Or, I could have prayed to God and He said "use the Internet and look for one. Why do you think I allowed you humans to develop it?"

Why do you think I allowed you humans to develop it?"

My guess was porn

My guess was porn
it does seem to keep the pervs off the street.

Did Jesus or Jesus' death save us?
---Does Jesus save because he was born or because his blood was spilt?
Asks a very reasonable question to promote discussion. No bashing whatsoever and I do take offense that you would claim that Blob of all people would bash Christians.Hey, thanks WindWip that's very nice of you.

And even if I was WRONG about a few of the threads I listed, that doesn't change the fact that this place if full of Jesus-bashers."The poll shows atheists are a minority here and it has turned out Christian bashing threads are rare but I'm still right that atheists are a majority and most threads bash Christians, so there."

Now quit being silly and stop stooping to name-calling before I call you a pencil-necked geek who should learn to respect his elders... not to mention his exalted position as High Administrator!
I am a pencil-necked geek. I have no problem with being called one. Similarly, you should have no problem with being called a bitch.

And you're damn right I don't respect my "elders"; age is a number, I respect people who deserve it, be they 9 or 90. Right now you don't deserve it, as all you're doing is whining about all this supposed "Christian bashing" when it's pretty much just Freethinker doing it. And you don't attack just the people doing it, oh no. You claim it's systemic, and place no specific blame but rather a general blame with the implication that all non-Christians here bash Christians, which is patently false. I was an atheist until about two weeks ago (now I'm agnostic), and I can't recall ever "bashing" a Christian. I hate fundamentalism, sure, but not Christianity. The ad hominem, admittedly childish term "bitch" is justified here because you're doing all that and you're not even up front enough to be honest about your motives to smear non-Christians on this board. (Why? I don't know. My current hypothesis is still the persecution complex.) I'll retract the insult and apologize to you if you apologize for being such a grade A, repugnant bitch in this thread, because you show a general trend of being a reasonable, intelligent woman. This whole persecution thing seems to be an aberration, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

::shrug:: I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Look Borg... I'm sorry if I stepped on YOUR toes. I've never even seen you posting on this subject and my remarks most certainly weren't directed at YOU, or at any one person in particular for that matter. Why you're taking it so personally, I don't know. It's like your first input into this discussion was to come out with guns blazing.

My whole point was... there are lots of atheists who post here. And I've read lots of christian-bashing posts... not only from FT, but others as well. Someone pointed out to me that there WERE some fundamental Christians who posted here at one time, and I could understand the discussion getting heated if they were still around -- telling all non-believers you (we?) were going to hell. I appreciate being informed of the 'fundies' who posted here previously... made a little more sense of the situation.

But you see, they're NOT around, so to me, it looked like the whole discussion was rather one-sided. So from my point of view, I was addressing what I believed to be bashing for the joy of bashing. And I hate that.

Don't feel it necessary to apologize to me... I'm the first to admit I can be a bitch. But I stand by my reprimand about not respecting your elders. Say what you want, but that, young man, is a serious character flaw on your part. I doubt that you would allow someone to speak to your mother or grandmother in such a disrespectful tone without speaking up, but then again, maybe you would.

Whatever... I didn't come here to criticize YOU and am a little puzzled as to why you think you have the right to criticize ME for stating my opinions?

SMW

Where is the love?????

Where is the love?????
@The Bunny Ranch

Whatever... I didn't come here to criticize YOU and am a little puzzled as to why you think you have the right to criticize ME for stating my opinions?
If you answer our questions, such as: Why those threads you listed are bashing Christians?
...you would likely receive less insults. As of now, you're conjuring up something that isn't there.

I don't understand why it is so important whether or not most of the posts here are to bash Christians or to bash atheists. It is all a matter of perception, and people's perceptions will differ.

Good point Thislin.

I don't understand why it is so important whether or not most of the posts here are to bash Christians or to bash atheists. It is all a matter of perception, and people's perceptions will differ.
You're damaging the discussion. I want to see SMW bolster her claims with reasoning.

You're damaging the discussion. I want to see SMW bolster her claims with reasoning.

... ROFL

You're damaging the discussion. I want to see SMW bolster her claims with reasoning.

My perception agrees with hers--certainly by message count the Christian and religion bashing predominates.

The difference is that I don't think it is worth any ink.

You seem to think you have "caught" her in a mistake or something, and now want to punish her and embarrass her. Shame on you.

My perception agrees with hers--certainly by message count the Christian and religion bashing predominates.

The difference is that I don't think it is worth any ink.

