Hey muscleman!

[specious_reasons]

(I'm a little nervous about doing this, since this could wind up looking like a Franko thread, but I give my solemn oath not to start another one if this one turns out badly. Anyway...)

muscleman,

I'd pretty much written you off as a troll, but your last few posts might indicate you're just not able to argue outside of your own worldview.

Now, please understand that I have heard all of your arguments before. I lived with a seriously devout (and intelligent) Christian for 4 years through college, and had many Christian friends (and "friends" who only wanted to convert me) who have questioned my lack of belief as harshly as I've questioned their faith.

Ultimately, they were unable to convince me, and most of the people I know approached me with respect and without arrogance. You haven't shown any of that.

Please carefully consider why you're here. You've adopted a "quad preacher" persona which only dupes the credulous, and those people are already converted. If you're intending to argue with the atheists here, in order to convert them, you need to adopt a more rational tone.

Otherwise, you're going on my ignore list.

----
... had many Christian friends (and "friends" who only wanted to convert me) who have questioned my lack of belief as harshly as I've questioned their faith.

Ultimately, they were unable to convince me, ...
----


And you were unable to convince them I'd wager.

[wert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
----
... had many Christian friends (and "friends" who only wanted to convert me) who have questioned my lack of belief as harshly as I've questioned their faith.

Ultimately, they were unable to convince me, ...
----


And you were unable to convince them I'd wager.

And why would you assume that an atheist is out to "convert" people.

Nasty bit of stereotyping that.

Wert,

First, I'm sure she can answer for herself.

Second, I never said convert.

Third, most all groups display desires of wanting to persuade others to 'see their side of the story', because each group believes they are the ones who are correct.

It makes individuals and groups look good. It gives them a purpose and a sense of accomplishment.

[wert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Wert,

First, I'm sure she can answer for herself.

Second, I never said convert.

You certainly implied it in a fairly snide way.

Quote:

Third, most all groups display desires of wanting to persuade others to 'see their side of the story', because each group believes they are the ones who are correct.

An assumption and blatant stereotype on your part.

Quote:

It makes individuals and groups look good. It gives them a purpose and a sense of accomplishment.

Please prove that "most" groups want to "persuade others" to their cause.

If you can't prove it, then you're just spewing a stereotype unsupported by facts.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by specious_reasons
(I'm a little nervous about doing this, since this could wind up looking like a Franko thread, but I give my solemn oath not to start another one if this one turns out badly. Anyway...)

Really, don't worry about it becoming a "Franko thread", Specious. All the evidence indicates that Muscleman is Franko, or at least they are creations of the same person. It would seem obvious because they are never seen together, but after all, that kept Lois Lane fooled for years. Yeah, there's lots of evidence that The Dungeonmaster is actually Franko, Wraith and Mucleman.

• They never post at the same time
• They never talk to each other, except to occasionally pat each other on the back.
• They never contest anything the other has said.
• Although their sentence structure varies, their style of cut-and-paste and personal attack is very similar.
• The cut-and-paste style is indicative of someone trying to do many things at one time, and using shortcuts.
• None of them show any semblance of depth beyond their "character profile" persona. Yeah, they each have physical descriptions (age, size, strength, etc.), but as any D&D player knows, that is part of the game.
• Franko is constantly using D&D as an analogy for the real world.
• Franko harps on solipsism, which says that everyone else is imaginary. I believe this is his own little private joke.

I admit, it has taken me a long time to figure this out. For some time, I have been arguing that Wraith was someone who lived with Franko, but who was not the same person, because his sentence structure and manner of posting was so different. I now believe I was wrong.

The Dungeonmaster is very talented at creating characters, and I must grudgingly admit that he fooled me for a long time. These characters are incredibly well fleshed-out. However, the kicker came when I asked Muscleman if he believed in free will. Free will is one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma, yet Muscleman had to hem and haw and say that there was no "cosmic" free will (or something like it). For the most fire-breathing Catholic we've seen to deny an essential part of Catholicism was too much for me to swallow.

