Ponder this for a sec

[JediJohnnie]

Quote from Falconer02:
"I'd rather argue with people who enjoy a friendly and honest in-depth debate rather than those who speak like super villains from comic books."

Unfortunatly,Falconer has exhibited anything but "friendly" debate in the past,so I find that comment disingenuous to say the least.His problem is obvious.When someone like Abrupt will devote days to continuing a debate,he loses interest.Where,if someone debating him does the same,he resorts to bating and name calling.

[falcon9]

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters -- especially when you contrast the atheist claims regarding Christian scripture.

What "atheist scripture"?  There's no such thing.  Which "atheist claims"; the ones contrasting an evidential basis with xtian scriptural claims lacking any evidentiary basis?

That you say there isn't any such animal does not make that truth...

Your bland and empty denial does not constitute refutation nor do your empty assertions confer any accuracy.

(especially considering your propensity for dishonesty and outright lying).  

The empty assertions of a compulsive/pathological liar such as yourself hold no weight, though they are ironic considering you lying to accuse others of lying.

The best proof is actually your continual usage of such atheist scripture to make/support your claims/arguments.

There's no such thing as "atheist scripture".  No 'book of atheism', no 'atheist priesthood', no specifically 'atheistic belief system'.  There is only your specious declaration still attempting to redefine atheism as a "religion" when it's been demonstrated otherwise.  Recognising that your continued irrational insistance is a result of a systemic deficiency/inability to reason logically, (rather than in the sophist, invalid-premise way you prefer over rationality and actual logic), it may be more efficient to simply disparage your lying nonsense.

It is hilarious, pure, simple, and as clear and revealing into the hypocrisy of atheism as possible.

The only hypocrisy there is your strawman presentation of atheism as a "religion".  That's been refuted, despite your empty insistance to the contrary.

You have a great tendency to use words that you do not understand. Considering the definition of 'strawman' ...
[/quote]

Considering it in reference to your fabricated argument that "atheism is a religion", your "strawman" argument was and is an attempt to conflate your specious supertitious religious beliefs with "atheism" by falsely characterizing atheism as a religious belief system.  It's a form of strawman argumentation in that such a false argument creates something diversionary to attack/defend in the 'hope' that the originally-debated subject will be buried under the diversionary tactic.  Just so you know, your specious superstitios religious belief system still lacks a rational basis.  There's no logic to blind faith and you remain a documented liar.

[falcon9]

Quote from Falconer02:
"I'd rather argue with people who enjoy a friendly and honest in-depth debate rather than those who speak like super villains from comic books."

Unfortunatly,Falconer has exhibited anything but "friendly" debate in the past,so I find that comment disingenuous to say the least.His problem is obvious.

While you're judging others disingenuously, re-read your own posts which come across as "super villians from comic books". Given your posted preferences regarding comic books and their contents, Falconeer02's remark was accurately dead-center.

When someone like Abrupt will devote days to continuing a debate,he loses interest.Where,if someone debating him does the same,he resorts to bating and name calling.

Your "super villian" 'Abrupt' has devoted days to continuing a debate by falsely claiming victory after a loss, lying profusely during a debate, resorting to name-calling even before he's lost the debate and generally dodging the irrationality of the superstitious religious belief system you and he seem to share.  That would superficially be xtianity, since if stupidity were a 'religion', you'd be on it's church council.

[Falconer02]

While you and I disagree on views about Christianity and/or Atheism, and we have had ups and downs (mainly over the names given to Christian beliefs,) there were still the elements of friendliness, honesty, and both sides "listening" to each other, while also asking questions, challenging respectfully, and answering with the best possible answers both sides could offer.  Although there were times, it would definitely get way sparky.  It's also when, taking a breather or cool down, other conversation takes place in the meantime, such as things we do agree with, job loss woes, seeing how someone is doing, making a lighthearted joke, etc., and then going back into the debate mode.

