I beg to differ. All i did was posting bible verses oftened ignored or dismissed when we talk about christianity. All of these verses are found in the Bible. Thats it. These verses are obviously horrific and this is why Eklipse felt offended, and in stead of adressing what i wrote, he just went on and attack me personnally, instead of engaging in a mature discussion. And barely answering his post? are you kidding? here is some of the lies he attributed to me, just because i posted bible verses:

You are retarded

Of course, Eklipse has no grounds to be offended, what a flibbergiblet.

Well at least you have an argument for calling me a hypocrite. Even if i don't think it is a valid one, it is better than nothing. Better than calling me insecure because i've posted bible verses you don't like...

I'm trying to keep it family friendly here

You are retarded

Hypocrite established - did you forget to address this? Like Eklipse said: Get off your high horse and stop criticizing the logic of others' until you can get your own straightened out.

No, you've attacked my alleged behaviour and attacked imaginary arguments that you put in my mouth (like refusing to let people believe what them want to believe, or insinuing that i was against him speaking whatever he wants), when in fact all i did was quoting the Bible, wich you saw as an attack.

Well, you are refusing to let people believe what they want to; obviously, you can't ban or illegalise faith, nor really discriminate against most Warlight-ers in any significant way, so you're doing the next best thing: dissuasion.

Induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.
Indicate that one is not willing to accept or grant (something offered or requested).

Now the only thing you got right is that it was in fact an attack, but not an attack toward christians or an attack toward OP's freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

- I struck him down with my machete, but it's a victimless crime, anyway.

It was me exercizing my freedom of expression to criticize the BOOK he was refering to, simply by showing some of the verses people like to ignore.

Well, yeah, every word you say here is excercising your "freedom of expression" - I could say "Fizzer is a dumb rock" - it doesn't make it right nor useful that I said that.

And before you call me out for not addressing all you said, I'm leaving that to Eklipse, I'm mainly pointing things out in your arguing that are, as you like to say, void of intellectual honesty.

Eklipse has no intellectual honesty, and try to use every trick in the book to discredit me personally in a vain attempt to discredit what i actually wrote.

And you call out Eklipse for insulting...

Edited 10/7/2015 20:38:09

Eklipse & Juq made very true arguments and I cannot disagree with them in any way. I'll just stay out of this though.

yeah, i think thats for the best.

Better than calling me insecure because i've posted bible verses you don't like...

You keep acting as if I've insulted you directly. My first post did not mention a single user by name. You were the one who took personal offense to it and began raging on about how you've been personally attacked.

I personnaly don't have a problem with human genitals, i don't think any part of our body are "shameful". But i can see why you would think that human genitals are outrageous, given your beliefs and the book you take them from.

1.) In the country I live in indecent public exposure towards someone can easily land you jail time, double so if a minor views it. Plus, I didn't say genitals are outrageous. I said that comparing someone talking about religion to a naked man running down the street is outrageous.

2.) Another issue here is that you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me without proper evidence. Nowhere in this thread have I said anything that can lead you to conclude what my religious beliefs are.

Granted, the metaphor was not a particularly good one, but calling it outrageous is excessive.

If my metaphor was bad enough to warrant you calling me retarded, I think it's well deserved to describe your metaphor as outrageous.

Eklipse, it's not brave to post your faith outlooks - but you're going to have to deal with criticism. Say I promote to kill all Jews - should we just leave me alone? Relm is promoting this on a forum - a public talking space, and you call "attacking" if there's any frains or arguments against Christianity.

Sorry I've ignored your response for this long. I sometimes have difficulty maintaining more than one conversation per thread and my focus has been elsewhere.

Now to answer. You make a good point, and criticism is always something you have to be prepared for. However, this wasn't the place. By OP's admission it's a thread for Christians, Jews, and Muslims to exchange their own views regarding faith. Coming in here to attack faith completely derails the original intention, crashes the thread into flame wars, and in the end nothing is really accomplished.