It came down to the rule stated above, that the characters must never disagree, or at least they must be able to reconcile their disagreement. Note that Franko never says a word about Mucleman's version of free will, but if anyone elses mentions it, he is all over them like ugly on an ape. In fact, Franko barely mentions Muscleman at all. You might say that Franko likes anyone who gets in the face of A-Theists, but that is obviously not the case, since he has gone toe-to-toe with UCE.

I believe that the Dungeonmaster is playing a little game of "internet D&D" by sending these characters to various forums and seeing how they perform. Note that the Franko persona appeard in www.infidels.org for a short time, before it was kicked out and came back here.

Of course, I could be wrong. If they EVER posted simultaneously, it would hurt my theory, although not destroy it. The Dungeonmaster could have bought a second computer.

Anyway, here's my salute to you, Dungeonmaster. You have truly made this forum interesting, although not always fun. You've also sparked some real creativity. Perhaps that makes it worth wading through all your spam.

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

I believe that the Dungeonmaster is playing a little game of "internet D&D" by sending these characters to various forums and seeing how they perform. Note that the Franko persona appeard in www.infidels.org for a short time, before it was kicked out and came back here.

Don't forget the DM's appearance at www.deism.org under the name Serpent. A classic.

[Graham]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

Of course, I could be wrong. If they EVER posted simultaneously, it would hurt my theory, although not destroy it. The Dungeonmaster could have bought a second computer.

Actually, I think it's possible to have two windows open on the same computer an be logged into JREF forums twice, under names, on the same computer. I haven't actually tried this but I know I can have be in twice under my own name so . . .

Graham

[MRC_Hans]

I've told you before, Tricky: Muscleman has been at sciforums for ages. Its even his second name there, and once he changed, he never used the old ID. He has been exactly the same way all the time, never changing much style, never contradicting himself (except of course for the inherent contradictions in his cosmology).

Muscleman is not Franko. You are giving Franko much too credit in this.

Hans

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I've told you before, Tricky: Muscleman has been at sciforums for ages. Its even his second name there, and once he changed, he never used the old ID. He has been exactly the same way all the time, never changing much style, never contradicting himself (except of course for the inherent contradictions in his cosmology).

Muscleman is not Franko. You are giving Franko much too credit in this.

Hans

I know you've told me this before, Hans, but I don't think Muscleman's longevity at another forum proves anything. The Dungeonmaster has been playing this game for a LONG time. Perhaps Muscleman is his original character and it is Franko that is the new experiment. Do you agree that my points are valid evidence?

Specious, Im not here to convert anyone. Thats wasnt my intention. My intention being here is getting an argument and a real debate with any atheists, professors or not, scientificly or not, I want to learn THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THEIR ARGUMENTS....But so far all of what I learned is the same argument kids tells me, theres nothing new, i get so many frustrations with dummies in this forum (Ossai, Bjorn, Billy, etc.) but MRCHans (who first introduced me here..) told me this is a forum for smarter men, when thats not the case so far...

[MRC_Hans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

I know you've told me this before, Hans, but I don't think Muscleman's longevity at another forum proves anything. The Dungeonmaster has been playing this game for a LONG time. Perhaps Muscleman is his original character and it is Franko that is the new experiment. Do you agree that my points are valid evidence?

Mmmmm, really wanna know what I think? Well, you asked: Go soak your head.

I've been on message boards for years. I tell you there are enough loonies out there to go around. No need to imagine meta-loonies.

About your arguments:



They never post at the same time

Neither do you and I

They never talk to each other, except to occasionally pat each other on the back.

Loonies never do, its an instinct. They want interaction with people who will argue with them.

They never contest anything the other has said.

Same as above

Although their sentence structure varies, their style of cut-and-paste and personal attack is very similar.

Standard troll behaviour. EVERY troll I've met has done that. Btw, M-man doesn't cut and paste much, he types it all (and it shows, heheh)

The cut-and-paste style is indicative of someone trying to do many things at one time, and using shortcuts.

