Teleprompter, some requests:
* learn context
* re-read the post 4 above your last one
* stop being an ass - if I was "on your side" you'd be more gracious in accepting the things I wrote in my post 4 above yours
I'm a Former Porn Producer - Now a Christian
(264 posts) (31 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Donny, I read that post *when I wrote my last comment* and it still escapes me what the difference is between "you've provided nothing that I haven't read" and "I've read all the stuff that you've provided"?
And how am I being an ass? I am trying to be gracious.
Do you want me to ask you to read something? How about you read my apology earlier in the thread for being hypocritical? I've been extremely open and willing to admit my mistakes.
All I wanted was some willingness from you to do the same things that I would do for anyone else.
It's a simple request: please be honest.
The bottom line is this -- the best case scenario is that when you said he had provided nothing that you hadn't read, you meant that you were already familiar with all of the concepts in those books, even if you hadn't read them.
But how do we know that is true? Phrankygee questioned this, and I believe that he had every right to do so.
Why are you calling me an ass? I have been extremely open and gracious and honest.
If you simply quit obfuscating and refusing to cooperate, you might have license to call *me* an ass, but I suggest that you pull the mote out of your own eye, first.
How many times have I said that I want to have a productive conversation with you? How many times have you ignored something gracious that I said?
I refuse to be the caricature of the atheist that is in your mind.
I have been gracious the whole time, and you have ignored that in favor of something which conforms with your beliefs.
It's easier for you if you can believe that I'm not a decent person or that I'm not trying to cooperate with you. It's easier if I fit a stereotype. It's easier if I hate Christians or hate God. It doesn't seem to matter to you if any of these things are actually true, does it?
Please demonstrate to me that you actually care about finding truth and not just finding things that fit your own preconceptions and stereotypes.
Posted 3 years ago # -
phrankygee
MemberTHANK YOU TELE!!
You summed up the intention behind my quiz much more succinctly and much less obnoxiously than I could.
If Donny's lie was not literal, in the sense of "I had already read the two specific books you mentioned", then it was actually a much WORSE statement, one that essentially says "You CAN'T tell me anything about science and/or atheism that I haven't already heard".
My aim was to prove to Donny that either of those statements were untrue. That may be a futile effort, but I have a high "tedium tolerance".
My suggestion to Donny is to stop reading "atheist" books, where the agenda is anti-religious, and start reading Science books, where the agenda is simply to find probable and consistent mechanisms for why things in the world are the way they are, and work in the ways they work. God is not one of these probable and consistent mechanisms, and the Christian God is not even a remotely possible mechanism. Scientists don't have to love God OR hate God, they just have to establish that He has no discernable bearing on the way things in the world work.
Posted 3 years ago # -
when you said he had provided nothing that you hadn't read, you meant that you were already familiar with all of the concepts in those books, even if you hadn't read them
Bingo. Seems pretty obvious to me.
Posted 3 years ago # -
phrankygee
MemberYou must save a lot of time on research papers by knowing what is in a book without reading it.
You could have a Ph.D in no time with a talent like that.You should STILL have been able to answer around half of the questions on my quiz, if you knew about all the Concepts in even one of the books. A guy
with your superpowers doesn't need my money though, I guess.The only way you could be sure a book didn't contain stuff you didn't know, is by knowing everything that can possibly be known.
They ought to give you a prize for humility, Donny Boy!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Frank, I definitely don't need your money, as I do pretty well for myself. I've already explained why I had no desire to take your quiz. And while I definitely don't know what's written in every book, it's highly doubtful any of the books you've mentioned contain any "ah ha!" moments that haven't already been discussed amongst my aforementioned acquaintances.
I'm curious: do you think I'll ever bring up new revelations about God or the Bible that you haven't heard before? Are you willing to agree to read any books/publications I list/request you to read? May I quiz you on them?
Posted 3 years ago # -
phrankygee
Member"I'm curious: do you think I'll ever bring up new revelations about God or the Bible that you haven't heard before?"
