You're a waffling agnostic! Well you're an arrogant atheist!

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by ulfhjorr

Seriously? You worship Satan?

Shh! It's supposed to be a secret!

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

Originally Posted by prr

Error. Atheism is NOTHING like a faith, strong or weak, and you make a terrible mistake by assuming that it is a faith of any kind.

Error! Perhaps if I talk like a robot no one will notice that just like the Christian faithful, I believe in what I prefer to be true rather than what the evidence shows me!

Error! *waves hands around rigidly*

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by prr

More name calling.

If you insist. You're a pompous, self-important, boring cuntrag. That enough?

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Darmund

If you insist. You're a pompous, self-important, boring cuntrag. That enough?

I LOL'd

[prr]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Wait, I still like you and yet recognize you get pretty obnoxious in these conversations. I don't think that is a major insult, especially as I think you'll agree it is a fair description in this case.

For the record PRR, is not obnoxious about any other subject to my knowledge, not even baseball where he roots for my arch-rival and that is really wrong-headed.

No, Jim, I'm pretty stubborn about this conversation, but it always deteriorates into name-calling by the frustrated people I argue with. It's sad to see so many folks dishing out the abuse, and claiming to be the victims of my terrible abuse. Religious people (and agnostics, I suppose) are always telling me about what they believe in (or think they might believe in), and when I ask them to provide evidence for any of this stuff, they get up on their hind legs and start frothing in my direction. "How dare you ask for evidence, you fat* retarded ** asshole***!!!"





* lost 60 pounds this year--quite trim, thanks for asking
** more advanced degrees than you're willing to believe
*** guilty as charged, but it's not nice to put it like that

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

Originally Posted by prr

No, Jim, I'm pretty stubborn about this conversation, but it always deteriorates into name-calling by the frustrated people I argue with.

hey einstein, guess what the common fuckin denominator is in that equation

oh yeah, its you. but you couldn't be the problem right?

duhhhhhrrr

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by prr

it always deteriorates into name-calling by the frustrated people I argue with

Didn't you start the whole conversation by calling Ed a hopeless wuss and mocking her point of view in a fairly rude way? Calling foul just because someone calls you an asshole seems kind of disingenuous.

[prr]

Originally Posted by Darmund

If you insist. You're a pompous, self-important, boring cuntrag. That enough?

Not really. The more you supply, the more I can eye-roll and scroll past it, "OK, he's got nothing I'm interested in responding to."

[Darmund]

Uh huh. Well, wake me up when you do actually start responding to anything anybody has actually said in this thread, because it hasn't happened yet.

[prr]

Originally Posted by McNutty

Didn't you start the whole conversation by calling Ed a hopeless wuss and mocking her point of view in a fairly rude way? Calling foul just because someone calls you an asshole seems kind of disingenuous.

A fairly rude way!!! OMIGAWD!!! Someone was "fairly rude" to someone else on the Giraffeboards! Everybody, bunch your panties up! We must go on the "fairly rude" warpath!!!

Of course, the alternative might be to argue that agnosticism isn't wussy at all but brave, and that might be an interesting disucssion to have. Maybe I'd change my mind, maybe Ed would change hers, maybe someone would learn something, but instead all this faux-outrage over the word "wuss." It's almost as if you're afraid to engage me in discussion.

[McNutty]

Well, you did seem to be kind of derailed by OMIGAWD!!!! Name calling!!!

I appreciate your invitation to engage in a very interesting discussion with you, but I must decline. Because I am afraid.

ETA: by the way, I have no problem with name calling, so if you're accusing me of faux outrage about it, you should reconsider. Name-call all you want, just don't go into your own faux outrage when people return the favor.

ETAA: haw haw jerkface

[Orual]

Originally Posted by McNutty

Didn't you start the whole conversation by calling Ed a hopeless wuss and mocking her point of view in a fairly rude way? Calling foul just because someone calls you an asshole seems kind of disingenuous.

He seems to think that if he keeps bitching, we'll forget that part. Because, you see, he is smart, and we are stupid liars.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

Originally Posted by prr

Of course, the alternative might be to argue that agnosticism isn't wussy at all but brave,

brave in that it requires explaining things like logic, empiricism, science and reason to a complete fucking idiot

of course no one capable is going to bother. why would they? let's see what's more rewarding? try to educate this preposterous little pissant or just mock him for our own amusement?

[McNutty]

Although I must admit that there's a bit of trolly genius to rapidly waffling between being outraged that other people are calling you names and mocking people's faux outrage at your own name-calling.