None of them show any semblance of depth beyond their "character profile" persona. Yeah, they each have physical descriptions (age, size, strength, etc.), but as any D&D player knows, that is part of the game.

How much have YOU told about yourself? Or I?


Franko is constantly using D&D as an analogy for the real world.

Franko harps on solipsism, which says that everyone else is imaginary. I believe this is his own little private joke.

And so does Wraith, whom Franko admits is him (and they've been absolute carbon-copies. Only lately has he managed to give Wraith a tad personality). Nobody else does that. M-man couldnt spell it if he tried. Btw, I really think F is a bit scared about Solipsism. Thats why he keeps thrusting it at people, he thinks he can frighten them.

Hans

[CWL]

Tricky,

I must agree with Hans. I'm not so sure about muscleman. Your DM theory still holds as to the poster behind Franko and Wraith, IMO.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by CWL
Tricky,

I must agree with Hans. I'm not so sure about muscleman. Your DM theory still holds as to the poster behind Franko and Wraith, IMO.

You don't find it odd that when Mucleman is active here, Franko takes a sabbatical?

----
You certainly implied it in a fairly snide way.
----


No, I said what I said, and, through your belief system, YOU interpreted it like that.


----
Please prove that "most" groups want to "persuade others" to their cause.

If you can't prove it, then you're just spewing a stereotype unsupported by facts.
----


Most groups want to have more members. If they didn't, they wouldn't be groups.

Unless you are saying most groups don't want that, which I think is nonsense.

[specious_reasons]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
-
And you were unable to convince them I'd wager.

You're right, closely held beliefs are hard to shake. Most of these people were the types that felt they had an experience that validated their worldview.

Not that I was trying to convert them , necessarily, since they were more often trying to convert me, and I was defending my position.

Wert, it's a fine distinction between explaining/defending your worldview and trying to convert or convince someone of it.

[specious_reasons]

Quote:

Originally posted by muscleman
Specious, Im not here to convert anyone. Thats wasnt my intention. My intention being here is getting an argument and a real debate with any atheists, professors or not, scientificly or not, I want to learn THE BEST OF THE BEST OF THEIR ARGUMENTS....But so far all of what I learned is the same argument kids tells me, theres nothing new, i get so many frustrations with dummies in this forum (Ossai, Bjorn, Billy, etc.) but MRCHans (who first introduced me here..) told me this is a forum for smarter men, when thats not the case so far...

Well, you're certainly not trying to bring up the best arguments out of people. And, from what I can tell, you haven't addressed the best arguments people have made on your thread.

For example, calling Doctor X insane doesn't stop the fact that you haven't addressed the concept of an innocent child suffering through a brain tumor.

Another example is your "ant farm". That little thought experiment, in my mind, does more to prove you wrong than help your point, but you don't defend your concept, you insult the people and repeat it.

That's just trolling, and it's annoying. If you really want to hear the best debates, stop acting like a jackass.

[Underemployed]

Actually the ant farm works as an example of God's omnipotence co-existing with human free will.

We can construct a 'universe' for the ant - a maze with food at the end, for example. It may find the food and live, it may lose it's way and die of starvation. Once we have set the stage, the ant is on it's own.

Just because we are quite capable of moving the ant to the food using our knowledge of the 'universe', we deliberately decide not to. Just because we refuse to exercise our 'omnipotence' does not mean it doesn't exist.

It certainly falls far short of proving there is a God, but it does show that Dr X's argument also holds true - if there is a God then He sure doesn't care about individual suffering. It is this which sticks in the craws of so many atheists, and no amount of saying "It's all part of God's plan" or "He moves in mysterious ways" can hide it.

Quote:

Originally posted by cavin
If you want the best there are some great books out there...
just don't write down anything Whodini said as a "best" , not even "second best"....forget it.....

Uh, have you got the right thread Cavin?

Second, I can recommend many great skeptic books, if that is what you are talking about.

