Tony1, are you a liar, or just forgetful? Tony1 You're really, really reaching. Of course, this is why you were asked whether or not you expect to be taken seriously. I have determined from your response that you do not, and shall regard you accordingly. However, treating you as the joke you are does not mean I shall accept your lies. Consider this, from your most recent response: Yet it doesn't take that much searching to find that very dismissal of yours on 9/1/01, in the Predestination topic: * http://www.sciforums.com/t3726/sf5b...ead.php?threadid=3726&perpage=20&pagenumber=3 What's the point of inquiring about a doctrine if it's only going to be written off as another in a desperate attempt to avoid the discussion? So what is it, Tony1: are you that stupid a liar that really thinks we don't remember the idiocies you spout? Or are you just an idiot who can't remember what he's said in a desperate effort to avoid discussing anything? Your position in this topic is as unsupportable as it was in the Predestination discussion. You ought to do yourself a favor: since you would rather be treated as a joke, you ought to strive to be a funny joke, instead of a sick joke. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: And yet again.... *Originally posted by Godless Watch out Tony1, Satan is helping write this for you.... * That's what I've been trying to tell you. If you aren't for God, you are for Satan. If God isn't helping you, Satan is "helping" you. *Originally posted by tiassa Yet it doesn't take that much searching to find that very dismissal of yours on 9/1/01, in the Predestination topic:* I commend you on your mastery of command-C followed by command-V. It still isn't much of an issue. *h t t p://www.sciforums.com/t3726/sf5b...20&pagenumber=3 * Just an indication of your self-centeredness. When you are referencing other threads in sciforums, you should be aware that not everyone has the number of posts per page set the same as you. *Your position in this topic is as unsupportable as it was in the Predestination discussion. * Unsupportable, how?
This is exactly why you won't be taken seriously anymore, Tony1 Really, Tony1, what do you expect? With this being the best you can do--which is, in reality, relevant only to your declared need to stop Tiassa from posting--I think it's perfectly clear why your points will no longer be regarded with any real credibility. It's largely based on an argument that you won't describe to the rest of us: it only makes sense to you, and you don't seem to care if anyone else knows where you're coming from. The integrity of your posts has never been Good, but what, for instance, does your perception of cutting and pasting have to do with the issue of whether or not we've discussed Calvinism in these forums before? As far as we can tell in any argument, "Catholic" is a derogatory word to describe anyone who claims Christ but disagrees with Tony1. You really do need to put some effort into having a point to communicate, and then working toward that communication. This random blithering is well and fine, but as a demonstration of what Christianity earns an individual in faith or a world in tolerance, you're pretty much rushing toward idiocy. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Another trend in operation: Missed Ideas This just hit me, Tony1 ... it's a good example: you claim Christianity, yet I claim you miss the idea .... For instance, this ... just like you use the Bible and never get the idea, so it seems with your Mac ... c'mon, Tony1, how did you miss the idea motivating the tool you're using? How could a Mac user possibly treat their religion in such a Windows-based manner? Wooden Jesus, where are you from? Redmond, apparently. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: This is exactly why you won't be taken seriously anymore, Tony1 *Originally posted by tiassa declared need to stop Tiassa from posting* I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at. I'm not trying to stop you from posting. I'm trying to stop you from posting crap. *what, for instance, does your perception of cutting and pasting have to do with the issue of whether or not we've discussed Calvinism in these forums before?* About the same as your claiming that it is an "issue" when it isn't. * "Catholic" is a derogatory word to describe anyone who claims Christ but disagrees with Tony1.* Cute, but inaccurate. "Catholic" refers to someone who is a Catholic, whether or not they claim a belief in Christ. *How could a Mac user possibly treat their religion in such a Windows-based manner?* It was you who claimed that your friend said "command-Q" when convinced I was "trolling" you. *Originally posted by Godless Ohhhhh!!!! Tony1 still doesn't know what it is to be an athiest, if I don't believe in a supreme being, the supernatural, that means any supreme being or supernatural, which ever realm of existence you mean, wether god or the devil, I refuse to believe in such entities cause they represent the supernatural! see!* So what if you refuse? That's no different than refusing to believe cars and trucks drive down the freeway, and walking across one randomly. The cars and trucks don't care if you believe they're there or not. They'll still flatten you either way. The whole point of being an atheist is thinking that "not" believing in God will make him go away. Dream on.
