Jesus Resurrection

[joelr]

Your being very dishonest by not being accountable via answering my questions directly.

I've answered every question honestly. You just don't understand what "no" means. If I don't want to talk on respect then that's it. Stop being creepy.

You asked why i care. Because i like starting off a debate with respect first. It makes debating the content less distracted. Thats why i care. Plus, it makes the process of the debate more fun and pleasent.

That ship has sailed. You're all over the place. You use an article and when I do it's a problem. You try to make out like scholarship can't be used but only when it favors my point.

So, now. What must i do to earn your respect? And if your already respecting in discussion, have i then already earned your respect?

No comment.

Also, if discussing evidence is a "waste of time" then why do you keep throwing articles at me like you cant think for yourself?

Discussing evidence of a black mountain is a waste of time, not all evidence. What do I have to say for you to understand that even if someone established that this mountain was the mountain in the OT then there are still 2 problems:

1- the OT is a myth proven by scholarship

2- it isn't the biblical mountain according to scholarship and the rock is volcanic according to scholarship

We need to deal with WHY jubal al luz is black. Its not black for the same reason this NC mountain is black. Its not due to dark red spruce trees. Its due to metamorphic rock at jubal al luz.

It's volcanic.

Jabal al-Lawz (Arabic: جبل اللوز‎) (also known as Gebel el-Lawz) is a mountain located in northwest Saudi Arabia, near the Jordan border, above the Gulf of Aqaba at 2580 metres above sea level. The name means 'mountain of almonds'.[2] The peak of Jabal al-Lawz, consists of a light-colored, calc-alkaline granite that is intruded by rhyolite and andesite dikes which generally trend eastward.

In discussions about the location of biblical Mount Sinai, Jabal Maqlā ('Burnt Mountain') is often confused with and misidentified as Jabal al-Lawz by various authors such as Bob Cornuke, Ron Wyatt, and Lennart Moller as shown by local and regional maps[3] and noted by other investigators.[4] In contrast to the real Jabal al-Lawz, the summit of Jabal Maqlā consists mainly of dark-colored hornfels derived from metamorphosed volcanic rocks that originally were silicic and mafic lava flows, tuff breccias, and fragmental greenstones. The middle and lower slopes of Jabal Maqlā consist of light-colored granite, which has intruded into the overlying hornfels. This is the same granite that comprises Jabal al-Lawz.[3] Jabal Maqla is about 7 kilometers to the south, and a few hundred meters lower.

Claims made by some writers, including Bob Cornuke, Ron Wyatt, and Lennart Moller, that Jabal Maqlā, misidentified as Jabal al-Lawz, is the real biblical Mount Sinai have been rejected by such scholars as James Karl Hoffmeier (Professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology), who details what he calls Cornuke's "monumental blunders".[2][5] Creationist Gordon Franz has also argued against this identification.[6][7]

Remains both of pillars and cairns at the site have been described as "similar to rock cairns of uncertain use and often uncertain date found at other sites throughout northern and western Arabia.
Jabal al-Lawz - Wikipedia

Now answer my questions above. Im getting sick of your BS.

Don't care what your sick of. The answer is above.

and:
"The proponents also need to face up to the archaeological evidence at their site. The petroglyphs of bovine existed long before Moses ever lived. The so-called "Cave of Moses" at el-Bad' were not hewn until long after Moses lived. The so-called "altar of Moses and the 12 columns" dates to the Nabatean period and has nothing to do with the Wilderness Wanderings."

MT. SINAI IS NOT AT JEBEL EL-LAWZ IN SAUDI ARABIA
everything your article put forth is debunked in this essay. I do not feel like picking out each point and writing it all out. It is not an interesting debate to me. Because like I said even if someone else came along and proved it actually was the biblical mountain, it does not mean, prove, suggest anything.
So it's one big waste of time.
It's debunked on wiki and in this essay.

If you have any debates regarding the NT that is fine. The OT is not interesting to me. It's a myth and there is no evidence to debate. Boring. It's like debating if Sauron from Lord of the Rings is real.
I'm good. Pretty sure I know the answer. All set. No thanks.
If some LOTR fan wants to debate it, I'm ok with taking a pass. Buh bye.

Also you did not account for how the article i gave you refuted the article you gave me on the location of mount sinai.

