Putting aside all your weaseling and the insincere and unfair terms of your offer for a moment, I did not see a direct reply to prr’s suggestion to make the payments on a sensible timeframe, like monthly. Did you miss it?
Liar. You have zero evidence of any weaseling or insincerity other than on the part of Psuedotriton Ruber Ruber. My offer was simple and sincere. After two years of not posting, he’ll get paid in full with the assumption that the hiatus is then permanent.
What’s unfair about it? Why should I pay in advance to a man who isn’t trustworthy enough to value his own principles above money?
My original offer stands and you call it “weaseling”. He makes a variety of counter-offers and you come to me with his cock in your mouth. Fuck you. Only an idiot would pay monthly for something he may not get.
So, you admit to trolling.
Yes, I know, I just object to the rather presumptuous “hackle the faithful” link that doesn’t go to such an instance but rather to the fallout of something you (rather foolhardedly) initiated. It was clearly an attack on you personally not “the faithful” in general. Taking it to IMHO, of course, was foolhardy on his part and he got the appropriate warning.
Well, I’d skip all issues of whether or not God (or something similar) actually exists. It’s too easily dismissed by the stop-thought position “you can’t prove He doesn’t” and the argument has been a waste of time. I’d write up an essay on why religion exists, what purpose it has historically served, how flexible it has been (demonstrating that the “one true faith” does not and has never existed) and how it has always been used to serve political goals. Arguing that God doesn’t exist is pointless. Arguing instead that hierarchical religion serves to maintain undemocratic power structures is likelier to go over with a western-educated crowd who might be open to the idea (in these post-Watergate times) that leaders want power over men as much or more than fealty to God.
You could start with the Reformation being obviously and cynically over power rather than some new interpretation of Christianity; devote a later chapter to Sunni v. Shia’a; how the modern “traditional” American Christmas is anything but; what harm Mother Theresa has actually done; the Scopes trial and modern equivalents; the increasing evangelical influence over the Republic party starting with Reagan… there’s a wealth of material one can use that has nothing to do with proving God doesn’t exist, but demonstrating that the people telling you that God exists have a hidden motivation; to gain power over you. That, I think, will play a lot better than the approach you’ve taken.
Fine Liberal. No fact, just opinion. It seems to me that if you were sincere you’d agree to more reasonable terms and his are just that. Only an idiot would agree to your terms. But that’s OK. Funny how you came out looking like the dick though. I actually thought at first you were just being careless and kind of tongue in cheek.
And you didn’t prove anything about his principles, I have to say.
This is intended to be a reply to the exchange above between Bryan Ekers and Pseudotriton ruber ruber. I am a Christian who has no objection to the first two sentences of the manifesto. The claims of Christianity (or any religion) are extraordinary. To prove such claims would require extraordinary evidence. That would be a problem for me only if I had the goal of proving my claims to anyone. I don’t. The extraordinary evidence that persuaded me is of no use in a logical argument. It is simply a powerful spiritual experience that I had. Describing my experience and what I perceive to be its effects can be persuasive to others. It obviously cannot be falsified or proven. I have no problem with anyone who dismisses my beliefs as logically unfounded or unprovable.
I don’t really see this whole mess as a series of arguments between Prr and theists trying to logically prove their beliefs. I know that there are books out there like The Case For Christ that attempt to mimic the form of a logical argument. I also know that there have been some believers here (they usually don’t stay long) who think they can prove their beliefs using the bible. Most believers I know, particularly those who have come to believe or have intensified their belief as adults, recognize that their faith is faith, and that their belief is built on scripture, tradition, the testimony of others and a subjective (we say spiritual) experience. People like me have no interest in an argument over whether or not God exists. I think Prr knows that.
I’m left wondering what it is that he wants to argue about and if the argument requires a disparagement of believers. Atheists are an oppressed or underprivileged minority in the USA? That can be argued without discussing the merits of belief. Atheists are an oppressed or underprivileged minority on SDMB? That’s an assertion Prr has made and refused to back up. looking like a weasel and a ninny in the process.
What is the motive behind a thread titled: Are Xians stupid? Or this thread? Any ideas? To me it all looks like a fellow who hates believers of all sorts, for reasons he tries to couch in objective terms, but which clearly, to me, are beyond reason. As I have cited above, he has already demonstrated to me and others that: he enjoys being gratuitously insulting, that he often makes assertions that he simply will not back up, and that he starts threads that appear to have the intent of arousing people.
I already explained at length exactly why I made the offer, and I’ve linked to that explanation what, four times now? And while you may think I’m a dick, there were others offering to contribute to the fund. Funny how you consider yourself to hold the default objective view.
I suppose you would. If I thought there was nothing wrong with a man who claims to pursue the noble cause of squashing religion agreeing to hush up instead for a bit of cash, I’d have to say the same things you’re saying. Takes one to know one, I reckon.
Which is why when you insist that prr pay for (stop posting) something he may not get (your money) you know he won’t do it. So nice and convenient.
