Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 10:38:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Seriously, someone please let me know if they're for real or a satire site.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 10:51:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:38:50 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Seriously, someone please let me know if they're for real or a satire site.

They're satire.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:01:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

If you go to their homepage (landoverbaptist.org), it becomes pretty obvious.

Even more so when you go to their "about" page, and highlight the "spoiler alert", which says:

The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:08:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:01:20 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Now, the Westboro Baptists, on the other hand...

They're the same except for real?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:08:43 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:01:20 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Now, the Westboro Baptists, on the other hand...

They're the same except for real?

They're the "God Hates F***" folks. I don't know if I'd say they're the "same"--but I suppose they're "very close" except for real...though opinions differ on whether they're really "real". They certainly don't seem to be intending satire, that's for sure.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:17:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

Not every conversation needs to turn into a controversial "atheists vs. theists" one.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 6:54:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

You know they're trolls, pitbull. And we get it, you're a gaytheist now, no need to make fu of us with the pretense of being a christian.
TS-387
Posts: 382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 7:05:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:17:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

Not every conversation needs to turn into a controversial "atheists vs. theists" one.
MST_SlGNATURE_31803
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 7:34:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 7:05:56 AM, TS-387 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:17:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

Not every conversation needs to turn into a controversial "atheists vs. theists" one.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:41:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.
They've been around for quite awhile (10 years or so). They typically (would) look for various Christian discussion forums, lure some of it's members to their discussion forum, and basically wail on them.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:02:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 6:54:05 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

You know they're trolls, pitbull. And we get it, you're a gaytheist now, no need to make fu of us with the pretense of being a christian.

"Gaytheist?" What makes me that?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:04:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.
Now, that would be the job of the Vatican.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:23:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:17:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

Not every conversation needs to turn into a controversial "atheists vs. theists" one.

From my comment, did you derive that my remark was posted because it was a necessity? I merely asserted my opinion. Mind you this is "Debate.org" where controversial topics are disputed quite frequently.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:36:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:23:53 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:17:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

Not every conversation needs to turn into a controversial "atheists vs. theists" one.

From my comment, did you derive that my remark was posted because it was a necessity? I merely asserted my opinion. Mind you this is "Debate.org" where controversial topics are disputed quite frequently.

I'm well aware this is debate.org. Save the condescension, please--when you attempt it in circumstances so pitifully inappropriate, it just makes you look foolish.

My point was that it is vaguely jerkish to attempt to turn the discussion to your own ends in this particular context. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your attempts to parse the statement were legitimate, and that you're somehow unaware of the idiom which uses the phrase "necessary" and aren't trying to interpret it literally just to troll. Perhaps it was too difficult for you to get that point, so I now make it explicitly:

Defend being a jerk if you want, that's your prerogative. We have a sincere person asking a sincere question. Yes, he occupies a different philosophical position than you (and me). So? You decided to make a sweeping generalization, that you know to be inflammatory and thread-derailing. There was no need to do so, as you concede, which means you asserted your opinion JUST to poke at the theists. Not every opinion is worth sharing on every thread, and context matters. I'm not concern trolling here--if you want to make a thread like that of your own, I wouldn't have said anything. This is, generally, the place for it. But that you felt the need to come into THIS thread just to inflame things is counterproductive, impolite, and unnecessarily mean. That you then feel as though you have the intellectual weight to condescend to someone who calls you out on this just serves to demonstrate your own motivation.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:38:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:02:04 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 6:54:05 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

You know they're trolls, pitbull. And we get it, you're a gaytheist now, no need to make fu of us with the pretense of being a christian.

"Gaytheist?" What makes me that?

I assume that he's referring to your use of the FSM in your profile pic--which he presumes means you are now atheist, which he then refers to pejoratively.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 3:12:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:36:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:23:53 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:17:37 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

Not every conversation needs to turn into a controversial "atheists vs. theists" one.

From my comment, did you derive that my remark was posted because it was a necessity? I merely asserted my opinion. Mind you this is "Debate.org" where controversial topics are disputed quite frequently.

I'm well aware this is debate.org. Save the condescension, please--when you attempt it in circumstances so pitifully inappropriate, it just makes you look foolish.