For example. If someone created a thread about Atheism, with the expressed intent for Atheists to talk about Atheism. Would it be right for me to go in and fill the thread up with anti-Atheism posts? Or to start posting religious speeches there?

I'd also wager that this isn't comparable to promoting antisemitism. Nothing in this thread was posted with the intent to encourage violence, it was supposed to be the opposite: A peaceful discussion between three groups who are known to be at each other's throats.

Again though, I do see where you are coming from. Personally, I think I may have gotten a bit too defensive to start with. However, my issue in this thread has been far more with Hitchslap's attitude than anything else.

*dropped museum popcorn*

o.0 I do believe Eklipse and Xapy are right on this topic, but this is coming from a guy who sees differences in the Old and New Testaments.

Now to answer. You make a good point, and criticism is always something you have to be prepared for. However, this wasn't the place. By OP's admission it's a thread for Christians, Jews, and Muslims to exchange their own views regarding faith.

Well, first, Relm said that a while after, second, I don't agree that this is the best way to exchange thoughts between Christians, Jews, and Muslims - by unreadable Bible text and no context? And then Relm said to ask any frains - sounds more like a Christian wanting to argue or get into an argument, or at best, an AMA on Christianity.

I'd also wager that this isn't comparable to promoting antisemitism. Nothing in this thread was posted with the intent to encourage violence, it was supposed to be the opposite: A peaceful discussion between three groups who are known to be at each other's throats.

I don't think it was supposed to be the opposite - I think Relm specifically said that the problem he had when arguing against Muslims and Jews was that he didn't have enough information. And antisemitism doesn't mean violence, necessarily - but replace racism perhaps with an argument about toppling the Burj Khalifa, restricted to only Taliban, Al-Qaida and North Caucasus Emirate.

Personally, I think I may have gotten a bit too defensive to start with. However, my issue in this thread has been far more with Hitchslap's attitude than anything else.

In my opinion, Hitchslap's first two posts were not outrageous - they were very un-diplomatically done and in a jeering manner that, that just makes folk hate you, but they were a valid point, still, especially since Relm didn't specify much yet.

Edited 10/8/2015 00:17:14

You are retarded

Of course, Eklipse has no grounds to be offended, what a flibbergiblet.

Eklipse was offended before that, he was offended because of the verses of the bible that i quoted.
And i don't care if he is offended anyway, especially considering all the shit coming out of his brain.

I'm trying to keep it family friendly here

You are retarded

Hypocrite established - did you forget to address this? Like Eklipse said: Get off your high horse and stop criticizing the logic of others' until you can get your own straightened out.

hahaha i'm guessing irony isn't your strong suit, hey? At least have the decency to quote the joke in its entirety. It was an offensive joke, no doubt about that though.

Well, you are refusing to let people believe what they want to; obviously, you can't ban or illegalise faith, nor really discriminate against most Warlight-ers in any significant way, so you're doing the next best thing: dissuasion.

Nope, i juste quoted offensive bible verses, i never even mentioned OP. Stop with your bullshit
And how is dissuasion through reasoning a wrong thing to do anyway? How can you compare that to banning religion and discriminate against it?
And again, you imply that what i want to do is to ban/illegalise faith and discriminate against christians. Wich is actually worse than what Eklipse is saying.
Are you in the Psychic business? How can you know that my intentions are to ban religion and discriminate against religious people from a list of bible verses that i posted?
Do you even realise what you are saying? and how defamatory it is?
Don't say shit like that without at least giving a reason.

Induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.
Indicate that one is not willing to accept or grant (something offered or requested).

Wrong again, more bullshit.

By the way, "inducing" is probably not the word you are looking for, "convincing" would be the appropriate word. (or else you are going to have to explain exactly what i am trying to induce him to do)

But even if i was trying to "induce" him to "do something", wich obviously i am not doing (what is wrong with you people?), it still wouldn't "indicate" that i am not willing to accept him or his views, there is no logical connection here.

