DogOnPorch Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 How dare you not state what your point is? There must be a pretty good explanation in the Bible as to how seashells and what not turned to stone and ended up on the top of a mountain range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 There must be a pretty good explanation in the Bible as to how seashells and what not turned to stone and ended up on the top of a mountain range. Now now, admit it, that's not your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Now now, admit it, that's not your argument. Don't mind me. I'm probably just imagining that the patterns I'm seeing in this "fossil" I'm holding at this moment are seashells. The Devil is a trickster... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 ...and when you crack these imaginary 'fossils' open exposing them for the first time, they smell like low tide... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 When I go up to the Pine Pass, I always like to search the old railway cuts for fossils of sea creatures from the old Jurassic seabed that is now about 5000' above sea level. Now if you picked-up the same fossil...or fossils since every rock contains thousands of them...what would your conclusion as to how it got there be? Floated up in the ark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) When I go up to the Pine Pass, I always like to search the old railway cuts for fossils of sea creatures from the old Jurassic seabed that is now about 5000' above sea level. Now if you picked-up the same fossil...or fossils since every rock contains thousands of them...what would your conclusion as to how it got there be? Evidence of climate change. And that's without the C02 from your exhaust pipe! Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) They tend to be irrational. And the curious thing about it is that when one steps on the quicksand of irrational reasoning, some of them tend to follow suit and jump right into the quicksand. Therefore, it is not only one individual who shows irrationality in his arguments/rebuttal - his "followers" show the same deficiency in rational thinking.....or worse, without any thinking. Must've been an inherited gene from another uncle. The Lemming. Mind you, most of these said "followers" are usually the "adhominers," so it is consistent and not surprising. Back-up singers follow the lead. Even into the quicksand. A good recent example is on a string of argument in the Bible, starting with Kimmy's post. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=1050 Note: that so-called argument about Noah's Ark, has been resurrected several times by the new atheists. As I said, a lot seems to be riding on that ark.....and not just Noah and his animals either. Edited August 31, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) For self-analysis, let's do a recap of all new atheist characteristics that's been listed so far. Do you exhibit at least 5 of these symptoms? What the heck, let's be less strict and be more generous.....showing at least 8 symptoms? Angry and bitter Not intellectually “bright” Rude Utterly confused They can’t hit the bullseye. They have hard time understanding and responding to the point. Relativists Confused Noisy chaterrers, monkey-like. Loves to throw adhominems, Gibberish Irrational Lemming-like. Supporting and following another without thinking. Edited August 31, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) For self-analysis, let's do a recap of all new atheist characteristics that's been listed so far. Do you exhibit at least 5 of these symptoms? What the heck, let's be less strict and be more generous.....showing at least 8 symptoms? Angry and bitter Not intellectually “bright” Rude Utterly confused They can’t hit the bullseye. They have hard time understanding and responding to the point. Relativists Confused Noisy chaterrers, monkey-like. Loves to throw adhominems, Gibberish Irrational Lemming-like. Supporting and following another without thinking. 11 out of 12. according to betsy's definition, betsy is a new atheist. Now, my turn: Angry... at betsy, once or twice, but only because I forgot how much of a joke she is Utterly confused... by betsy's non-sense (since we have confused and utterly confused, that most be two points) Relativist (since I know that I am intellectually bright compraired to betsy) Oops, that was an ad hominem Five out of 12. Thank betsy for giving me the opportunity to prove that I am NOT a new atheist. Edited August 31, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) For self-analysis, let's do a recap of all new atheist characteristics that's been listed so far. Do you exhibit at least 5 of these symptoms? What the heck, let's be less strict and be more generous.....showing at least 8 symptoms? Now, my turn: Angry... at betsy, once or twice, but only because I forgot how much of a joke she is Utterly confused... by betsy's non-sense (since we have confused and utterly confused, that most be two points) Relativist (since I know that I am intellectually bright compraired to betsy) Oops, that was an ad hominem Five out of 12. Thank betsy for giving me the opportunity to prove that I am NOT a new atheist. Ha-ha-ha-ha! Why on earth are you doing the self-analysis for the new atheist? I thought you said you're a christian? Having some serious doubts, are we? That's like someone checking his own pulse to make sure he's not dead! Ha-ha-ha-ha! ROLF Edited September 1, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Ha-ha-ha-ha! Why on earth are you doing the self-analysis for the new atheist? I thought you said you're a christian? Having some serious doubts, are we? That's like someone checking his own pulse to make sure he's not dead! Ha-ha-ha-ha! ROLF Why? To prove the stupidity of the so-called analysis. Duh. Edited September 1, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) Why? To prove the stupidity of the so-called analysis. Duh. By the way, that's only 5 out of 12. Take note it's been raised to 8 out of 12. Trying to cheat on the self-analysis, are we? Trying to fool even one's own self? I actually think you get a perfect score, if you analyse yourself based on all your previous postings. Well, maybe not exactly perfect. I'd say 97%? What you did was show you're more a new atheist than you are a christian! And basing on your irrational stance towards the Bible....and your more pro-atheistic arguments.....no wonder I pegged you as a new atheist before your earth-shattering confession! I know you more than you know yourself. There, you missed one: irrational. And since you followed the argument of Kimmy, going into that quicksand: Lemming-like. Uh-uh....following someone into the quicksand - without thinking - can be what Dr Craig said, something about being "intellectually bright?" Have you mentioned, blindness yet? Just based alone on your more recent inability to read exactly what's been stated by Kimmy about finished creation. Refer to the string on the Bible given above. I was right. Again. Edited September 2, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 By the way, that's only 5 out of 12. Take note it's been raised to 8 out of 12. Trying to cheat on the self-analysis, are