I baptize you in the name of the Proton, the Neutron, and the Holy Electron.
No, Mere Christianity has whole paragraphs in it.
Concepts are introduced and then expanded upon.
Philosophical arguments are fully examined instead of reduced to one-line variants of “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
Acting as if he were dropping pithy theological bombshells instead of clumsy attempts to be poetic which make the reader say, “huh?” and then “but your argument fails because… wait… huh?”
It has impact because it actually says something.
And it’s not lazy. The concept would be lost on Ex Machina.
Ex Machina is a crimson babboon’s ass in the body of an angry, simple-minded militant atheist.
The eagle flies at midnight.
Phosphorescent life springs forth at the bottom of a cold, blackened sea.
Its purpose? None can say.
There may yet be brothers of man. Far away, amongst the stars.
What’s the frequency, Kenneth?
I’m not religious, and I still thought Ex Machina was being a dick. It’s one thing to disagree with someone, and it’s another to be a condescending jackass. The latter just makes all the rest of us non-religious types look bad.
Examples of condescending jackassitude:
“Religion is nothing but a mind game played on desperate victims.”
“‘intelligent designers’ can’t grasp evolution”
“They look at life around them in the small context of their existence.”
(bolding mine in all cases)
I get the distinct impression that Ex Machina thinks that the reason religion exists is that not everyone is as smart as he is.
I thought it was interesting that he used such an insulting, condescending and misinformed title for [thread=325041]this thread[/thread]. I know lots of Christians, Creationists and IDers who fully understand the concepts and evidence for natural selection and evolution better than Ex Machina apparently does.
He does not seem to try to understand the points of his fellow (opposing) debaters. He seems to think he’s presenting novel ideas when he starts threads, when his pet topic is one that is pretty much constantly debated in GD. There may be new debates to be started, but he hasn’t found one.
Having lurked here for a year or so before joining recently, I came in having reached the conclusion that there are intelligent people here who have reached different conclusions than I have about many topics, using the same evidence. That doesn’t make me think that those who don’t agree with me are stupid (not all of them, anyway). 
I thought the thread I cited above was started and titled with the intention of inciting a rancorous thread rather than a debate.
I like that last statement.
It’s the smug obviously superior attitude that irks me. You see it all too often in folks who choose not to believe. I suppose it’s not without cause if you want to focus on the masses that accept obvious mythology as truth. The fact is there are many thinking intelligent believers.
Add the fact that his arguements for the most part aren’t logical, as your examples show, and the annoying factor goes up. Maybe having his arguements shredded and dismissed will be just the serving of humility he needs.
cosmosdan, if you look at the “my best argument thread”, you’ll see some examples of him failing to notice or ignoring instances of his arguments being shredded. A bit Plaidlike in that respect. Don’t get your hopes up regarding humility on his part.
Rebutting is futile.
He just makes more one-liners.
A beetle attacked me.
Therefore, you’re stupid and God doesn’t exist.
Preaching to the choir, that’s all. **Ex Machina ** is obviously passionate about his beliefs. Now when he starts proselytizing, then I’ll help pit him.
Passion isn’t an excuse for arrogance and stupidity.
Seems to me that he’s more concerned about the sound of his own voice than about logic or reason.
How can you tell the difference?
But it worked so well for Mockingbird 
These things take time to sink in. Having other atheists say “Hey I’m an atheist too, and your stupid arguements make us look bad” might need to rattle around inside him for a bit before he figures it out.
Cite? In the one about Santorum reading the bible, I posted a factual answer to a question that Bricker had about Judaism. I answered it. He refused to believe what I was saying, and after a while, I posted a little victory speech. Besides that, and one or two other times, I do not believe that I “claim victory”. True, I believe I am right, and the opposing side is wrong, but that hardly means I have “won.”
You can expect to see this post everytime someone claims that I constantly declare victory.
Ask a Mormon, they know all about that stuff.
[Argument Clinic]
Yes, it does.
[/Argument Clinic]
I think I see the problem here. Ex Machina does care for Christianity. Apparently, he thinks that while there a more cases against the existence of god then for, he still admires christianity. However, he still believe that much of christianity is philosophically workable, and even admirable. The way it is interpreted by many chrisitans however, is simply wrong. He is pitting the christians who mess up this “philosophically workable” concept. :rolleyes:
Scott Plaid, are you being facetious? I see plenty of scorn and disdain, but nothing that could be described as admiration, or even respect.
Did Martin Luther screw up Christianity? Ex Machina sounds more like a christian who can not reconcile what christians do with their religion, to me.
Well, he’s wobbling like a weeble. He’s all over the place. He’s saying now that he admires Christ for sacrificing Himself for His principles. When I mentioned that the 9/11 hijackers did the same thing, he left that out of his response. He moaned about oppressive laws sought by false Christians, but changed that shortly thereafter to moaning about the SDMB community. It is clear to me by now that his intention is to slide away from all rebuttal, change his argument, and start his game anew.
You read it as wobbling. Personally, I read it as revealing many facets of an illogical world view.