And if "convincing" is the word you meant, It would just mean that i disagree and that i am using the only right way to make my case: Argument and Reasoning (what's wrong with that?), it would not mean that "i am not willing to accept" or some other bullshit.

BUT the funny thing is, i did none of that! I am not trying to convince him that religion is bad, i don't care about what he believes.
What i care about is showing the other side of the bible, not just the hippi jesus stuff, so that the people that he is trying to evangelize by posting bible verses on a public forum may have other sources of information. I wouldn't have posted these bible verses if he hadnt posted his bible verses.

And if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary.

Now the only thing you got right is that it was in fact an attack, but not an attack toward christians or an attack toward OP's freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

- I struck him down with my machete, but it's a victimless crime, anyway.

It was me exercizing my freedom of expression to criticize the BOOK he was refering to, simply by showing some of the verses people like to ignore.


Well, yeah, every word you say here is excercising your "freedom of expression" - I could say "Fizzer is a dumb rock" - it doesn't make it right nor useful that I said that.

hahah whaaaat? your analogies don't make any sense.
For the 10th time, i have not attacked anyone on my first post, all i did was quoting Bible verses for fuck sake.

Eklipse has no intellectual honesty, and try to use every trick in the book to discredit me personally in a vain attempt to discredit what i actually wrote.

And you call out Eklipse for insulting...

I'am not calling him out for insulting me per say, i am calling him out for ONLY insulting me, without actually explaining what exactly, in what i wrote, was wrong and therefore "deserved" the insult.
When i insulted him, at least i explained why by refering to what he actually said.

I am calling him out for lying about what i said.

I'm calling him out for making up ideas that i never had, and attribute them to me.

All of this was an obvious way to divert the conversation on "my behaviour", rather than adress what i actually wrote: Fucking Bible Verses!


So, I challenge you to quote me and provide evidences for your claims against me, namely:

- I refuse to let people believe what they choose to believe in
- I want to ban/illegalize religion, and discriminate against religious people
- I am trying to induce Relm to "do something" (do what? and please quote the passage where i mention OP or any other christian that i want to "induce" to "do something")

You don't get to spill out such garbage and walk away. Now obviously you wont provide evidences for these claims, since there isn't any, and it is only fair to say that you are both morons for making such claims. (see? no discrimination here!)

You keep acting as if I've insulted you directly. My first post did not mention a single user by name. You were the one who took personal offense to it and began raging on about how you've been personally attacked.

Oh really?

And the fact that you choose ad hominem attacks toward atheists

Not true. My post was directed specifically at those who've shown up to attack religion in this very thread. I made no insults towards Atheists in general

To whom was this insult "specifically directed"?

lol talk about hypocrisy, you don't even have the decency to stand by what you say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8

I warned you, didn't I? Started a fight...

@Hitchslap: There you go again, more cherry-picking. You ignore 90% of my posts, NEVER responding to any point which you can't come up with a hand-waving rebuttal for, and instead clinging to one thing that you think "Oh, lol, I can make him look stupid if I spin-doctor it this way!"

You say that you want mature discussion but refuse to properly address the points made against you.

Eklipse was offended before that, he was offended because of the verses of the bible that i quoted.

I wasn't really that offended. I said it was a shame that some people had to bring their negativity to this topic. But I wasn't angry, I've come to expect people like you to behave this way.

And i don't care if he is offended anyway, especially considering all the shit coming out of his brain.

For a guy who complained a half-dozen times in this thread about personal attacks you sure love dishing them out. By the way, your insults are really uncreative. Use your time more productively and think of some better ones.

hahaha i'm guessing irony isn't your strong suit

I'm guessing not being a hypocrite isn't your strong suit. All that whining about ad-hominem and yet you take every personal low-blow you can think of.

i am calling him out for ONLY insulting me, without actually explaining what exactly, in what i wrote, was wrong and therefore "deserved" the insult.