My point was that it is vaguely jerkish to attempt to turn the discussion to your own ends in this particular context. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your attempts to parse the statement were legitimate, and that you're somehow unaware of the idiom which uses the phrase "necessary" and aren't trying to interpret it literally just to troll. Perhaps it was too difficult for you to get that point, so I now make it explicitly:

Defend being a jerk if you want, that's your prerogative. We have a sincere person asking a sincere question. Yes, he occupies a different philosophical position than you (and me). So? You decided to make a sweeping generalization, that you know to be inflammatory and thread-derailing. There was no need to do so, as you concede, which means you asserted your opinion JUST to poke at the theists. Not every opinion is worth sharing on every thread, and context matters. I'm not concern trolling here--if you want to make a thread like that of your own, I wouldn't have said anything. This is, generally, the place for it. But that you felt the need to come into THIS thread just to inflame things is counterproductive, impolite, and unnecessarily mean. That you then feel as though you have the intellectual weight to condescend to someone who calls you out on this just serves to demonstrate your own motivation.

First and foremost, I will be blatantly candid and state that my original comment was condescending towards religion which is apparent from the context. I consider Religion and philosophy separate issues, to an extent, especially Christianity whereby the original poster at least implied he was affiliated with.

Anyways, proceeding on to central theme of my response.

I was initially able to comprehend the context of your comment appropriately. What I interpreted from your disdainful remarks is that I am vitriolic and profoundly patronizing in regards to a varying opinion. Typically I would find that to be utterly disconcerting however, in this case it may be applicable. Nevertheless, If my opinion cajoled an ambiguous interpretation resulting in you attaining the notion that I hurled an insult towards the original poster, or yourself, or a personal slander of a different philosophical worldview, then I recommend you consider reviewing your original rumination of my assertion.

My opinion was deliberately intended to provoke a conversation, perhaps not in the most efficient manner, and perhaps arbitrarily stated and aggressive, but for you to assert, or at least imply, that I am displaying a foolish demeanor denotes a condescending attitude from yourself, which I was punitively on trial for according to you, is remarkably unsettling.

"Defend being a jerk if you want, that's your prerogative"
Oh is it my prerogative to be a jerk? Thank you for stating the obvious. I am relieved that you clarified that opaque claim. If I am deemed a jerk so be it.

"You decided to make a sweeping generalization, that you know to be inflammatory and thread-derailing"
Did you not understand my previous comment wherein I stated that I asserted my opinion? Moreover, from your perspective, why do you consider my comment "thread derailing"? Was my comment intended to deter the topic to the juncture that we are no longer discussing religion? No. Yet it has inadvertently. Regardless that my assertion contained a rather supercilious outlook pertaining to religion, it was certainly relative to the topic at hand.

"Not every opinion is worth sharing on every thread."
Once again stating the obvious.

"That you then feel as though you have the intellectual weight to condescend to someone who calls you out on this just serves to demonstrate your own motivation."
I am intellectually capacious. I did not condescend because I am intellectually inclined, but stated the obvious because I was supporting my comment with the premise that this site is prevalently known to contain controversial matter which includes, varying opinions, disputed world views, fascinating and occasionally redundant debates, contesting arguments, and a multitude of clashing philosophical beliefs. I did not address that because I felt compelled that you were unaware that this is Debate.org. I fail to compute how you are convinced I have demonstrated my motivation via a condescending remark regarding religion other than the actual remark itself, which was condescending towards religion.

Yes I may disagree with your and his worldview. Yes I may disagree with your and his philosophical stance. We may differ pertaining to every aspect of reality, but does this remove my entitlement to respond to threads I disagree with because some may view it as offensive or condescending?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 6:50:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First and foremost, I will be blatantly candid and state that my original comment was condescending towards religion which is apparent from the context. I consider Religion and philosophy separate issues, to an extent, especially Christianity whereby the original poster at least implied he was affiliated with.
While this may be true, you are in the religion forum. Whether it is distinct from philosohpy is irrelevant.

Anyways, proceeding on to central theme of my response.

I was initially able to comprehend the context of your comment appropriately. What I interpreted from your disdainful remarks is that I am vitriolic and profoundly patronizing in regards to a varying opinion. Typically I would find that to be utterly disconcerting however, in this case it may be applicable. Nevertheless, If my opinion cajoled an ambiguous interpretation resulting in you attaining the notion that I hurled an insult towards the original poster, or yourself, or a personal slander of a different philosophical worldview, then I recommend you consider reviewing your original rumination of my assertion.
I told you that not every thread has to devolve into a "theists vs. atheists" one.
You responded by focusing on the literalness of the "necessary" qualifier, rather on the obvious, idiomatic interpretation, which is to say you're doing something you shouldn't, namely, being a jerk.