A point you didn't know you were making And therein lies an even more logical explanation. And you've made an excellent point, too, that you do actually see the posts you're responding to. In light of that, your failure to demonstrate even the slightest understanding of the topics at hand reflects poorly on your credibility. Since you spend your time slogging through posts looking for a peg upon which to hang your threadbare sarcasm, it is obvious that you have nothing better than that piss-poor excuse for an attitude problem to offer these forums. Being that I believe in a free world, nobody can tell you to shut the hell up. In the meantime, you're perfectly welcome to continue making an ass out of yourself in the name of Jesus. Really, Tony1 ... every time you click Submit Reply, you only prove why faith in the Bible is a bad idea for anyone this side of comatose. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And every time others answer him they kill a perfectly good debate. I can not count the number of threads that Tony1 has successfully crashed because of the help of others. This thread has been flooded, pointless and the original points lost. Why continue?
FA_Q2, Perfect, and some of us have already spotted this. He has splattered himself everywhere with his rantings and most feel sufficently outraged that they cannot help but respond. And that just feeds his voracity for more ranting. So what's the answer? We could starve him by not responding and simply treat his texts as white noise. Perhaps that way we could return to some more productive debates. But that needs everyone to cooperate. Cris
Chris Chris this would be hard to do, we may not like the nonsence that Tony1 tries to feed us, however it's his arrogance and self indulge feeling of omniscient to our responses in a cut&paste form that nick and picks at each of us demanding an answer to his whims. What can one do? Perhaps if each of us here just avoid answering his ignorant posts in a case by case manner, we may be able to have coherent dialog. Of course this would be up to each individual that he would quote from.
which point were you were making, tiassa? *Originally posted by tiassa Since you spend your time slogging through posts* Could you perhaps consider deciding which it is? Am I "slogging" thru posts or am I not reading them at all? Your earlier complaint was that I fly thru your posts so fast that your friend thought I was "trolling" you. Your complaint at that time was that I take only two minutes going thru long posts. Now your complaint is that I am "slogging" thru them. Could it be that you are typing your posts with your hemorrhoids? (That would be the online equivalent of talking thru your ass) *Originally posted by FA_Q2 This thread has been flooded, pointless and the original points lost. Why continue?* Hey, you're back, FA_Q2. Is there a thread in existence anywhere where the original points aren't lost? Take your post as an example. What does it have to do with any point, let alone the "original" point? *Originally posted by Cris And that just feeds his voracity for more ranting. * Let me guess. Anyone who points out the fallacy of your position is "ranting." And everyone who propounds bad logic in the name of atheism is calm and rational. Am I correct? *Originally posted by Godless Chris this would be hard to do, we may not like the nonsence that Tony1 tries to feed us, however it's his arrogance and self indulge feeling of omniscient to our responses* My arrogance and omniscience are interfering with yours? *we may be able to have coherent dialog.* For that to happen, one would need a coherent point. Besides, one of the elements of this thread is "division." Coherent dialog would kind of be off-topic, wouldn't it?
I'm glad you asked, Tony1 Because if this is the best you've got, save yourself the effort. We know what Jesus is worth: you've made such an example of that. Our impressions of God's majesty have been indelibly altered by your presence. We now see what faith reduces a human being to, and it's not palatable. I think you do slog through the posts but never actually read them. There are various associations of words, the most basic necessary of these is the sentence. You seem to dislike sentences, since you prefer to edit words out of them to make new sentences before you try to respond to them. So why should we assume you have any appreciation for paragraphs? You've shown none. In fact, the best we can tell from your presence here at Sciforums is that it's just another place for you to beg attention for your wounded pride. And this is the reason I take seriously the idea that you don't want to be taken seriously. That's fine, if you want to be as poor an example of Christianity as you can be. But seriously: start your own freakin' topics, man. Stop wasting other people's with your drivel. It's why I was originally concerned about your reading skills, Tony1. Your conduct demonstrated that there's really nothing wrong with them, but that their dysfunction stems from the twisted pride that makes you into this whore for spite. I do, actually, wonder what makes you behave like such a child. That thought has crossed my mind, too: child, provocateur, perhaps just a true idiot. What you fail to realize is a simple perspective point: A footnote in the writings of Will Cuppy recalls a nameless Cuban chieftan who, at the stake of his life, chose not to convert to Catholocism on the grounds that there would be Spaniards in Heaven--it seems Hell was a better risk. Seriously: the bitter God you speak for is not one people would rather get to know; the reduced method of your religion and the necessary sacrifices of intellect are not ones people are inspired to undertake. When they see the result you offer, they don't want to subscribe. It's a better risk for them to bet on their own, more intelligent (or less, depending on the individual) interpretations of the Bible or whatever religious text they settle on. Really, Tony1, your posting history is all people have to go on when considering what you say. Given how litttle you actually have to say about anything relevant, it's quite easy to determine how little consideration you've put into your faith. If you feel this conclusion to be in error, you might try offering a little more genuine sentiment than supremacist spite. Until then, we await the day when you have a real issue for consideration. