Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Born Again Christians

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 12:15:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sorry if this offends anyone but from my limited exposure to born again Christians I have found the following tendencies.

1: A history of drug and/or alchohol abuse.
2: Low achievement professionally and educationally.
3: A lack of logical ability.
4: Contempt for 'book smarts' in favour of faith and intuition.
5: An inability to empathise.
6: Hatred of women (if male).
7: Superiority complex/egomania/narcissism.
8: A masochistic desire for personal abuse.
9: Statements that imply a lack of understanding of sexuality, especially homosexuality, or belie repressed homosexual feelings.

I am beginning to wonder if many of them suffer from some sort of classifiable personality disorder?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 5:44:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not to mention most Born-again christians were raised christian, but they just didnt practice their beleifs much after they left high school/elementary school.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:31:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You're not offensive, just an idiot.

This is a debating site, so the fact that you decided to make a thread to brag about your logical fallacy is sort of sadly ironic.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:45:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 11:31:03 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
You're not offensive, just an idiot.

This is a debating site, so the fact that you decided to make a thread to brag about your logical fallacy is sort of sadly ironic.

Replies like that are beneath the dignity of a debating site, if you found my post offensive you did not have to troll, if you disagreed with it you could attempt a cogent response. Resorting to empty unfounded personal abuse makes you come across poorly, please strive to improve the quality of your posts in future.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 4:32:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't like Christianists either. But this really isn't a good way to approach an argument. In fact, it reminds me of an article a Christian friend of mine wrote. Here's an excerpt:

I've found, through many years of debate, that Liberal Atheists commonly have large egos. Perhaps they feel they must rely on their intelligence to be religiously correct. Or perhaps it all boils down to yet another case of a common insecurity. Humans must be social, or we experience many mental problems. I've noticed that Liberal Atheists usually have horrid social lives and also have horrible luck with the ladies. When humans are unsociable it is often due to insecurity. Perhaps Liberal Atheists are Atheist because they have nobody to crawl to. Maybe Atheists are Atheist, so they can have praise. Without people to praise them, Atheists praise themselves. They crawl into a corner and become self-worshiping communist. What do you think? Are Atheists insecure, or are they brilliant.

I have since learned to keep a calm head. But a year ago when my friend published this, I felt attacked, as if I were being persecuted. Subsequently, my rational mind left the building, and I became very emotional when rebutting his article. Then, my friend also become emotional, and the argument ultimately went no where.

Thus, I recommend keeping strictly with nonpersonal arguments. If your goal is to truly convince people, then ease them into your argument. Bait them. Don't attack. Attacks don't lead anywhere.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 4:41:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't really see what CN said that was wrong or offensive here. Even if you disagree with him, he didn't say that Born Again Christians suffer from a mental illness but rather just noted certain tendencies that he's picked up on (and, to be honest, I noticed them as well). If someone said to me, "Well I've noticed that lesbians don't shave their legs..." I might consider that generalization a little ignorant. However, I know a lot of lesbians that don't in fact shave their legs, so how can I be mad at someone for making that kind of judgment without knowing or being exposed to the culture? An open mind is what's important. Similarly, if CN is wrong about this assessment, as long as he's open-minded to hearing a counter, then I don't see why this is so "offensive." Most BACs that I know readily admit a former problem with drugs, self esteem, sexuality issues, etc.

At 1/8/2010 4:32:43 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

Thus, I recommend keeping strictly with nonpersonal arguments. If your goal is to truly convince people, then ease them into your argument. Bait them. Don't attack. Attacks don't lead anywhere.

What personal attack are you speaking of? I truly didn't notice one... 'splain?
President of DDO
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 4:52:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 4:41:33 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I don't really see what CN said that was wrong or offensive here. Even if you disagree with him, he didn't say that Born Again Christians suffer from a mental illness but rather just noted certain tendencies that he's picked up on (and, to be honest, I noticed them as well). If someone said to me, "Well I've noticed that lesbians don't shave their legs..." I might consider that generalization a little ignorant. However, I know a lot of lesbians that don't in fact shave their legs, so how can I be mad at someone for making that kind of judgment without knowing or being exposed to the culture? An open mind is what's important. Similarly, if CN is wrong about this assessment, as long as he's open-minded to hearing a counter, then I don't see why this is so "offensive." Most BACs that I know readily admit a former problem with drugs, self esteem, sexuality issues, etc.

At 1/8/2010 4:32:43 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

Thus, I recommend keeping strictly with nonpersonal arguments. If your goal is to truly convince people, then ease them into your argument. Bait them. Don't attack. Attacks don't lead anywhere.

