Groundhog's day

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

I have no issue with how you have presented yourself and I don't consider you to be conceited.

Oh. Okay.

Well am I at least still a wanker? Because if not, I'm going to lose some credibility around here.

selliedjoup wrote

I think there is a high level of smug in most atheists...

How many atheists do you know, personally, in real life?

selliedjoup wrote

...which is ironicially, what irreligious continually accuses me of. Like I said before, never the twain shall meet.

See, this is a case where I don't know what you mean in your use of the phrase "never the twain shall meet." I've always understood that phrase to refer to two things that stand no chance of uniting. What are the two things here? You and conceitedness?

I'm not being condescending. I've just never seen this phrase used in the way you're using it.

selliedjoup wrote

I found it very funny when someone here had the brilliance to offer I don't know what it means. No of course I don't, only atheists understand anything.

If somone really felt that you might not know what something meant, why would that imply that only atheists understand anything? There are a great many things that I don't understand, but if a Christian happens to explain one of them to meet, I don't take that to mean that that Christian believes that only Christians understand anything.

You have to keep in mind that we're a jaded bunch here because of all that abrasive, belligerent theists that we've dealt with both here and out in the world. We may not always give newcomers a fair shake, and many of us too quickly assume the worst of neophytes. What you read as condescension is more likely just caution.

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

That's fine, but it just take more time as it requires having to reference my previous posts.

It's time you'll take if you care enough to have a productive conversation.

I regularly reference my previous posts, as well as the previous posts of the people I respond to, and I don't complain about it.

selliedjoup wrote

No I don't.

Then you don't need me to explain how it is that I know this.

You already know it yourself.

selliedjoup wrote

Where did I say this?

In post #240 of this thread. And so you don't have to reference your previous post, the relevant exhange was this:

You wrote

And how do you know this?

That's where you said it.

selliedjoup wrote

If you mispresent what I've said and then ask how I come to this conclusion...

Hold on: you're accusing me of misrepresenting things that you've said?

Would that be like when you asked if I assumed that humans know all there is to know, and I said that I didn't think so, and you then asked why I assumed that humans know all there is to know? Is that the kind of misrepresentation you're talking about?

selliedjoup wrote

...using descriptions such as "meandering ramblings", "your nonsense.." I'm unsure how you expect me to respond?

Perhaps with something other than meandering ramblings and nonsense.

I'm honestly not trying to be snarky asshole with you. If I say that something you've written looks to me like meandering ramblings or nonsense, that's because something you've written really does look to me like meandering ramblings or nonsense. You don't have to agree, but it might be in your interest to clarify what it was that you meant if you want to have a productive conversation.

selliedjoup wrote

Should I say oh ok, he made a valid point point there?

If I made a valid point? Yes. That's what you should say.

Even if you think I'm being a snarky asshole, a valid point is a valid point.

Snark does not invalidate a valid point, even if that valid point is being made by an asshole.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Oh. Okay.

Well am I at least still a wanker? Because if not, I'm going to lose some credibility around here.

]Ok then you’re a wanker.

How many atheists do you know, personally, in real life?

Many, the majority of people I know are Atheists, although most don’t have the fervour to match those here. I know this doesn’t count for anything, but I used to be an atheist, but now I’ve changed to agnostic. So I understand the views and principles.

See, this is a case where I don't know what you mean in your use of the phrase "never the twain shall meet." I've always understood that phrase to refer to two things that stand no chance of uniting. What are the two things here? You and conceitedness?

I apply this phrase to the difference in mindsets between you and me. We both have fundamentally different base assumptions (i.e. Atheism and Agnosticism) and then work from there, there is no place for our views to merge.

If somone really felt that you might not know what something meant, why would that imply that only atheists understand anything?

I was being sarcastic. The level of conceitedness here is fairly high, so I was just playing on that. To be fair anyone with views on sex, religion and politics is fairly self-assured.

There are a great many things that I don't understand, but if a Christian happens to explain one of them to meet, I don't take that to mean that that Christian believes that only Christians understand anything.

Yes I know. It was a jab at the regulars here, not at atheists in general

You have to keep in mind that we're a jaded bunch here because of all that abrasive, belligerent theists that we've dealt with both here and out in the world.