My opinion was deliberately intended to provoke a conversation, perhaps not in the most efficient manner, and perhaps arbitrarily stated and aggressive, but for you to assert, or at least imply, that I am displaying a foolish demeanor denotes a condescending attitude from yourself, which I was punitively on trial for according to you, is remarkably unsettling.
I don't care if you're unsettled. You were a jerk for no apparent reason, to someone who hadn't really been a jerk to you. When called on it, you brought out the proverbial fainting couch and presumed to lecture me on what being on debate.org meant.

"Defend being a jerk if you want, that's your prerogative"
Oh is it my prerogative to be a jerk? Thank you for stating the obvious. I am relieved that you clarified that opaque claim. If I am deemed a jerk so be it.
That's not a defense.
"You decided to make a sweeping generalization, that you know to be inflammatory and thread-derailing"
Did you not understand my previous comment wherein I stated that I asserted my opinion?
Does it being your opinion make it not one which is a sweeping generalization? The answer, of course, is "no".

Moreover, from your perspective, why do you consider my comment "thread derailing"? Was my comment intended to deter the topic to the juncture that we are no longer discussing religion?
Religion is the topic of the subforum. The topic of THIS THREAD was the OP's question regarding the Landover Baptists.

No. Yet it has inadvertently. Regardless that my assertion contained a rather supercilious outlook pertaining to religion, it was certainly relative to the topic at hand.
Not really, it wasn't, considering the topic at hand was the LBC, and whether it was satire or not. But it's not so much your comment in isolation, as much as it is that you know, or should know if you're really 24 years old, that a comment like that is going to cause a flame war.
"Not every opinion is worth sharing on every thread."
Once again stating the obvious.
And yet you felt the need to share your opinion on this thread.

"That you then feel as though you have the intellectual weight to condescend to someone who calls you out on this just serves to demonstrate your own motivation."
I am intellectually capacious. I did not condescend because I am intellectually inclined, but stated the obvious because I was supporting my comment with the premise that this site is prevalently known to contain controversial matter which includes, varying opinions, disputed world views, fascinating and occasionally redundant debates, contesting arguments, and a multitude of clashing philosophical beliefs. I did not address that because I felt compelled that you were unaware that this is Debate.org. I fail to compute how you are convinced I have demonstrated my motivation via a condescending remark regarding religion other than the actual remark itself, which was condescending towards religion.
Your original remark was not condescending to me, inasmuch as I am by no means a theist. Your presuming to lecture me on what debate.org is when called out for being a jerk was condescending.
Yes I may disagree with your and his worldview. Yes I may disagree with your and his philosophical stance. We may differ pertaining to every aspect of reality, but does this remove my entitlement to respond to threads I disagree with because some may view it as offensive or condescending?
You are "entitled" to respond to as many threads as you want unless Juggle decrees otherwise. However, if you're being a jerk for no reason, expect to be called out for it. Frankly, this exchange has already gone on long past where it should have. I believe my position was clear from my original comment. I also believe that your response was a ridiculous attempt at what's usually called "lawyering", and ignored the underlying idiomatic use in an attempt to avoid addressing the point, which was that you made a comment specifically geared to create a controversy that was tangental at best to the question asked. You were a jerk--we all have our moments, it's not the worst thing ever. But trying to argue that there's no such thing as off-topic in the religion forum, as long as the comment pertains to religion, is ridiculous. Quibbling about the use of "necessary", in the context it was used, is likewise ridiculous. Nothing whatsoever we post here is necessary in the strict sense. Yet we can at least try not to be jerks about it and, at the very least, if we're not going to bother trying we can own up to it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:39:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 6:50:06 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
First and foremost, I will be blatantly candid and state that my original comment was condescending towards religion which is apparent from the context. I consider Religion and philosophy separate issues, to an extent, especially Christianity whereby the original poster at least implied he was affiliated with.
While this may be true, you are in the religion forum. Whether it is distinct from philosohpy is irrelevant.