You seem to think you have "caught" her in a mistake or something, and now want to punish her and embarrass her. Shame on you.

Well, first she claimed that there were more atheists than theists here, which is untrue. And then she claimed that there were 13 threads dedicated to bashing Christians. She named said threads, but many of them were not created to bash Christians or religion at all, even by a stretch.

No one can prove whether there are more posts against religion than for religion, so it's wrong to claim that you can.

My perception agrees with hers--certainly by message count the Christian and religion bashing predominates.
Your perception is unsupported by the reality of the boards.

Show me this domination.

Shame on me for wanting evidence when people make claims.

Your perception is unsupported by the reality of the boards.

Show me this domination.

Shame on me for wanting evidence when people make claims.

Yes, shame on you. You don't want "evidence" or you would have produced your own. All you want is to win little ego-gratifying debating points and to embarrass someone else.

The point is that there is no evidence.

You don't want "evidence" or you would have produced your own.
I didn't make a claim that was called into question, nor did I make a claim that required these proofs or these questions, as far as I can see. It is not my job to disprove her claims, it is her job to prove them to me.

If I were to say that the Earth is flat, contrary to scientific and verifiable evidence, it would be my burden to produce evidence and reasoning for this, not yours to show me otherwise. While the evidence you show may be quite telling to me, you did not have the obligation as a debater to engender the information before me.
All you want is to win little ego-gratifying debating points and to embarrass someone else.
I don't understand why it is so important whether or not my posts here are to insult or embarass someone else. It is all a matter of perception, and people's perceptions will differ.

Sound familiar? Your analyzation does not fit with my thoughts on the matter.

So where is your evidence? All I see is you rationalizing. Could it be that you haven't any?

I want to see SMW bolster her claims with reasoning.

LOL.

Don't hold your breath waiting for THAT to happen.

For instance, waiting for her to back up her bullshit claim that there are **13 threads dedicated to Christian bashing** is an exercise in futility.

_______________________________

""Religious people often accuse atheists of being arrogant and placing ourselves in the position of god, but really it is the theist who has all the vanity. The religionist is an ignorant coward who can't stand to think that he will ever cease to exist"".____Marian Noel Sherman

So where is your evidence? All I see is you rationalizing. Could it be that you haven't any?
Have you never heard of the burden of proof? You and SMW made the claims. You and SMW need to provide the evidence. The people taking issue with a claim don't need any proof...IT IS THE CLAIMANT WHO NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE PROOF. Innocent until proven guilty, untrue until proven true.

Which is what Evakian said to begin with.

I see you don't want to or, more likely, cannot produce evidence, so I will stay with my impression that anti-Christian and anti-religious voices are more common on this board. I really don't care what you think, since it is apparent to me that you aren't much interested in the truth but only in winning debating points. Therefore I have no need to produce any evidence at all.

I see you don't want to or, more likely, cannot produce evidence, so I will stay with my impression that anti-Christian and anti-religious voices are more common on this board. I really don't care what you think, since it is apparent to me that you aren't much interested in the truth but only in winning debating points. Therefore I have no need to produce any evidence at all.
You can think what you want to. I can't provide evidence, because I would have to demonstrate that [(Total number of threads on Allforums) - 13] or more threads do not have Christian bashing in them, which would be extraordinarily time consuming. And you just said that people's perceptions differ, so it's not like there's any hard evidence to be found here.

Now, all this ignores the fact that you're declaring victory by way of saying that one side has no evidence when you have found no evidence for your side. I claim I am Vice President Dick Cheney. Now prove me wrong. See how your way of argument fails? If you think the board is full of anti-religious sentiment, PROVE IT. If not, you can think what you want, but don't expect anyone else to believe it.

If you want to change someone's opinion on something, you have to produce evidence. It doesn't matter who has the theoretical "burden of proof." Arguments about "burden of proof" are for winning debating points, not persuasion.

If you want to change someone's opinion on something, you have to produce evidence. It doesn't matter who has the theoretical "burden of proof." Arguments about "burden of proof" are for winning debating points, not persuasion.
Okay. Then you have given me no reason to change my opinion. Which is the point Evakian and I have been trying to make.

OK. Then you have given me no reason to change my opinion. Which is the point Evakian and I have been trying to make.

I am not sure about you, but it seemed to me Evakian was trying to humiliate a Christian for her defensiveness in saying most of the boards had an anti-Christian base.

The demand was, as you now admit (in your defense of your own non-production of evidence) unreasonable. All Evakian should have said was that he has a different impression, but he was after a kill.