I hope so. That is the point of having a conversation with someone.I won't agree in advance to read every book you mention, but I do try and follow up when holes in my understanding are brought up.
Quizzes are great; I love 'em. I either get a chance to show off how much I know, or I get to learn something new. It's a win-win.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Jabster
Member"Are you willing to agree to read any books/publications I list/request you to read? May I quiz you on them?"
Now you just being dishonest. You know that wasn't the reason that phrankygee raised the subject. You suggested that you had read the books, now you are saying you haven't but you know what is in them. At no time was it mentioned that you 'have' to read the books. This type of behaviour can only suggest that the real reason that you didn't answer any of the questions was because you have little of no knowledge of the subject. It's so much easier to just say goddidit than actually have to take information in isn't it?
p.s. Good reaction to Teleprompter there .. he acts perfectly reasonable towards you, so your reaction is to fail to answer any of his questions and then call him an arse.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Joe B
MemberI'm still waiting to hear back about how all intelligent creators need to be created by an intelligent creator, but his intelligent creator wasn't created by one, but didn't arise without one.
No, sir. I believe in a creator that exists outside my "book". Like an author, He wrote this story and exists outside its pages. He's outside our space and time, and our human brains can't possible comprehend His realm. Heck, we don't have a firm grasp on our own.
You are playing word games. Anyone in that believes in god believes something intelligent with the capacity for creation arose without the intervention of an intelligent creator.
1: All intelligent creators require an intelligent creator
2: Humans are intelligent creators
3: Therefore Humans require a god as an intelligent creatorbut
4: God is an intelligent creator
so back to 1
1: All intelligent creators require an intelligent creator
4: God is an intelligent creator
5: Therefore God requires a god as an intelligent creatorbut then
6: God's god is an intelligent creator
so back to 1
....
This doesn't disprove God, it logically shows that the argument that "intelligence can only come from intelligence" is irredeemably flawed.
Because we are intelligent then at some point intelligence arose from non-intelligence. All god does is push back that date.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Lastout
MemberCan't think of a better way to test your "faith" and have "satan" cast doubt then to come to an agnostic/ex-christian site and throw down the glove. LOL According to what I was force fed, "Satan" strives on doubt and will surely create his own questioning of sanity in your belief whether you will ever admit it or not. Personally, I'm happy knowing I can jackoff without some "Entity" watching me now. :)
Good luck with your new found faith, seriously. We are the ones who has to sleep with our actions for the day, and so long as you're sleeping fine, then by all means...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Dan L.
MemberFrankly, I kind of hope Donny leaves. The comment about anonymity was obnoxious*, and I thought dropping the fact that "Daniel Florien" is a pseudonym was a little creepy. He insists he's met God personally, but refuses to actually engage. He knows the truth already, and he'll tell you why you're wrong, but will (apparently) lie or prevaricate endlessly to avoid learning anything or admit that he's wrong. He's the sort of person who's just here to slag and won't bring anything to the conversation.
*Many atheists are concerned that their employers are religious or that future potential employers might turn them down for, oh, no reason... Being sensible enough to keep a roof over your head doesn't preclude "owning what you say."
Posted 3 years ago # -
By the way, I've seen this anonymity thing, "why are you afraid to show your name," from more and more theists lately. You guys making a list or something, Donny?
Absolutely! We'll be imprisoning all atheists, burning them at the stake after a mock trial, and banishing all their relatives for bringing such a person into existence!
Either that, or it's hard to respect a person who doesn't stand up for what they believe by owning their words. History books will definitely credit sources such as "Teleprompter", no doubt.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Many atheists are concerned that their employers are religious or that future potential employers might turn them down for, oh, no reason... Being sensible enough to keep a roof over your head doesn't preclude "owning what you say."