Anyways, proceeding on to central theme of my response.

I was initially able to comprehend the context of your comment appropriately. What I interpreted from your disdainful remarks is that I am vitriolic and profoundly patronizing in regards to a varying opinion. Typically I would find that to be utterly disconcerting however, in this case it may be applicable. Nevertheless, If my opinion cajoled an ambiguous interpretation resulting in you attaining the notion that I hurled an insult towards the original poster, or yourself, or a personal slander of a different philosophical worldview, then I recommend you consider reviewing your original rumination of my assertion.
I told you that not every thread has to devolve into a "theists vs. atheists" one.
You responded by focusing on the literalness of the "necessary" qualifier, rather on the obvious, idiomatic interpretation, which is to say you're doing something you shouldn't, namely, being a jerk.

My opinion was deliberately intended to provoke a conversation, perhaps not in the most efficient manner, and perhaps arbitrarily stated and aggressive, but for you to assert, or at least imply, that I am displaying a foolish demeanor denotes a condescending attitude from yourself, which I was punitively on trial for according to you, is remarkably unsettling.
I don't care if you're unsettled. You were a jerk for no apparent reason, to someone who hadn't really been a jerk to you. When called on it, you brought out the proverbial fainting couch and presumed to lecture me on what being on debate.org meant.

"Defend being a jerk if you want, that's your prerogative"
Oh is it my prerogative to be a jerk? Thank you for stating the obvious. I am relieved that you clarified that opaque claim. If I am deemed a jerk so be it.
That's not a defense.
"You decided to make a sweeping generalization, that you know to be inflammatory and thread-derailing"
Did you not understand my previous comment wherein I stated that I asserted my opinion?
Does it being your opinion make it not one which is a sweeping generalization? The answer, of course, is "no".

Moreover, from your perspective, why do you consider my comment "thread derailing"? Was my comment intended to deter the topic to the juncture that we are no longer discussing religion?
Religion is the topic of the subforum. The topic of THIS THREAD was the OP's question regarding the Landover Baptists.

No. Yet it has inadvertently. Regardless that my assertion contained a rather supercilious outlook pertaining to religion, it was certainly relative to the topic at hand.
Not really, it wasn't, considering the topic at hand was the LBC, and whether it was satire or not. But it's not so much your comment in isolation, as much as it is that you know, or should know if you're really 24 years old, that a comment like that is going to cause a flame war.
"Not every opinion is worth sharing on every thread."
Once again stating the obvious.
And yet you felt the need to share your opinion on this thread.

"That you then feel as though you have the intellectual weight to condescend to someone who calls you out on this just serves to demonstrate your own motivation."
I am intellectually capacious. I did not condescend because I am intellectually inclined, but stated the obvious because I was supporting my comment with the premise that this site is prevalently known to contain controversial matter which includes, varying opinions, disputed world views, fascinating and occasionally redundant debates, contesting arguments, and a multitude of clashing philosophical beliefs. I did not address that because I felt compelled that you were unaware that this is Debate.org. I fail to compute how you are convinced I have demonstrated my motivation via a condescending remark regarding religion other than the actual remark itself, which was condescending towards religion.
Your original remark was not condescending to me, inasmuch as I am by no means a theist. Your presuming to lecture me on what debate.org is when called out for being a jerk was condescending.
Yes I may disagree with your and his worldview. Yes I may disagree with your and his philosophical stance. We may differ pertaining to every aspect of reality, but does this remove my entitlement to respond to threads I disagree with because some may view it as offensive or condescending?
You are "entitled" to respond to as many threads as you want unless Juggle decrees otherwise. However, if you're being a jerk for no reason, expect to be called out for it. Frankly, this exchange has already gone on long past where it should have. I believe my position was clear from my original comment. I also believe that your response was a ridiculous attempt at what's usually called "lawyering", and ignored the underlying idiomatic use in an attempt to avoid addressing the point, which was that you made a comment specifically geared to create a controversy that was tangental at best to the question asked. You were a jerk--we all have our moments, it's not the worst thing ever. But trying to argue that there's no such thing as off-topic in the religion forum, as long as the comment pertains to religion, is ridiculous. Quibbling about the use of "necessary", in the context it was used, is likewise ridiculous. Nothing whatsoever we post here is necessary in the strict sense. Yet we can at least try not to be jerks about it and, at the very least, if we're not going to bother trying we can own up to it.