I'm glad someone else sees the overall positive feel of the arguments here. Atleast what they should normally be.

Unfortunatly,Falconer has exhibited anything but "friendly" debate in the past,so I find that comment disingenuous to say the least.His problem is obvious.When someone like Abrupt will devote days to continuing a debate,he loses interest.Where,if someone debating him does the same,he resorts to bating and name calling.

Classic internet trolling! Ahhh I love this guy!

[duroz]

Quote from Falconer02:
"I'd rather argue with people who enjoy a friendly and honest in-depth debate rather than those who speak like super villains from comic books."

Unfortunatly,Falconer has exhibited anything but "friendly" debate in the past,so I find that comment disingenuous to say the least.His problem is obvious.When someone like Abrupt will devote days to continuing a debate,he loses interest.Where,if someone debating him does the same,he resorts to bating and name calling.  

I'm thinking you aren't very clear here on which FC falcon/Falconer member (and "number") you are referring to......
you should post their "complete" 'nym - what they actually go by here on the board - when you post comments

[Abrupt]

Quote from Falconer02:
"I'd rather argue with people who enjoy a friendly and honest in-depth debate rather than those who speak like super villains from comic books."

Enjoying a friendly and honest in-depth debate is something I totally agree with.  (*Abrupt - this is not directed towards you - I'm commenting on the one line of Falconer02's in and of itself.) 

There are a couple who refuse to do what you are speaking of, and instead, the debates are filled with intolerance of the other views, period, including the big words, disrespect, and name calling.  While you and I disagree on views about Christianity and/or Atheism, and we have had ups and downs (mainly over the names given to Christian beliefs,) there were still the elements of friendliness, honesty, and both sides "listening" to each other, while also asking questions, challenging respectfully, and answering with the best possible answers both sides could offer.  Although there were times, it would definitely get way sparky.  It's also when, taking a breather or cool down, other conversation takes place in the meantime, such as things we do agree with, job loss woes, seeing how someone is doing, making a lighthearted joke, etc., and then going back into the debate mode.

I just wanted to comment on that - I like the way you "said" your comment. 

You would be right to call me out when it is needed (and you may be in this case if you did or suggested it as a consideration), and I implore you to please do when the need arrises.  My behavior here has not been exemplary, but it is the nature of who I am and I welcome observation from those with a more 'decent' perspective than myself.

I know that I get heavy handed here sometimes but it is never for the purpose of being mean or vile (well I sometimes will inject comical crudeness into my statements but even such is restrained from my potentiality).  Certain things tick me off and will invoke my rage.  Dishonesty is number one of those and I tend to fire back severely at such things.  I don't mind certain things which seem to bother other people (such as name calling -- my friends and I trade crude banter that could well make drunken sailor's blush).  I am a Christian, but I am the sort that you would not want to risk with saying grace or public prayer but I am the sort you would want with helping the neighbor in need or assisting with menial and tedious labors.

When I see Christians harassed or bullied I will focus on those that do it and I will deliver as much venom as I can to them.  I don't tire and I don't easily become bored and so I may continue to the point that most would find unreasonable or even a bit insane.  I am this way in real life too, if someone harms the helpless to my knowledge they will have me to deal with and I know the best results are gained by making them understand the costs of their actions will be more severe than their perception of the damage of their actions.  Since I can never be certain about their interpretations I will deliberately extend into a category of excessive by my understandings.  I don't pursue such things with a focus of revenge, although I cannot honestly say that they are always without ire.

[Abrupt]

Fist off, abstinence is not a sex position and I never made such a claim (wow did that strawman of yours go up in flames awfully damned fast).  Guess what, though, and with a comical twist in my revelation I will certainly tell you that abstinence is a position on sex.  Amazing isn't it, what a little bit of clarity and logic can build in place of your strawman?  We clearly can see that atheism compared to religion is nothing like abstinence compared to a sex position so we find that in addition to a strawman you have committed a more grievous error here in simple comprehension and understanding

You're attempting to skew the example made to make it seem like something completely different than was originally stated. I'm under the impression the example that Bill Maher had made did not register with you. If this is the case, let me refresh-

- Abstinence can be seen as a position on sex (rejection of).