Let me refine my impression. I think I am objective here because I am certainly not a Christian, but I tend to be pro-religion. I find the anti-Christian voices here to be unreasonable and excessively strident, depending on cynicism and sarcasm rather than rational argument.

This tends to be the case with most message boards (on both sides of the issues), I think because the less strident in the population are not attracted to this sort of medium. Still, even though I understand this, I would work to make them centers of exchange rather than centers of battle.

All Evakian should have said was that he has a different impression, but he was after a kill.
Yes Thislin, I'm after a kill. SMW is an antelope to me, and I am a ferocious tiger. Rawr.

A) I am not anti-religion
B) You can't possibly know my motives for posting what I do
C) You're ignoring the point FT made, that I made, and now, Borg has made

You're ignoring the point FT made, that I made, and now, Borg has made

So? Is this an effort at bandwagon propaganda?

I posted this morning out of irritation at the debate over something I thought rather pointless, combined with her being dealt with unfairly. Now it seems I have gotten stuck in the tar myself.

We all make assertions, or at least I certainly do, that I know are true but that I would be hard pressed to "prove." The best I would be able to do would be to find a web page that says the same thing, but then web pages can be found that say almost anything.

The demand for "substantiation" can be appropriate--that is the devil of it--but usually it is a way to distract from the point. Rather than clarify the issue, the demand is made to confuse it. This is right out of "Lawyerly Argumentation 101."

So that aspect of what you were doing irritated me. The other irritation is that there was no way to substantiate such a claim, since the thrust of each thread could be debated--it was a matter of impressions.

So why the thrust for blood? What would have been wrong with a simple, "I don't see it that way and an agreement to disagree? It seemed, and in fact, still seems that you were being obnoxious.

You were probably in subtle reaction to Christian persecution paranoia, which can be a damn nuisance, but just think how happy you make her persecuting her that way.

What a silly discussion this has turned into.

Borg, Evak... you can stop beating your chests because to tell you the truth, you're making yourselves look very petty here. My only point was, "Gee, there sure are alot of atheists around here." And I stick by that statement. More people here who say they don't believe in God than I've ever met in my entire life... all combined! The '13 christian-bashing threads' was a silly little challenge by FT with which I played along. Maybe there are only 5 or 6... or maybe there are 15. What the hell difference does it make? If it's that important to YOU, go do the research. It means less than nothing to me.

You weren't even HERE when this discussion started in the first place. And no matter how much you whine and cry, call me names or try to prove me wrong, neither you nor anybody else has the power to tell me what I SHOULD think.

Now get over it. Or don't. Just like the fact that if there truly IS a God, alot of you may burn in everlasting hell. No skin off my nose either way. I couldn't care less about either your opinion of my comments... or your sacreligious souls.

Go find yourselves somebody else to bully. You're way over your heads if you think you're gonna rattle me.

You're way over your heads if you think you're gonna rattle me.
I've seen you do little else since you started posting here. Rattle on about this, rattle on about that, with only your pathetic half-backed rhetorical assertions backing them up. When you get questioned, you throw your hands up in a huff and start slinging mud, all the while decrying the questioners as the ones doing the slinging. When people finally get tired of it, and sling back, you take it as your holy vindication and expect everyone to bow down to you because of your supernatural ability to bitch.

You might think of everyone else here as a mini-me, but really, you are the one who cannot play well with others.

And now a word from the peanut gallery.

*whine*

*Color commentator*: Another zinger from the princess of worthlessness! What will she bestow upon us next!

*Radio Announcer*: I don't know doc, but I'm sure we can agree that the princess isn't doing too well here!

Tune in next time, folks!

Sorry you guys find me so irritating. Unfortunately for YOU, I ain't going nowhere. Why don't you try your IGNORE button?

:)
SMW


There is nobody so irritating as somebody with less intelligence and more sense than we have. - Don Herold

Perish the thought, SMW! I could never rob myself of the endless source of amusement I get from reading and responding to your worthlessness!

It's better than video games!

You've got a point there, Nappy. And I'm pretty sure if there's one thing you're an expert on... it's video games.

_____________
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day. - E. B. White

You've got a point there, Nappy. And I'm pretty sure if there's one thing you're an expert on... it's video games.

_____________
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day. - E. B. White


ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Love ya, girlfriend!!!

:)
Kimi

This discussion is completely stupid. No one is going to go to the time and effort to look through all the threads in the history of the forum and compare the number of Christian bashing threads to the number of Christian supporting threads. For one thing, how would we define what is "bashing" of Christianity anyways? Everyone would be in complete disagreement. However, when you present something that is really unprovable and your opinion (like "there are far more atheists here than theists and everyone here bashes Christians") as an absolute fact, people will usually disagree with you. Therefore, if I were SMW, I would amend my statement and make sure everyone knew that this was opinion. When you present something as a fact, you need proof, and presenting something unprovable as fact generally leads to problems.