I've only said anything to you because you're the only one who's been acting like a total jerk in this thread. Also, I explained my reasons quite clearly. You take up a condescending attitude towards those who disagree with you, and rely heavily on insults and cherry-picking to attack your opponents.

All of this was an obvious way to divert the conversation on "my behaviour"

Which is the issue at hand here. Your posts are undiplomatic, you have almost zero tact, and seem to thrive on dissing your opponents however you can.

Also, again I will say: I did not target you in my first post. YOU decided to take exception to it and YOU fired the first shot. So stop shifting the blame. You picked the battleground, and you were the one who decided to battle.

lol talk about hypocrisy, you don't even have the decency to stand by what you say.

^ I get it.

Eklipse was offended before that, he was offended because of the verses of the bible that i quoted.
And i don't care if he is offended anyway, especially considering all the shit coming out of his brain.

Whether or not Eklipse should have been offended then, you wrote that crudely (The verses christians love to ignore; now the fun begins). Go ahead, call me out on why I have to explain to you why these phrases are not diplomatically written. You noting down all the logic fallacies, you should know that you have to give Eklipse the benefit of the doubt, that he didn't know that they were logic fallacies and that you don't use logic fallacies yourself until its established Eklipse does not care for logic fallacies.

Moreover, you know what this seems to me? A cop-out - this person, who I'm arguing with, is a shit-for-brains, I will just argue against 2 whole sentences.

At least have the decency to quote the joke in its entirety. It was an offensive joke, no doubt about that though.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't even notice that little bit, that was clinically hysteric - better get me a hospital before, like the monster that chased Pinocchio, will laugh to death. My own joke, my role model is you; tell me if you think it's funny:

You are dumb.

Nope, i juste quoted offensive bible verses, i never even mentioned OP. Stop with your bullshit

Hey, isn't that a logic fallacy?

And how is dissuasion through reasoning a wrong thing to do anyway? How can you compare that to banning religion and discriminate against it?
And again, you imply that what i want to do is to ban/illegalise faith and discriminate against christians. Wich is actually worse than what Eklipse is saying.
Are you in the Psychic business? How can you know that my intentions are to ban religion and discriminate against religious people from a list of bible verses that i posted?
Do you even realise what you are saying? and how defamatory it is?
Don't say shit like that without at least giving a reason.

"Dissuasion through reasoning" normally wouldn't be that bad, but 1: this thread was made for a comparison of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, not atheism; 2: it's not just a dissuasion, it's an attack.

I'm not comparing it - I'm saying maybe you wouldn't ban it, but you would likely discriminate against it. I can tell that you discriminate against faithful folk; as you say, you are trying to dissuade them, but why would you actively dissuade them in the first place if Christians didn't bother you in the first place? Don't bring up any real world examples, since in the real world, Christians are everyone in most regions.

Wrong again, more bullshit.

By the way, "inducing" is probably not the word you are looking for, "convincing" would be the appropriate word. (or else you are going to have to explain exactly what i am trying to induce him to do)

But even if i was trying to "induce" him to "do something", wich obviously i am not doing (what is wrong with you people?), it still wouldn't "indicate" that i am not willing to accept him or his views, there is no logical connection here.

BUT the funny thing is, i did none of that! I am not trying to convince him that religion is bad, i don't care about what he believes.
What i care about is showing the other side of the bible, not just the hippi jesus stuff, so that the people that he is trying to evangelize by posting bible verses on a public forum may have other sources of information. I wouldn't have posted these bible verses if he hadnt posted his bible verses.

And if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary.

I was considering sourcing it, but I knew someone dumb as you would say something like that. Word-for-word:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/persuade
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/refuse

And I only used persuade instead of dissuade since dissuade is

Persuade (someone) not to take a particular course of action.

Have you considered joining the Oxford English Dictionary Editor team?

Anyhow, you are trying to induce him to look at Christianity with a worse outlook - probably would weaken his faith in it as well, what do you call that if not dissuasion?