- Atheism can be seen as a position on religions (rejection of).

-Abstinence has no substance pertaining to sexual positions (unless you consider the lack of sexual positions to be considered a sexual position ((aka doggy style is on the same level of not having sex outright)), which is enormously illogical)

- Atheism has no substance pertaining to religions.

Focus in on your shifting of topic to denote "-Abstinence has no substance pertaining to sexual positions" as if this is some clever attempt to equate it with "... a position of sex (rejection of).".  What happens when we do proper substitution?  We then get Abstinence has no substance pertaining to sex which falls flat immediately.

Atheism is a religion so I cannot see how it can have "no substance pertaining to religions".  Even if you broke it down to another particular religion, such as Christianity" you would find that it does have substance pertaining to Christianity in its insistence that such is false.  It seems that it is absolutely dependent upon other religions and thus it cannot survive upon its own and with such awareness we must say that it is entirely necessary that these other religions exist or else it would not.

I am quite sure you don't want to rekindle the debate, especially since you lost it most handily.

Whatever you say. Let it be written that I defended practicality and basic terminology on my gravestone.

You did to what you reasoned as honest and sane.  I give you that.  At one point you were even more honest and reasonable than most of the rest of us when you gave your pronouncement that we were seemingly at an impasse and that sanity would reason we would not be able to convince each other any further.  I agreed and it seemed as if you left the battlefield under such an armistice.  I felt we had an understanding and it was one I found quite agreeable.

Later you came at me with what I perceived as insanity and hatred where I had done nothing to provoke it and still held in agreement to the terms in which you laid out initially.  What was I to make of this?  If what you said originally was true then this would seem to be rash and irrational.  The only alternate consideration I could make was that your original 'truce' was but a ruse while you rested and rebuilt your armies (sorry for my use of analogies but it is the best way for me to describe it as I see it) and then later attacked again when you felt such was right.  Basically I saw it as if you left the field under a flag of truce that you initiated and then while under treaty you attacked me without warning.  What other determination and reaction would you expect of me?

I am strong and dogged and have no problems defeating you again in another of these arguments.

I'd rather argue with people who enjoy a friendly and honest in-depth debate rather than those who speak like super villains from comic books.

I am in complete agreement with you on this.  I like friendly and challenging debate that can occasionally be pushed -- but always kept respectful and to a purpose.  I find the harsher and more heavy handed approach that I was forced into to be counter productive to the original pursuit, but necessary in this case to indicate the lengths I will go to and the unwavering intent behind such ends.

Cool a comic book super villain.  Please let me be Mysterio or even the Green Goblin, just don't let it be Boomerang or Vulture or Walrus!

[Abrupt]

(especially considering your propensity for dishonesty and outright lying).  

The empty assertions of a compulsive/pathological liar such as yourself hold no weight, though they are ironic considering you lying to accuse others of lying.

Shall we perform the exercise you failed thrice previously (if not more), again?  I have absolutely proven you a liar on multiple occasions and used your own posts as evidence.  You set a test to determine who was lying and I won the test and you were completely incapable of even qualifying and provided absolutely nothing at all in your support/defense -- you didn't even make an attempt as you could find not a single case of my lying or even anything you could try to interpret as lying.

At anytime I can produce your own words showing your lies, just as I have done so previously.  You, though, cannot say the same about me.  This is what you have been reduced to, a once respectable adversary who is now nothing more than a discredited hack with grandiose delusions.  The shame here is what you did to yourself, not anything I have done, and it is a waste of talent as even though I don't agree with you on much of anything you at one time possessed a style which was effective and steadfast and worthy of consideration.

