Religion

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Except we were talking about God, a word which has many definitions already, one of which being the one I used as a starting point. The fact that you only know of one is quite telling.

Had you taken just a little time to talk to actual religious people in your utterly interesting and significant life, you'd understand that they often simply speak an entirely different language. Often they don't even believe that God interferes with mankind. Sometimes they don't even think that God is something that had a hand in the coming into existence of our universe. What do you think all the schisms in Christianity were about? Have you even read anything about religion at all or do you just make it a sport to call other people stupid because of their upbringing?

Had you taken even a single minute to scan through this thread, you would have known that I classify myself as a strong atheist. I believe there is no such thing as God in the creationist sense, and I make no qualms about that. That doesn't stop me from thinking about what the word God could also mean when you're having an actual conversation and you're trying to understand what those inferior, illogical religious morons are actually saying. Sometimes it's nothing, and they're genuinely stupid, but sometimes you simply have to change your own mindset to understand them. You've obviously never even tried this.


You're a respectless cunt, and your half-educated "logic" isn't going to impress anyone in the real world. Learn to listen, and please, finish high school. Youtube really isn't the best place to learn.

Thank you for this post, no seriously, thank you. The irony and wild assumptions made in this post make for a hilarious read.

Where to begin, lets see. First off, there's using other definitions and then there's pulling them out of your ass. You did the latter, not the former. Secondly, and this is one of my favorite parts, your little rant of how I dont talk to religious folk and just call them stupid. That's one of your biggest assumptions yet. Not only was I raised a Roman Catholic, did the whole communion and confirmation thing, I've read the bible. Notice the Sun Tzu quote? That's something i apply in all areas of my life. In fact, i couldn't even properly reject Catholicism without truly understanding it or else Id be a fool. I've also read a translation of the Qur'an since it can't be considered the actual Qur'an unless its in Arabic. Furthermore, some of my good friends are religious and we have fun debating all the time.

Why should I care what you classify yourself as? If you say something completely and utterly wrong I will correct you,as I've been doing.

Lets see, as for the real world. I've held a job since I was 14. I've been heralded by my superiors for being able to think more intelligently and with stronger logic than people twice my age and way more experience. So, actually my logic does hold up splendidly in the real world. As for high school, im quite past that kid. And for the record if YouTube isn't the best place to learn, why does that seem to be where you get all your half-assed pathetic attempts at an argument. And of course im respectless, im not going to respect someone who think I'm dumb enough to believe the same bullshit he does.

[Elude]

You know for being as religious as you are duke you sure as hell have no faith lol. Knowing you're right is about as far from belief as you can get, you're destroying the very nature that your group bases itself on.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Theist: "We are trying to get you to understand there is something somewhere greater than you."

Athiest: "You have no proof of such statement."

Theist: "No we don't have proof, but something did somehow make us"

Athiest: "I won't believe it until I see it."

Theist: "Have you ever seen the distant moon of Pluto called Charon?"

Athiest: "Yes. With a Telescope."

Theist: "True. Do you believe in aliens?"

Athiest: "While it is likely that they exist based on what we've observed about life on this planet, we have not encountered any specific examples."

Theist: "So you might believe in something you've never seen?"

Athiest: "I never said I believed in aliens. I just said they were likely. We have no example of magical super-beings, so I don't consider your god quite as likely."

I thought your strawman could use some improvement, so I made some fixes (bolded).

[Vreki]

Thats an amazing result, unbelievers are usually a minority.

Well, as far as I can see, the only thing all religions can agree on is that the other religions are wrong. So by majority decision, all religions must be wrong

[Figment]

Originally Posted by therandomone

Take a logic course you retarded fuck.

Take it yourself. You really, REALLY need one. Especially the one where you debate with others and verify your own understanding of things, rather than assume you're right.

And a class in etiquette too. And that is probably even more needed, not just because it's not a very nice thing to do - certainly not when not justified - but because you've started to insult for the sake of insulting. You're trying to demonise us so you can pretend you don't have to listen to us.



All in all, probably could use a couple lessons in humility too. You're not omniscient. Not by a long shot.




More importantly though, take a break, read back the thread from page 1. Try to carefully construe where our stances are, where disagreement lies and try to objectively look if your definition is correct. More importantly, take some time to look at the argumentation used. Because you seem to instantly draw conclusions the moment someone disagrees.

[Warborn]

Can't believe you're still writing words at therandomone. He is either a really dedicated troll or literally the dumbest person on this website.

