Originally posted by: PastorDon
You just find something particularly idiotic, start a thread, and step back to watch the flames.
Fausto,
Got to admit that was a good comeback. However, I don't think the topics are idiotic, nor do I just step back to watch the flames. If a troll has this as his intentions, than that certainly is not me. In each of these instances I truly desired a discussion of the topic presented. Unfortunatly, I continue to overestimate the leftist members of ATOT (with a few notable exceptions).
Since your opinion that my chosen topics are idiotic is the main criterion for a troll, this basically supports my assertion that you define a troll by how much you agree/disagree with what is said.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
Main Entry: id·i·ot·ic
Pronunciation: "i-dE-'ä-tik
Variant(s): also id·i·ot·i·cal /-'ä-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
Date: 1713
1 : characterized by idiocy
2 : showing complete lack of thought or common sense : FOOLISH
Every single thread I mentioned above is either a topic to which there is no right/wrong answer (but guaranteed to piss people off) or some laughably biased "scientific" study you dug up on one of the websites you mine for flame material. I mean, look at this thread for example: "Mathematical Proof for God's Existence". Obviously a controversial subject (and not one you thought up on your own....as usual) and the first thing you assert is that "God does exist".
Do you offer up anything else? Nope.
Have you read and understood the book? Nope.
Does it really matter whether God even exists or not? Nope.
Are you ever likely to convince anyone of his existence via these asinine posts of yours? Nope.
So why bother, other than to get a rise out of the AT community? Face it, you just like to push people's buttons with this kind of crap. Sadly, you have to rely on the words of others to do so. In fact, the only original though you apparently had in all the links I posted above was some kind of paranoid delusional rant about how USC 666 may be the work of Satan himself. :Q That's too pathetic to even be funny.
Ah, I see you have provided us with a working definition of "troll" (and rescinded your compliment of my comeback....boo hoo.
). How convenient. Let's take a closer look at a few of your threads, shall we?
Survivors of Abortions- Gosh, this sure won't offend anyone. Pointless legislation endorsed by the poster child of the anti-choice movement, Gianna Jessen. Are there thousands of others like her running around out there in the world? Didn't think so. Are abortions ever performed that late in a pregnancy today if the mother just decides she doesn't want the kid (as Jessen's mother purportedly did)? Nope. Looks like you're just fishing for responses (and got plenty).
Homosexuals and Pedophilia- This was a special one. You start by quoting serveral incredibly biased studies, which I and several others proceed to utterly discredit. Do you take the time to read any of the papers we linked? Nope. Do you then inexplicably (and repeatedly) ask for evidence "to the contrary" of the position stated in your first post....even though it had been provided
ad nauseum? Yup. More trolling.
Why should God bless America?- This was priceless. You start off with a rambling article written by someone else, and then
plagiarize others in a pathetic attempt to back up whatever the f*ck the original author was getting at.
An excerpt from this thread:
Zenmervolt: "So many places to start, so little care left in me. I could mention how America was founded on the ideals of two atheists (John Locke and David Hume). I could mention the arrogance in effectively dismissing other major religions (ie, Buddhism, Judaism (sp?), Hinduism) as unimportant/inferior. I could mention the fact that national order depends upon laws and not on the beliefs of men. If the opinion of 9 Justices on the existing laws is unsatisfactory, work to change the law, do not imply that one should be exempt from law because of religious belief. I could also mention that the last time men lived under a truly "Christian" government it was called the Dark Ages. But I'm tired of arguing on this subject because neither side can convince the other, and both sides seem to be outside the help of reason and logic."
Your reply: "Zenmervolt,
I understand. These discussions often deteriorate to both sides bleating what they have heard in the past with no regard for accuracy. I feel that you might just be guilty of this yourself.
You refer to John Locke as an atheist. Why then does he say the following:
"The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter."
Why did he write a book entitled A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity?
Locke goes so far as to offer a "proof". Concerning God's existence, his proof is a cosmological-type argument. From the certainty of our own existence that of the existence of God immediately follows. A person knows intuitively that he is "something that actually exists." Next a person knows with intuitive certainty, that "bare nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles." it is, therefore, "an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been something. And since all the powers of all beings must be traced to this eternal Being, it follows that it is the most powerful, as well as the most knowing, that is, God. Eternal and alone can produce "thinking, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be" (Bk. 4:10). Locke here assumes, without question, the validity of the causal principle even beyond the range of possible experience.
Locke's theological writings exhibit the characteristic qualities which his other works have rendered familiar. The traditions of theologians are set aside in them much as philosophical tradition was discarded in the Essay. He will search the Scriptures for religious doctrine just as he turned to experience for his philosophy, and he follows a method equally straightforward. Locke does not raise questions of Biblical criticism, and the conclusions at which he arrives are in harmony with the Christian faith, if without the fullness of current doctrine. At the same time, his work treats religion like any other subject, and interprets the Bible like any other book; and, in his view of the nature of religion, he tends to describe it as if it consisted almost entirely in an attitude of intellectual belief.
Locke is no Atheist. You were right when you said that he strongly influenced our founding fathers, and thankfully so. His influence continues even today, the Southern Baptist use his opinion of Scripture in the Baptist Faith & Message."
Here's the original source of the first half of the bolded text (last paragraph).
And here's the second half (second paragraph).
That's just pathetic, and you do this constantly. I can cut/paste "your words" from many of your posts (particularly the evolution/creationism ones) and find the websites you"borrowed" from. If you're going to submit us to your blather, at least learn to think for yourself or give credit where it is due.
Facebook
Twitter