Fair enough. I can reconcile. I was a jerk. An honest jerk nonetheless. However, I did not intentionally deter from addressing the point, I merely wanted to explicate my response to your initial post, which may have been a lousy attempt.

I did not initially presume you were a Theist because I explored your channel including a few of your debates which I found to be interesting. You had also mentioned that your worldview differed from the original poster's worldview. I duly noted that you were at least Atheistic in your positions at that point which was a presumption.

As I implied earlier, I despise religion, religious faith, and dogmatic assertions that are perpetuated by pious individuals and which feel compelled are credible via the revelation of God or via the Bible. I am honest and will admit that I enjoy discussions, despite my frequent deployment of aggressive yet honest arguments, with Theists. My comment was a passive aggressive tactic deployed to provoke responses.

I have no problem being called out on if deemed appropriate however, insulting my intelligence is one diatribe I can not tolerate. Not directed at you.

That is enough ranting on my behalf.
I anticipate that I articulated my final comment in an elegant fashion and satisfied your understanding in a succinct manner.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:19:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:38:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:02:04 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 6:54:05 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

You know they're trolls, pitbull. And we get it, you're a gaytheist now, no need to make fu of us with the pretense of being a christian.

"Gaytheist?" What makes me that?

I assume that he's referring to your use of the FSM in your profile pic--which he presumes means you are now atheist, which he then refers to pejoratively.

But how would my profile pic mean I'm an atheist? It's just a satirical deity.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:49:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 9:19:07 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:38:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:02:04 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 6:54:05 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

You know they're trolls, pitbull. And we get it, you're a gaytheist now, no need to make fu of us with the pretense of being a christian.

"Gaytheist?" What makes me that?

I assume that he's referring to your use of the FSM in your profile pic--which he presumes means you are now atheist, which he then refers to pejoratively.

But how would my profile pic mean I'm an atheist? It's just a satirical deity.

I didn't say it was an appropriate assumption...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

No. What tipped you off? The fact that it said since 1620, when chronologically through American history (baptist is original to the US) the first baptist colony was founded 18 years later, and was more of an ancestor to modern baptists.

Or maybe it was the silly gifs. Or maybe it was EVERYTHING.

And to be honest, you really don't need them to make you look stupid and insane. Every post I just saw is similar to something I have seen a fundamentalist Christian say.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:16:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:02:04 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 6:54:05 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

You know they're trolls, pitbull. And we get it, you're a gaytheist now, no need to make fu of us with the pretense of being a christian.

"Gaytheist?" What makes me that?

I don't know. They shouldn't even be able to see your gender or your interests. They could call me that. At least it would be accurate.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:24:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:13:19 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

No. What tipped you off? The fact that it said since 1620, when chronologically through American history (baptist is original to the US) the first baptist colony was founded 18 years later, and was more of an ancestor to modern baptists.

Or maybe it was the silly gifs. Or maybe it was EVERYTHING.

And to be honest, you really don't need them to make you look stupid and insane. Every post I just saw is similar to something I have seen a fundamentalist Christian say.

That's actually what made me suspect that they were serious to begin with.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:28:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:24:41 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:13:19 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 4/24/2014 10:33:12 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net...

This is extremism at its worst these days. I swear these people are either trolls trying to make us Christians look insane or just really stupid.

No. What tipped you off? The fact that it said since 1620, when chronologically through American history (baptist is original to the US) the first baptist colony was founded 18 years later, and was more of an ancestor to modern baptists.

Or maybe it was the silly gifs. Or maybe it was EVERYTHING.

And to be honest, you really don't need them to make you look stupid and insane. Every post I just saw is similar to something I have seen a fundamentalist Christian say.

That's actually what made me suspect that they were serious to begin with.

Yeah, same. I took me a couple seconds before I got suspicious.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

That was unnecessary.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:47:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:09:05 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

That was unnecessary.

So is a second coat of paint.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 11:49:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 11:47:58 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 4/25/2014 11:09:05 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:15:30 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Really? FRICKIN' REALLY?!

This exasperated retort can be said about religion in general.

That was unnecessary.

So is a second coat of paint.

False. A second coat of paint is often applied for increased aesthetic appeal.
Your remarks made no such contribution to the discussion at hand.