Originally Posted by Vreki

Thats an amazing result, unbelievers are usually a minority.

Younger people are far less religious on average than their parents or their generation. The advent of the Internet and allowing us to easily read or listen to alternative view points means that it's much harder for kids to be effectively indoctrinated into their parents religion, unlike with previous generations.

And as this forum is by-and-large people in their 20s and under...

[Figment]

Originally Posted by therandomone

Err, there's quite a flaw in your logic. Prove that the sum of all stuff is god. Just saying it doesn't make it true. Your premise is flawed. That was easy, next subject please.

Edit: I don't know if you realize this, but engineering is science....

See, therandomone, you are completely incapable of detecting subtleties.


1. Elfailo is an atheist

2. His post is a devil's advocate / poe's law

3. His post is just dripping with sarcasm on all kinds of things (kinda poetically short too)

4. Taken a guess who that post is aimed at?

I must deduce that your reading comprehension lacks significantly and that fits with the greater pattern.

Originally Posted by Warborn

Can't believe you're still writing words at therandomone. He is either a really dedicated troll or literally the dumbest person on this website.

Wouldn't say dumb, would say pigheaded and a self-absorbed narcissist. Him having been brought up as Roman Catholic might explain why he tries to define atheism so stubbornly as something that his ideal is: he doesn't want anything to do with faith whatsoever.


What he forgets though, is that definitions are not always as clean cut as he'd like them to be.


That's self-evidenced by his debate with Elfailo, who took the liberty to loan an all-encompassing definition of god for the sake of argument. Explains by very simple metaphors how people could have different definitions of the same word, after which he goes mental about how there's only one definition for anything and everything...


His problem, is his lack of understanding of definitions and clinging on to the idea that only one definition can be correct. He cannot place himself in the position of other people. He cannot consider that people might have different argumentations or trains of thought (or lack thereof), but still come to the same conclusion or coincidentally have a similar believe set that - for instance - makes them be defined as atheist. Even if they're very far removed from his personal definition of atheism. Makes me think he's scared to admit that there are others that are kinda like him in this one stance of life, yet do not have the same general mindset and thus can have things like faith or random believes that do not mix with his own ideal vision of an atheist.

Basically, he idolises the concept of what he perceives to be atheism. It would also explain his fanatic defense of his own concept: critique on his definition means critique on his ideal image of how humans should be.


Again... every single argument with therandomone is about definitions and their use. This clearly shows he's not a very creative thinker and tbh, never gave the scope that does not fit his definition much thought. In a sense he's a logical thinker, but he lacks the imagination, knowledge and experience to get outside the scope of his own definitions. Hence he can't ever come to the conclusions many of us have and without the knowledge we do have (about other forms and accepted, backed up and argumented definitions of atheism), it is OUR logic that might seem bad to him, because he can't admit to himself there's more to it than what he knows.

=)



And no therandomone, that's not an insult or attack, it's an analysis. I know you'll say it's wrong and poorly construed, but that's largely because you'll dismiss anything you don't want to hear anyway. As such, you're a rather poor skeptic, because you don't verify your own initial believes.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Figment

See, therandomone, you are completely incapable of detecting subtleties.


1. Elfailo is an atheist

2. His post is a devil's advocate / poe's law

3. His post is just dripping with sarcasm on all kinds of things (kinda poetically short too)

4. Taken a guess who that post is aimed at?

I must deduce that your reading comprehension lacks significantly and that fits with the greater pattern.



Wouldn't say dumb, would say pigheaded and a self-absorbed narcissist. Him having been brought up as Roman Catholic might explain why he tries to define atheism so stubbornly as something that his ideal is: he doesn't want anything to do with faith whatsoever.


What he forgets though, is that definitions are not always as clean cut as he'd like them to be.


That's self-evidenced by his debate with Elfailo, who took the liberty to loan an all-encompassing definition of god for the sake of argument. Explains by very simple metaphors how people could have different definitions of the same word, after which he goes mental about how there's only one definition for anything and everything...


His problem, is his lack of understanding of definitions and clinging on to the idea that only one definition can be correct. He cannot place himself in the position of other people. He cannot consider that people might have different argumentations or trains of thought (or lack thereof), but still come to the same conclusion or coincidentally have a similar believe set that - for instance - makes them be defined as atheist. Even if they're very far removed from his personal definition of atheism. Makes me think he's scared to admit that there are others that are kinda like him in this one stance of life, yet do not have the same general mindset and thus can have things like faith or random believes that do not mix with his own ideal vision of an atheist.