[prr]

That's cool. The Pit isn't the place, anyway, but if you ever need to talk about religion and such, I hope you'll reconsider your fear and engage me in debate. But please be warned, I may resort to such dreadful terms of approbation as "wuss." I might even (if you rile me up beyond all reason) refer to some of your positions as "weak" or "unconvincing." You may require a few stiff drinks before putting yourself in so vulnerable a position.

I was derailed because that was all I was getting, and believe me I found it mostly unpersuasive and tedious. If the aim was to make me roll my eyes and go "Argghh, that's all he's got? That I'm an asshole?" then the tactic was very succesful. Otherwise, not so much.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by prr

I was derailed because that was all I was getting

Yeah, ok. It was like an onslaught of name calling with no actual points whatsoever. You believe what you want.

[prr]

Originally Posted by McNutty

I have no problem with name calling, so if you're accusing me of faux outrage about it, you should reconsider. Name-call all you want, just don't go into your own faux outrage when people return the favor.

This is pretty weak, McNutty. Yes, I called Ed a "wuss" (horrors!) and I was plainly mocking her expressed position on Agnosticism. But I was also engaging her in discussion, and raising points by which Agnosticism avoids scrutiny. Seems pretty weak to respond only to the name-calling (such as it was) and avoid the discussion part.

[prr]

Originally Posted by McNutty

Yeah, ok. It was like an onslaught of name calling with no actual points whatsoever.

OK, summarize an actual point for me, and let's discuss it.

[u wan buy dvd?]

prr needs to win debates to compensate for his penis size.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by prr

OK, summarize an actual point for me, and let's discuss it.

Ok. Give me 15 minutes or so.

[prr]

Originally Posted by McNutty

Ok. Give me 15 minutes or so.

take your time. I'm heading home now, where there may or may not be an internet connection.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by prr

take your time. I'm heading home now, where there may or may not be an internet connection.

You win this time. I was never planning on coming back.

[timbicile]

I've never seen, heard, smelled, tasted nor felt anything I would associate with a god. IMO Gods are holdovers of when we lived in smaller tribes and had an alpha male that ruled. As societies grew we needed bigger leaders (still do. presidents, kings... ). But there had to be an Alpha-alpha male so we created one. God. I am an atheist but if you met me you wouldn't know it unless you asked and I thought you were serious. If there is a god he is a dick.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by prr

Bright enough to see who's kissing whose ass here, rigs.

You hold onto that misbelief. I'm not about to disabuse you of it.

Sure you will. You're doing it right here, in fact. "I'm not going to act smug and pissy"-- Uh, yeah, you are.

Can't prove it from this thread.

Yes. That was humor, sarcastic humor. Not my best effort perhaps, but I am under the weather with a sinus infection. Of course, being obnoxious about other people's values exempts you from acting charitably. Being an atheist means you're practically forced to express your opinion in the most scathing and derogatory of terms--how odd that most atheists I've known don't do this. I must not meet the right people.

Originally Posted by prr

Like that was a major arguing point. This pathetic gambit might be called "focus on the teasing part of the statement, where he points out the fuckwit who's agreeing with you, and totally ignore the serious part of the statement, where he points out that you dared him to prove a negative." It doesn't matter to my argument if rigs is buddies with andy or if they hate each other, but it does deflect the subject to make a gigantic deal about it.

Oh, wait--you were TEASING Radical Ed? You were just joshing when you said things like her agnosticism is cowardly etc? Will wonders never cease. And they say laughter is the universal language. Frankly, I don't care if you come up with definitive proof that there is no God tomorrow--your doing so will not change the world, people's choices or the status of world religions. Your last statement here is hilarious because it is YOU who are making a "big deal" out of my "relationship" with AJH. Psst: I don't have a relationship with AJH or anyone else here. I don't have a relationship with you. I would like to think that I am friendly with some of those here, but essentially we're all strangers and likely to stay that way. No worries, though: Jesus is my friend.

Originally Posted by Darmund

(Bolding mine)
Whose argument, dumbass? Do you see anybody here arguing that there is a god? Because nobody is. We're just saying you're an asshole for trying to tell people what their beliefs are.

Darmund has stated my position here precisely. I agree with Jim that I have not heretofore noted your dickishness when it comes to other topics, but forewarned is forearmed. I entered the fray merely to tell you that you are not the arbiter of what others should believe. I'm gonna be really brave here and hold to that position. I await your wrath with fear and trembling.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by McNutty

You win this time. I was never planning on coming back.

This wins the thread for me. I love you McNutty and want to have all your babies, NOW! (ok, maybe not, but I laughed out loud).