What personal attack are you speaking of? I truly didn't notice one... 'splain?

I've noticed some of the points CN noted, as well. His points may or may not be true. Insofar as this discussion extends, I don't really care.

My main contention here is that such discussion doesn't hold much relevancy in a board like this. Among sociologists or psychologists? Maybe. But if CN's goal is to convert BNCs, he better avoid such discussion, regardless of how real these statements seem to him or how objectively valid they are. Such discussion only repels BNCs, and perpetuates the POV that atheist are big meanies who they should not mess with.

Again, I'll repeat my main contention. These are not the arguments that CN should be using to convert BNCs. It hurts CN's cause than it helps. It's better simply not to mention these observations.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 5:11:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 4:32:43 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

My main contention here is that such discussion doesn't hold much relevancy in a board like this. Among sociologists or psychologists? Maybe. But if CN's goal is to convert BNCs, he better avoid such discussion, regardless of how real these statements seem to him or how objectively valid they are. Such discussion only repels BNCs, and perpetuates the POV that atheist are big meanies who they should not mess with.

Again, I'll repeat my main contention. These are not the arguments that CN should be using to convert BNCs. It hurts CN's cause than it helps. It's better simply not to mention these observations.

Okay... but where was it implied that CN was trying to "convert" anyone?

He said: I am beginning to wonder if many of them suffer from some sort of classifiable personality disorder?

It seems as if he wasn't even addressing 'them' directly but rather asking if anyone else had noticed these trends or tendencies. So why is this type of question appropriate for psychologists or sociologists but not for us? It seems to me as if in offering our opinions - educated or not - we all act as sociologists or psychologists. You said he should avoid these points "regardless of how real these statements seem to him or how objectively valid they are." Uh, then what the hell is anyone supposed to say that others might not find offensive? It seems to me that you're admitting his points were pretty objective. Do you really think that people's comments around here are generally objective? Regardless, your whole "point" stems from the fact that you think his approach won't be effective at converting anyone, but I don't think conversion is his goal - I think discussion is - and so far I don't notice anything too impolite (just some seemingly objective generalizations, most of which I agree with... at least until further discussion).
President of DDO
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 5:22:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 5:11:59 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/8/2010 4:32:43 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

My main contention here is that such discussion doesn't hold much relevancy in a board like this. Among sociologists or psychologists? Maybe. But if CN's goal is to convert BNCs, he better avoid such discussion, regardless of how real these statements seem to him or how objectively valid they are. Such discussion only repels BNCs, and perpetuates the POV that atheist are big meanies who they should not mess with.

Again, I'll repeat my main contention. These are not the arguments that CN should be using to convert BNCs. It hurts CN's cause than it helps. It's better simply not to mention these observations.

Okay... but where was it implied that CN was trying to "convert" anyone?

He said: I am beginning to wonder if many of them suffer from some sort of classifiable personality disorder?

It seems as if he wasn't even addressing 'them' directly but rather asking if anyone else had noticed these trends or tendencies. So why is this type of question appropriate for psychologists or sociologists but not for us? It seems to me as if in offering our opinions - educated or not - we all act as sociologists or psychologists. You said he should avoid these points "regardless of how real these statements seem to him or how objectively valid they are." Uh, then what the hell is anyone supposed to say that others might not find offensive? It seems to me that you're admitting his points were pretty objective. Do you really think that people's comments around here are generally objective? Regardless, your whole "point" stems from the fact that you think his approach won't be effective at converting anyone, but I don't think conversion is his goal - I think discussion is - and so far I don't notice anything too impolite (just some seemingly objective generalizations, most of which I agree with... at least until further discussion).

I was mainly responding to CN's: "Replies like that are beneath the dignity of a debating site, if you found my post offensive you did not have to troll, if you disagreed with it you could attempt a cogent response. Resorting to empty unfounded personal abuse makes you come across poorly, please strive to improve the quality of your posts in future."

See what I mean?

Besides, it's not like anyone on this board is actually qualified to diagnose personality disorders--much less professionally assign a personality disorder to a large body of people. It would appear as if CN's opening post was made to provoke people, particularly Christians who feel they're being attacked.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 7:24:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 12:15:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry if this offends anyone but from my limited exposure to born again Christians I have found the following tendencies.

1: A history of drug and/or alchohol abuse.
2: Low achievement professionally and educationally.
3: A lack of logical ability.
4: Contempt for 'book smarts' in favour of faith and intuition.
5: An inability to empathise.
6: Hatred of women (if male).
7: Superiority complex/egomania/narcissism.
8: A masochistic desire for personal abuse.
9: Statements that imply a lack of understanding of sexuality, especially homosexuality, or belie repressed homosexual feelings.