In discussions about the location of biblical Mount Sinai, Jabal Maqlā ('Burnt Mountain') is often confused with and misidentified as Jabal al-Lawz by various authors such as Bob Cornuke, Ron Wyatt, and Lennart Moller as shown by local and regional maps[3] and noted by other investigators.[4] In contrast to the real Jabal al-Lawz, the summit of Jabal Maqlā consists mainly of dark-colored hornfels derived from metamorphosed volcanic rocks that originally were silicic and mafic lava flows, tuff breccias, and fragmental greenstones.

But, you keep throwing articles at me left, right and center very unintelligently and haphazardly.

All relevlant to the discussion and when people use scholarship to back their claims it's generally considered a good thing.

Also, one more thing. You told me what i know and that you know what i know. Ok.....do not do that. THAT does not respect me, and THAT will make me not respect YOU.

I don't care who you respect or don't respect. You are actually getting kind of creepy.

And this is something you need to start "caring" about too, otherwise your being selfish.

I'll care about what I want to care about. I definitely don't care if you find me selfish.
You are getting way too personal, if you can't debate without being creepy I'm not responding further.
One more fu#%$ing word about personal stuff or respect and I'm bailing.

 

[Muffled]

Yeah, but lots of people come back from clinical death.

But people were easy to impress back then. It was a miracle to cure leprosy. Now we just give you some antibiotics and you're on your way. No muss, no fuss.

I believe it is a bit different. Jesus was dead at least 12 hours before He was buried ie laid in a tomb. He had no-one to assist Him back to life.

 

[Muffled]

The naturalists make 2 assumptions.

1, that barrowing was going on

2, and then the one doing the barrowing was the old testament from the pagans.

So, i pose to them, how do they know barrowing went on at all vs people independently had there own ideas and experiences.

Next i posed that if there was barrowing, how do they know the OT did the barrowing from pagans and that it was not pagans that did the barrowing from the OT?

theres no satisfactory answer they gave to this yet. Just a whole lot of dancing around. And appeals to authorities and majority.

No evidence on there answers.

I think the naturalists are smokin somethin, cause there a few fries short of a happy meal.

I think that is a picnic basket, Boo Boo. Someone must have left it just for me. The world is full of false assumptions.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I’m saying wow because everything you’re saying makes no sense and goes against traditional views. You know like revisionist history.

How does being traditional make it accurate? The people who love the CSA have a tradition that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but it was and is confirmed in the documentation.

There were lots of traditional views, like there are only two genders, that are wrong, too.

Since the OT is a mythical narrative then they could have chosen that mountain to create a mythology of god speaking to Moses because it was charred. We can never know which was which?

Must be a convo with someone I ignore, but how does a burning bush that doesn't get consumed blacken an entire mountain? It's not like the entire mountain was ablaze, and even if it were, supposedly the fire didn't consume anything, so no ash, so no black marks. Right?

 

[Jollybear]

I've answered every question honestly. You just don't understand what "no" means. If I don't want to talk on respect then that's it. Stop being creepy.

You have not answered every question, let alone every question honestly. And asking questions and respect is NOT creepy. Bad choice of wording for this.

You have not answered why the debate is pointless yet you keep throwing articles at me and rediculing my view.

You have not answered if i already earned your respect and if not, how that is done.

That ship has sailed.

Then the ship needs to drive better.

You're all over the place.

Lier, YOUR all over the place. Im trying to discuss one piece of evidence/data/information at a time and you go all over the place. The patriarches are an example of you doing that. Im discussing mount sinai and you bring up the patriarches. Dont tell me im all over the place, thats not true at all and you KNOW IT.

You use an article and when I do it's a problem.

No, its the other way around. When i use and give you an article, like the one that showed sinai was in arabia and it refuted the points in the article you gave me, and after that instead of countering it, you simply say it means nothing.

You try to make out like scholarship can't be used but only when it favors my point.

Scholarship can be used if your presenting that scholarships evidence and not just qouting that said scholarship agrees with you. Thats appeal to authority.

No comment.

Why no comment to this question > So, now. What must i do to earn your respect? And if your already respecting in discussion, have i then already earned your respect?

Usually when someones cought in a lie, all accountability goes out the window. Unless there humble. But, your not.

Discussing evidence of a black mountain is a waste of time, not all evidence. What do I have to say for you to understand that even if someone established that this mountain was the mountain in the OT then there are still 2 problems:

1- the OT is a myth proven by scholarship

Actually, thats NOT proven. Theres a good bit of proof to the contrary that its historical.

