I recognized that early on in the process and bailed on that thread. I get enough of that sort of mindset at work.
I wonder if CalD is a Calvinist? :eek:
I have to admit to a certain admiration of his debating style. It’s like he’s two different people. I’m waiting for the delicious irony of when he finally quotes one of his own posts in his eagerness to point out that every post in that thread is an unproven and unprovable assertion.
I’m waiting for him to use the Chewbacca Defense tactic. It makes about as much sense as anything he’s used so far.
That’s a problem? It hasn’t been a glaring problem from what I can tell.
Sometimes, just reading a thread gets me drunk.
You find the seven pages of that debate more offensive than the nine pages of troll-feeding in the 9/11 wreckage thread?
I’m starting to think this is just a big joke to fuck with the people too stubborn to leave that thread.
Well, I’m not saying it’s a problem in general; but in this instance I think some GD participants may be overreacting slightly.
“How is it that this thread is allowed to continue to exist?! Can you not see how this fiendish mastermind is craftily feigning ignorance in order to subvert the forums to their diabolical agenda?”
I’m just saying that the thread started in IMHO, so there’s nothing wrong with treating it as a humble opinion. Just substitute “my cat” for “a Creator,” and “is the cutest cat ever” for “is necessary to explain the universe.”
I call “troll.” He claims to be an atheist or an agnostic but neither of those would argue so fervently for the existence of an intelligent Creator since that’s y’know, a god no matter what you call it.
If that’s aimed at me, I didn’t read the 9-11 one.
Terrifel, I’m just trying to figure out what value the thread in question has. I don’t usually call for a thread closing, but this one seems to be nothing but trolling.
That’s not “drunk” you’re feeling. That’s “the same sensation one gets when they’re clubbed over the head.”
Robin
Either way, it involves the brutal murder of brain cells.
D. Adams
If by troll, you mean someone that has done this topic before (religion and God) and pretty much in this same format, then I’d have to agree. CalD has started several threads since 2005 with the same theme that went the same way.
If by troll, you mean someone that doesn’t believe what they’re saying, I’d probably disagree since I don’t know what he’s thinking.
Cite.
If you were going to cite this:
don’t bother. That’s not what it says.
To the OP: I’ve only read two pages of the linked thread, but so far, the people trying to do the convincing that an intelligent designer doesn’t exist are making a pretty poor showing.
While I’ve only read two pages of the thread, the GD participants don’t seem to be doing much of anything that’s convincing so far. I’ll read more and see if I understand what you mean.
He’s a troll because he cherry picks which statements he’s going to respond to and ignores others that reveal that he’s contradicted himself and made incorrect statements about scientific facts. He’s not interested in getting anywhere meaningful in that thread.
Shit, if that were the definition of a troll, we’d have to close down GD entirely.
Or just get a copy of the liberal agenda, it’s got the others attached.
Actually, yes, it does. I fail to see how else one could read it. He’s either an atheist or an agnostic now (I have no idea which hence the OR); there aren’t any other choices offered.
Seriously? He said “I happily fluttered between atheism and agnosticism for years.” Since his next sentence is “My belief in a creator is based purely on the “evidence” I see before me.”, the obvious way to read it is that he has fluttered between atheism and agnosticism for years and has since become a theist.
Well, such women should be chastized. If you can provide a list of names and phone numbers, I’ll get right to it.