1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156012 by sdbranum on April 6, 2008 at 1:39 pm

re: post 622

You could be one that sincerely is willing to debate without slander and insult, and there could also be others. And it is a shame there is the baggage to ignore in order to engage those such as yourself. I truly do not mean to sling insults toward such people, and for that I apologize, but contrary to an assertion otherwise, I did indeed read many posts on this particular subject, including Dawkins' rant, which had to be read several times to understand, and after the 200th or so post, I admit I was more than ready to sling a few insults back towards the posters in general. That is probably as close to an apology I am likely to post, and it is specifically directed to those such as yourself. I've got life to get on with now.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156004 by sdbranum on April 6, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Your comments demonstrate woeful misunderstanding which I must assume means that either you have not bothered to take the time to read around this site, or you have and you are choosing to misrepresent what you have seen here.

For some reason I doubt you have any feeling of "woe", but hey, it's a big word, and it makes you look intelligent. Right?

I must congratulate you on your originality, however. We've certainly never had a believer come onto this site before, accusing us of being sheep, followers of Dawkins, believers in a religion. This is something that I have never heard before. Oh, wait. I'm being sarcastic.

Your insult attempt would've been more effective if you didn't feel the need to explain yourself. Just a pointer for future reference… Try leaving off the explanation next time. Your buddies will still get it (maybe), and you'll add the extra slam of insinuating your polished prose is over the head of your opponent.

Accusations that we are followers of a religion fall down when you take two seconds to examine them. You are essentially claiming that we are fundamentalist believers in "No-God". All praise No-God. The idea is absurd. Atheism is an absence of belief.

Thank you for attempting to restate my words for me, but since I know what I meant, and since you obviously did not, perhaps you'd do better to attack the words as written. Strawmen, which are set up for the purpose of easily being knocked down, do nothing but show your inability to address the statement as it stood. It feeds the faithful, I'll grant you that, but they will always be easily led by whatever cult figure pounces on the scene next, so they are that important anyway. I would hope you are after more intelligent followers than that, but maybe you value each and every sycophant, so maybe you have your own reasons for throwing out such claptrap.

These accusations that you make are more telling about your own mindset. You are so used to associating people who agree with each other with religion that you are unable to see anything else. This is why I think that you have not looked around the site. If you had, you would have encountered vehement debates on many threads. But why let the truth get in the way of your comforting presuppositions?

My relative lack of time spent analyzing each and every post on this web site could not perhaps have to do more with the fact that I am not a fellow worshipper in your online sanctuary? No. Of course not. Everyone should be so devoted to his highness as you. That way you could more effectively cram your religious beliefs, i.e. that there is no God, down everyone's throats. Of course, I am just assuming that is part of your "belief system". Maybe that assumption is wrong.

Oh, and I'd be very interested if you'd provide some links for these debates where "The Professor" debated people who "waxed his butt". Whatever that means.

I truly don't believe you would really be interested, but here's a test. Have you sent off a request to Lord Dawkins to enlighten you why he no longer debates such matters in a controlled public forum where more than his faithful are in the audience? No? Didn't think so. That your words stating you'd be "very interested" constitute a poorly concealed lie - q.e.d.

I notice in addition that you have not responded to my comment…

How could I respond to such effective debate. My! You are certainly world class! There now. Is that better? Is your ego properly massaged now? Good, since unlike you, I do not devote my life to your church, its leaders and its doctrine, and since that is the case, I don't hang onto every word posted on this site to the exclusion of all other interests. But I sympathize with you somewhat. It must be nearly unbearable to have no friends other than those you "meet" on the Internet.

Clearly I am in way over my head here, so I must to run for cover. I can't match such high quality debate. Oh, woe is me. I am undone. Baaaaaye

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155992 by sdbranum on April 6, 2008 at 1:14 pm

What are the tenets of my so-called religion?
Someone neglected to mail me the pamphlet.

Though it depends upon the various sects, most recognize the Humanist Manifesto as authoritative, which is why some atheists often refer to themselves as Humanists. There are surely others though.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155986 by sdbranum on April 6, 2008 at 1:09 pm

A wonderful example of how some theists divert discussion when they aren't capable of defending their positions.

And such is never found among the posts of your fellow believers, right? Before responding, it might be advisable to review some of those posts with a slightly critical eye. Also, have you not noticed Dawkins being excused for his faux pax with the assertion that since they started it, so it was proper to respond in kind? So its okay for people of your faith to insult and slam those who disagree, and it is even okay for your faith's own leader to dismiss extremely intelligent individuals as "stupid, ignorant or insane", simply because they espouse a different view, but it is not okay for me to respond to insult with insult, to be dismissive as they have been dismissive. If the atmosphere of this blog was such that one could actually see people debating civilly, and not one where posters are falling all over themselves to flatter Dawkins, and fawning over him to the point that even readers feel embarrassment for him, then you would encounter a whole host of serious debaters presenting some very challenging ideas for your ponderance. Perhaps there are a few that actually could civilly debate, but you couldn't do it on this forum due to the others who would throw out one line misrepresentations of what ID enthusiasts believe, then proceed to trash argument the person or persons never made nor intended. Among bo9th Christians and Atheists, there are those who believe what they believe because that is what they have always been told, or they have placed their trust in someone they believe to have performed rigorous research and are willing to accept the assertion made by them without criticism, but there are also those who have fully investigated why they believe what they believe, and no doubt on both sides of the debate. I believe that I am one such individual, and I also believe most that post here couldn't effectively defend their own belief system in one on one situation, so they respond like an enraged mob, hence the reference to them being sheep. I have no illusion that there are some among you that could present a serious challenge requiring me to do some very thorough research before I could respond, and if I ever encountered such a statement, I would not be offended. In fact, I would find it refreshing, since I have not had anyone present me with some challenge of any significance that could not be easily answered from being confronted with the same in the past. On the other hand, there are some very serious gaps, weaknesses and outright flaws in Evolutionary Theory, for which I have never received a satisfactory answer. There are also many more that I have with regard to Atheism in general, which have never been satisfactorily answered. I would actually enjoy reading a challenging response, but I doubt that I would find it here, and I have no doubt that when I decide enough of this childishness and leave, there will be those posting comments such as, "he couldn't provide a rational response, so he left". Yep. That'll be the reason. Baaaaaa.