I realise that. I’m on the other side as I’m sick of hearing from atheists.

We may not always give newcomers a fair shake, and many of us too quickly assume the worst of neophytes. What you read as condescension is more likely just caution.

]I’m not a newcomer and it’s definitely condescension. Not from you, but from others here and I hold no desire for a “fair shake” from them. One of the reasons I come here is for conflict. I hold no hope of convincing anyone of anything and you won't be able to convince me either. That said, I enjoy discussing views as well.

[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

Many, the majority of people I know are Atheists...

Where do you live? I need to move there.

selliedjoup wrote

...although most don’t have the fervour to match those here.

The atheists you know appear to live in an area where there are many atheists.

Most of the atheists that come here live in areas with few or no other atheists. We may be more fervent than the atheists you know because of the daily idiocy we have to deal with, and we come to this forum for refuge.

Why is that a problem?

selliedjoup wrote

I know this doesn’t count for anything, but I used to be an atheist, but now I’ve changed to agnostic. So I understand the views and principles.

...

We both have fundamentally different base assumptions (i.e. Atheism and Agnosticism) and then work from there, there is no place for our views to merge.

That's not at all true, and it makes me think you don't really understand the view or principles. Not because I'm being condescending, but because there is great overlap between atheism and agnosticism.

Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know. Atheists can be agnostic, and agnostics can be atheists.

I, personally, am both. I admit that I don't know if there is anything beyond the universe (hence I am agnostic), and I also don't believe that there is anything beyond the universe (hence I am atheistic). The two are absolutely not mutally exclusive, so often the twain shall meet.

selliedjoup wrote

I’m on the other side as I’m sick of hearing from atheists.

Then why in the world would you come to a forum populated not only by atheists, but by Raving Atheists? It's not like you didn't know what you'd find here.

[quote=selliedjoup]I’m not a newcomer...[quote]
I thought you were, since your username was created on 28 Nov 2010, and you've only got 76 posts.

If you were here previously under a different name, I was unaware of that.

selliedjoup wrote

One of the reasons I come here is for conflict. I hold no hope of convincing anyone of anything and you won't be able to convince me either. That said, I enjoy discussing views as well.

As long as you know exactly what to expect and what you want from your time here, I guess you'll get what you want out of the experience.

[Jimble]

selliedjoup wrote

Where did I say I want a personal relationship? Obviously you have trouble understanding what I wrote.

In a certain sense this is true, I have trouble understanding why you write a lot of what you do.

Oh, by the way, cunt isn't much of an insult. Cunts are warm, soft and inviting.

[Jimble]

selliedjoup wrote

]I used to be an atheist, but now I’ve changed to agnostic. So I understand the views and principles.

This I doubt, or you would know the terms themselves, and understand that they aren't mutually exclusive. Nearly everyone I know is both an atheist and an agnostic.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Incidentally, Selly: I don't agree that I can't be convinced of things I didn't previously believe.

[Irreligious]

selliedjoup wrote

What makes me a better human than many here is I'm not initially a cunt, I can easily be a cunt, but I'm not one by default. Many here, are.

Pity that the rest of us don't hold you in the same high esteem as you hold yourself, huh? It seems to me that you are rude and unpleasant not because you've been goaded into being that way but because it comes naturally to you. Basically, you're an ugly and contentious person and you're quite proud of it, obviously.

[West491]

selliedjoup wrote

The issue is you guys feel your views are not open to scrutiny, so there is no need to answer any questions from anyone from a different persepctive.

Well, what is it you'd like to [intelligently] scrutinize?

Edit: Nevermind. Scratch that.

[selliedjoup]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

It's time you'll take if you care enough to have a productive conversation.

I regularly reference my previous posts, as well as the previous posts of the people I respond to, and I don't complain about it.

During my time as a history student I footnoted more times than I cared to. I’m too lazy to reference either old posts made by me or others. If that means I’m wrong at times it’s a small price to pay.

Then you don't need me to explain how it is that I know this.

You already know it yourself.



In post #240 of this thread. And so you don't have to reference your previous post, the relevant exhange was this:



That's where you said it.

I meant how do you know there is no why for why there are craters on the moon.