I am beginning to wonder if many of them suffer from some sort of classifiable personality disorder?

I really hate to say this, because I know it isn't true of everyone and I'm afraid it may be taken out of context, but I have found that deeply religious Christians may be so devout because 1) Faith is a virtue, 2) Other virtues besides faith are harder to work at and 3) the devout wants to feel virtuous. I've known a number of religious people who have converted simply because they had failed at being kind, generous, thoughtful, considerate people, and had suffered for it, and wanted something to be proud of that they knew they could achieve. One such thing is faith -- which is easy to achieve because it basically makes a virtue out of being close-minded. I think I can sum it up this way: faith gives you a psychological excuse for failure. It also helps those with moral inferiority complexes feel better about themselves (sure I drink too much and abuse my children, but at least I know God!) As I have said before, this doesn't apply to everyone ... but it does apply to some people, and I've seen it in a large number of zealous Christians, including 'Born Again' Christians ... even in my own family.

And you would be right to link lack of education with such a mentality ... it's an overall product of that person's general lack of effort in contemplating actions and attempt to justify the same.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 7:29:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 4:32:43 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

I've found, through many years of debate, that Liberal Atheists commonly have large egos. Perhaps they feel they must rely on their intelligence to be religiously correct. Or perhaps it all boils down to yet another case of a common insecurity. Humans must be social, or we experience many mental problems. I've noticed that Liberal Atheists usually have horrid social lives and also have horrible luck with the ladies. When humans are unsociable it is often due to insecurity. Perhaps Liberal Atheists are Atheist because they have nobody to crawl to. Maybe Atheists are Atheist, so they can have praise. Without people to praise them, Atheists praise themselves. They crawl into a corner and become self-worshiping communist. What do you think? Are Atheists insecure, or are they brilliant.

Actually, this is an interesting character study. Your friend is basically saying that Liberal Atheists are often (but not always) products of insecure people looking for validation, to the point that they are willing to push other people away so that they can praise themselves for being 'right.' It rings true, somewhat. There's a cloud to every silver lining I suppose.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 8:51:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
From my understanding, all Christians are born again. The term Christian implies as much. I am not sure if one can be a Christian and not born again through Christ. The term, "born again" is not synonymous with "fundamentalist"; although, many use it in such a way.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 9:41:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 8:51:17 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
From my understanding, all Christians are born again. The term Christian implies as much. I am not sure if one can be a Christian and not born again through Christ. The term, "born again" is not synonymous with "fundamentalist"; although, many use it in such a way.

By theology yes, but by classification, no. There's a wikipedia article on it. Christians who declare themselves "born again" Christians are usually protestant evangelicals. While all Christians may consider themselves "born again", in a sense, not all groups claim their faith as "Born Again" Christianity. For example Catholics are Catholics, Mormons are Mormons, Methodists are Methodists, etc. Some Born Again Christians are Born Again Christians ... although there is no larger umbrella organization (that I know of) for them.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 9:58:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I see your point, Lex. Many Christians do apply the "born again" to the name for classification purposes. I find they do this to differentiate themselves from other liberal, for lack of a better term, denominations. I never liked the usage as it is redundant. If one uses it to differentiate, then the term is dishonest.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 10:11:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 12:15:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Sorry if this offends anyone but from my limited exposure to born again Christians I have found the following tendencies.

1: A history of drug and/or alchohol abuse.
2: Low achievement professionally and educationally.
3: A lack of logical ability.
4: Contempt for 'book smarts' in favour of faith and intuition.
5: An inability to empathise.
6: Hatred of women (if male).
7: Superiority complex/egomania/narcissism.
8: A masochistic desire for personal abuse.
9: Statements that imply a lack of understanding of sexuality, especially homosexuality, or belie repressed homosexual feelings.

That is DATCMOTO to a tee.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:21:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 4:32:43 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I don't like Christianists either. But this really isn't a good way to approach an argument. In fact, it reminds me of an article a Christian friend of mine wrote. Here's an excerpt:

I am not attacking all Christians, just what appears from personal experience to a rather strange sub-cult of them.


I've found, through many years of debate, that Liberal Atheists commonly have large egos. Perhaps they feel they must rely on their intelligence to be religiously correct. Or perhaps it all boils down to yet another case of a common insecurity. Humans must be social, or we experience many mental problems. I've noticed that Liberal Atheists usually have horrid social lives and also have horrible luck with the ladies. When humans are unsociable it is often due to insecurity. Perhaps Liberal Atheists are Atheist because they have nobody to crawl to. Maybe Atheists are Atheist, so they can have praise. Without people to praise them, Atheists praise themselves. They crawl into a corner and become self-worshiping communist. What do you think? Are Atheists insecure, or are they brilliant.