That's all. :)

This discussion is completely stupid. No one is going to go to the time and effort to look through all the threads in the history of the forum and compare the number of Christian bashing threads to the number of Christian supporting threads. For one thing, how would we define what is "bashing" of Christianity anyways? Everyone would be in complete disagreement. However, when you present something that is really unprovable and your opinion (like "there are far more atheists here than theists and everyone here bashes Christians") as an absolute fact, people will usually disagree with you. Therefore, if I were SMW, I would amend my statement and make sure everyone knew that this was opinion. When you present something as a fact, you need proof, and presenting something unprovable as fact generally leads to problems.

That's all. :)
Ya. Hell ya.

there were 13 threads dedicated to bashing Christians. She named said threads, but many of them were not created to bash Christians or religion at all, even by a stretch.

They probably WERENT "dedicated" to bashing christians.. but any religious thread is only one FT post away from becoming a thread ABOUT bashing christians.

They probably WERENT "dedicated" to bashing christians.. but any religious thread is only one FT post away from becoming a thread ABOUT bashing christians.
Just because FT bashes Christians a lot doesn't mean that any threads are ABOUT bashing them. I can't think of anyone else who's really a consistent Christian basher.

Well, for me this issue is resolved.

There was a claim about Christian bashing, and to back it up SMW named 13 threads dedicated to bashing Christians. I checked those threads and they were nearly all thought provoking discussions, unlike what this thread has become. The only things that resembled 'Christian bashing' were posts by FT, and it's a stretch to call those 'bashing', since all those posts that FT introduced were simply articles questioning theist beliefs, or somewhat fundamentalist atheist articles. For the most part (and yes, I actually am defending FT) FT does not resort to namecalling, and he DOES back up his claims, whether it is with logic or with sources.

If someone posted an article labeled "Evolution: The Biggest Hoax" - I wouldn't call that bashing atheists in the least.

SMW or Thislin, if either of you have something you'd like to introduce to back up that nasty claim, I'm all ears. I'm not holding my breath though, there seems to be little logic regarding the support of those claims, and I really don't expect to see a huge change.

For one thing, how would we define what is "bashing" of Christianity anyways?
The point is that when one makes a point in a debate such as SMW just did, she won't go back to defend that position. Why? Because it is both time-consuming and very subjective. After all that work, she would get criticized by FT and the like. Asking for proof and watching her back out of it gives a sense of closure to the discussion.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Love ya, girlfriend!!!

:)
Kimi
Useless women tend to band together. You can always tell such packs by listening to their banal laughter at nothing funny. The laughter is always ten times louder than it needs to be, and it's designed to announce their presence from miles away. The reason they're honking their mouths like baboons is that they're trying to get attention from men who wouldn't touch that pile of issues and ugliness with a light pole. They think that by laughing and carrying on, they are making it look like they're having fun, and therefore seem more approachable, when in fact, nothing is further from the truth.

This discussion is completely stupid. No one is going to go to the time and effort to look through all the threads in the history of the forum and compare the number of Christian bashing threads to the number of Christian supporting threads. For one thing, how would we define what is "bashing" of Christianity anyways? Everyone would be in complete disagreement. However, when you present something that is really unprovable and your opinion (like "there are far more atheists here than theists and everyone here bashes Christians") as an absolute fact, people will usually disagree with you. Therefore, if I were SMW, I would amend my statement and make sure everyone knew that this was opinion. When you present something as a fact, you need proof, and presenting something unprovable as fact generally leads to problems.

That's all. :)
it depends mostly on your point of view. what Decka thinks is a harmless joke, OD likely thinks is gay bashing.

Useless women tend to band together. You can always tell such packs by listening to their banal laughter at nothing funny. The laughter is always ten times louder than it needs to be, and it's designed to announce their presence from miles away. The reason they're honking their mouths like baboons is that they're trying to get attention from men who wouldn't touch that pile of issues and ugliness with a light pole. They think that by laughing and carrying on, they are making it look like they're having fun, and therefore seem more approachable, when in fact, nothing is further from the truth.
humans are social animals. wherever two or more are gathered, one will emerge as a leader, and the others will defend that leader from outsiders.

"If someone posted an article labeled "Evolution: The Biggest Hoax" - I wouldn't call that bashing atheists in the least."

You do not need to be an evolutionist to be an atheist, and you certainly do not need to be an atheist to be an evolutionist.