we? Trying to fool even one's own self? I actually think you get a perfect score, if you analyse yourself based on all your previous postings. Well, maybe not exactly perfect. I'd say 97%? What you did was show you're more a new atheist than you are a christian! And basing on your irrational stance towards the Bible....and your more pro-atheistic arguments.....no wonder I pegged you as a new atheist before your earth-shattering confession! I know you more than you know yourself. There, you missed one: irrational. And since you followed the argument of Kimmy, going into that quicksand: Lemming-like. Uh-uh....following someone into the quicksand - without thinking - can be what Dr Craig said, something about being "intellectually bright?" Have you mentioned, blindness yet? Just based on your inability to read exactly what's been stated by Kimmy about finished creation. Refer to the string on the Bible given above. I was right. Again. And you wonder why everyone knows you're a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Wait.... is betsy actually disputing what kimmy said or is she just running her mouth calling people stupid for agreeing with her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Wait.... is betsy actually disputing what kimmy said or is she just running her mouth calling people stupid for agreeing with her? kimmy: 1+1=2 betsy: not a biblical fact. No argument. I am right me: 1+1=2 betsy: yes. See? No argument. I am right. me: So, you agree that 1+1=2 betsy: This is not a biblical fact. You don't have an argument. You are a lemming. I am right again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Put in the "not very bright" category. I don't understand a thing betsy is arguing and I was raised in a religious family, read the Bible many times and attended church regularly until I was about 18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) I don't understand a thing betsy is arguing I believe you. Why is that so surprising? You don't even understand your own cut-and-paste! I can cut and paste too! http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=180 Can I just say that I didn't actually read what I posted. I confess. And, I'm sorry. I feel ashamed of myself. And really Cyber, understanding what you read - that is, if you even read them - seems to be your biggest problem. You do give me a headache, that's why I just scroll past and ignore most of your posts. Just look at this example below. If only the Creator can know this information, but it's science - proven... does that make science the Creator? Betsy: You might like to re-phrase that since your statement implies you don't know the difference between the meaning of created and proven. Your rational thinking goes like this: If the killer stabbed his victim (therefore he knew how the victim died), but it's forensic technicians who proved that the victim died from getting stabbed....does that make the forensic techs the murderer? And you expect me to take your opinion seriously??? And you want me to believe that you know what you're on about talking about scientific methods with seeming "authority" on the subject.....when you offer this empirical evidence for all to see that you don't even grasp the simple statement you've quoted! Now I see why you don't want anything cut-and-paste. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=525 Edited September 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 I have faith that you're smart enough to distinguish between not understanding something and not reading something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 I have faith that you're smart enough to distinguish between not understanding something and not reading something. Did you read all you disagree with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) I have faith that you're smart enough to distinguish between not understanding something and not reading something. Sure. But fyi, understanding comes with logic. How can you understand correctly if you are logically-impaired? What's wrong with this statement, Cyber? If only the Creator can know this information, but it's science - proven... does that make science the Creator? Thus, Your rational thinking goes like this: If the killer stabbed his victim (therefore he knew how the victim died), but it's forensic technicians who proved that the victim died from getting stabbed....does that make the forensic techs the murderer? Well, you gave me another one to add to the list! Senseless. Illogic. No wonder I get migraine reading your posts. Gotta grab some aspirin. Edited September 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 No wonder I get migraine reading your posts. Gotta grab some aspirin. Your migraines are just like the pain you get from playing a new sport and working muscles you've never used before. Try to keep up and I'm sure the headaches will go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 Your migraines are just like the pain you get from playing a new sport and working muscles you've never used before. Try to keep up and I'm sure the headaches will go away. Difference is that in sports one uses his/her muscles. Here, I am not sure the "muscles" are used that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 HOT AIR! The new atheist is so full of it! A.k.a, a lot of bull. All talk but no substance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 HOT AIR! The new atheist is so full of it! A.k.a, a lot of bull. All talk but no substance. See, you're a new atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) DISHONEST. A new atheist has the penchant for dishonesty. They seem to inevitably resort to this tactic when they realize they're sinking. And if they're caught at it - ahhh, they just shrug it off like it's no big deal. Relativism kicks in. Which opens up the question about atheism and morality - but that's for another topic. Richard Dawkins Is Too Emotional and Dishonest about William Lane Craig (HT: Birdieupon) "This awesome video was originally made by Birdieupon (the video is orignally titled "Richard Dawkins Lies About William Lane Craig AND Logic!"*). He caught Richard Dawkins (and many mindless followers of Dawkins' for that matter) downright lying about William Lane Craig and his position being merely emotional while glossing over evidence he (Craig... and his team for that matter) gave in his famous debate with him in Mexico 2010. Ironically, it was Richard Dawkins who was the emotional (and dishonest) one that night." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UnEkydeDVQ (* - The addendum at the end with Doug Geivett was added by me. Hope you don't mind, Birdieupon.)Two disciples of Dawkins conveniently prove the fruit doesn’t fall far from its tree. In the string of arguments in the other topic, Creation – Canadien and Bambino provide an exhibit of their excellent mimicry of Dawkin’s method of debating. The string starts on post #860, p 58 (betsy’s response to Canadien’s rebuttal), and the following responses of the two named posters clearly mirror Mr Dawkins’ attempt at dishonest discourse. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=855 Edited September 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.