2- it isn't the biblical mountain according to scholarship and the rock is volcanic according to scholarship

According to assumption. Scholarship and assumption is NOT evidence. Its appeal to authority. How many times do i got to pound that in your head? But your stubborn.

Like i said, lets comb through that so called proof you say exists, UNLESS of course, your afraid?

It's volcanic.

Jabal al-Lawz (Arabic: جبل اللوز‎) (also known as Gebel el-Lawz) is a mountain located in northwest Saudi Arabia, near the Jordan border, above the Gulf of Aqaba at 2580 metres above sea level. The name means 'mountain of almonds'.[2] The peak of Jabal al-Lawz, consists of a light-colored, calc-alkaline granite that is intruded by rhyolite and andesite dikes which generally trend eastward.

In discussions about the location of biblical Mount Sinai, Jabal Maqlā ('Burnt Mountain') is often confused with and misidentified as Jabal al-Lawz by various authors such as Bob Cornuke, Ron Wyatt, and Lennart Moller as shown by local and regional maps[3] and noted by other investigators.[4] In contrast to the real Jabal al-Lawz, the summit of Jabal Maqlā consists mainly of dark-colored hornfels derived from metamorphosed volcanic rocks that originally were silicic and mafic lava flows, tuff breccias, and fragmental greenstones. The middle and lower slopes of Jabal Maqlā consist of light-colored granite, which has intruded into the overlying hornfels. This is the same granite that comprises Jabal al-Lawz.[3] Jabal Maqla is about 7 kilometers to the south, and a few hundred meters lower.

Claims made by some writers, including Bob Cornuke, Ron Wyatt, and Lennart Moller, that Jabal Maqlā, misidentified as Jabal al-Lawz, is the real biblical Mount Sinai have been rejected by such scholars as James Karl Hoffmeier (Professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology), who details what he calls Cornuke's "monumental blunders".[2][5] Creationist Gordon Franz has also argued against this identification.[6][7]

Remains both of pillars and cairns at the site have been described as "similar to rock cairns of uncertain use and often uncertain date found at other sites throughout northern and western Arabia.
Jabal al-Lawz - Wikipedia

There ya go.....its about time you stopped wasting time on other black mountains. So, yes, jubel al luz is metamorphic rock on its top. Very good! Wer making incredable slow progress.

Don't care what your sick of. The answer is above.

and:
"The proponents also need to face up to the archaeological evidence at their site. The petroglyphs of bovine existed long before Moses ever lived.

Ok, and that means nothing that bovine existed before Moses. That just means Moses and Isreal would been aware of them.

Also if you look at the pictures, they match the egyptian gods hathor and apis or bovine.

http://splitrockresearch.org/content/101/Field_Reports/Bovine_Petroglyphs_at_Jebel_Maqla

Apis

So, these bulls wer egyptian gods. Bovine was an egyptian god. Hathor, apis, egyptian.

The so-called "Cave of Moses" at el-Bad' were not hewn until long after Moses lived. The so-called "altar of Moses and the 12 columns" dates to the Nabatean period and has nothing to do with the Wilderness Wanderings."

Who hewned it and how do you determine that? Someone made a cave in tje middle of the desert? Seriously?

MT. SINAI IS NOT AT JEBEL EL-LAWZ IN SAUDI ARABIA
everything your article put forth is debunked in this essay. I do not feel like picking out each point and writing it all out. It is not an interesting debate to me. Because like I said even if someone else came along and proved it actually was the biblical mountain, it does not mean, prove, suggest anything.
So it's one big waste of time.
It's debunked on wiki and in this essay.

Ok, you basically are admitting that if this mountain was proved to be the mountain of exodus, that it would mean nothing to you.

Exactly, thats how you come across CONSTANTLY. There is no open mind in you. Fear perhaps, but openess? Nope.

 

[Jollybear]

If you have any debates regarding the NT that is fine.

Hey, dont blame me for this debate on the OT. You wer the one who originally wanted to debate how Jesus compared to OT gods. I was originally debating the ressurrection of jesus and wanted to stay on that, but you was insistent on comparing jesus to OT gods. So, we just had to go there. But hey, if you want to go back to debating Jesus resurrection, id be glad too

The OT is not interesting to me. It's a myth and there is no evidence to debate.

Theres lots of evidence to debate in the OT. Its history.