[specious_reasons]

Quote:

Originally posted by Underemployed
Actually the ant farm works as an example of God's omnipotence co-existing with human free will.

We can construct a 'universe' for the ant - a maze with food at the end, for example. It may find the food and live, it may lose it's way and die of starvation. Once we have set the stage, the ant is on it's own.

Just because we are quite capable of moving the ant to the food using our knowledge of the 'universe', we deliberately decide not to. Just because we refuse to exercise our 'omnipotence' does not mean it doesn't exist.

It certainly falls far short of proving there is a God, but it does show that Dr X's argument also holds true - if there is a God then He sure doesn't care about individual suffering. It is this which sticks in the craws of so many atheists, and no amount of saying "It's all part of God's plan" or "He moves in mysterious ways" can hide it.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, although I might be drawing more conclusions than you are. You've hit a major point of Dr. X's argument. Problem is, muscleman can't or won't acknowledge it. Instead he insists on name-calling. Yawn. And he claims he's trying to out all of the "best" arguments of the atheists.

Unless he changes tactics soon, he's going on Ignore, like Franko and Wraith.

[Dub]

There's one way to find out for sure if your theory is correct Tricky. And that's to get a mod to check the IPs of the posts. Of course the 'characters could all live in the same house/street/or very close to eachother, which could give them the same IP the forum would record.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dub
There's one way to find out for sure if your theory is correct Tricky. And that's to get a mod to check the IPs of the posts. Of course the 'characters could all live in the same house/street/or very close to eachother, which could give them the same IP the forum would record.

This is an unmoderated board, Dub, and the people who run it don't give out that information.

[wert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
[b]----

No, I said what I said, and, through your belief system, YOU interpreted it like that.

Sure, when your own words betray you, simply claim the other person misunderstands you.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Quote:

Most groups want to have more members. If they didn't, they wouldn't be groups.

Nope. There are some quite small and elite groups who keep their numbers at a fairly consistent level.

To insist that "all" groups want to recruit in order to swell their ranks is just sloppy thinking. And blatant stereotyping.

Quote:

Unless you are saying most groups don't want that, which I think is nonsense.

I'm saying that you can't prove that "most" groups want that.

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Nice attempt to turn it around on me tho'.
Until you can show me some actual facts, you're opinion on this is meaningless.

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

Really, don't worry about it becoming a "Franko thread", Specious. All the evidence indicates that Muscleman is Franko, or at least they are creations of the same person. It would seem obvious because they are never seen together, but after all, that kept Lois Lane fooled for years. Yeah, there's lots of evidence that The Dungeonmaster is actually Franko, Wraith and Mucleman.

• They never post at the same time
• They never talk to each other, except to occasionally pat each other on the back.
• They never contest anything the other has said.
• Although their sentence structure varies, their style of cut-and-paste and personal attack is very similar.
• The cut-and-paste style is indicative of someone trying to do many things at one time, and using shortcuts.
• None of them show any semblance of depth beyond their "character profile" persona. Yeah, they each have physical descriptions (age, size, strength, etc.), but as any D&D player knows, that is part of the game.
• Franko is constantly using D&D as an analogy for the real world.
• Franko harps on solipsism, which says that everyone else is imaginary. I believe this is his own little private joke.

I admit, it has taken me a long time to figure this out. For some time, I have been arguing that Wraith was someone who lived with Franko, but who was not the same person, because his sentence structure and manner of posting was so different. I now believe I was wrong.

The Dungeonmaster is very talented at creating characters, and I must grudgingly admit that he fooled me for a long time. These characters are incredibly well fleshed-out. However, the kicker came when I asked Muscleman if he believed in free will. Free will is one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma, yet Muscleman had to hem and haw and say that there was no "cosmic" free will (or something like it). For the most fire-breathing Catholic we've seen to deny an essential part of Catholicism was too much for me to swallow.