Oh, boy, we need to get those signs they had in medieval courts - smile, laugh, silence, that will amplify your jokes hundredfold. You claim that you are just an apostle, giving light to those who have no access - but they do, at least the Christians who will read this, considering that it's Warlight, an internet game for folk who have access to the internet. They can look up something like "Why do folk hate Christianity?", or you can do the dreaded "pushing" of your irreligion on them.

And also, you wouldn't post your bible verses if he hadn't? What's this doing for your argument? I wouldn't say f you to you if you didn't exist, what's the point?

And if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary.

Good that you are weakening folk of their faith, so that irreligion takes another step forward?

hahah whaaaat? your analogies don't make any sense.
For the 10th time, i have not attacked anyone on my first post, all i did was quoting Bible verses for fuck sake.

Sounds like an instance of fierce public criticism or opposition to me, you're pushing your atheism on others. You specifically said that it's good if they lose faith in their God.

And also, it's uncanny, I suspected you wouldn't get my analogy either. If your post wasn't an attack on Christians, who was it an attack on?

I'am not calling him out for insulting me per say, i am calling him out for ONLY insulting me, without actually explaining what exactly, in what i wrote, was wrong and therefore "deserved" the insult.
When i insulted him, at least i explained why by refering to what he actually said.

I am calling him out for lying about what i said.

I'm calling him out for making up ideas that i never had, and attribute them to me.

All of this was an obvious way to divert the conversation on "my behaviour", rather than adress what i actually wrote: Fucking Bible Verses!

Show me one quote by Eklipse which undeniably uses pejorative, offensive, or vulgar words, here's one for you:

i don't care if he is offended anyway, especially considering all the shit coming out of his brain.

The thing that seems obvious to me is that a: yes, this talk, you are arguing about your behaviour and deed - was it right for you to post your first two posts?, and that you are not answering 80% of what Eklipse is saying.

You don't get to spill out such garbage and walk away. Now obviously you wont provide evidences for these claims, since there isn't any, and it is only fair to say that you are both morons for making such claims. (see? no discrimination here!)

Can you give proof that either one is a moron? Since it looks like you're about to get contradicted, by me and yourself.

- I refuse to let people believe what they choose to believe in

As much you can, yes - evidence: your first two posts and your defence of them; you even admit "if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary."

You're implying that you're trying to dissuade Christians.

- I want to ban/illegalize religion, and discriminate against religious people

There's no undeniable proof for this, as there is for most murders, but I'm groundably sure. Banning or illegalising faith may be far, but I'm pretty sure you'd discriminate against religious folk - would you give the atheist version of this thread a list of grounds why Christianity is the way to go?

Evidence:

And if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary.
The verses christians love to ignore

I am trying to induce Relm to "do something" (do what? and please quote the passage where i mention OP or any other christian that i want to "induce" to "do something")

You're trying to induce Relm and other Christians to leave their faith. Their faith, as you described it, they believe in "the hippi jesus stuff", which you are trying to dissuade.

And if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary.
What i care about is showing the other side of the bible, not just the hippi jesus stuff, so that the people that he is trying to evangelize by posting bible verses on a public forum may have other sources of information. I wouldn't have posted these bible verses if he hadnt posted his bible verses.

You don't get to spill out such garbage and walk away.

No, we're too busy shitting from our brain - at least it's better than us having to open new exits to give you shit, and clearly we need to go on doing it, since you still don't know shit.

Challenge:
*When did I say you mentioned Relm in your first two posts?

i again was probably a bit more unclear about this thread, but if we have discussions back and forth like this in a friendly manner it will end well.



Nope, i juste quoted offensive bible verses, i never even mentioned OP. Stop with your bullshit



Hey, isn't that a logic fallacy?


yep,its 3 in 1. tu qouque,ad hominem abusive, and genetic fallacy (all Ad Hominem Fallacies)

@Eklipse

There you go again, more cherry-picking. You ignore 90% of my posts, NEVER responding to any point which you can't come up with a hand-waving rebuttal for, and instead clinging to one thing that you think "Oh, lol, I can make him look stupid if I spin-doctor it this way!"