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155966 by sdbranum on April 6, 2008 at 12:44 pm

I think many of the readers and posters here, me included, would appreciate it if you said something of substance rather than demonstrating your ability to swap insults

Sure you would. That's why anytime anyone posts a comment with which you disagree, the first replies are insults. That is why your cult leader dismisses anyone who believes differently as "stupid, ignorant or insane". That is why the general tone of these posts, from the very start, were filled with venom and vitriol towards those who believe differently than you. Of course! Why didn't I see that from the start? Intelligent debate from one who actually is not a member of your mutual masterbation society is welcomed, desired and actually encouraged.

Okay. Since I took more than two seconds to actually look up the definition of religion, here's one for you.

Accusations that we are followers of a religion fall down when you take two seconds to examine them. You are essentially claiming that we are fundamentalist believers in "No-God". All praise No-God. The idea is absurd. Atheism is an absence of belief.

An definition found online, which is more than sufficient to point out the falacy of the above argument is as follows.

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. Definitions mostly include:

a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents
Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments."[6] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that reduce religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."

Since I am expecting all here to blindly say, "That's absurd", I'll follow up with a sarcastic version that makes the same point.

The idea is absurd. Atheism is an absence of belief.

You believe that strongly, do you?

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155947 by sdbranum on April 6, 2008 at 12:01 pm

I guess intelligence is not something you are familiar with.

Well, let's see. Did you mean to say, "I guess intelligence is not something with which you are familiar"? If so, it appears I've a bit more familiarity with that concept than you.

Only the last word was a response to you

If that was your intent, then I would have expected to see just the one word, without the preliminaries, but that's just me, a stupid, ignorant or insane ID'er, which is in my mind much to be preferred over being elitist, who so uninformed about what his opponent actually believes, that he must set up strawmen arguments in order produce some semblance of successfully engaging in debate.

Still, I'm not surprised, because from the retarded nature of your comments, your brain obviously congealed on a certain part of the dead jesus as he inserted it into your empty cranium.

Yeah, that's effective! You go bro! Show 'em all how familiar you are with intelligence. Rah! Rah! Baaaaa!

Look at me, I'm a theist, I cant even think up original insults, my priest told me what to say.

Okay, if you say so, but I thought you were an atheist, though I wholeheartedly agree your attempt was amateurish at best. Also, I wasn't aware Dawkins was your priest, but now that I do, I'll be sure to show the proper respect. Would he prefer to be called Reverend, Rabbi or Father Dawkins? Perhaps he would prefer simply Lord Dawkins. I already saw where one sycophant stated he would prefer to be addressed as Richard, but that was probably meant only for the faithful, and as I have just recently entered your sanctuary, such familiarity might seem a bit inappropriate coming from me.

(Well maybe it was the voices in your head from your invisible zombie delusion)

Though credit must be given for being somewhat understandable prose, you need a little work on your punctuation, tensing and contextual referencing. It would have warranted a C if you had made clear exactly what was being referenced by 'it'. As it stands, I must again assert your unfamiliarity with the concept of intelligence, but that is probably overkill, since you've already ceded your lack of originality.
You have made my point better than any response from me could ever hope to accomplish. By the way, you are now up to a hundred some odd words after promising just one, but I'll not hold you to that, since your response has been of such aid in strengthening my points. Thank you. Please, continue.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155881 by sdbranum on April 6, 2008 at 8:04 am

And yet you needed eight. Plus a quote. Baaaaa.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155801 by sdbranum on April 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Diacanu, the fact that you asked is evidence you saw the same thing in all your buddies' posts that I saw. Thanks for validating my observation, as I made the statement as I did for this very purpose. You would have lied and said it wasn't true if I had stated exactly to what I was referring, but you fell for the trap and now can't pull that one. Again, thanks for proving my point, and now you can address the matter of hypocrisy that arises as a direct result from that validation. Or maybe you'll just avoid the debate, the same way "The Professor" has avoided debating these "stupid, ignorant or insane" people that waxed his butt in debate after debate, so much so that he decided to take his ball and go home, i.e. to here on this blog, where he can preach to his faithful following. Yes, he is the leader of YOUR religion, no matter how much you try to deny it. Whenever faced with information that goes against your closely held beliefs, you all respond the same way as a typical militant Muslim would if someone were to impugn Mohammed, no difference at all. What is amazing though is the absolute blindness required not to see that for yourselves.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155799 by sdbranum on April 5, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Double Bass Atheist,

I noted your post where you stated, "Inventing data, misrepresenting information, deceit and deception, are common place..."


Do you mean like this?


"...and they are even paying "Christian" schools per kid that they send to the theaters"

By the way, your fawning over the Professor, "(I know he wants us to call him just Richard now, but old habits and respect keep getting in the way)", was a bit over the top, don't you think? That's right! The Professor does all your thinking for you. Maybe I should put this in your native language. Baaaaa, baaaaaa, baaaaaa.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155783 by sdbranum on April 5, 2008 at 7:13 pm

So much vitriol and hate...