Basically, he idolises the concept of what he perceives to be atheism. It would also explain his fanatic defense of his own concept: critique on his definition means critique on his ideal image of how humans should be.


Again... every single argument with therandomone is about definitions and their use. This clearly shows he's not a very creative thinker and tbh, never gave the scope that does not fit his definition much thought. In a sense he's a logical thinker, but he lacks the imagination, knowledge and experience to get outside the scope of his own definitions. Hence he can't ever come to the conclusions many of us have and without the knowledge we do have (about other forms and accepted, backed up and argumented definitions of atheism), it is OUR logic that might seem bad to him, because he can't admit to himself there's more to it than what he knows.

=)



And no therandomone, that's not an insult or attack, it's an analysis. I know you'll say it's wrong and poorly construed, but that's largely because you'll dismiss anything you don't want to hear anyway. As such, you're a rather poor skeptic, because you don't verify your own initial believes.

1. Yes...we've established this. Your point?
2. Still doesn't mean its not wrong.
3. See #2
4. I'm going to go out on a limb and say assholes like me.

Err, never said theres only one definition. The problem with Elfailo's statement is that his premises are flawed. If the sum of all stuff is God, that would make each individual "stuff" part-god. Now sure it could be argued I'm a narcissist (usually its a woman calling me that) but I know I am not part-god. Nor is there evidence to suggest that I am anything but a mortal, biological creature. Hence one of the huge flaws in his argument.

"He cannot consider that people might have different argumentations or trains of thought (or lack thereof), but still come to the same conclusion or coincidentally have a similar believe set that - for instance - makes them be defined as atheist. Even if they're very far removed from his personal definition of atheism."
Here's a little test for you, logically defend atheism in a manner that doesn't use any naturalistic, materialistic (physicalism), or inductive premises/principles. If you can do that, then hell I'll agree you can believe in ghosts (or unicorns or anything remotely supernatural) and not believe in god. Until then, anyone who does claim those beliefs (or lack thereof) is a hypocrite and a fool. It's quite simple really.

Why would I consider this an attack? In fact, I'm impressed by the rhetoric as it seems your best crafted post yet. Do I think its wrong? Of course, for the reasons above.

Also this line: "because you'll dismiss anything you don't want to hear anyway"
I may have insulted your intelligence before, but even you're smart enough to know that's a 360 argument and I could easily say the same to you. So if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then nothing is.

Warborn- It's sad in this day and age being right makes you a troll.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by therandomone

1. Yes...we've established this. Your point?
2. Still doesn't mean its not wrong.
3. See #2
4. I'm going to go out on a limb and say assholes like me.

The point is you didn't realise it and held him for a theist and even when he explained why, you would go mental on how he's an idiot. You're completely incapable of argument by hypothesis.

The point he was making is, that if you define something in a manner that essentially means that whatever it is, you're always right, then you can't be wrong. So no, in the context of his hypothesis, he's not 'wrong' no. Which doesn't mean he's "right". Get it?

As for #4. No. It was not mean for you, you made it be about an argument between you two and you disrupted his argument train of thought setup related to someone else before that person took the bait.

Err, never said theres only one definition. The problem with Elfailo's statement is that his premises are flawed. If the sum of all stuff is God, that would make each individual "stuff" part-god. Now sure it could be argued I'm a narcissist (usually its a woman calling me that) but I know I am not part-god. Nor is there evidence to suggest that I am anything but a mortal, biological creature. Hence one of the huge flaws in his argument.

This then is your problem. You don't really "get" philosophy. You "get" what you know, or think you know. it can easily be argued that you wouldn't need to know you're a part of a god. Do your white blood cells know they're a part of you? Do you think a moonrock is aware it's part of the moon and may have been part of something else? Knowledge is relative. You know you're a citizen of your nation. A baby does not.

"He cannot consider that people might have different argumentations or trains of thought (or lack thereof), but still come to the same conclusion or coincidentally have a similar believe set that - for instance - makes them be defined as atheist. Even if they're very far removed from his personal definition of atheism."
Here's a little test for you, logically defend atheism in a manner that doesn't use any naturalistic, materialistic (physicalism), or inductive premises/principles. If you can do that, then hell I'll agree you can believe in ghosts (or unicorns or anything remotely supernatural) and not believe in god. Until then, anyone who does claim those beliefs (or lack thereof) is a hypocrite and a fool. It's quite simple really.