Part of that is quite valid for certain atheists and I have been flamed quite severely on an atheist board for making similar comments!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:24:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 4:52:04 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
But if CN's goal is to convert BNCs, he better avoid such discussion, regardless of how real these statements seem to him or how objectively valid they are. Such discussion only repels BNCs, and perpetuates the POV that atheist are big meanies who they should not mess with.

Again, I'll repeat my main contention. These are not the arguments that CN should be using to convert BNCs. It hurts CN's cause than it helps. It's better simply not to mention these observations.

I don't believe in converting anyone away from religion which I generally consider to be an enviable delusion. I think possibly this thread was unwise, sorry!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:29:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 7:28:43 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
At this thread atheists wrote:
a crapload of useless stereotypes that make them feel better about themselves.

I was at least able to use the English language and I was simply remarking on my observations, if every black person I met was a neurosurgeon I might start a thread talking about that, as it is every BAC I have had contact with fits the pattern I have described.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:35:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 7:28:43 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
At this thread atheists wrote:
a crapload of useless stereotypes that make them feel better about themselves

Be that as it may (though I don't think atheists need to discredit Christians to feel better about themselves any more than they need to discredit people who believe in fairies), the stereotypes presented in the opening post are all very representative of BACs.

DATCMOTO is/was the only BAC on this site and he displays every one of those stereotypes. I've met a few IRL and they also do.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 8:03:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Be that as it may (though I don't think atheists need to discredit Christians to feel better about themselves any more than they need to discredit people who believe in fairies), the stereotypes presented in the opening post are all very representative of BACs.

I'm a BAC, it doesn't represent me. Any Christian is a BAC.

It refers to a scripture by John.

John 3:1-8

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."

3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 10:34:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 8:03:53 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
Be that as it may (though I don't think atheists need to discredit Christians to feel better about themselves any more than they need to discredit people who believe in fairies), the stereotypes presented in the opening post are all very representative of BACs.

I'm a BAC, it doesn't represent me. Any Christian is a BAC.

It refers to a scripture by John.

John 3:1-8

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."

3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

No... Only confirmed ones. They have to be really, really, Religous for about a day, then it doesn't matter!

...Or, If your in the Black Church, it's like every Sunday.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 10:44:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 11:45:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/8/2010 11:31:03 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
You're not offensive, just an idiot.

This is a debating site, so the fact that you decided to make a thread to brag about your logical fallacy is sort of sadly ironic.

Replies like that are beneath the dignity of a debating site, if you found my post offensive you did not have to troll, if you disagreed with it you could attempt a cogent response. Resorting to empty unfounded personal abuse makes you come across poorly, please strive to improve the quality of your posts in future.

I don't find our post offensive, so don't play the atheist pariah card, because I'm no Christian.

If I made a topic entitle "Black people" then listed 10 reasons why black people are bad based on my experiences with them, it'd be pretty racist, yeah? Well you're not much better. There are many logical, rational arguments against Christianity and saying that they hate women isn't one of them. Go read a book.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 11:01:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 10:44:17 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/8/2010 11:45:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/8/2010 11:31:03 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
You're not offensive, just an idiot.

This is a debating site, so the fact that you decided to make a thread to brag about your logical fallacy is sort of sadly ironic.

Replies like that are beneath the dignity of a debating site, if you found my post offensive you did not have to troll, if you disagreed with it you could attempt a cogent response. Resorting to empty unfounded personal abuse makes you come across poorly, please strive to improve the quality of your posts in future.

I don't find our post offensive, so don't play the atheist pariah card, because I'm no Christian.

If I made a topic entitle "Black people" then listed 10 reasons why black people are bad based on my experiences with them, it'd be pretty racist, yeah? Well you're not much better. There are many logical, rational arguments against Christianity and saying that they hate women isn't one of them. Go read a book.

Send me the Anti - Black topic.

They are against womens rights and belive that a woman must always be subordinated by the man. I don't think thats hate, so I agree.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 11:05:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 10:44:17 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/8/2010 11:45:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/8/2010 11:31:03 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
You're not offensive, just an idiot.

This is a debating site, so the fact that you decided to make a thread to brag about your logical fallacy is sort of sadly ironic.