I am responding to the points i think needs responding the most, or to the point that i haven't adressed yet (since a lot of what you write is repeating the same thing over an over again, i don't see the point in adressing them again). If you think you have a good argument that i didn't adressed, show me what argument and i'll respond.

You say that you want mature discussion but refuse to properly address the points made against you.

we are way past a mature discussion here

I'm guessing not being a hypocrite isn't your strong suit. All that whining about ad-hominem and yet you take every personal low-blow you can think of.

Just to be clear, I started being very offensive towards you AFTER:
- you had already insulted me
- you used the "I refuse to let people believe what they want to believe" line.

Honestly, i only have a problem with the later, i don't really care about the insult (wich wasn't even that offensive),but i do care about lies (that i find more offensive than any insult).
I wouldn't have any problem with you to begin with if it were not for this line actually.

edit: and if you had acknowledged that what you said was not true (and you still haven't), when i repeatedly told you that it wasn't, we wouldn't have this conversation. But instead, you doubled down.

Your posts are undiplomatic, you have almost zero tact, and seem to thrive on dissing your opponents however you can.

The problem is that you think that i shouldn't have posted bad bible verses on a "bible lessons" thread.
I disagree, i think my first post were completely apropriate.

edit: and for the "undiplomatic" and "zero tact" bit, you are absolutely right, i took the gloves off as soon as you started lying.

Also, again I will say: I did not target you in my first post. YOU decided to take exception to it and YOU fired the first shot. So stop shifting the blame. You picked the battleground, and you were the one who decided to battle.

You didn't answer the question. WHO did you "specifically targeted" in your first post?
(see? if your opponent is not answering questions, all you have to do is ask the question again)

edit: if you want to play dumb with me, i can do that, and i'm gonna ask that question until i get an answer. Of course every one that can read english knows exactly who you were targeting, but since you want to play that game, lets play!

edit: tipo

Edited 10/8/2015 15:32:17

@xapi

Whether or not Eklipse should have been offended then, you wrote that crudely (The verses christians love to ignore; now the fun begins). Go ahead, call me out on why I have to explain to you why these phrases are not diplomatically written.

The point you make that my post were not diplomatic is valid, i don't know why you think i have to be diplomatic though.

You noting down all the logic fallacies, you should know that you have to give Eklipse the benefit of the doubt, that he didn't know that they were logic fallacies and that you don't use logic fallacies yourself until its established Eklipse does not care for logic fallacies.

I don't understand what you are refering to (really)

Moreover, you know what this seems to me? A cop-out - this person, who I'm arguing with, is a shit-for-brains, I will just argue against 2 whole sentences.

again, i don't see your point

At least have the decency to quote the joke in its entirety. It was an offensive joke, no doubt about that though.


Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't even notice that little bit, that was clinically hysteric - better get me a hospital before, like the monster that chased Pinocchio, will laugh to death. My own joke, my role model is you; tell me if you think it's funny:

You are dumb.

That sentence doesn't have the structure one would expect from a joke.
Here was my joke:
"I'm trying to keep it family friendly here be it is really hard to do that when you compare responding to a thread on a public forum to walking into a church and attacking religion.
I'm very much inclined to say that you are retarded and then leave.

You are retarded"

Now whether you think the joke is funny or not is irrelevent, it still have the structure of a joke, and when you quote a joke, you HAVE to give the FULL quote, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

Nope, i juste quoted offensive bible verses, i never even mentioned OP. Stop with your bullshit


Hey, isn't that a logic fallacy?

No, it is obviously not.
But if you think it is, make your case and i'll tell you why you are wrong.

this thread was made for a comparison of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, not atheism

A lot of things are wrong in that sentence.