Heres a list

"Other historical sources outside of the Bible corroborate details surrounding:

• Long life spans prior to the Flood [18]• The confusion of language as we have in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9) [19]

• The Exodus as confirmed by the Roman historian Tacitus [20] and Josephus [21] (who also quotes an Egyptian historian named Manetho who mentions it [22])

• The campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25–26), as recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt

• Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1, 3:4–27), as recorded on the Mesha Inscription (also known as the Moabite Stone) in the Louvre Museum

• Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3–6, 24, 18:9–11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls

• Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls

• Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13–16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism in the British Museum

• Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs

• Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon

• Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum (1:1–3:19) and Zephaniah (2:13–15), as recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolassar in theBritish Museum

• Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10–14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle Tablets

• Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15–16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records

• Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30–31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder in the British Museum

• Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1–4; 6:3–4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder [23]

• The revolt against Rome led by “Judas of Galilee" [24] the founder of the Zealots (Acts 5:37) as recorded by Josephus [25]

• The prolonged mid-day darkness on the day Jesus died (Mark 15:33), as recorded by the Roman historian Thallus (c. AD 50), a Greek author named Phlegon, Julius Africanus, and Tertullian [26]

• The “great famine” in Israel (Acts 11:28) as recorded by Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius [27]

• The expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2) as recorded bySuetonius [28]"

Extrabiblical Historical Sources Corroborate the Bible

Here is a list of archeological finds corroborating the biblical stories.

Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries - Biblical Archaeology Society

So, no, its not myth and it dont have zero evidence. And theres more too. Thats just 2 articles that document some of the stuff.

Boring. It's like debating if Sauron from Lord of the Rings is real.

Thats a stupid assumption. Nothing can question your foundation of naturalism.

I'm good. Pretty sure I know the answer. All set. No thanks.
If some LOTR fan wants to debate it, I'm ok with taking a pass. Buh bye.

All relevlant to the discussion and when people use scholarship to back their claims it's generally considered a good thing.

Ok, well, ill do a "good thing" for you then and give you this archeologist, david down >

Searching for Moses - creation.com

I don't care who you respect or don't respect. You are actually getting kind of creepy.

How is asking questions about respect creepy?

I'll care about what I want to care about. I definitely don't care if you find me selfish.

No, you wont care about what you want to care about. If your gonna debate with me, its gonna be a even exchange. So, youl care about what i tell you to care about. Got it? If you dont like it, too bad.

And i highly doubt it youd debate like this with me if it wer face to face, thats for sure.

You are getting way too personal,

And whats wrong with getting personal?

if you can't debate without being creepy I'm not responding further.

How is asking you for an even exchange of respect CREEPY?

One more fu#%$ing word about personal stuff or respect and I'm bailing.

Oooooo, you said the F word. You bad boy. Your dad needs to wash your mouth out with soup.

But hey, cant handle being cought in a lie, bail then. Ya shine the light on a rouch and it gets uncomfortable, but shine it on a moth and it draws it.

 

[joelr]

Must be a convo with someone I ignore, but how does a burning bush that doesn't get consumed blacken an entire mountain? It's not like the entire mountain was ablaze, and even if it were, supposedly the fire didn't consume anything, so no ash, so no black marks. Right?

Right, new testament studies are one thing but when you are dealing with ancient myths there isn't going to be much common sense going on. There was a fire on the summit and lightning, none of which would blacken much and if it did rain and erosion would have long erased it.
Anything that remains black for 1000s of years is because of some rock type.
Volcanic or other.
There was a 25 megaton explosion from a comet over Tusungia Russia in 1905 that leveled over 800 miles of forest. 800 miles. Not at all black anymore.

It's just a bunch of wishful thinking that I want no part of.

Obviously this myth was probably part of some earlier myths and we do have some evidence that this mountain was part of an Egyptian moon worshiping cult.
The commandments also probably evolved over time and were modified and changed throughout mythologies.

But you can't even try to common-sense old myths any more than you can Marvel Comics. If you believe it then you believe it. It's not worth debating.

 

[joelr]

Searching for Moses - creation.com

https://creation.com/searching-for-moses

OT is proven myth
"But if Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed, and the Genesis history stands justified."
Waste of time.

No, you wont care about what you want to care about. If your gonna debate with me, its gonna be a even exchange. So, youl care about what i tell you to care about. Got it?

And i highly doubt it youd debate like this with me if it wer face to face, thats for sure.



it.

How dare you?
What did I tell you?
F$%$k you.
I do not respect you because you are an ***####
If we were face to face I would 100 percent be in your face.
Unless your not a heavyweight. Then it wouldn't be fair cuz I am. I would walk away......

