I think you botched a little of your coding.
He also seems to be an atheist. So it is not just Christianity. He (appears) thinks all religion is dumb.
Why don’t you pit the people constantly harping on Scientology?
Because harping on religion is gauche, but harping on a dangerous cult is a public service.
Because I’m pitting someone else. If I encounter someone who just can’t get off the “$cientology is teh suXXor” tip in GD, I might well pit him, too. But I haven’t, so I ain’t.
Anything else I can help you with?
That’s not a bad point, actually. But I’m not annoyed by the anti-Christian attitude, nor yet the anti-religion attitude in general.
It’s just the sheer profligacy which is getting old.
Your link for get and your link for it take me to the same place.
So they do. Thanks.
The first post he linked to in particular was REALLY out of place, and he does seem to be a bit of a one-trick pony in GD: Why on earth would you attack the OP with a statement that vaguely equates Scientology and Christianity when the OP seems to have a legitimate beef, regardless of whether you believe or not?
The first provided example in particular is unambiguous. Ex Machina’s kind of “I’m a college Freshman and it’s 3am and ORGANIZED RELIGION IS CONFORMISMS!!!” seems completely out of place in a thread about a specific aspect of Christian doctrine (one which can be politely discussed by believers and non-believers alike).
Oh, was it a subtle slap that his arguements are repetative?
Nope. Not enough caffeine in me to be that subtle. Just fucked up the c&p is all.
Meh. It’s not the arguments that bug me.
It’s the style of post.
It’s all written in 1 sentence per paragraph.
Why the hell do these one-track-mind posters insist on doing this?
Does it give extra credibility to their screeds about fluoridation, NDEs or the existence of God?
Does it make them happy for readers to have to scroll down?
The concept is that you have one idea per paragraph.
I guess if you only have one idea to begin with, that doesn’t apply.
I just wish he’s post something coherent. And original.
I was wondering when he’d be Pitted.
Well, the TM probably weren’t sure whether you were done, yet, with Scott Plaid.
Of course we’re done with him.
Think I could get him to read Mere Christianity by Lewis?
Not sure if this is the first time it’s been posted, but the first I’ve seen it since “The Challenge”. Thanks for ending the wait.
Don’t get your hopes up too high. He’s already stated that this one is his “best argument”, regarding his pet subject.
And that argument goes something like this:
p maybe implies q, therefore q.
q is what we know to be true in the real world.
This wasn’t original enough for you, Hung Mung?
Oh, no no, I think he lost “The Challenge” actully. I was refering to the fact that Scott, in general, claims victory in all the debates he’s been in.
I know. It’s just fun to challenge my capacity of large numbers by keeping count of the occurances.