1- You are making that up, the post was entitled "bible lessons", no mention of Islam, Judaism or Atheism, nor any mention of "comparison" between religion.
You actually made that same argument to Eklipse, so i really don't know why you would contradict yourself that way.

2- I have NOT said anything, or made ANY argument promoting atheism. (prove me wrong), all i did was quoting bible verses, and entitle it "bible lessons", same as OP, wich seems to me is perfectly on the topic.
And just to spare you some time, citicizing the violence of the bible is not the same thing as promoting atheism.

3- This is a public forum, i have the right to comment and criticize anything on it,and saying "this thread is not meant for atheists", doesn't change that. (but we already went over this point, can we move on now?)

I'm saying maybe you wouldn't ban it

No, that is not what you said.
What you said is that i CAN'T ban it, therefore i am doing the "next best thing". Wich is a way of saying that if I COULD ban it, i would.

I can tell that you discriminate against faithful folk; as you say, you are trying to dissuade them,

Man i'm starting to think responding to you was a waste of time. I can't understand half of what you say, and the other half is full illogical arguments.
I don't even know how to respond to that, maybe you don't know what "discriminate" means?
Let me try to explain the difference between discrimination and dissuasion in the most simple way i can.

exemple of dissuasion:
someone is on the verge of jumping off a rooftop, using arguments to convince him not to do it is dissuasion.

exemple of discimination:
Treating people differently depending on their race, religion, or other group, rather than on individual merit. For example, giving the right or refusing the right to certain people to respond to this thread based on their religion is discrimination

See? there is no logical connection whatsoever between "dissuasion" and "discrimination".

but why would you actively dissuade them in the first place if Christians didn't bother you in the first place?

Again no logical connection here. Dissuading someone to do something doesn't mean that the person bother you.
And even IF "christians bothered me", it STILL wouldn't mean that i would want to discriminate against them.
And the fact that you are still trying to make this argument even though i said multiple time that i accept anyone's freedom of expression and freedom of religion (even though i shouldn't even have to say this since there was no basis to think that i didn't in the first place) is just preposterous.

I was considering sourcing it, but I knew someone dumb as you would say something like that. Word-for-word:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/persuade
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/refuse

And I only used persuade instead of dissuade since dissuade is

Persuade (someone) not to take a particular course of action.

Have you considered joining the Oxford English Dictionary Editor team?

So you linked the definitions of "presuade" and "refuse", and somehow you think you have a point?
I don't have a problem with either definition.
I am actually fascinated that you are continuing with your argument, since you have the definitions under your nose, and you still think that persuade=refuse.

Anyhow, you are trying to induce him to look at Christianity with a worse outlook - probably would weaken his faith in it as well, what do you call that if not dissuasion?

And this is wrong...how? this is discrimination... how? This is refusing to accept him...how?

Also, I'm not trying to induce "him" to do anything, like i have said before. I keep repeting myself, and you still don't get it, this is getting really boring. My post wasn't targeted at anyone in particular, there is absolutely NO reason to think otherwise.

Oh, boy, we need to get those signs they had in medieval courts - smile, laugh, silence, that will amplify your jokes hundredfold. You claim that you are just an apostle, giving light to those who have no access - but they do, at least the Christians who will read this, considering that it's Warlight, an internet game for folk who have access to the internet. They can look up something like "Why do folk hate Christianity?or you can do the dreaded "pushing" of your irreligion on them."

What is your point? I shouldn't have quoted those bible verses? you think my post had no value?
But wait on the post before you said that i made a valid point by posting them. Wich is it genius?
And why don't you have a problem with OP posting his bible verses? Since anyone can find them on the internet anyway?
Read yourself twice before posting man, it keeps getting worse.

And also, you wouldn't post your bible verses if he hadn't? What's this doing for your argument? I wouldn't say f you to you if you didn't exist, what's the point?

I simply explained the reason why i posted these bible verses, i am sorry but if you still don't understand i can't do anything for you.

And if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary.


Good that you are weakening folk of their faith, so that irreligion takes another step forward?

