They did.
It’s got pastel pink and blue backgrounds and unicorns though…
Oh, come on! You chose the word coward. I guess it’s accurate but I take no pleasure in your use of the label. Your beliefs have nothing to do with it. Many of your statements lead me to believe your scared shitless of pretty much everthing that moves. Am I wrong? Your assigning some imaginary hatred of you to me is completely and utterly ridiculous. You’re judging me to be a bully, picking on those who can’t or won’t defend themselves. Be sure I don’t love everybody. How can you love someone you don’t know? I do however treat people with respect and consideration for thier feelings until they give me a reason to do otherwise.
Liberal please be honest with me. Do you believe me to be an idiot? I can’t even figure out why TD would even try that crap.
This sounds familiar somehow…
Dude, I was agreeing with you. If I thought you were an idiot, I would instead disagree.
Now I know you’re lying. They would faint at the notion of any vBulletin tweak. 
(ETA: add smiley 'cause it’s hot in here.)
Well I know that. But others must think so or they wouldn’t say something so blatantly false.
You’re flat out wrong here. You could not get into a discussion of the influence of Mute records on Detroit Techno with me! That’s just a baseless assertion. I don’t know anything about Mute Records or its influence on Detroit Techno.
You just need to learn to change the internal dialogue. The anger is clouding your mind. It is an endless loop of negativity that uses up your vital internal essence. Let it go, and be free. Only when you have achieved silence can you know the truth. 
The sad thing is, I could post this exact sentence on hundreds of boards, and get nothing but fawning praise.
What I was getting at is that you can’t really study religion if you can’t understand the role it fills in people’s lives. If you come at it with your superior anthropological mindset of, “I am studying these backward people.”, you’ll never get anywhere, though you might think that you do. The problem here is that we rarely if ever get beyond the language barrier, and this is a more serious problem in theological vs scientific debate, sometimes the same word means something different in the two contexts. The way both approach questions of ontology are from different angles. So then we get into a series of dueling suppositions, that ends up going nowhere because neither side really understands what the fundamental suppositions are. Of course, you have decided that I was being nonsensical and unreasonable, but when you couldn’t understand where I was going with it, I abandoned it. Generally a good rule of thumb in this is, when you start asking me about what I believe, I’m going to abandon the thread pretty quickly. If I tell you something about what I believe, I see that as the end of the thread for me because I’m not going to debate with you about what I believe. What I believe about God is irrelevant and beside the point. My own personal theological framework is not fully formed, is a work in progress and as such isn’t really worth much in terms of debate. What happens too often here is that people try to guide you into a game of, “Defend your deeply held beliefs.”, part of religion is that it’s a process of coming to know yourself. You are asking someone to defend internal processes that they themselves are not totally in sync with.
Scientific inquiry generally approaches the problem from a direction that is totally counter-productive, and that’s what I was getting at. When I saw that you couldn’t understand what I was trying to say, I bailed. What exactly is unreasonable about that? You are treating it as though I was doing some kind of disservice by participating in the thread as though I have some sort of obligation to know the answers to every question posed to me. It’s a topic that interested me. I participated to the best of my ability, and when I saw it was going nowhere, I bowed out. What exactly is unreasonable about that?
What does all of that have to do with your assertion that psychology is a pseudoscience? When I specifically asked you to defend that, you specifically ran away. Is that when you also happened to deduce that I couldn’t understand where you are coming from? How convenient.
No, I specifically conceded that I wasn’t going to defend the position. What do you have against winning an argument?
In HELL?
:eek: (added smiley to show shock)
(and one because I’m kidding)
Um. Can we limit that to “the majority of the voting population polled,” please? And I’m not even especially sure of that at this time, considering the number of conservatives voted out and liberals voted in last voting cycle. Just because it’s liberal compared to your bit of the US does not mean your bit of the US is what’s representative of the whole.
Yeah, I find the SDMB is no more liberal than Manhattan or San Francisco.
Because, of course, those are absolutely the only places in the entire country one finds liberals.
Maybe so. I don’t know. The point is that the mere understanding that DT is a vociferous atheist was nearly enough to make me leap to a quite unsupported (or at least unresearched) assertion that ‘he’s always there, waving his placard’, or some such. I wouldn’t be all that surprised if this has happened before - to the extent that maybe DT’s reputation has been somewhat tarnished by things other people said, but were falsely remembered as coming from DT, because they were the same sort of thing, anyway.
There isn’t any such group. Many posters have been banned who had a “certain celebrity status”.
Oh. You weren’t clear that you were retracting your statement. I got the impression that you were just declining to engage in any support of it.
In my opinion, however, it really gets to the heart of that thread, and to some degree this one. You are supposedly one who is so able to listen and understand others’ positions, and you say you withdrew because I couldn’t grok yours. The point of that thread was whether religion could be a subject of scientific investigation. You express a completely baseless opinion about psychology (which I think could serve as a model for how religion, or at least some aspects of religion could be subjected to scientific investigation), an opinion which illustrates a profound lack of knowledge, but rather than follow up on it, you simply withdraw.
Yet your story remains that I could not understand your position.