As for the rest of your message, you obviously have blinders well in place. Try for once to see things from someone's else's perspective--perhaps from "Loudmouthwoman's."

Useless women tend to band together. You can always tell such packs by listening to their banal laughter at nothing funny. The laughter is always ten times louder than it needs to be, and it's designed to announce their presence from miles away. The reason they're honking their mouths like baboons is that they're trying to get attention from men who wouldn't touch that pile of issues and ugliness with a light pole. They think that by laughing and carrying on, they are making it look like they're having fun, and therefore seem more approachable, when in fact, nothing is further from the truth.

You seem to have a serious case of misogynism, and should get it looked into. Put a group of men together, with maybe a few beers, and things are no different.

I've noticed that in packs of females, there's typically one attractive one and one or more horrendous wildebeests flanking her. A man interested in mating with the attractive one is forced to use a number of ploys to distract the wildebeests while he moves in and completes the seduction.

They have to be incredibly subtle though, so as to escape the notice of the fuglies, because otherwise they barrel in with all the grace of a bull elephant to 'save' the attractive one from the 'predatory' male. All the while the attractive female watches in pained submission, and always tells herself to get better friends, but never ends up making good on that personal promise.

You are truly a modern-day Marlin Perkins.

You seem to have a serious case of misogynism, and should get it looked into.
Well, then all the women I've talked to about this phenomena must also be misogynists as well.

Napsterbater, sidling up to female in bar: What the hell are they laughing at? *points to baying hyenas right in the middle of the bar*

Attractive female, turning towards me: I don't know but I wish they'd just shut the fuck up. This place is seriously boring the fuck out of me.

Napsterbater, pushing himself up, ambles over to the group of yaks: OMG, did you just see what happened? Hugh Grant was right outside, I think he actually pointed at you! *points to the least beastly of the dogs*

Group of yaks: Ahhhhhh! *gets up and stampedes out of the bar*

Napsterbater, smirk on face, moves back to the lady: Now you owe me.

Female, doe-eyed: Hey, let me buy you a drink!

You do not need to be an evolutionist to be an atheist, and you certainly do not need to be an atheist to be an evolutionist.
Wow, ok.... talk about nitpicking and ignoring the point completely. How about I change that one word for you then:

If someone posted an article labeled "Evolution: The Biggest Hoax" - I wouldn't call that bashing evolutionists in the least.

Happy? Do you consider a thread like that 'bashing' on evolutionists?

As for the rest of your message, you obviously have blinders well in place. Try for once to see things from someone's else's perspective--perhaps from "Loudmouthwoman's."
I repeat myself:

SMW or Thislin, if either of you have something you'd like to introduce to back up that nasty claim, I'm all ears. I'm not holding my breath though, there seems to be little logic regarding the support of those claims, and I really don't expect to see a huge change.

Apparently you have nothing to add to support that claim since you failed to respond with any rebuttal except for a personal attack, "you obviously have blinders well in place".

Now, you ask me to look at things from someone else's perspective. What particular things would you like me to view that I have not already taken a completely logical approach on?

So I'm "nitpicking?" I guess that is an admission that what I said is true said by someone in a bad temper.

Why do you pick an obvious oxymoron ("cynical rationalist") to identify yourself with? It seems trumpeting a closed mind. I could buy "skeptical," but cynicism and rationalism do not go together.

There are plenty of Christians who accept evolutionary theory, and, although I can't think of any, I can imagine an atheist who has some alternative view of how we got here. Don't try labeling people in your straw man and people won't nitpick at it.

What a silly discussion this has turned into......The '13 christian-bashing threads' was a silly little challenge by FT with which I played along.

You have now concocted a reiteration of what occured that is so far from the truth as to be laughable.

The subject of '13 christian-bashing threads' was no *silly little challenge* by me that you "played along with". Quite the opposite.

The subject of '13 christian-bashing threads' was not put forward by me, but by you...........it was an assertion entirely of your invention.

You made the claim, not anyone else.

I think almost everyone following this thread understands why you now seek --with increasingly hysterical squirming-- to distance yourself from that claim.

But trying to pin its origin on someone else --and claiming that you were "just playing along"-- is a blatant falsehood that does not paint you in a very flattering light.

So I'm "nitpicking?" I guess that is an admission that what I said is true said by someone in a bad temper.
Atheists are defined by their belief that there is no God, yet evolution is a theory that is VERY CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. Just like Christians are very closely associated with God. If I said that God did not exist according to your nitpicking crap it would be directed towards theists, and apparently not Christians given your earlier objection. Think about it.

