God is a Fake

[sammywantsya]

guys let falcon dominate the religion he wont be bothering us in other various of different non related religion topics... hes at his own little world...

[falcon9]

guys let falcon dominate the religion he wont be bothering us in other various of different non related religion topics... hes at his own little world...

Your lack of ability to discern the difference between _replying_ to numerous religious posts made by others and those responses made in non-religious threads is glaring.  Perhaps such a lack contributes to your self-delusions or, they may be due to other causes.

[sammywantsya]

there he goes again ohhh boy 

[falcon9]

there he goes again ohhh boy 

Use the "ignore" function, as Admin has suggested to other whiners.

[cbrown25]

God is just a made up guy who people blame their problems on.. Like really.. He supposably "loves all his children" when there are thousands of people dying of hunger. What kind of "god" is that? Like i'm supposed to believe theres some magical man in the sky?.. Hell noo!

[falcon9]

God is just a made up guy who people blame their problems on..

In fairness, they also have another to blame things on; "satan".  Although if that belief system were consistent, they'd blame 'good' and 'bad' things on the same imaginary scapegoat.

Like really.. He supposably "loves all his children" when there are thousands of people dying of hunger. What kind of "god" is that? Like i'm supposed to believe theres some magical man in the sky?.. Hell noo!

It would appear that such a 'deity' is either more of a hands-off kind of let's-see-what-happens-when-they're-turned-loose or, powerless to interfere type of imaginary concept under the xtian belief systems.

[queenofnines]

He supposably "loves all his children" when there are thousands of people dying of hunger. What kind of "god" is that?

Exactly.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLylTz9kz2g

[sarabtrayior]

You are nuts and if you want to believe that, God understands and even loves you, I, however, think you are nuts, God is FREE and you can't get anything better!!!

[SherylsShado]

I agree with you here about this.  I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions.  The results are always "the world according to him."  That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over.  Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc.  Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.   

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does. - Unknown

I'm sorry to say but the "behavior" says "control" issues to me.  Noone else on this forum does (or ever has) re-posted so many posts by others and then "picked" them apart sentence by sentence to interject their own thoughts, and then keep on & on should that person re-post back.  I know someone in my life that acts just like him, they always "have to be right", always "have to have the last word", they actually think they are perfect/so intelligent and everyone else is "stupid".  They have a toxic personality and most everyone goes out of their way to avoid them...which explains why falcon is probably the one most FC members have on "ignore".   

[falcon9]

I'm sorry to say but the "behavior" says "control" issues to me. 

The posting "behavior" of several religious believers on FC manifests such "control issues" within the content of those posts.

Noone else on this forum does (or ever has) re-posted so many posts by others and then "picked" them apart sentence by sentence to interject their own thoughts ...

That's known as posting contextual replies, (unlike numerous out of context responses and contextual-dodging engaged in by mainly by those unable to debate or discuss rationally).  Interjected replies nominally prevent such contextual dodging unless the dodger ignores them and responds by bottom-posting, (or not quoting the context of what they are replying to).  Objections to interjected replies are nearly always due an inability to debate.

I know someone in my life that acts just like him ...

I, too, know several people like "Sheryls" who, when unable to defend their empty assertions or, reply to substantiated refutations resort to such ad hominem, (that is, 'attacking' the person making the argument rather than the argument itself).

they always "have to be right", always "have to have the last word" ...

'Coincidentally', such a description fits not only the more militant religious fundies posting but, many of the 'hit-and-run' ones who post opinions framed as baseless assertions, (and then 'run' by declining to support their assertions or reply contextually to challenges to them).

they actually think they are perfect/so intelligent and everyone else is "stupid". 

That would constitute an assumption about how someone else feels, (when it is, instead, a projection of the one making the judgement on the basis of biased opinion, rather than objectively).
 

They have a toxic personality and most everyone goes out of their way to avoid them...which explains why falcon is probably the one most FC members have on "ignore".   

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.

[jcribb16]

I agree with you here about this.  I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions.  The results are always "the world according to him."  That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over.  Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc.  Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.   

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does. - Unknown

I'm sorry to say but the "behavior" says "control" issues to me.  Noone else on this forum does (or ever has) re-posted so many posts by others and then "picked" them apart sentence by sentence to interject their own thoughts, and then keep on & on should that person re-post back.  I know someone in my life that acts just like him, they always "have to be right", always "have to have the last word", they actually think they are perfect/so intelligent and everyone else is "stupid".  They have a toxic personality and most everyone goes out of their way to avoid them...which explains why falcon is probably the one most FC members have on "ignore".   

   I do agree.  The answers are always the same - like a recording.  Well said.

