SingleDad: SecWebLurker is under no obligation to reveal his name. My point is only that his anonymous opinion is of little value.

SWL: Right, anonymous opinions are valueless. There are a whole bunch of valueless opinions being shared all over these boards. Everyone knows that if you have an opinion and you don't share it under your real name, it means nothing. Attaching your real name to the opinion changes everything...

SecWebLurker

Toto

Metacrock - I just read the paper on Science and Nature that you linked. So you can write - but you don't write that way on the boards. I had gotten used to just ignoring your posts - it takes too long to decipher them, and a lot of what you write is ad hominem insults.

So why don't you spend a little time editing your posts? Write them in Word, with spell-checker on, eliminate all of the insults and name calling. You could increase your effectiveness.

For Meta.

1. Are you talking about me? What agenda do you discern in my posts? And I don’t rail against Christianity. I say a Christian cannot approach historicity on a purely historical basis, which frankly is obvious and incontestable.

2. As to the nature of your posts, the threads speak for themselves. You must have noticed that you’ve developed something of a reputation. As to whether you think you win your debates, are you actually saying that you think otherwise?

3. One recent example, a set of three related threads, Being has to be and Argument from temporal beginning, Atheist first cause argument (no god needed), in which you ducked my catch of how you were distorting Hawking’s cosmology.

4. Right, you’re a legend in your own mind. We already knew that.

Go ahead, squeak at me some more.

A reputation? When Meta first appeared on this board, he listed all sorts of sources. So I checked one of them out. He had so badly mangled this poor guy's argument it was hardly recognizable. I wouldn't trust Meta's "quotations" if my life depended on it.

Try it some time. I'll bet half of his citations -- certainly of non-theistic scholars -- to be so twisted that the original authors wouldn't recognize it.

Oh, Dennis, that was the reputation I meant.

BTW, Meta, on #3, another example comes to mind. It's something I tripped across during one of my first visits to the board. Thank goodness for search engines.

Go to Science Does not privilege atheism and search for "fish." Follow fish through the thread. Really, it's fascinating to see how Meta twists, squirms and ultimately simply disappears from the debate rather than admit he made a mistake.

Please squeak at me some more?

Notice that the lying little ignorant unread, unleanred moron is too stupid and lazy to use an example to back up such a charge. Unable to do so, he would rather throw mud on people's reputations than to actually back up his lies with evidence. He probably thought that because he's too stupid to understand the issue or how I was using things.

He's also a coward, he wont debate me. Come on coward put em up or shut up, put up your dukes, 1x1. Debate me!

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited May 31, 2001).]

O this just shows what a Lying little moron you are. I challenge you to debate. You are a coward and will not take me up on it. Awwwwk buck buck buck, awwwwwk puck buck buck. Awwwk.

Ok now cowardly idiot, here is the issue, this is the big intellectual issue that this moron thinks means I'm runing away form! What an idiot!

The issue was could the story of the Johnah and the Whale be ture? I admitted that I think the story is mythology! So there's no issues, that's the premise. I doubt the story so there's no argument!. It's not like I'm trying to prove something because I had nothing to prove, I had agreed with the atheists on it. So what?

I happened to recall sitting in a chruch way way back in 1979 and hearing something about a case where a guy was found alive in a huge fish in South america. Now they stupidly concluded that this was in the 1890s because they found reference to another story like it. But I was sure mine was in the 1970s. Now it is unlikely it would be on th net because that was really before there was much of an internet. So that is why no one found it. And i heard it in a chruch, I think I saw the article years latter when researcing in old periodicals. But so what if I didn't? What difference does it make because I'm not using it to prove anyhting. I'm quite prepared to find that the story of Johah was mythological. It makes no difference. So these idiots are arguing about it like it's life and death. So I should wate me time arguing with morons like it's really a big deal?

here's what the thread degenerated into:

IP: Logged

Patrick Bateman
Secular Web Regular posted January 23, 2001 08:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bede:
I'm afraid I'm with Patrick on this one. Check out this link.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found the same site,b ut didn't put it up because it says the year was 1891.