I can't believe how dense you are. I'm not saying that you're right, I'm saying that you're nitpicking and not answering the point; which I might add you are doing again. You dodged the question again. Do you ever contribute to a discussion or do you just run around in circles? I changed that one word because I didn't want to argue over an issue that diverted from the point I was making and the discussion we were having.

Why do you pick an obvious oxymoron ("cynical rationalist") to identify yourself with? It seems trumpeting a closed mind. I could buy "skeptical," but cynicism and rationalism do not go together.

To enlighten you, since you seem to rarely use a dictionary:
Cynic: A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness
Rationalism: The doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge

They are not an oxymoron. And please tell me what the hell this has to do with anything.

There are plenty of Christians who accept evolutionary theory, and, although I can't think of any, I can imagine an atheist who has some alternative view of how we got here.
Let's see. So you can't imagine an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution? Ok, then what the hell was with that crap about putting up 'evolutionist' instead of 'atheist'. You just shot yourself in the foot with that one.

Apparently you have no intention of contributing anything to a meaningful discussion. Every reply you have made to my posts has avoided any issue I have introduced and you have dodged every question. If you look back, I actually responded to the questions you had and to the assertions you made. You have not.

Don't try labeling people in your straw man and people won't nitpick at it. What was the straw man I presented? I'm actually not expecting an answer given your history on responding to questions. You'll probably try to make an arguement on what a straw man arguement is.

Your definition of "cynic" makes matters even worse. What a creepy crawler you are. I think I will pass on any further exchange with you.

Your definition of "cynic" makes matters even worse.

In what way? It seems a reasonably accurate definition to me.


What a creepy crawler you are. I think I will pass on any further exchange with you.

Now, now...no reason to get testy. :)

You have now concocted a reiteration of what occured that is so far from the truth as to be laughable.

The subject of '13 christian-bashing threads' was no *silly little challenge* by me that you "played along with". Quite the opposite.

The subject of '13 christian-bashing threads' was not put forward by me, but by you...........it was an assertion entirely of your invention.

You made the claim, not anyone else.

I think almost everyone following this thread understands why you now seek --with increasingly hysterical squirming-- to distance yourself from that claim.

But trying to pin its origin on someone else --and claiming that you were "just playing along"-- is a blatant falsehood that does not paint you in a very flattering light.

Since you're so ADAMENT that I back up my claim with proof... here's some proof for you.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believed in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

You want proof? There's your proof.

Being 'painted in a flattering light' is the last thing on my mind. In fact, if you had a clue, you'd know my goal here is to make you look as silly as possible.

Mission accomplished.

:upyours:
SMW

P.S. BTW, have I mentioned there are at LEAST 13 threads here that bash Christians? Just wanted to make sure you understand that's my claim.

Well, then all the women I've talked to about this phenomena must also be misogynists as well.

Napsterbater, sidling up to female in bar: What the hell are they laughing at? *points to baying hyenas right in the middle of the bar*

Attractive female, turning towards me: I don't know but I wish they'd just shut the fuck up. This place is seriously boring the fuck out of me.

Napsterbater, pushing himself up, ambles over to the group of yaks: OMG, did you just see what happened? Hugh Grant was right outside, I think he actually pointed at you! *points to the least beastly of the dogs*

Group of yaks: Ahhhhhh! *gets up and stampedes out of the bar*

Napsterbater, smirk on face, moves back to the lady: Now you owe me.

Female, doe-eyed: Hey, let me buy you a drink!

Then there are pigs who assume too much....like any women would find your arrogant attitude attractive, at all. Real women wouldn't touch you with a ten-foot pole either, because real women aren't 'submissive'. If you're ideas were'nt so pathetic, they would be almost funny. But, I actually feel bad for you, Napster....but, not too bad. You've chosen to be a pig.

Your definition of "cynic" makes matters even worse. What a creepy crawler you are. I think I will pass on any further exchange with you.

Is someone who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing!

Your definition of "cynic" makes matters even worse.
It's not 'my' definition. It's the dictionary's definition.

What a creepy crawler you are.
I expected nothing less than personal insults with no rebuttal or response to my posts. Pathetic...

I think I will pass on any further exchange with you.

Guess I was right in my assertion that you have little or no ability to either respond to posts or to present any form of logical arguement. If you won't respond to my posts in this roundabout way in the future, it's no loss for me.

I've noticed that in packs of females, there's typically one attractive one and one or more horrendous wildebeests flanking her. A man interested in mating with the attractive one is forced to use a number of ploys to distract the wildebeests while he moves in and completes the seduction.