[Lord Blackmore]

Oh, FFS prr. The entire point here is don't start off a thread, especially a pit thread being a giant asshat and not expect people to give you shit about it.

Clearly you're too obstinate to realize you set the tone for the thread and are now trying to play the victim card as if you're being beset upon unfairly. Let me disabuse you of something. You started shit and now you're getting it back. Working as intended.

And the who "afraid to debate me" thing is a joke, right? I've never known anyone here to back away from a debate. Except perhaps when one of parties is being a giant asshat and making the entire experience unpleasant and pointless.

IMO, prr = pointlessly ridiculous retard, at least today.

[Parthenokinesis]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

No worries, though: Jesus is my friend.

Remember, Jesus may like you, but he doesn't "like" you like you.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by timbicile

I am an atheist but if you met me you wouldn't know it

Not any more, sucker!

ETA: In all fairness, Lord Blackmore, prr didn't start this thread. He interjected in a Y2C thread Ed started, and the mods spun that section off here since they felt it was digressionary. Admittedly, the tone hasn't changed much since.

[Lord Blackmore]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

ETA: In all fairness, Lord Blackmore, prr didn't start this thread. He interjected in a Y2C thread Ed started, and the mods spun that section off here since they felt it was digressionary. Admittedly, the tone hasn't changed much since.

True, but prr fired the opening salvo.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

Remember, Jesus may like you, but he doesn't "like" you like you.

What's a mother to do?

[Orual]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

What's a mother to do?

Eat waffles, I think.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Orual

Eat waffles, I think.

Mmmm. Waffles-with melted butter and real maple syrup, hot off the iron. Mmm.

[timbicile]

I'll do as I usually do in religious threads. ::grabs beer and goes to see what the hell is going on elsewhere::

[What Exit?]

Is it bad we had pancakes for dinner instead of waffles?

[Guinastasia]

Is it just me, or does this whole, "agnostics are just atheists who don't have the balls to admit it" sound a LOT like the bullshit "atheists are just people who are angry at God?"

[Caerie]

Waffles with peanut butter and real maple syrup is a surprisingly tasty treat.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Caerie

Waffles with peanut butter and real maple syrup is a surprisingly tasty treat.

Heretic.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Is it bad we had pancakes for dinner instead of waffles?

Heresy!! Burn him!


Guin, you'd need to add, "People who believe in the Sky Pixie are deluded and people who say they're just not sure are cowards", but yeah. That's about it.

[prr]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Oh, wait--you were TEASING Radical Ed? You were just joshing when you said things like her agnosticism is cowardly etc? Will wonders never cease. [and blablabla].

Nope, I wrote that I was teasing YOU (about your alliance with Andy). It wasn't a major point, and I understood that you and he weren't asshole buddies, but when you find in agreement with a total asshole, it might be a good moment to reconsider your position. I wasn't teasing Ed at all--I was pointing out some flaws in her position of agnosticism that peope might be curious about, given more information, and yes I was being a little harsh about it, but I was hardly cursing her out or giving her a whole lot of abuse--unless you consider the word "wuss" to be over-the-top. Her explanation seemed like a lot of weak-minded, foolish, neither-here-nor-there vacillating, and I said so, and will defend saying so, even if all you have to tell me is what a jerk you think I am for disagreeing with Ed.

Originally Posted by Darmund

(Bolding mine)
Whose argument, dumbass? Do you see anybody here arguing that there is a god? Because nobody is. We're just saying you're an asshole for trying to tell people what their beliefs are.

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Darmund has stated my position here precisely. I agree with Jim that I have not heretofore noted your dickishness when it comes to other topics, but forewarned is forearmed. I entered the fray merely to tell you that you are not the arbiter of what others should believe. I'm gonna be really brave here and hold to that position. I await your wrath with fear and trembling.

I agree. No one is the arbiter of what anyone else believes. But some beliefs (especially those expressed in an "Ask the..." thread) are fair subjects for questioning, even unpleasant questioning. Ed is free to think what she wants to think, or to take forever to cough up a coherent thought, for that matter, but I'm free to discuss those beliefs in a thread where she's asking people to ask her questions. It's valid to ask if she hasn't made up her mind about all sorts of metaphysical stuff becuse she fears the social pressures of arriving at that position, or if she doesn't really care about it much, or because it's too challenging for her intellectually or some other reason. If she's brave and admirable, why don;t you tell me why?

[Hamadryad]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Is it just me, or does this whole, "agnostics are just atheists who don't have the balls to admit it" sound a LOT like the bullshit "atheists are just people who are angry at God?"