[reiddb]

I love the Lord, my God, with all my heart and recoginize His all power, all knowing, and all consuming presence.!  Glory to Him forever!

[falcon9]

I have absolutely proven you a liar on multiple occasions and used your own posts as evidence.

No, you have not; you have merely falsely claimed to have done this, (which makes those claims additional lies). 

At anytime I can produce your own words showing your lies, just as I have done so previously.

Produce them, in context and without your misinterpretations/redifinitions and no lie will be shown. 

You, though, cannot say the same about me. 

Not only can I say this, unlike you, I have shown your lies by quoting your posts in context.  Your current ruse is obvious; the attempt to rewrite archived history by hoping no one goes back and checks, (because few would), is the seared-in brand of a lying troll.  You can sit there under your bridge, pseudo-smugly assured that most people reading lengthy posted exchanges either won't go back through the archives or, merely go by the most recent posted exchanges to bolster your lies. 

On the other hand, I haven't lied and instead, have out-reasoned your specious arguements at every turn, (which apparently ticks your narcissistic ego off to the extent of registering on the NPI scale).

This is what you have been reduced to, a once respectable adversary who is now nothing more than a discredited hack with grandiose delusions. 

You're projecting again, narcissist liar.  It's still tedious when you falsely claim 'victory' from the ashes of defeat. 

It remains that atheism is not a religion and you haven't substantiated your claim that it ever was.  It remains that your religious beliefs are based upon nothing substantial and instead, rest upon an illogical lack of evidence to sustain them by way of blind faith alone.  It remains that you're either a compulsive or, pathological liar, (diagnosis pending a professional clinician).  It remains that you cannot refute the fact that your 'religious faith' is irrational nonsense and instead, try these lame 'counter-attacks' to divert attention from that fact.  Your remains begin to stink, bury them.

[brum7814]

I'm running out of topics to pick from and I'm a few short of my 30.  If God destroyed adam and eve.  Shaaaaaazam!  If God destroyed adam and eve, he could just make another adam and eve.  The dude has a reset button.  I'm sure of it.  =-P

[Falconer02]

Focus in on your shifting of topic to denote "-Abstinence has no substance pertaining to sexual positions" as if this is some clever attempt to equate it with "... a position of sex (rejection of).".  What happens when we do proper substitution?  We then get Abstinence has no substance pertaining to sex which falls flat immediately.

1.) I did not shift the topic. The abstinence example was from another thread and is a simple parallel showing the illogical stance. If you want, I could shift the example to "not playing baseball is a sport."

2.) I'm unclear of what you're stating here. If it helps make it more clear, let me add "the act of sex" into my previous post.

Atheism is a religion so I cannot see how it can have "no substance pertaining to religions".  Even if you broke it down to another particular religion, such as Christianity" you would find that it does have substance pertaining to Christianity in its insistence that such is false.  It seems that it is absolutely dependent upon other religions and thus it cannot survive upon its own and with such awareness we must say that it is entirely necessary that these other religions exist or else it would not.

Your argument here is moot because it stems from a non-existant foundation. Religions (both alive and dead) do exist. If they didn't, this argument over terminology would never happen. I can agree with you from there, but reality states that religions exist and therefore the option to avoid religion will always be available.

Later you came at me with what I perceived as insanity and hatred where I had done nothing to provoke it and still held in agreement to the terms in which you laid out initially.

Well your consistency of bringing it up out of the blue in random threads is irritating! I know it's directed at Falcon9, but at this point it just seems like it's on the same level as the posts JediJohnnie makes (the difference being yours have substance to them rather than empty childish attacks...).

I am in complete agreement with you on this.  I like friendly and challenging debate that can occasionally be pushed -- but always kept respectful and to a purpose.  I find the harsher and more heavy handed approach that I was forced into to be counter productive to the original pursuit, but necessary in this case to indicate the lengths I will go to and the unwavering intent behind such ends.