It came down to the rule stated above, that the characters must never disagree, or at least they must be able to reconcile their disagreement. Note that Franko never says a word about Mucleman's version of free will, but if anyone elses mentions it, he is all over them like ugly on an ape. In fact, Franko barely mentions Muscleman at all. You might say that Franko likes anyone who gets in the face of A-Theists, but that is obviously not the case, since he has gone toe-to-toe with UCE.

I believe that the Dungeonmaster is playing a little game of "internet D&D" by sending these characters to various forums and seeing how they perform. Note that the Franko persona appeard in www.infidels.org for a short time, before it was kicked out and came back here.

Of course, I could be wrong. If they EVER posted simultaneously, it would hurt my theory, although not destroy it. The Dungeonmaster could have bought a second computer.

Anyway, here's my salute to you, Dungeonmaster. You have truly made this forum interesting, although not always fun. You've also sparked some real creativity. Perhaps that makes it worth wading through all your spam.

Muscleman isn't Catholic, he's Born-Again Christian or Baptist. The things that he says are more consistent with Chick tracts than Catholic dogma. The reason he tried to dodge the subject of free will is that it's not part of Baptist dogma, and it's possible he was not encouraged to think about it.

There must be a way to test the theory, and I can already name several: If the moderators found out both of the IP addresses matched, then the DM would face losing all but one account, or an IP ban. An IP check would be the best way to test the theory, and all the moderators would need to do is say if they matched or not, instead of giving out the IP # which they are not allowed to do. Another way to do that would be to get one of the names permanently banned, and then check the "members" section to see if the other name is also banned. But if the IP addresses did not match, we could still check the posts under both the names for mistakes. But so far Muscleman hasn't posted anything about atoms obeying the laws of physics...

Also, can you post a link to a thread by the "Franko persona" at infidels.org?

----
Sure, when your own words betray you, simply claim the other person misunderstands you.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
----


Uh, no wart. I simply never said what you claimed I said. You interpreted what I said.


----
To insist that "all" groups want to recruit in order to swell their ranks is just sloppy thinking. And blatant stereotyping.
----


Do you read every word, or just every other word? I said that "most all" groups do, not all.

Here is what I said:

####
... most all groups display desires of wanting to persuade others to 'see their side of the story', because each group believes they are the ones who are correct.
####


Whatever else you read into it is your own construction.

----
I'm saying that you can't prove that "most" groups want that.
----


I never said I could, Mr. Guru-Skeptic.


----
Until you can show me some actual facts, you're opinion on this is meaningless.
----


You are really dense. First, you say I can't prove it. Then, you admit that what I said is my opinion.
What, in your "freethinking" literature do they teach you that one can prove opinions?

Thanks.

[wert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini


Uh, no wart. I simply never said what you claimed I said. You interpreted what I said.

Hey cool! The last one to be clever enough to deem me "Wart" was the esteemed JP Holding! Congrats on lowering yourself to his level of childish ad-hominen. (Hey wait! Edge calls me "wart" also! That you Edge old friend?)

Quote:

Do you read every word, or just every other word? I said that "most all" groups do, not all.

And if you said "Most blacks prefer watermelon as their favorite fruit", you would also be stereotyping. Perhaps you should look up the definition eh?

Quote:

Whatever else you read into it is your own construction.

Sure, whenever you speak your mind and someone calls you on your stereotypical claims, you claim that:

1. Someone Misunderstood you.

or

2. Someone is "constructing" arguments you never made.

Bleh.

Quote:

I never said I could, Mr. Guru-Skeptic.

You made a claim, that "most groups" operate in a certain way.

You made no mention of it being "only an opinion". You stated it in a quite matter of fact way actually.

Quote:

You are really dense. First, you say I can't prove it. Then, you admit that what I said is my opinion.

Hey, thanks for the additional ad-hom!

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy in making statements that you cannot back up with fact.

We could care less what your personal opinions are.

They prove nothing and only show you to be a practicioneer of stereotyping.

Quote:

What, in your "freethinking" literature do they teach you that one can prove opinions?