[falcon9]

The answers are always the same - like a recording. 

Since the same unsupported claims/assertions are being made, why would the responses be any different?  Is this some way of expressing preference for the pre-recorded fundie stances to be refuted in various ways?

[jcribb16]

I'm sorry to say but the "behavior" says "control" issues to me. 

The posting "behavior" of several religious believers on FC manifests such "control issues" within the content of those posts.

Please provide some proof of these posts so as to back up your assertion here.

Noone else on this forum does (or ever has) re-posted so many posts by others and then "picked" them apart sentence by sentence to interject their own thoughts ...

That's known as posting contextual replies, (unlike numerous out of context responses and contextual-dodging engaged in by mainly by those unable to debate or discuss rationally).  Interjected replies nominally prevent such contextual dodging unless the dodger ignores them and responds by bottom-posting, (or not quoting the context of what they are replying to).  Objections to interjected replies are nearly always due an inability to debate.

Sounds like a lot of time on hand to be able to keep up with all of the posts and dissecting them like that.

I know someone in my life that acts just like him ...

I, too, know several people like "Sheryls" who, when unable to defend their empty assertions or, reply to substantiated refutations resort to such ad hominem, (that is, 'attacking' the person making the argument rather than the argument itself).

As you are doing, here.

they always "have to be right", always "have to have the last word" ...

'Coincidentally', such a description fits not only the more militant religious fundies posting but, many of the 'hit-and-run' ones who post opinions framed as baseless assertions, (and then 'run' by declining to support their assertions or reply contextually to challenges to them).

Seems to describe the more militant athiests.

they actually think they are perfect/so intelligent and everyone else is "stupid". 

That would constitute an assumption about how someone else feels, (when it is, instead, a projection of the one making the judgement on the basis of biased opinion, rather than objectively).

Perhaps a poll would indicate more objective opinions?
 

They have a toxic personality and most everyone goes out of their way to avoid them...which explains why falcon is probably the one most FC members have on "ignore".   

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.

[jcribb16]

The answers are always the same - like a recording. 

Since the same unsupported claims/assertions are being made, why would the responses be any different?  Is this some way of expressing preference for the pre-recorded fundie stances to be refuted in various ways?

Logic is one thing and commonsense another.  ~Elbert Hubbard, The Note Book, 1927
                         
Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge.  ~Benjamin Jowett

Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.  ~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Flight to Arras, 1942, translated from French by Lewis Galantière

A mind all logic is like a knife all blade.  ~Rabindranath Tagore

Metaphysics may be, after all, only the art of being sure of something that is not so, and logic only the art of going wrong with confidence.  ~Joseph Wood Krutch, The Modern Temper, 1929 (Thanks, Jeff)

[falcon9]

The posting "behavior" of several religious believers on FC manifests such "control issues" within the content of those posts.

Please provide some proof of these posts so as to back up your assertion here.

There's a long string of message IDs available to choose from, (some of which are in this thread alone).  A cross-section of these could be listed as representative evidence however, you are just as capable of re-reading the thread as I am.  The evidence is so prevalent that it's almost as if it is being requested as a diversion from the OP's failure to provide evidence to support her claim regarding "control issues".

Sounds like a lot of time on hand to be able to keep up with all of the posts and dissecting them like that.

Depending upon the degree of effort it requires to untangle the contortions being 'dissected', (or, interjected with replies), the time involved will vary.

I know someone in my life that acts just like him ...

I, too, know several people like "Sheryls" who, when unable to defend their empty assertions or, reply to substantiated refutations resort to such ad hominem, (that is, 'attacking' the person making the argument rather than the argument itself).

As you are doing, here.

You omitted the part where such 'attacks' were _initiated_ by others before any perceived 'return-fire' responses.  It's more difficult to play the 'victim' when that 'victim' initiates an attack.


'Coincidentally', such a description fits not only the more militant religious fundies posting but, many of the 'hit-and-run' ones who post opinions framed as baseless assertions, (and then 'run' by declining to support their assertions or reply contextually to challenges to them).

Seems to describe the more militant athiests.
[/quote]

On the contrary, such dissenting viewpoints as expressed by non-xtians, (who aren't necessarily "militant" nor "atheist"), have _not_ constituted making hit-and-run unfounded opinions or, a tendency to make baseless assertions, (evidence of this consists of numerous refutions and responses which are supported in several different threads).

The bottomline being that none of these 'attack the messenger, not the message' ad hominem posts refute a single point of dissension of the unsubstantiated assertions of the religious believers.  This is eitehr because their position is weak or, because they are unable to form reasoned counter-arguments, (and instead, find it simpler to engage in attempts denigrate a challenger to their unquestioned blind faith).