Cool a comic book super villain.  Please let me be Mysterio or even the Green Goblin, just don't let it be Boomerang or Vulture or Walrus!

Okay good! And yes, those 3 suck.

[jcribb16]

Quote from Falconer02:
"I'd rather argue with people who enjoy a friendly and honest in-depth debate rather than those who speak like super villains from comic books."

Enjoying a friendly and honest in-depth debate is something I totally agree with.  (*Abrupt - this is not directed towards you - I'm commenting on the one line of Falconer02's in and of itself.) 

There are a couple who refuse to do what you are speaking of, and instead, the debates are filled with intolerance of the other views, period, including the big words, disrespect, and name calling.  While you and I disagree on views about Christianity and/or Atheism, and we have had ups and downs (mainly over the names given to Christian beliefs,) there were still the elements of friendliness, honesty, and both sides "listening" to each other, while also asking questions, challenging respectfully, and answering with the best possible answers both sides could offer.  Although there were times, it would definitely get way sparky.  It's also when, taking a breather or cool down, other conversation takes place in the meantime, such as things we do agree with, job loss woes, seeing how someone is doing, making a lighthearted joke, etc., and then going back into the debate mode.

I just wanted to comment on that - I like the way you "said" your comment. 

You would be right to call me out when it is needed (and you may be in this case if you did or suggested it as a consideration), and I implore you to please do when the need arrises.  My behavior here has not been exemplary, but it is the nature of who I am and I welcome observation from those with a more 'decent' perspective than myself.

I know that I get heavy handed here sometimes but it is never for the purpose of being mean or vile (well I sometimes will inject comical crudeness into my statements but even such is restrained from my potentiality).  Certain things tick me off and will invoke my rage.  Dishonesty is number one of those and I tend to fire back severely at such things.  I don't mind certain things which seem to bother other people (such as name calling -- my friends and I trade crude banter that could well make drunken sailor's blush).  I am a Christian, but I am the sort that you would not want to risk with saying grace or public prayer but I am the sort you would want with helping the neighbor in need or assisting with menial and tedious labors.

When I see Christians harassed or bullied I will focus on those that do it and I will deliver as much venom as I can to them.  I don't tire and I don't easily become bored and so I may continue to the point that most would find unreasonable or even a bit insane.  I am this way in real life too, if someone harms the helpless to my knowledge they will have me to deal with and I know the best results are gained by making them understand the costs of their actions will be more severe than their perception of the damage of their actions.  Since I can never be certain about their interpretations I will deliberately extend into a category of excessive by my understandings.  I don't pursue such things with a focus of revenge, although I cannot honestly say that they are always without ire.

I'm with you in that I will come to the defense of Christians being harassed and/or bullied.  Especially new Christians and new posters that aren't prepared for some of the backlash they receive when they post anything that has to do with being a believer.  The comment I made to Falconer02 is one I know you already agree with - that it is a much better atmosphere of debate and discussion when both sides are trying to be fair, honest, and respectful, with their responses.

 I remember just a couple of years ago, that the debate threads on Christianity, Atheism, and any other religions, got very heated and people had to step back and chill for awhile before continuing.  There was name-calling, however, not to the magnitude it has seemed to have reached this past year.  Both sides listened more, and discussed more, with references, research, etc.  And, the threads in the off-topic that included Bible inspiration, verses, thoughts, quotes, etc., were hardly ever messed with by those same posters who were always discussing and debating in the debate threads. 

That has certainly changed, now, by a couple in particular, and I might add, that the same posters from a couple of years ago, still do not go in the off-topics like the ones I just mentioned, just to provoke.  They very rarely ever come in them, unless it starts turning into a debate, with questions, challenges, and otherwise, with regard to topics that may arise in those threads.  That's when FC will generally move them into the debate threads.

