Total Biscuit's - Atheism does not make you clever

a reply to: undo

Was offered for discussion.
I have been continually trying to keep the topic on that.
If you feel that should not be the topic.
By all means, don't post or make another thread.
I honestly care not.



Stating what I am was tactical move on my part.


Seeing as to how more than a few of my fellows here feel that any criticism of us can only come from theists.

i'll state for the record, that although he makes several good points, i happen to believe god can be proven, but it's not an easy case of 1+1=2, end of discussion. it's long intense study, crossing several boundaries of science, history, geography, archaeology, linguistics, etymology, and of course, scholarship. the question is not an easy answer, particular where the topic involves deep thought, and the opponent is not exactly wanting you to prove them wrong. lol

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

and i tactically responded to your tactical move. as you may have noticed. hehe
yeeep. you had me going there for a bit. as you can tell, i'm not a fan of medivh.

a reply to: undo

That is your mistake to make.
KIndly, leave it out of my threads from here on please.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm 36. My parents are dead. Spent some time in the Army. Built some houses for fun. Managed a Radio Shack that sold hobby grade remote control cars. I'm divorced. Own two houses. Have two ridiculously amazing kids. Live in Minnesota. Born and raised in Illinois. I've used rockn82 since about 1995. The name came from the license plates of my old car that I used to drag race.

And for goodness sake, here is what it actually says about my name.

Wiki-pedia: en.wikipedia.org...
The given name Eric, or Erik, is derived from the Old Norse name Eiríkr (or Eríkr in Eastern Scandinavia due to monophthongization). The first element, ei- is derived either from the older Proto-Norse *aina(z) meaning "one" or "alone"[1] or from Proto-Norse *aiwa(z) meaning "ever" or "eternal".[2] The second element -ríkr derives either from *rík(a)z meaning "ruler" or "prince" (cf. Gothic reiks) or from an even older Proto-Germanic *ríkiaz which meant "powerful" and "rich".[3] The name is thus usually taken to mean "one ruler", "autocrat", "eternal ruler" or "ever powerful," and "government".[4]

Do you see what I mean by what you "think" you know. My post stayed with the topic but also spoke to you because you provided your credentials and belittled others. It's only fair if you are going to claim something in an attempt to give credence that you be telling the truth. Your's is just a disgusting display of childishness. I think you're old enough to know better.

Now, you can see why I related you directly to the OP's post. Both you and Total Biscuit made wild claims about intellect attempting to validate your views. It just really bugs me when people belittle others. Even more so when they claim to be religious.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: rockn82

oh he got a clean bill of health from the doctors or what?
it wasn't cancerous? i kinda poked around to find out what prognosis they gave and if they had tested whether it was malignant or not. they are usually pretty fast on those tests because of the extreme nature.

They said it was malignant and that it was totally curable. So surgery and chemo. ^ ^

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: rockn82
...I also find it funny that more than a couple who criticisize him for talking about his claim IQ spend at least a little bit of time doing what they admonish him for doing...

As I said very early on in this thread. I pointed out who he is and what he does as to reason why I don't give the man much credence. He may have written some valid points, but none of them are anything that hasn't been talked about here before. Or as seeing how the blog post is 7 years old, it's been talked about on many other forums for nearly a decade. Anyone can take pieces of information from various sources and slam them together in a hodgepodge of ideas that really don't lead the reader anywhere. Again, he makes no conclusions and ends with "wake up". I simply don't like the tone he attempts to take while using his credentials to validate his position.

“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.” --Micheal de'Montaigne

a reply to: rockn82

When last I checked, it doesn't matter your reasoning for doing something, just that you do it.
And what you are doing is trying to tell others why they should not talk about something.
And dumping as much poison into the well as you can.

I think I know why.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: rockn82

When last I checked, it doesn't matter your reasoning for doing something, just that you do it.
And what you are doing is trying to tell others why they should not talk about something.
And dumping as much poison into the well as you can.

I think I know why.