You never stated it was an opinion. You said it as tho' it was a fact.

To wit:

Quote:

Written by Whodini

Third, most all groups display desires of wanting to persuade others to 'see their side of the story', because each group believes they are the ones who are correct.

I see no qualifier that you were merely stating your "opinion" here.

Tho' claiming such at this late date is a nice dodge to avoid the valid charge that you are using rank stereotyping to make your "point".

Please give use good reasons to explain how making generalizations about groups is not stereotyping.

I'm not exactly holding my breath...

[MRC_Hans]

I have arranged a little test here.

Hans

[Trinity]

I have been asked to make this small test.

Trinity

[Trinity]

And this does prove that Trinity and MRC_Hans are not the same person. Note the two post above made at the same time. I have always felt independent. Now, Hans: Stop claiming I am your sockpuppet.

Trinity.

[MRC_Hans]

Sure, kid! I wish you good luck, and do be careful out there!

Love, Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

You don't find it odd that when Mucleman is active here, Franko takes a sabbatical?

Only slightly. And its not constistent, as far as I have noticed (easy to check out, though). But even if it was, what exactly would it prove? Frank'o and Wraith ARE active at the same time. You are out on a limb here. They are just normal trolls, though Franko is in special class for persistency, but there is no reason to try and demonize anybody.

We can get rid of them all in a week, if we want. Just stop replying to them (but then, as long as they're fun, why should we?).

Hans

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky

You don't find it odd that when Mucleman is active here, Franko takes a sabbatical?

Hmmmm... that's weak circumstantial evidence, if any. Like I said, I am not convinced.

As to Franko/Wraith - that's another story. As to these two characters, I believe your DM theory may very well be correct. Another possibility is however that we are dealing with one rather sick puppy...

----
The last one to be clever enough to deem me "Wart" was the esteemed JP Holding!
----


Yeah, I'm, of course, the one at a "childish level". I type this as I am looking at your Krusty the Clown picture.


----
And if you said "Most blacks prefer watermelon as their favorite fruit", you would also be stereotyping.
----


LOL. Again, you are building quite a nice strawman here. I never said the above, you did. Then you compare what I said to what you invented, and claim they are equivalent examples.


----
Sure, whenever you speak your mind and someone calls you on your stereotypical claims, you claim that:
1. Someone Misunderstood you.
or
2. Someone is "constructing" arguments you never made.
Bleh.
----


Or 3) I say that they are correct and I was mistaken. In your case, it is definitely 2).


----
You made no mention of it being "only an opinion". You stated it in a quite matter of fact way actually.
----


If a person types up their thoughts, that is an opinion. I did not say: 'I am claiming, and can prove, that most all groups .. etc."

Do you see the difference?


----
We could care less what your personal opinions are.
----


Who is this "we"? You don't care, yet you respond? Get real.


----
Please give use good reasons to explain how making generalizations about groups is not stereotyping.
----


Most all groups want more members. Most all groups have need for funds. Most all groups have some type of magazine/newsletter paper material to sell to readers. In such a magazine, the goals and beliefs of the group are spelled out.

I'm saying "most all"... get it? Like "majority".

No stereotype. Do you think the majority of groups do not do this?


----
I'm not exactly holding my breath...
----


I'm sure you are holding something though.

[wert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini

Most all groups want more members. Most all groups have need for funds. Most all groups have some type of magazine/newsletter paper material to sell to readers. In such a magazine, the goals and beliefs of the group are spelled out.

I'm saying "most all"... get it? Like "majority".

No stereotype. Do you think the majority of groups do not do this?

You are making a generalization about groups that is not based on fact in any way. Once again, in your above statement, you make the claim as tho' it's factual. I can name groups that do not try to swell their ranks through recruitment.

Heck, if you tried, I bet you could too.

Aside from it being your personal opinion, can you give us any factual data to support the claim that "most" groups act this way? I don't think so. But I'm sure you'll continue to present your personal stereotypical views as "fact" whilst resorting to sad ad-hominen.