Replies like that are beneath the dignity of a debating site, if you found my post offensive you did not have to troll, if you disagreed with it you could attempt a cogent response. Resorting to empty unfounded personal abuse makes you come across poorly, please strive to improve the quality of your posts in future.

I don't find our post offensive, so don't play the atheist pariah card, because I'm no Christian.


Yes you did, grow some balls, stay away from threads you are not mature enough to deal with. Have a nice day.

There are many logical, rational arguments against Christianity and saying that they hate women isn't one of them. Go read a book.

That was not present in my orginal post, learn to read please.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 11:30:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Yes you did, grow some balls, stay away from threads you are not mature enough to deal with. Have a nice day.

I'm an atheist, you tit, I just can't stand other atheists making the same logical fallacies as theists.

That was not present in my orginal post, learn to read please.

"6: Hatred of women (if male)"

You're right, I'm illiterate.

At 1/9/2010 11:01:26 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
They are against womens rights and belive that a woman must always be subordinated by the man. I don't think thats hate, so I agree.

No, that's wrong. You can't generalize several billion people, you just sound like an idiot. The vast majority of Christians are accepting of a woman's place in society, but there are a few morons who advocate otherwise, but they hardly define the population.

So if you wouldn't mind ending your moronic stereotypes, that'd be great.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 11:34:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 11:30:16 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/9/2010 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Yes you did, grow some balls, stay away from threads you are not mature enough to deal with. Have a nice day.

I'm an atheist, you tit, I just can't stand other atheists making the same logical fallacies as theists.


I don't care what you are, you got offended and threw a hissy fit because you are weak and immature, that is your problem it is not mine. You do not appear to understand what a logical fallacy is, you have not demonstrated how I have made a logical fallacy.


That was not present in my orginal post, learn to read please.

"6: Hatred of women (if male)"

You're right, I'm illiterate.


Yes you are, do not reply to my posts until you are educated. Thank you.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 11:38:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 11:34:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't care what you are, you got offended and threw a hissy fit because you are weak and immature, that is your problem it is not mine. You do not appear to understand what a logical fallacy is, you have not demonstrated how I have made a logical fallacy.

Alright, let's take a look at which logical fallacies you committed;

Biased Sample: http://www.nizkor.org...
Hasty generalization: http://www.nizkor.org...
Misleading vividness:http://www.nizkor.org...
Straw Man: http://www.nizkor.org...

You took a tiny sample of your own experience then proceed to paint every person of the population with those qualifications to make yourself look like the big bad atheist on the block.

You're no worse than a Christian.

Yes you are, do not reply to my posts until you are educated. Thank you.

That's classic. I contradict you with your own words, but instead you ignore it and respond to my sarcasm. You're just adorable.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 11:51:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 11:38:59 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/9/2010 11:34:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't care what you are, you got offended and threw a hissy fit because you are weak and immature, that is your problem it is not mine. You do not appear to understand what a logical fallacy is, you have not demonstrated how I have made a logical fallacy.

Alright, let's take a look at which logical fallacies you committed;

Biased Sample: http://www.nizkor.org...
Hasty generalization: http://www.nizkor.org...
Misleading vividness:http://www.nizkor.org...
Straw Man: http://www.nizkor.org...


I did not do any of that. Stating personal experience and asking for feedback is not a logical fallacy. You have failed English and/or basic philosophy.

You took a tiny sample of your own experience then proceed to paint every person of the population with those qualifications to make yourself look like the big bad atheist on the block.

You're no worse than a Christian.


Hyprocritical bigotry.

Yes you are, do not reply to my posts until you are educated. Thank you.

That's classic. I contradict you with your own words, but instead you ignore it and respond to my sarcasm. You're just adorable.

No,

I stated,
Sorry if this offends anyone but from my limited exposure to born again Christians
I have found the following tendencies.

6: Hatred of women (if male).

You stated that this an argument against Christianity.

It is not.

You are lying, confused, or deficient.

Please do not reply until you correct your flaws.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 12:03:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 11:51:31 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I did not do any of that. Stating personal experience and asking for feedback is not a logical fallacy. You have failed English and/or basic philosophy.

No, you posted a list of generalizations and called them tendencies.

Hyprocritical bigotry.

Yes, I'm persecuting you for being an atheist, I just hate them so much.

No,

I stated,
Sorry if this offends anyone but from my limited exposure to born again Christians
I have found the following tendencies.

6: Hatred of women (if male).

You stated that this an argument against Christianity.

It is not.

You are lying, confused, or deficient.

Please do not reply until you correct your flaws.

So by stating that Christians hate women, you weren't arguing that Christians hate women? Of course, it makes so much sense now.