Alright. Imagine a person saying this: "I've never been part of a culture with a religion that considered the existence of deities. So naturally, I've never considered the possibility of their existence and therefore don't believe in them."

That statement could easily be expanded by simply passing on knowledge that "happened to work" instead of actually testing knowledge or understanding its backdrop. A culture can lack both science and religion.

That was easy.

Similarly, hindus. You may not believe in the hindu god because you consider it an outdated thing that by now has ran its course, yet believe in reincarnation. Do you have any evidence of reincarnation? I presume not and therefore don't believe it? What if your entire culture would be based on reincarnation? What if you don't question everything?

Again, as long as you just question the god part, you don't NEED to question anything else and still be an atheist. This is completely inconceivable for you, I know, but that makes you a narrowminded person who can not widen his scope beyond his own personality. This is your main issue in debate.

And for the record, there are examples of multiple primitive cultures (including some pygmee tribes) like that who did not have deities till the fine missionary men from Europe came and "educated" them. Are you certain that pygmee tribes were the scientific types?

Why would I consider this an attack? In fact, I'm impressed by the rhetoric as it seems your best crafted post yet. Do I think its wrong? Of course, for the reasons above.

Also this line: "because you'll dismiss anything you don't want to hear anyway"
I may have insulted your intelligence before, but even you're smart enough to know that's a 360 argument and I could easily say the same to you. So if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then nothing is.

I don't think it'd be fair to say the pot calling the kettle black, because you've been observed by a variety of independent people here to be making an arse out of yourself and dismissing arguments of hand. Several people independently made the observation you're rather narcissistic, stubborn and rather fanatical. So fanatical you respond in an extreme hurry. Meaning you set yourself up to misread, miss the point and miss-assign posts completely.

That's entirely up to you dropping to conclusions too hastily. We've got all the time in the world. No need to drop to conclusions.

Warborn- It's sad in this day and age being right makes you a troll.

Perhaps consider that's not what makes you a troll. Perhaps calling everyone names and misinterpreting their posts in a rather arrogant, denegrating and insulting manner is.

[The Loverator]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Agnostic. I don't have time to or care enough to believe in anything.

So pretty well said. I totally agree here.

While i must admit at the same Time, that "I" don't have enough time in believing something specific, because i don't are in the Mood for that.

Maybe, only a little bit, from what People call "New-Age-Stuff" and spiritual things, i am totally convinced that these are the most true Logics about our Universe outside of the Life-Span of People.


While at the same Time: I don't "feel" that i have to make a "Believing"-Thing out of it.
I don't feel like i have to or "must" make a thing like opening a Cult or Religion and convice People that our Soul's are eternal, even if "we" as Person's end someday. :-P

N~aaahhhg, i JUST felt that i am already putting to much Time in something so unimportant. xD




greetings, LV.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Figment

The point is you didn't realise it and held him for a theist and even when he explained why, you would go mental on how he's an idiot. You're completely incapable of argument by hypothesis.

The point he was making is, that if you define something in a manner that essentially means that whatever it is, you're always right, then you can't be wrong. So no, in the context of his hypothesis, he's not 'wrong' no. Which doesn't mean he's "right". Get it?

As for #4. No. It was not mean for you, you made it be about an argument between you two and you disrupted his argument train of thought setup related to someone else before that person took the bait.

I didn't take him as a theist, I took him as being wrong. Devil's advocate or whatever you want to call what he was doing he was still wrong. He was wrong because his hypothesis/premises (whatever you want to name it, was still severely flawed). Also, I even knowing it was meant for someone else now couldn't in good faith (I'm a fan of the irony) let someone be baited by something so void of thought.

Originally Posted by Figment

This then is your problem. You don't really "get" philosophy. You "get" what you know, or think you know. it can easily be argued that you wouldn't need to know you're a part of a god. Do your white blood cells know they're a part of you? Do you think a moonrock is aware it's part of the moon and may have been part of something else? Knowledge is relative. You know you're a citizen of your nation. A baby does not.

There's a diffence in saying you are part-god compared to saying you are part of a god. The first says you have certain god-like qualities, the second says you are involved with a god(not that you necessarily have the god-like qualities). Stick to what's actually being debated. To make the claim you are part-god (read: not part of a god), thats exactly what you need-proof. Do you know what claims without proof are? Beliefs. And those have no place in a logical debate because they don't stand up to any rational scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Figment

Alright. Imagine a person saying this: "I've never been part of a culture with a religion that considered the existence of deities. So naturally, I've never considered the possibility of their existence and therefore don't believe in them."