Hold on: you're accusing me of misrepresenting things that you've said?

Would that be like when you asked if I assumed that humans know all there is to know, and I said that I didn't think so, and you then asked why I assumed that humans know all there is to know? Is that the kind of misrepresentation you're talking about?

You’re now misrepresenting my misrepresentation accusation. I said you have assumed humans are capable of knowing all there is to know if you stated that you require evidence to believe. Otherwise your belief is skewed towards possibly never believing.

Perhaps with something other than meandering ramblings and nonsense.

I'm honestly not trying to be snarky asshole with you. If I say that something you've written looks to me like meandering ramblings or nonsense, that's because something you've written really does look to me like meandering ramblings or nonsense. You don't have to agree, but it might be in your interest to clarify what it was that you meant if you want to have a productive conversation.

You didn’t address anything specific, so it seemed to be a generic statement rather than something which would involve me clarifying a particular statement

If I made a valid point? Yes. That's what you should say.

The issue of whether I was writing nonsense is subjective, so stating your opinion of this as a “valid point” holds no relevance

Even if you think I'm being a snarky asshole, a valid point is a valid point.

Snark does not invalidate a valid point, even if that valid point is being made by an asshole.

I know, but for example teaching anyone with "you fucking thick cunt” tagged onto the end is probably not the best way to make a point.

[selliedjoup]

Irreligious wrote

Pity that the rest of us don't hold you in the same high esteem as you hold yourself, huh? It seems to me that you are rude and unpleasant not because you've been goaded into being that way but because it comes naturally to you. Basically, you're an ugly and contentious person and you're quite proud of it, obviously.

Haha don’t be so dramatic. If I was given respect when I came here I would have reciprocated, but I wasn’t so here we are. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that? Sure I can be a cunt and I especially enjoy being one here as many people here are cunts when they are here. I hope this doesn’t rock your world too much, but I think some regulars here may even be less cuntish when they’re away from this fourm.

I’m a nice guy to people I like, if people are rude, then I won’t hold back in the slightest. You seem to enjoy making statements about my ‘unpleasantness’. I would recommend not being such a Pratt about it as everyone can be ‘unpleasant’ depending on the circumstances. I’m sure Choobus stops saying “fuck” ,“cunt” and “poos” around some people

I wouldn’t say not viewing yourself as a cunt by default is a result of high esteem. You seem to think I’m here to make friends yet my natural unpleasantness just can help but come through. Thanks for the laugh.

]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB3PdPMjeIY

[Irreligious]

selliedjoup wrote

[color=black]Haha don’t be so dramatic. If I was given respect when I came here I would have reciprocated, but I wasn’t so here we are.

Don't be such a liar. Your behavior here is not deserving of any respect because you've never shown respect to the other members of this forum. Not once. And I'm not merely insulting you by calling you an ugly and contentious personality. That is my honest assessment based on how you have been conducting yourself here. Something is clearly wrong with you.

You keep saying your're not here to make friends. Fine. Then fuck off already instead of being a contentious twit for the sheer hell of it. You don't like us and we don't like you. What more is there for you to do here but to keep repeating the same tired bullshit that doesn't seem to make sense to anybody here but you? Go spend time with your wife and kids already. Nobody here likes your company.

[Jimble]

selliedjoup wrote

Sure I can be a cunt and I especially enjoy being one here as many people here are cunts when they are here.

I wouldn’t say not viewing yourself as a cunt by default is a result of high esteem. You seem to think I’m here to make friends yet my natural unpleasantness just can help but come through. Thanks for the laugh.

Jimble wrote

Cunt isn't much of an insult. Cunts are warm, soft and inviting.

I think it's safe to assume people come here to share points of view, if you're out to antagonise, it's reasonable to expect people to retaliate in kind.
If you were out to antagonise and disrespect, why did you expect anything else in return?

[anthonyjfuchs]

He's here for the confrontation, so I moved it to the snack table near the front door between the guacamole and the cheese fondue.

[Choobus]

selliedjoup wrote

It's a shame you pick and choose selected parts of what I've written and don't bother to address others.

what's the point arseface, everything you say is the same retarded shit. It is enough simply to point out that you are a fucking idiot.