I would consider that a good thing, yes. Wasn't that clear enough?

Sounds like an instance of fierce public criticism or opposition to me, you're pushing your atheism on others. You specifically said that it's good if they lose faith in their God.

I am criticizing your ideas yes in other post, but that has nothing to do with the bible verses i quoted.
I am not pushing atheism here, never even mentioned atheism. In my first posts (wich is the only one relevent here), all i did was criticizing the bible, not people.
You need to understand the difference between a book and a person dude.
I specifically said that it would a good thing if people lost their "faith", because you specifically asked the question. But responding to the question doesn't mean that it was the purpose of my first post. I already explained the purpose of my first post.

And also, it's uncanny, I suspected you wouldn't get my analogy either. If your post wasn't an attack on Christians, who was it an attack on?

An attack on a BOOK. I already said that, this game is getting old.

Show me one quote by Eklipse which undeniably uses pejorative, offensive, or vulgar words, here's one for you:

I never said Eklipse was vulgar, i'm the one being vulgar here. And if you want to see his attack "specifically targeted" on "the atheist that attacked religion in this thread" you just have to read his first post. Also, when did i say that i wasn't offensive?Because i am, and i think i have good reason to be.

The thing that seems obvious to me is that a: yes, this talk, you are arguing about your behaviour and deed - was it right for you to post your first two posts?, and that you are not answering 80% of what Eklipse is saying.

I don't understand the first half of this sentence.
Also i reject the claim that i am not answering 80% of what Eklipse said. I might have, but if you point me to the argument you would like answered, i will answer it.

edit: tipo

Edited 10/8/2015 15:25:20

Can you give proof that either one is a moron?

I think i've made my case pretty clear on that

- I refuse to let people believe what they choose to believe in

As much you can, yes - evidence: your first two posts and your defence of them; you even admit "if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary."

You're implying that you're trying to dissuade Christians.

- I want to ban/illegalize religion, and discriminate against religious people

There's no undeniable proof for this, as there is for most murders, but I'm groundably sure. Banning or illegalising faith may be far, but I'm pretty sure you'd discriminate against religious folk - would you give the atheist version of this thread a list of grounds why Christianity is the way to go?

Evidence:

And if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary.
The verses christians love to ignore

I am trying to induce Relm to "do something" (do what? and please quote the passage where i mention OP or any other christian that i want to "induce" to "do something")


You're trying to induce Relm and other Christians to leave their faith. Their faith, as you described it, they believe in "the hippi jesus stuff", which you are trying to dissuade.

And if the bible verses that i posted convince anyone that the god described in the bible isn't exactly the tolerant and benevolent god that christians are usually selling (wich is obviously my position), then good, i don't see anything wrong with that, on the contrary.
What i care about is showing the other side of the bible, not just the hippi jesus stuff, so that the people that he is trying to evangelize by posting bible verses on a public forum may have other sources of information. I wouldn't have posted these bible verses if he hadnt posted his bible verses.

You don't get to spill out such garbage and walk away.


No, we're too busy shitting from our brain - at least it's better than us having to open new exits to give you shit, and clearly we need to go on doing it, since you still don't know shit.

Already adressed all of this, challenge failed

edit: and comparing me to a murderer now? well that's a whole new level of stupidity. Not that i ever doubted that you were that stupid, but still, i'm impressed.
Anyway, you now have accused me of wanting to ban religion, wanting to discriminate against religious people, refusing to accept their beliefs, all of this on the account of bible verses i posted and in spite of the fact that i repeatedly told you that this was absolutely not true.
Get your shit together man, you are embarrassing yourself.

Challenge:
*When did I say you mentioned Relm in your first two posts?

edit: You did not, and i never said you did. I asked you to point out where i mentioned Relm in order for you to understand how wrong you were when you said that my post was specifically targeted at him. Obviously that failed

edit: tipo

Edited 10/8/2015 16:27:21

Amen.