Of the two of you, I would trust his word more than I would trust yours.
Contribution for the fund is simply evidence of a few loose pockets.
As I see it he was just calling you out. I’m not aware that he ever claimed to be on a mission although it’s certainly possible.
And prr does seem to be a bit of an attention whore but then he doesn’t seem so different from you in that regard eh?
Liberal: Congrats you managed to take a pit thread where almost everyone was happy to be pitting **Psuedo ** except me, and turned it around to where you look worse. If you fail to see this, you might need to step back and Email someone you trust for an objective view. I recommend the always level headed Polycarp. I understand you two are friendly off the boards.
I know **Byran ** and **jsgoddess ** disagree with me on Psuedo, so you need to ask yourself, “How did I get these people annoyed with me?”
I do not know what your history is with Pedro, but you return criticism with vitriol. Your reaction appeared to be more than warranted. I do thank you for remaining civil with my complaints.
An interesting counterpoint to your arguments are the ones that Crotalus & Bryan Ekers are calmly offering up. Theirs are thoughtful and fairly convincing arguments that **PRR ** should think about easing up and maybe changing his arguments to being logic based attacks on specific church actions and not on the faithful in general. A point with which I most strongly agree.
Jim
[…shrug…] I assume they’re old grudges delighted to have perceived the opportunity of new expression. Like Jsgoddes said, she does not trust me by default. Never has. Opposition is often more conspicuous than support. You aren’t, for example, mentioning any of the people who supported the idea and offered to contribute.
The record is what the record is. Anyone who cares to read it can see that I made an offer, and can see why. They can also see that he declined it. Some noise ensued.
(Incidentally, it’s Bryan.)
None that I’m aware of. I’ve had exchanges with Lib in the past but I rarely post anyway. I’m sure he just thought I attacked him because I was in bed with prr.
FWIW, I didn’t feel his reply was too vitriolic or over the top. Just a few insults to make me feel cared for and warm inside. If it wasn’t Liberal it wouldn’t be noted and to be fair I don’t think it’s deserved in this instance. We can argue and throw insults to our hearts content without so much baggage.
Oh, I said that did I?
Where, o where?
Personally, I’d be disinclined to take a wager that won’t pay off for two years from a poster who said in August 2005 that “in all likelihood, [he] won’t be on this earth for more than another year or two.”
Even putting aside issues of health, the offer is a drama-queen moment from a poster with a long history of drama-queen moments.
And don’t get smug about this, prr. The same reasoning that makes me look askance at Liberal (based on his posting history) works on you, too.
God, you’re a bottom-feeding cunt. Like I said before, I would give the money to Poly to handle. Did you happen to, you know, actually read anything before making up your little mind?
This, of course, is why escrow accounts were invented, for when neither party in a transaction has reason to trust the other. I’m sure you know how they work, but in case anyone doesn’t…
The first party gives the payment to a third, neutral party, accepted by both sides. Then, when the second party completes whatever he is contractually required to do, the third party gives the payment to the second party. If the second party doesn’t complete his side of the contract, the third party can always give the money back to the first party, so he’s not out whatever the payment would have been. That way, deals can be done between two people who don’t trust each other.
Here are your direct supports to bribing someone to go away.
A quick comment, hardly a verbose support.
Again, joking support, nothing added to the discourse.
I prefer what Captain Carrot had to say:
Mtgman canceled his own suggestion out shortly after making it, so I will pass on his.
Finally
A small specific offer with no other support.
It looks like your support were 3 drive by posters that were taking it more in humor. Many others in the thread feel your offer was wrong, and went into details of why. Maybe a mod will eventually step in a comment on your offer.
:smack: I spell it right once and failed the other time. Thanks for the corrections and my apologies to Bryan.
Jim
Sorry, you simply don’t have the credibility to incline me to believe you. Besides, even if it was a genuine offer, it’s a stupid offer. You’d really pay this guy $500 to give up his membership so you don’t have to see his posts any more? Clicking on the ignore button is free. Not posting in his threads is free. I wouldn’t trust your offer just because it’s dumb. Give the $500 to some worthwhile charity before you blow it on magic beans or something shiny.
Idiot.
(give me $1000 and I’ll write an apology)
Then do so. Send him $500, and when he posts that he has it, prr can take the offer or leave it. If he leaves it, you get your money back. If he takes it, you don’t unless he fails to make good.
Just DO IT, and stop claiming that anyone is doing you wrong for expecting you to do what you claimed you were going to do. Send the money or shut up.
What’s the deal, invoke that enough times until it happens? What is the essential difference between paying for a person’s membership (which many of us have done multiple times) and paying for a person’s exegesis?
Actually, that gives me an excellent idea. From now on, for every post from Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber that I see and that I believe is in the manner of how I described his MO in the original post I made, I will contribute money to a Christian charity. Don’t need his okay. Don’t care if five of you think I’m a dick for it.