That statement could easily be expanded by simply passing on knowledge that "happened to work" instead of actually testing knowledge or understanding its backdrop. A culture can lack both science and religion.

Sure, a culture can lack both science and religion...but that has nothing to do with what we're debating. They can have those ideas, but without testing that knowledge there's no logical strength in what they are saying. They can't rationally defend their position...much like theists. To rationally defend atheism you can't help but use the premises of the "isms" I described earlier. If I'm wrong, why haven't been able to do it? Hell, you keep avoiding that every time I bring it up because even you know you can't.

Originally Posted by Figment

That was easy.

Similarly, hindus. You may not believe in the hindu god because you consider it an outdated thing that by now has ran its course, yet believe in reincarnation. Do you have any evidence of reincarnation? I presume not and therefore don't believe it? What if your entire culture would be based on reincarnation? What if you don't question everything?

Are you really trying to debate with what-ifs? What if we're all just in the matrix man? What if you're all just a figment of my imagination? See, why that doesnt work? Because if not, there is not much hope here.

Originally Posted by Figment

Again, as long as you just question the god part, you don't NEED to question anything else and still be an atheist. This is completely inconceivable for you, I know, but that makes you a narrowminded person who can not widen his scope beyond his own personality. This is your main issue in debate.

And for the record, there are examples of multiple primitive cultures (including some pygmee tribes) like that who did not have deities till the fine missionary men from Europe came and "educated" them. Are you certain that pygmee tribes were the scientific types?

No, my main issue here is that you're not arguing my claims, you're arguing something completely different and calling it mine. The pygmee tribes have a belief because their claim wouldnt hold up to logical scrutiny. Remember the whole claim without proof thing from earlier? That's what the pygmee tribes would be doing. I don't see how it is difficult to understand that. In fact, that's what you've done by avoiding trying to rationally defend atheism without...(wait, I said this before, see above and quit avoiding it).

Originally Posted by Figment

I don't think it'd be fair to say the pot calling the kettle black, because you've been observed by a variety of independent people here to be making an arse out of yourself and dismissing arguments of hand. Several people independently made the observation you're rather narcissistic, stubborn and rather fanatical. So fanatical you respond in an extreme hurry. Meaning you set yourself up to misread, miss the point and miss-assign posts completely.

That's entirely up to you dropping to conclusions too hastily. We've got all the time in the world. No need to drop to conclusions.



Perhaps consider that's not what makes you a troll. Perhaps calling everyone names and misinterpreting their posts in a rather arrogant, denegrating and insulting manner is.

You realize you've just committed an obvious fallacy. Its called argumentum ad populum. 50 million elvis fans cant be wrong, can they? By your "logic" they cant. More examples:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19649...to-movies.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_19864...g-america.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_18487...-are-true.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_16101...ory-class.html

Majority doesn't equal right.

You're right though. That was easy.

As for the last comment, my assholish nature comes from two ideologies.
1. When you're right, you're right. Who cares if people think you're an asshole.
2. Goes back to a Gemineye's poem "Poetic Bloodlines". The thing I take from that is "make intelligence a law because ignorance is a crime".

Which is why I refuse to tolerate bullshit when I see it. What's really insulting is that you think I would fall for such simple ploys. If you're going to try and sell me a turd, at least try and polish it up a little.

[Figment]

Ugh. Therandomone, if you want to continue being so pigheaded, please do, but please consider you might actually be wrong for once, because all you want to do is prove to yourself that whatever we say is wrong.

There's no point argueing with you since by default you'll declare everything wrong.


EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've not seen you make ONE admittion, you are completely incapable of differentiating between "what ifs" and reality. I give you a premise and examples and all you do is "well that's all nice in theory but I'll just pretend it's all theory and thus it's wrong". Nice. You would have been an excellent creationist argueing against the theory of evolution, because you're doing the same thing as they do. Again. Ironic really. The "what ifs" you see are reality and are actually enticing you to try and place yourself in the position of atheist Hindus. They are trying to spark your imagination and to look beyond your own position, which you stubbornly refuse because you don't WANT to listen to us. You're only interested in dismissing whatever is being said.

You can't even comprehend this simple thing and focus on the words "what if" as if they're suggesting it's a completely random thing and therefore you can dismiss it. It's not. These people exist. I'm trying to make you see their point of view, but all you are interested in is using semantics to "prove" yourself right by ignoring reality.