No, I am telling you why I(emphasis) don't agree with what was written. Others are free to make thier own conclusions. I'm just giving the facts that surround the post and the reason for my decision. Also I would love to know why you think you know why.

a reply to: rockn82

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

my apologies. /under her breath -- still don't like medivh. (had to sneak that in there cause, well, you told me not too. hehe)

anyway, so why not respond to my post in which i commented on the op, good and proper?
seems to be on topic, unless i've completely missed the point.

btw, normally, threads in which the op doesn't present his own position on the subject that is quoted are usually moderated and the op given instructions on how to present such an article. since no else has seen fit to moderate it and give instructions, i'll try to recall it for you:

you're not supposed to include the entire article, but rather a section of it with a link to the actual document you're quoting, for further reading. two, you're supposed to include your own interpretation or perspective of the quoted material, in the op.

in the absence of this, people may become confused as to the direction you wish the topic to go in. lack of doing so, also creates an opportunity to criticize anyone who posts outside the parameters you've set for discussion in your own head, which then requires your participants be mind readers to boot. and while it sounds like an interesting skill to have, most of us don't have it. so in the future, barring any unforeseen moderator responses, it would be best if you make commentary on your ops from the outset, so that we have some idea what the boundaries and direction are for your thread.

a reply to: undo

I don't remember you doing that.
Sort of lost interest after the World of Warcraft babble.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: undo

I don't remember you doing that.
Sort of lost interest after the World of Warcraft babble.

it's not uncommon for someone to respond on the side topics of a thread, such as the fact tb is a wow video blogger,
your avatar is a wow personality, and at least 2 people who have posted in the thread, are also wow players. for example, the fellow with the go'el byline. that's why it's a good idea to include your own opinion of quoted material in an op, from the outset, so we understand what direction you wish it to go in. it usually helps if you include things like, "i don't want this topic to be about __________" fill in the blank, although that part isn't a guideline for posting ops.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows

a reply to: Toadmund

I am not against the possibility of a god(s)

Could've fooled me sir or ma'am.
Methinks you need to look more closely to what you say.

Really? Even though there is no evidence found and bible research tells me it's mostly fairy tales.

I am still an agnostic, I don't know, and if there is some sort of god, I am not against that.
I am open minded and willing to let go of old ideas as evidence presents itself.

What do you have against that? Methinks YOU need to look more closely to what YOU say.

Sometimes though, yes I do come off as an atheist, but mostly to present a polar opposite for the argument.

But still, I am not against the possibility of a god(s). Why would I be against the possibility of anything, I could buy a bottle of raspberry jam, there may be a blueberry in there, I am not against the possibility of that.

You point was?......

originally posted by: undo

many christian women even avoid reading the old testament because to them, the old testament god sounds almost nothing like jesus. it's like night and day.

Yeah, let's face it, YAHWEH is a jerk.
One would almost think god was thunked up by men.

Choose Thor.

originally posted by: Toadmund

originally posted by: undo

many christian women even avoid reading the old testament because to them, the old testament god sounds almost nothing like jesus. it's like night and day.

Yeah, let's face it, YAHWEH is a jerk.
One would almost think god was thunked up by men.

Choose Thor.

well i haven't as yet figured out which one thor is. but if loki is his rival, there's a chance thor is the sumerian enlil. i'd have to do a much more thorough comparative analysis.

originally posted by: Toadmund

originally posted by: undo

many christian women even avoid reading the old testament because to them, the old testament god sounds almost nothing like jesus. it's like night and day.

Yeah, let's face it, YAHWEH is a jerk.
One would almost think god was thunked up by men.

Choose Thor.

No, choose Osiris. Because my Egyptian god can beat up your Norse god. Just don't get the Hindu gods involved or the Greek pantheon will throw another raver and the Abrahamic family deities will crash the party. Again. And that's no fun.

a reply to: undo

Actually, no my avatar isn't.
It's a generic fantasy guy in dark cloak avatar.

Oh, side note.
Thank you for the laugh at the absurdity of a person breaking the rules with off topic posts complaining about rules infractions.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: undo

Actually, no my avatar isn't.
It's a generic fantasy guy in dark cloak avatar.

Oh, side note.
Thank you for the laugh at the absurdity of a person breaking the rules with off topic posts complaining about rules infractions.

Kinda looks like a live action Soul Reaper from Bleach.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I on a forum post about Bungee's upcoming game called Destiny.