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: I'm glad you asked, Tony1 *Originally posted by tiassa Because if this is the best you've got, save yourself the effort. * It isn't the best I've got. It is merely that which most appropriately suits your inability to decide whether I spend a lot of time reading posts or not a lot of time reading posts. *Our impressions of God's majesty have been indelibly altered by your presence.* You actually had an impression of God's majesty? Weren't you arguing earlier that you wished for proof of his existence? *I think you do slog through the posts but never actually read them.* What in hell is 'slogging but never actually reading?' *There are various associations of words, the most basic necessary of these is the sentence.* You're just now realizing this? I wish I'd realized earlier that you weren't aware of that til now. *You seem to dislike sentences... So why should we assume you have any appreciation for paragraphs?* Have you been reading some grammar textbook while stoned? *...your wounded pride.* What would it be wounded by? It's why I was originally concerned about your reading skills, Tony1. Your conduct demonstrated that there's really nothing wrong with them...* So all those dozens of posts about my reading ability were just a gigantic waste of time? You're quite the piece of work, claiming that I'm wasting people's time, when all along it was you wasting people's time. *A footnote in the writings of Will Cuppy recalls a nameless Cuban chieftan who, at the stake of his life, chose not to convert to Catholocism on the grounds that there would be Spaniards in Heaven--it seems Hell was a better risk.* Smart guy. I'd choose not to convert to Catholicism, too, although not for that particular reason. *It's a better risk for them to bet on their own, more intelligent (or less, depending on the individual) interpretations of the Bible or whatever religious text they settle on.* So what less intelligent interpretation have you settled on?
More of your spiteful, ol' timey religion? A little like the idea of hearing something but not listening to it. It's a lot like the way parents treat their children: words, words, words, but you're a child so you don't make sense. It seems you've taken that presupposition that people are unable to make sense into these forums. The end result is that while you're looking through the words, you're not paying attention to how they're put together. This is manifest in your citations of nonexistant sentences, lack of contextual comprehension, and your replies which depend on both of these devices. If you read through that massive documentation of this topic provided when I asked you if you cared if anyone takes you seriously, and if you actually put the sentences together in context and order (highly doubtful, based on your history), then you would see a documentation of what your method creates. If you even understood the issues you raise, you would not hop from one to the next in search of a good zing. Being that your attitude problem is the center of your Universe, we understand that this is the best you can do. That's like your claim of exorcising demons: Like we're supposed to believe you just because you say so? It's the best you've shown, Tony1. If you've got better, bring it on out. We'd love to see it. In the meantime, yes, it is the best you've got because it's all you've brought with you to this arena. Consider this point of yours: In reality, Tony1, only you can tell us that. Any number of events ranging from the psychologically traumatic on down to the mundane and--as with some of my own father's parenting methods--not even worthy of recall. But your self-righteous BS is typical of a good number of maladies which affect people of all ideological paths. In the meantime, though, you give us no hints as to what that is. All we see is your attitude problem and none of the person behind it. Try this: If you think we're missing something obviously apparent in your words, go through them again and ask yourself what must be assumed in order for what's not in the sentence to make sense. In other words, have you left anything to vagary, generalization, or otherwise subjective measure? To the other, this is a difficult thing for you, as you've demonstrated. Your expressed perspective of faith is based mostly on what you're not: I'm venturing that you're often responding to what you perceive as an attack against the label of Christianity while failing to realize that because of people's unique life experiences, the data-sets upon which they construct their descriptions of Christianity are necessarily different from yours. Thus, you're responding to an attack against the label while failing to understand that what you perceive as an attack is, in reality, how a poster perceives Christianity--the sum of the label--based on their own unique data-set. In a similar fashion, I don't expect you to perceive the vague junctions at which your idea of what you're communicating becomes different than what's there based solely on your inability to understand that certain generalizations don't equal the same sum in another person's data-set. So when I advise you to seek the generalizations in your posts, I must also encourage you to bear in mind that you must transcend yourself somewhat to understand that whether or not you agree with other histories, they are known in their own fashion, and people do assess according to them. Consider when you point out the schism between Catholocism and Christianity. You can point out that there is only one mediator, but I've never seen you refute the Catholic position except by saying there's only one mediator. It's merely your opinion until you take that catechism, show its Catholic-sponsored justification, and then dismantle that justification in its entirety. When you leave your declarations of fact based in your mere opinion, it really does take on the visage of ignorance. When you insist on those opinions merely because they're your opinions, it takes on an edge of lunacy. And when the only thing you've got to back that up is spite, we see what faith in your God brings. Ignorant lunatic spite is no way to go about spreading Christ's word, and such Paths of Blame only work in abstract functions and besides, they don't work in anonymity. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