Not really, I don't think. I always wonder why agnostics DON'T take the next logical step and just not believe at all, BECAUSE it seems logical. Atheists hating a being they don't even believe in is completely without basis in logic.

Then again a person full of faith told me that atheists think religious people are crazy, and religious people think atheists are blind and deaf. So it all kind of balances out.

I think in very much the same way that prr does regarding both agnosticism and theism, and I can be almost as much of a dick about it ... except that I don't think EITHER side is "afraid" to debate, so I don't have anywhere near as much stake in being "right" as he seems to.

[prr]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackmore

True, but prr fired the opening salvo.

So this is what? "Okay, my whole previous post was a crock of bullshit, but I'm still right"?

[Caerie]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

Heretic.

In my defense, I really, truly believe that peanut butter will kill my fiance. It just doesn't stop me.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by prr

Nope, I wrote that I was teasing YOU (about your alliance with Andy). It wasn't a major point, and I understood that you and he weren't asshole buddies, but when you find in agreement with a total asshole, it might be a good moment to reconsider your position.

Ah. And when a whole bunch of people don't see your teasing as teasing, it might be time to reconsider your um, teasing. But I'll let your last comment stand. Think about it.

I wasn't teasing Ed at all--I was pointing out some flaws in her position of agnosticism that peope might be curious about, given more information, and yes I was being a little harsh about it, but I was hardly cursing her out or giving her a whole lot of abuse--unless you consider the word "wuss" to be over-the-top. Her explanation seemed like a lot of weak-minded, foolish, neither-here-nor-there vacillating, and I said so, and will defend saying so, even if all you have to tell me is what a jerk you think I am for disagreeing with Ed.

Wuss was the least of it. Your attitude was and is supercilious toward non-atheists. That is what hit a nerve with me and continues to do so. You get more flies with honey than vinegar. You, working alone, managed to make me (and probably a few others, for all I know) respect atheists a bit less. Way to go!

I agree. No one is the arbiter of what anyone else believes. But some beliefs (especially those expressed in an "Ask the..." thread) are fair subjects for questioning, even unpleasant questioning.

No. Questions are fair game. Acting douchey from the get go is never fair game. Maybe you never learned to play nice in the sandbox.

Ed is free to think what she wants to think, or to take forever to cough up a coherent thought, for that matter, but I'm free to discuss those beliefs in a thread where she's asking people to ask her questions. It's valid to ask if she hasn't made up her mind about all sorts of metaphysical stuff becuse she fears the social pressures of arriving at that position, or if she doesn't really care about it much, or because it's too challenging for her intellectually or some other reason. If she's brave and admirable, why don;t you tell me why?

I can't tell you why because I'm not Ed. But I can tell you that putting people on the spot is one of the nastier memes of the message board world, but it does tend to make the perpetrator look an ass. What I don't understand is why you think that treating someone else's beliefs with such open contempt and ridicule is a way to engender serious discussion or respectful dialogue. In fact, I and others here have paid you with your own coin and you have cried victim over it. What goes around, comes around. Cry me a river.

[prr]

Wuss was the least of it.

So what was the most of it? Far as I can tell, it was all "WAHH, PRR's being a meanie!! Mommmmmmmmmmmm!!!"

Ooh, I know! Was it "Grow a pair"? Oooh, that so vicious, I'm surprised Ed didn't explode on the spot.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Originally Posted by prr

So what was the most of it? Far as I can tell, it was all "WAHH, PRR's being a meanie!! Mommmmmmmmmmmm!!!"

Ooh, I know! Was it "Grow a pair"? Oooh, that so vicious, I'm surprised Ed didn't explode on the spot.

You remind me of a Lutheran priest arguing with a Presbyterian over dogma.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Caerie

In my defense, I really, truly believe that peanut butter will kill my fiance. It just doesn't stop me.

Silly girl--you need to marry him first, THEN do away with him. These finishing schools just aren't teaching future wives right.

[Caerie]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Silly girl--you need to marry him first, THEN do away with him. These finishing schools just aren't teaching future wives right.

Of course! I'm so glad you're around to show me the error of my ways.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Caerie

Of course! I'm so glad you're around to show me the error of my ways.

I'm here to help. You're welcome.

[Parthenokinesis]

A tricksy villain stays aloof, do-dah, do-dah,
Assigning burden of the proof, Oh-di-do-dah-dey

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

A tricksy villain stays aloof, do-dah, do-dah,
Assigning burden of the proof, Oh-di-do-dah-dey

Not with a fox,
Not in box...