Fred also bought titles by these authors: Adolf Hitler, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, George Bush, Jorgé Luis Borges" HA!

He managed to abruptly 'flame' himself, did he?  That saves some effort.

[duroz]

It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible). 

It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often.  He is rather like that Clark character in 'Good Will Hunting', except that in his case he seems to have even less of a petulant understanding than Clark possessed.  Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.

So let me see if I understand this correctly........(although I'm apparently incapable of doing so)
According to your post, I am:
*Unfamiliar with the religions (no argument there) and OTHER SUBJECTS (and from the tone of your post, I can only assume that means ANY and ALL subjects)
*Lacking ANY education whatsoever, and
*I have more "pride in my intellect and reason than I possess in intellect and reason"

This (personal) attack against me was totally uncalled for, and not very nice.
NEVER have I claimed to be knowledgeable about ANY religion;  And you don't know what other subjects I may or may not be familiar with, nor do you know a d**n thing about how educated or uneducated I am.

Pride in my intellect and reason (both of which I am short on)?  Again, you don't have anything to base your opinion on - you don't know anything about me, my pride, or my "intellect and reason".

And you managed to get all your "snidely" comments about me posted, while you avoided responding to the simple but true point I made.....
why would ANY person educate themselves on a subject if they have such a hatred for it? It doesn't make any sense. 

[Abrupt]

It appears to me from reading his posts, that he is rather knowledgeable and well-read on the subject of religion(s), - as well as other subjects - and I fail to see how someone who has a "hatred of all things biblical" would educate themselves on religion -(the bible).         

It might appear that way to someone who was unfamiliar with the religions and other subjects, but for those of us with a bit of education we can easily see that his posits are remedial (at best) and absurd most often.

You're quite the gossipy little girl, aren't you? It's doubtful that you have more than "a bit of education" nor developed sufficient reasoning skill to debate without interjecting slander, attempting to redefine words which already have consensual meanings and engaging in outright lies.
 

Such style of argument by prestigious jargon tends to only fool those that have more pride in their intellect and reason than they actually possess in intellect and reason.

Such an empty assertion is nominally made by those who have a limited intellect, ability to reason and consider words with more than one syllable to be "jargon", (which merely emphasizes their own lack of vocabulary and their resorting to 'flames' in lieu of debate).


"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

And yet with all your pompous claims I have revealed your dishonesty, ineptitude, hypocrisy, and ignorance.  You have been reduced to a squawking chicken who pecks at its own droppings.  I am quite sure that I have a far more extensive education than you do, both formally and informally -- since you brought the subject up.  My debate style has been mostly gained through practice,  with some insight from creative writing experience and legal proceedings.  Regardless, it has been more than sufficient to pluck your feathers and reveal you for what you are.  You are free to classify me however you wish, but be aware that however low you place me puts you even lower since I have thoroughly bested you here at virtually (if not entirely) every point and turn.

[Abrupt]

I challenge you to show where I have tried to redefine any word, much less 'another' word.  I can see from your weak statement that the only proof you need is that Falcon9 claimed it happened and this makes you the fool that follows the fool.  This supposed 'redefinition' you speak of that I am alluding to is over 2000 years old and was in the book that used the word to define the usage of the word -- that hardly qualifies as any 'redefinition'.  If your book includes a glossary of terms you are expected to use that glossary and if you are not aware of this you need to go back to grade school.  Recant your statement or show proof or hold the label of liar alongside Falcon9.

Oh please. I don't feel the need to again backtrack and quote since your ego will simply brush it off as something completely different from what I could quote. You display selective hearing. You can't admit when you're wrong. You don't know how to compromise. You even name call when there's no foundation for it. I've already learned my lesson from your arguments. Strangely it would seem Falcon9 hasn't, and he has been arguing with you for much longer. So you know what? Let's just forget about the massive amount of facts presented against your flawed arguments. Let's forget about the numerous logical fallacies you present in every one of your posts. Atheism is a religion. Religious faith isn't blind. Just because you and your very few cherry-picked instances say so. Congrats.

12 years old, hmmm?   Well, that's ALMOST teen-aged, I guess.....I think this would be OK for you then -

I enjoyed this so much, I looked it up on google and was surprised you didn't show the bottom of the page which said "Customers who bought titles by Pastor Deacon Fred also bought titles by these authors: Adolf Hitler, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, George Bush, Jorgé Luis Borges" HA!

I have done far too many shameful things to posses much trace of pride or ego.  I know the real reason that you don't wish to backtrack is because there is nothing there in support of your false claim.  I have actually admitted being wrong here within these forums, something I am sure your beloved Falcon9 could never do (even though I have repeatedly proven his lies for all to see and yet you and him seem to be blind to them).

I was under the assumption that me and you had already established terms of what was provable or not (in fact it was you that set the anchor and I agreed with your position)?  It wasn't even that "atheism is a religion" or "religions faith isn't blind" it was of the unprovable and disagreeable and a reasonable point to take it to that continuation would be futile.  The facts favor me and not him and I would again ask you to look back at these so called 'logical fallacies' I have been accused of committing and you will see that they are simply accusations by Falcon9 and not actualities.  I am particular in my methodology and I stick to the truth of what I know and I don't rely on or require fallacious tricks to prove my points (I bring things to the open and forefront and I do not obfuscate and divert like Falcon9 does).  My arguments have been strong and logical and they do no rely upon emotion or hearsay as does those of Falcon9.  The only reason my endless debate continues with Falcon9 is because he cannot admit defeat and also I will not allow him to harass and try to bully others (I have ever been drawn to challenge bullies).