ATHEIST HINDUS THAT BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION EXIST.


You wanted an example, I give it. You declare the example theory. I'm very close to returning the insults at this point, because you're just being obstinate here.


Hell, if I were to say something you completely agree with, you'd STILL say we're wrong, just because you see us as antagonists. In fact, you have on several occassions. Including one where thesheppy bassically told you to stop reinventing the wheel, after which you called him an idiot and what not and didn't even realise he agreed with you but thought you were being an arse and making superfluous points, next to making some inaccurate statements.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Nothing wrong with arrogance when you're right. Too bad you're not right. I was wrong "because my hypothesis/premises whatever"? Nice job chump change, that doesn't even make sense. Maybe if you spent half the time you spend posturing on actual thinking instead, you wouldn't look like a complete putz.

Way to inappropriately quote me by juxtaposing 1 sentence with a word from another to create the desired effect. You've basically done what Fox News does. Now take your own advice and shut up and let the grown ups talk.

Originally Posted by Figment

Ugh. Therandomone, if you want to continue being so pigheaded, please do, but please consider you might actually be wrong for once, because all you want to do is prove to yourself that whatever we say is wrong.

There's no point argueing with you since by default you'll declare everything wrong.


EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've not seen you make ONE admittion,

Have you heard of the psychological defense mechanism called Projection? You've demonstrated it beautifully. Also again, this is the pot calling the kettle black as you are upset at me for not making an admission yet I do not see you being that humble yourself.

Originally Posted by Figment

you are completely incapable of differentiating between "what ifs" and reality. I give you a premise and examples and all you do is "well that's all nice in theory but I'll just pretend it's all theory and thus it's wrong". Nice. You would have been an excellent creationist argueing against the theory of evolution, because you're doing the same thing as they do. Again. Ironic really. The "what ifs" you see are reality and are actually enticing you to try and place yourself in the position of atheist Hindus. They are trying to spark your imagination and to look beyond your own position, which you stubbornly refuse because you don't WANT to listen to us. You're only interested in dismissing whatever is being said.

You can't even comprehend this simple thing and focus on the words "what if" as if they're suggesting it's a completely random thing and therefore you can dismiss it. It's not. These people exist. I'm trying to make you see their point of view, but all you are interested in is using semantics to "prove" yourself right by ignoring reality.

This is an easy one, maybe repetition will help. Red herring. Red herring. Red herring. Debate what I am actually saying, not what you want me to be saying.

Originally Posted by Figment

ATHEIST HINDUS THAT BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION EXIST.


You wanted an example, I give it. You declare the example theory. I'm very close to returning the insults at this point, because you're just being obstinate here.

Again, I never said they don't exist. I'm just saying they're a walking contradiction from a logical standpoint. Also, if you return to insults at least maybe then you'll debate what I'm actually saying because this Red Herring fallacy you're committing is starting to border on the side of ridiculousness. I'm starting to believe you're doing it on purpose because of how severe it is.

Originally Posted by Figment

Hell, if I were to say something you completely agree with, you'd STILL say we're wrong, just because you see us as antagonists.

Actually, if you said something that didn't commit a logical fallacy or wasn't riddled with logical inaccuracies then I would happily agree with you. You've just been unable to do that.

Originally Posted by Figment

In fact, you have on several occassions. Including one where thesheppy bassically told you to stop reinventing the wheel, after which you called him an idiot and what not and didn't even realise he agreed with you but thought you were being an arse and making superfluous points, next to making some inaccurate statements.

You do realize you answered why I argued with thesheppy in your own post. He called important logical points superfluous (I don't disagree I'm not an ass). None of the statements I made we're inaccurate. But how would you know? This post is evidence that you don't debate what I actually say.

Now go back, re-read and debate what I'm saying not what you want me to be saying.

[Figment]

Thanks for proving my points. And I mean all of them.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Figment

Thanks for proving my points. And I mean all of them.

Though I have been guilty of it before, I'm trying not to do the sentence-by-sentence rebuttals, but rather to read a post, condense the idea, and reply with something like a short essay.

Reason being, whenever I see someone take a post and respond to every. single. sentence. in order to rebut every single point individually, all I can think of is a child standing there, arms crossed, shouting "nuh-uh!" at every pause.

I think it shows that the other party is just looking to be contrary for fun, or isn't interested in the idea of conversation. So as I said, I'm trying to ween myself off doing it.