IP: Logged

Neoatheist
Secular Web Regular posted January 23, 2001 09:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh, Metacrock is right, a crock of crap.
IP: Logged

Bede
Secular Web Regular posted January 23, 2001 10:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Neoatheist:
Heh, Metacrock is right, a crock of crap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which makes you what? I really wish that the under fives such as you were not allowed on this board.

B


IP: Logged

Patrick Bateman
Secular Web Regular posted January 23, 2001 11:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bede:
I really wish that the under fives such as you were not allowed on this board.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you like me to post all the juvenile shit that Metacrock has put up?


Plus, it looks like Neoatheist is right. Metacrock makes stuff up.


[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited January 23, 2001).]

IP: Logged

P_Brian_Bateman
Secular Web Regular posted January 23, 2001 01:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, metacrock, it depends on what definition of atheism you are using. IF you mean the definition of "there is no god" stance, then your right. but if you are using the other definition (and the one that seems to be used more in philosophical circles) of "lack of a belief in a god", then your wrong. So, please define your definitions before you make your generalizations.
(oh, and if your wondering why the "lack of a belief" definition is scientific, it is because science can only verify natural things, and therefore, science would lack any assertions about the supernatural.)

IP: Logged

Neoatheist
Secular Web Regular posted January 24, 2001 12:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My apologies to both Metacrock and Bede.
I apologize to Meta for saying such a comment, but I guess it is simply that sometimes I get fed up with the theist nonsense.

To Bede, I apologize for using the comment as well. But if you can't take the heat from such comments, I hope you never meet Oprheous99.
________________

The guy apolgizes. But what is really at steak here? The original thread had nothing to do with this (it was making the point that atheism is not priveleged by science). So no one is dealing with what the thread is about, they just want to get at me for petty reasons and it's not an issue since I don't even base any of my views on it. It's just an interesting little tid bit I heard off hand and it shouldn't make any difference at all. So why stick around and waste my time when on one is discussing anyhting?

When I do stay and keep daring people to continue substantive debate the keep cursing at me so why bother with that?

than in this current thread the previous moron wants to say that I mangel evidence. I will bet you anything that is the kind of thing he's talking about. That he's so fucking stupid he can't understand what's being said in the first place.


And this is the kind of off hand Bull shit that these midless certons want to say makes me a bad scholar when they never document anything in the first place! this wasn't even an intellectual point it was just a little aside that meant nothing in the fist place.

So why stick around and waste my time when all they are going to do is call me names. These fools, yes, fools, think that this is some big point of honor but they aren't saying anything! they are just wanting to call names and crate the sense that I'm no good becasue they can't answer the real arguments. They can't reserach they can't understand anyhting so they have to piss on my angkels becase they are metal pigmies and can't get at the real issues.


Come on and debate me! come on an debate me coward why are you afraid? If I'm so stupid why are you afraid to debagte me?

Excellent squeaking. Thank you.

I notice you ignored the first example. There, the distortion in which I caught you was key to your position and you had started two of the threads.

As to the second, I notice you left out the link that proved you had related the equivalent of a theological urban legend. Which you still insist (without citation) was a different story.

And it's precisely because you're so stupid (actually, I had better reasons) that I'm "afraid" to debate you. I'll stick to pointing out glaring flaws in your arguments as and when it amuses me. Answer or not as you please.

I just wanted to say one thing about the book criticism thing - Carrier didn't just say that there exists no book for laymen which is based on 1990's archaeology, he said that there is no such book "that advances a complete synthetic history of Israel." I may be wrong, but I thought that part of it was significant.

Regarding Metacrock, he has to realize that reading his stuff is completely unbearable. Does this mean that he's a bad writer? No. Does this mean that he can't make good points in a debate? No. But it makes the "debate" unworkable when you have to spend every other sentence countering his sarcasm and pointless insults.

It's really difficult to imagine him in academic circles being this excitable and vicious, so why doesn't he just act here like he does in real life? There's really a lot to be said for presenting your argument calmly and logically WITHOUT making "ahahahahahahhahaahah, how stupid can you get?" every other sentence.

Sorry, I don't debate people who are as deceitful and dishonest as yourself. I provided more than ample amount of evidence of your lack of integrity months ago.