*Originally posted by tiassa A little like the idea of hearing something but not listening to it. It's a lot like the way parents treat their children: words, words, words, but you're a child so you don't make sense.* I think I might be able to see what you're getting at. It might be a little like two stoners discussing philosophy and amazing themselves with how wise they feel. Of course, they'd be amazing onlookers with how stupid they really are. On second thought, that wouldn't be exactly right either, since two stoners in the throes of a philosophy buzz aren't "slogging," they're flyyyyiiiinggg, man. *you're not paying attention to how they're put together. This is manifest in your citations of nonexistant sentences, lack of contextual comprehension, and your replies which depend on both of these devices.* It only seems that way, since you're typing up a storm in the midst of a philosophy buzz, then posting while still stoned, and when you see me quoting your "stuff," it looks insane. *If you read through that massive documentation of this topic* Speaking of massive documentation, are you also into some members of the amphetamine family? *you would not hop from one to the next in search of a good zing.* Eyes of the beholder. It could be you spinning around like a top ricocheting off everything in the midst of one of your head rushes. *In the meantime, though, you give us no hints as to what that is.* If there are no hints of wounded pride, then is my "wounded pride" just one of the primary tenets of faith in tiassaism? *In other words, have you left anything to vagary, generalization, or otherwise subjective measure?* Well, there is one thing. I'm assuming I'm writing to non-stoners. After all, not everyone is deeply into drug consumption. *Thus, you're responding to an attack against the label while failing to understand that what you perceive as an attack is, in reality, how a poster perceives Christianity--the sum of the label--based on their own unique data-set.* In other words, you're building a straw replica of Christianity and vehemently attacking it. *In a similar fashion, I don't expect you to perceive the vague junctions at which your idea of what you're communicating becomes different than what's there based solely on your inability to understand that certain generalizations don't equal the same sum in another person's data-set. So when I advise you to seek the generalizations in your posts, I must also encourage you to bear in mind that you must transcend yourself somewhat to understand that whether or not you agree with other histories, they are known in their own fashion, and people do assess according to them.* Whoa! That's quite the buzz you're on! *Consider when you point out the schism between Catholocism and Christianity. You can point out that there is only one mediator, but I've never seen you refute the Catholic position except by saying there's only one mediator.* Well, duh. First, you are saying that you have seen me refute it. Second, that is actually all that's required to refute it. Occasionally, it is handy to bring up the fact that the entire religious edifice known as Catholicism is actually based on a misunderstanding of what the word "this" means. *It's merely your opinion until you take that catechism, show its Catholic-sponsored justification, and then dismantle that justification in its entirety.* No. All I have to do when I see the rickety shack called Catholicism propped up by a little stick, is kick out the little stick. *...Ignorant lunatic spite...* Poor tiassa, projecting will not get you very far. *Paths of Blame only work in abstract functions and besides, they don't work in anonymity.* So, what did you say your name was?
You see, Tony1? In all of that blustery reply of yours, you've still got nothing .... It is for this reason that you will henceforth be regarded as insignificant to these debates. It seems you are too stupid to understand what your problem is, so we don't expect it to be fixed. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"The simplest answer, that God presents Itself as necessary, is offensive to Christianity, since it would indicate that the same God approached the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews, the Hindus, ad nauseam and invited them all to the table according to their own customs. I'm quite sure it would offend a few other religions, too, but the idea that One God speaks to all people according to disparate, necessary standards, is common, however, in many revivals of shamanistic and tribal religions Faith can be misleading; we must instead learn much of our nature, so that the purpose of our faith can be understood. Somehow, bickering over superficial contrasts just doesn't seem to be what religion was meant for. It does, however, seem to be what people seek in it. " tiassa...to that I say Amen. I have never heard it said more clearly, or with more insight.
Impresive.... I would say amen however, it's not in my nature. But your stance is religion with a bit of logic, this might work for you. However you will find as others have that logic & reason has no faith. You may find yourself been an athiest at some point in your life, or a very good debater using logical reasoning for theism. Most athiests at one time in their life were religious of one conviction or another, and latter became atheist when they could not reason any more for god.
You wouldn't be far from the mark. I was a Christian who reasoned that what the church was telling me was contradictory, illogical, and unbelievable. But not yet willing to dismiss than such an elaborate and beautifull thing as creation was not the act of a greater power, I went looking to figure out how so many seemingly intelligent and good people could be so deluded. What I found to my own pleasant surprise was proof beyond a shadow of my doubts that God is in fact real, and it was the churches who were contradictory and unbelievable, not God.