Some of the joy of the off-topic threads has indeed waned mainly because of a couple who can't leave well enough alone of those who are trying to enjoy sharing a mutual topic.  At least there are several posters who just ignore those, if they don't apply, or only come in when they want to or feel they need to, to discuss something.  Thank goodness for their integrity and respect of others. 

This forum is for everyone who would like to partake and enjoy, and it just seems unfair that sometimes the rules are not accepted for what they are supposed to represent, and instead, are pushed beyond the boundaries of them just to see how far they can be pushed.  And again, like you, I'm not going to be made to look like a fool for something I believe in, and I'm going to help back others and defend them if and when they need it.   

[falcon9]

And, the threads in the off-topic that included Bible inspiration, verses, thoughts, quotes, etc., were hardly ever messed with by those same posters who were always discussing and debating in the debate threads. 

That has certainly changed, now, by a couple in particular, and I might add, that the same posters from a couple of years ago, still do not go in the off-topics like the ones I just mentioned, just to provoke.  They very rarely ever come in them, unless it starts turning into a debate, with questions, challenges, and otherwise, with regard to topics that may arise in those threads.  That's when FC will generally move them into the debate threads.

Some of the joy of the off-topic threads has indeed waned mainly because of a couple who can't leave well enough alone of those who are trying to enjoy sharing a mutual topic.  At least there are several posters who just ignore those, if they don't apply, or only come in when they want to or feel they need to, to discuss something.  Thank goodness for their integrity and respect of others. 

There are no FC forums or threads which are exclusive xtian 'reservations' or private 'country clubs'.  Some xtians lacking integrity continue to treat them as if they were reservations or country clubs which exclude dissenting viewpoints.

[jcribb16]

And, the threads in the off-topic that included Bible inspiration, verses, thoughts, quotes, etc., were hardly ever messed with by those same posters who were always discussing and debating in the debate threads. 

That has certainly changed, now, by a couple in particular, and I might add, that the same posters from a couple of years ago, still do not go in the off-topics like the ones I just mentioned, just to provoke.  They very rarely ever come in them, unless it starts turning into a debate, with questions, challenges, and otherwise, with regard to topics that may arise in those threads.  That's when FC will generally move them into the debate threads.

Some of the joy of the off-topic threads has indeed waned mainly because of a couple who can't leave well enough alone of those who are trying to enjoy sharing a mutual topic.  At least there are several posters who just ignore those, if they don't apply, or only come in when they want to or feel they need to, to discuss something.  Thank goodness for their integrity and respect of others. 

There are no FC forums or threads which are exclusive xtian 'reservations' or private 'country clubs'.  Some xtians lacking integrity continue to treat them as if they were reservations or country clubs which exclude dissenting viewpoints.

*Where exactly did anyone say they are "exclusive Christian 'reservations' or private 'country clubs'?"  Please show the exact words, in the exact quotes, in the exact threads.

*How do you know that "some" Christians lack integrity?  Where is your integrity is all of this?

*Where does it say, exactly, that there are to be no Bible threads made?  Or is it what you want?

*Where does it say, exactly, that "Falcon9 has complete control" over bashing any and all Bible threads, mainly off-topic threads that have nothing to do with him and do not have his name in the title?  Or is this based on Falcon9's desires?

*Where does it say, exactly, that Christians are not allowed to express their viewpoints and beliefs without being accused of "initial proselytizing" and therefore, should be bashed?  Prove, without a shadow of doubt, that they are indeed that very thing. 

*Where does it say, exactly, that dissenting views from either side are to be disrespectful and hateful to the other side simply because one side hates what the other side represents, in this case, anything to do with GOD?  Or, once again, is this based on personal dislike?

*Where does it say, exactly, that Falcon9 is the seemingly acting boss of accusing Christians of "initial proselytizing" when, in fact, he is doing "initial bashing" of Christians with their postings?  Or is this "your" interpretation of what "initial proselytizing" should be and you feel you must react to them because of your dislike of the subject of anything pertaining to GOD?

Thanking you ahead for your responses.