It's apparent that you prefer the lazy thinking that typifies the use of stereotypes to make your point...

Quote:

I'm sure you are holding something though.

*sigh*

I'm wasting no more time with you.

Plonk. (Welcome to my ignore list)

----
I can name groups that do not try to swell their ranks through recruitment.
----


Yes, I agree, and I could too.
What do you not understand about "most all", or "majority"?


----
Aside from it being your personal opinion, can you give us any factual data to support the claim that "most" groups act this way? I don't think so.
----


Based on personal observation and going to the webpages of a lot of different groups, and getting mail from a lot of groups. Is there some scientific study, etc., I doubt it.

But then again, I never claimed that any of this was more than my personal opinion. Yet, for some reason (probably so you can "debunk" me), you are trying to make it seem like I did make such a claim.


----
I'm wasting no more time with you.
Plonk. (Welcome to my ignore list)
----


To stereotype a bit, I do know your type. I'm sure you are reading this now, because you can't go without knowing what I say. Whenever someone like you is caught and loses an argument, you claim to put me on ignore. Yet, you know that you read every word I type. You will never ever admit the flaws of your own argument, yet love to try and poke holes in other peoples' arguments. You veil your ad homs, yet yell bloody murder when I openly return an ad hom your way.

You must have went to the same School for the Skeptically Challenged as thaiboxerken.

Cheers wart.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by wert
And why would you assume that an atheist is out to "convert" people.

Nasty bit of stereotyping that.

wert -

did you even read what was posted by specious reasons? Here it is again:

Quote:

Now, please understand that I have heard all of your arguments before. I lived with a seriously devout (and intelligent) Christian for 4 years through college, and had many Christian friends (and "friends" who only wanted to convert me) who have questioned my lack of belief as harshly as I've questioned their faith.

(emphasis mine)

Looks to me that it was a spirited discussion on both sides. SP pointed out that she was not convinced. Whodini merely pointed out that her arguments ("as harshly as I've questioned their faith") likely did not convince the Christians either.

You have read a heck of a lot into the sentence "And you were unable to convince them I'd wager." There is no stereotyping here, nasty or otherwise. It was simply a comment on the debates that SP seemed to have had.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill

----
Whodini merely pointed out that her arguments ("as harshly as I've questioned their faith") likely did not convince the Christians either.

You have read a heck of a lot into the sentence "And you were unable to convince them I'd wager."
----


I doubt wart will admit to that though. To his type, I am already an irrational believer paranormal woo-woo mentally deluded irrational (already said that) stereotyper. There is no way he'd lower himself by admitting he overreacted and was wrong to me.


Check it out, I said:

####
And you were unable to convince them I'd wager.
####


Then wart harshly and defensively jumped to conclusions, and read into what I said, based on his own subjective interpretation through his belief system (atheism):

----
And why would you assume that an atheist is out to "convert" people.
Nasty bit of stereotyping that.
----


If you even remotely "threaten" this believer in atheism, he screams that you are stereotyping, and that you are talking about converting, etc.

My point with the above is that atheists and theists can argue about how each one of them is right until the veins pop out of their foreheads...., which will have absolutely no effect on either side.

Will wert-wart werk up to seeing that, or won't wert-wart?

And who cares! :-)

[Franko]

Quote:

The Thanz:

You have read a heck of a lot into the sentence "And you were unable to convince them I'd wager." There is no stereotyping here, nasty or otherwise. It was simply a comment on the debates that SP seemed to have had.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill

The A-Theists get very touchy when you start hitting too close to the mark Thanz.

[Aardvark_DK]

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
So Ad hominem and logical fallacy are all you have to work with.

Oh come on now, Frank, you don't even know what those terms mean.

[Aardvark_DK]

Ok, Frank, maybe it's not quite fair of me to assume that you don't know what ad hominem or logical fallacy mean just because it has been shown that you don't know what a straw man is. My bad. Sorry.