IF such things were to happen I'm sure the ACLU would make sure a substantial settlement was awarded. History is rarely made by cowards hiding behind anonymity.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Sock
MemberSo Donny. Care to comment on why you care so much about our internet handles?
Does it have anything to do with the girls you used to film having sex using a handle of their own? Did you refuse to produce porn with any girl who used a porn name, because you felt that they should have their full identity on display for any psycho to stalk them down? Or for people they knew outside the porn business to find out what they do?
Posted 3 years ago # -
vorjack
ModeratorDon't forget Publius, "author" of the Federalist papers. That would be Hamilton, Jay and Madison in real life.
Later both Jefferson and Madison published under pseudonyms to act against the Washington administration. Of course that backfired a bit when they found themselves in office, now the target for the same arguments that they had anonymously written. The irony must have been excruciating.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Daniel Florien
AdministratorDonny still hasn't answered why he listens to anonymous and pseudonymous books of the Bible, but has a problem with internet handles. Who wrote Hebrews? Oh right, no name and Christians don't know. Who wrote Matthew, Mark, or John. No names either, eh? By Donny's own logic, they should be discarded.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Dan L.
MemberIF such things were to happen I'm sure the ACLU would make sure a substantial settlement was awarded. History is rarely made by cowards hiding behind anonymity.
If you think that's how the ACLU works, you're a little slow.
I wouldn't lose my job for "being an atheist." I would lose my job because of "budget cuts." I wouldn't be passed over for a job for "being an atheist." I would be passed over for a job for not being a "good fit."
It's quite easy to discriminate against people without incriminating yourself vis a vis discrimination laws.
But besides that, how exactly does using an internet handle prevent us from being held accountable for our own words? How would you hold us accountable to them? Track us down personally? Submit anonymous tips to the FBI? Stop by for some tea and a little epistemological discussion? How does my anonymity affect you in the slightest?
Also, please note that many of us were raised with the internet, and there's a culture associated with that. As many of us were youngsters and outcasts, many of us adopted handles through which we could speak to the world without being excluded or dismissed because of our RL personas. After all, we didn't choose our birth names, but we did choose our handles, and in that sense, they're more representative of our identities than the names themselves. Finally, we like the fact that real life baggage doesn't impact what your net persona does. When you're online, all that matters are your ideas and how well you back them up. In any other context, it would be rude to question, say, a working scientist on whether he understands a particular aspect of his field. In the tubes, he's just another byte stream and he has to put up or shut up the way everyone else does.
Explain exactly what it means for one to "own one's words." It's a thought-provoking but cliched metaphor, as far as I can tell. Please tell me what it literally means. Also explain why using an internet handle makes one a "coward." That is not a normal use of that word.
Posted 3 years ago # -
phrankygee
Member"History is rarely made by cowards hiding behind anonymity."
In addition to the ones that His Mighty Joebiness mentioned, history has remembered Voltaire and George Orwell fairly well, and if it remembers Madonna, Prince, Sade, Seal, or any Rapper who ever lived, it will not be by their real birth names.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ty
ModeratorI use my real name. Even if I used the whole thing, there are dozens of people with the same name. It wouldn't be much different from using a handle.
I do love that DP has added 'internet toughguy' to his list of dubious credentials.
Cowards? Really?
In addition to your macho use of your name, do you bench press a lot and have lots of black belts?
*yawn*
Posted 3 years ago # -
Dan L.
MemberPlease allow me to better explain why I think anonymity for my online postings is appropriate.
My employer isn't so religious that I fear I would lose my job. However, I realize that I advocate some positions online that aren't popular with, say, a majority of US citizens. Since I am involved somewhat as the public face of the company, I would prefer to separate out my work identity -- in which capacity I must use my real name -- from my online identity. In other words, I assume anonymity online out of respect to my employer. Is that not an acceptable reason for pseudonymity?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Daniel Florien
Administrator@Dan: Probably not for Donny (he wants full names and social security numbers), but for the rest of us, of course it is. :)
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.