They have to be incredibly subtle though, so as to escape the notice of the fuglies, because otherwise they barrel in with all the grace of a bull elephant to 'save' the attractive one from the 'predatory' male. All the while the attractive female watches in pained submission, and always tells herself to get better friends, but never ends up making good on that personal promise.
Great reflection! I threw that up on my facebook

Then there are pigs who assume too much....like any women would find your arrogant attitude attractive, at all. Real women wouldn't touch you with a ten-foot pole either, because real women aren't 'submissive'. If you're ideas were'nt so pathetic, they would be almost funny. But, I actually feel bad for you, Napster....but, not too bad. You've chosen to be a pig.
Like you could tell me what a real woman would want or be attracted to!

Let me tell you a little about what women want. (OMG how audacious of him! I need to change my panties!)

Women want men who aren't shy about who they are or what they want. Women want to feel wanted. Women do not want indecisive, weak-willed men who will cave in to every conflict a woman decides to throw at them. They want a man who is cool and collected under pressure. They want a man who can lean back from time to time and savor the moment, instead of moving right in at every chance to get physical. Women want a man who is concerned with their appearance, but not overly so. Women like men who are enigmatic and graceful. Women want to be the ones chosen, not the ones choosing. Women enjoy dealing with men who have a slightly cocky sense of humor. Women want men who tease them and put them off a little. Women want men to be forward and somewhat demanding of them. Women want men to try to sleep with them on the first date, even if they know they're just going to shut them down. (lots of times they don't, ha!)

That, my dear scamp, is what a real woman wants. I display these traits, both in my online writings and in person, and if you do not like them, well, it's your loss, hun. And those are the women I want to be with, not your pathetic unreasonably demanding self.

Like you could tell me what a real woman would want or be attracted to!

Let me tell you a little about what women want. (OMG how audacious of him! I need to change my panties!)

Women want men who aren't shy about who they are or what they want. Women want to feel wanted. Women do not want indecisive, weak-willed men who will cave in to every conflict a woman decides to throw at them. They want a man who is cool and collected under pressure. They want a man who can lean back from time to time and savor the moment, instead of moving right in at every chance to get physical. Women want a man who is concerned with their appearance, but not overly so. Women like men who are enigmatic and graceful. Women want to be the ones chosen, not the ones choosing. Women enjoy dealing with men who have a slightly cocky sense of humor. Women want men who tease them and put them off a little. Women want men to be forward and somewhat demanding of them. Women want men to try to sleep with them on the first date, even if they know they're just going to shut them down. (lots of times they don't, ha!)

That, my dear scamp, is what a real woman wants. I display these traits, both in my online writings and in person, and if you do not like them, well, it's your loss, hun. And those are the women I want to be with, not your pathetic unreasonably demanding self.

Generalizations, all, and perhaps accurate for some women but certainly not all.

Of course they're generalizations! General for all the women I care to be with! If any of these aren't true for a particular woman, she stands little chance of lasting beyond a thirty second conversation with me. I just say, "Well, it's nice to meet you," and move on. Too many damn women out there to worry about one boring female.

If you noticed, all of those things I talked about make interacting fun and special. If interacting with a woman is not fun or special, why the hell would I want to spend any time with her? Even if I manage to get her into bed, if she is the most boring girl in the world to talk to, she's probably not the greatest in bed, either! It's just a goddamned chore.

Being with Borg is fun and special and he's nothing like you.

I'm glad you found him. But why do you feel the need to shut me down before I've even chosen you?

I'm glad you found him. But why do you feel the need to shut me down before I've even chosen you?
What?

Look at what you just written! I just told you all the things that I find attractive in women, and why I find them attractive. Instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, you feel the urge to argue me out of the things I find attractive in women, by bringing up your current relationship, saying that he's fun to be with, so I must be wrong! Now I repeat your question.

What?

You present things as if they are absolute facts that apply to everyone. I resent your idea of what "all women" are like, and what they want, because I am nothing like that stereotype and you know that.

I'm sorry if you cannot take my generalizations in the spirit of which they were meant, sweetie, but that only means one thing, that you and I are not compatible. But we already knew that anyway, didn't we?

Being with Borg is fun and special and he's nothing like you.
that's harsh! probably true, but still harsh!

that's harsh! probably true, but still harsh!
See, DF, even if you don't see your statement as a rejection, everyone else does. I know you were just trying to be logical, but that's effectively what you were doing.

that's harsh! probably true, but still harsh!
That isn't to say that Nappy and I could never be together in some alternate universe where I were single. In fact, he's just my type.

See, DF, even if you don't see your statement as a rejection, everyone else does. I know you were just trying to be logical, but that's effectively what you were doing.
I was just saying that you aren't the only guy that women can possibly like, since you seem to think so. :rolleyes:

I'm the only man in the universe sweetie. If I ever choose you, you'll quickly come to appreciate that.

I'm the only man in the universe sweetie. If I ever choose you, you'll quickly come to appreciate that.
:rolleyes: I thought this thread was supposed to be about atheists?

We're talking about me. I'm an atheist!

You know, I like you. But you're such a dick. Telling you off for it is like telling every single one of my stupid ex boyfriends that they were wrong about everything and they can kiss my ass.

Fire your shrink. Just come chat with me once in a while!

That goes for all you ladies. You ever feel like telling off a guy for being a dick, just come sit on my lap and tell me all about it! You can even hit me and do all those cute little girly things you do to dicks, then I'll do to you what dicks do to women!

I'll do to you what dicks do to women!
::wags finger:: Nuh-uh, only Borg is allowed to do that to me. ;)

Well, you won't be sitting on my lap then!

Your loss, not mine!

Well, you won't be sitting on my lap then!

Your loss, not mine!
Oh you know you want me on your lap... ;)

Reverse psychology... works every time.

Get a room. :rolleyes:

Oh, it won't come to that...

Get a room. :rolleyes:
Video tape it, so Borg can watch it later.

But, anyone want to talk about the atheist debate? Thislin? Windwip? FT? Anyone?

Get a room. :rolleyes:
Aww, I'm just teasing him. I thought you of all people would find that amusing. :thumbs:

People who say "Get a room, you two!" are typically extremely jealous of the participants.

Aww, I'm just teasing him. I thought you of all people would find that amusing. :thumbs:

It stopped being amusing a while back. :)

People who say "Get a room, you two!" are typically extremely jealous of the participants.

I meant start a new thread Einstein, preferably in the Gold Member forum.

It stopped being amusing a while back. :)
I'm sorry. :(

I meant start a new thread Einstein, preferably in the Gold Member forum.
Well, say that then! Shit!

Where is Mr. Coherence and his bride, Mrs. Relevance, to save the thread?

Being 'painted in a flattering light' is the last thing on my mind.

I believe you.

P.S. BTW, have I mentioned there are at LEAST 13 threads here that bash Christians?

No.

No one has made any claim such as that.

A while back a poster to this thread (well, it was you, actually) made the claim (a false claim, that has been refuted so thoroughly that the author of it has been reduced to incessantly lying about what was said in order to make excuses for having said it) that --""there are at least 13 threads on this forum alone dedicated to ridiculing Christians"".

You even --laughably-- named 13 threads and then LIED and stated that I had posted in all 13 of them.

Just wanted to make sure you understand that's my claim.

?!?!?

Yet MORE squirming and lying, in an attempt to deny responsibility for having made the claim.......?!?!?

This is starting to take on a true air of pathos.

Sad.

Her claim has not been refuted, so don't now claim it has, or you may be asked to prove it.

All that has happened is that she has been challenged on it and she failed to provide proof. No one else, however, proved she is wrong, either.

It is a matter of perspective. From her perspective (and mine too), the board is excessively cynical and hateful to Christians. From your perspective, as one of those cynics, you see it otherwise (I don't see how you could, but I give you the benefit of the doubt).

Video tape it, so Borg can watch it later.

But, anyone want to talk about the atheist debate? Thislin? Windwip? FT? Anyone?

Thislin failed in the very basics of debate awhile back in this thread, and on this issue FT and I agree.

Her claim has not been refuted, so don't now claim it has, or you may be asked to prove it.
Nothing is needed to disprove her since she has not yet used evidence to support her claim (the 13 threads arguement was ripped to shreds, she even admitted that she was wrong on that front). If by some miracle she decided to do that, then we would have a discussion on the matter and work to disprove her.

All that has happened is that she has been challenged on it and she failed to provide proof. No one else, however, proved she is wrong, either.
Apparently you do not understand what 'burden of proof' means. Please, look it up.

It is a matter of perspective. From her perspective (and mine too), the board is excessively cynical and hateful to Christians.
Well, no one can deny you your perspective on the matter. However, you're not going to convince anyone else unless you present a case on the matter (btw, evidence helps a lot with that).

From your perspective, as one of those cynics, you see it otherwise (I don't see how you could, but I give you the benefit of the doubt).
Glad you are able to realise that much!!!

Also, not all people who disagree with you here are cynics. Most likely, just the small minority are.