 

[Jollybear]

OT is proven myth

OT is proven history. You can stick your head in the sand all you want and deny it, but its still a fact.

"But if Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed, and the Genesis history stands justified."

And it stands justified. The chronology is wrong.

Waste of time.

Ok, if you delusionally think its a waste of time, then do you want to go back to debating the ressurrection of jesus?

Also if you think its wrong, why do you "waste time" preaching your right?

Huh mr double minded?

How dare you?

How dare i? No, how dare you tell me that i cannot tell you what to care about. This is gonna be a even exchange of respect and honest debate and your going to do that, your going to care about that or your gonna get lost.

What did I tell you?
F$%$k you.

Make me. You need ya dady to woop your disrespectful ***.

I do not respect you because you are an ***####

Lol, im the a s s hole? Lol, thats a joke. Stop projecting yourself unto others. Youve been nothing but an a s s hole the first day weve debated. Pay back is not fun, is it?

If we were face to face I would 100 percent be in your face.

That would be a mistake.

Unless your not a heavyweight. Then it wouldn't be fair cuz I am. I would walk away......

Heavy weight and muscle weight are not the same. If you walk away, ill walk with you calling you a coward.

Actually YOU ARE a coward. You know how i know this? Because only cowards would debate like a tough guy behind a computer like you do. People of real courage behind a computer would be more humble. While in person, they would still be humble, but they would not fear the physical presence of the person.

You show symptoms of nothing but cowardice, dishonesty and disrespect and redicule, preaching, appeal to authority and majority [accept in the case of archeology for Jesus being real] and symptoms of being a tough guy a s s hole behind a screen.

Your scared to death to question, even consider debating the possibility of your naturalist foundation being wrong, or even remotely faulty or broken or cracked.

Thats because YOUR broken. And you need to be fixed before you debate anyone.

 

[joelr]

Make me. You need ya dady to woop your disrespectful ***.


Lol, im the a s s hole? Lol, thats a joke. Stop projecting yourself unto others. Youve been nothing but an a s s hole the first day weve debated. Pay back is not fun, is it?


That would be a mistake.

I've enjoyed proving you wrong every post.
But you are just a super creepy disrespectful ***##$## who doesn't understand social cues.
Rape culture much?

I am a heavyweight MMA fighter and if you followed me and continued to bother me I would enjoy it because your world would get dark real quick.
Dumba##. Looks like your wrong, as usual.

Mike drop.

 

[Jollybear]

I've enjoyed proving you wrong every post.

Thats a delusional assertion.

But you are just a super creepy disrespectful ***##$## who doesn't understand social cues.
Rape culture much?

So, because i demand honest, respectful debate of the evidence, that makes me creepy and disrespectful? Yea, thats very intelligent (sarcasm).

I am a heavyweight MMA fighter and if you followed me and continued to bother me I would enjoy it because your world would get dark real quick.
Dumba##. Looks like your wrong, as usual.

Well, if that really is you in the picture, and if you really are a MMfighter, good for you. If thats you, then yes, you are bigger then me. But, i still am in shape. And your size is not what matters. Respect matters.

Mike drop.

Mike? Whats that mean?

Anyway.....i want to add something else. Assuming your a MMA fighter and thats you, under that scenario you would be pretty confident. Skilled fighting does increase confidence. But, that would not make you respectful. It would not make you disrespectful either. Because i know a guy who is a ryshe ru karate 10th degree black belt, very skilled and he is VERY respectful and actually one of the most sincere, genuine people i know (in person).

That all said, i have to conclude that there is some other reason or reasons for you being disrespectful.

But, only you TRUELY know why you are the way you are.

Let me ask you, does it bother you that there are people in the world who believe the things i believe?

Also, one more thing. Some people tend to think and you seam to be one, that comming across cocky with an additude and disrespectful that this equels being a honest real person.

NO it dont. Cocky, additude, disrespect is not the same as BEING honest.

Theres ACTING honest and theres BEING honest. Two entirely different things.

 

[joelr]

Thats a delusional assertion.

No, I was here, there was no point you made that ever turned out to be a point in your favor. Nothing.

So, because i demand honest, respectful debate of the evidence, that makes me creepy and disrespectful? Yea, thats very intelligent (sarcasm).

That's not why and I don't expect that you would understand.
When someone says "I don't want to talk about this subject" and you continue to push that, becoming even more demanding then your going to see less respectful responses in return.
Then you turn around and can't understand why someone would start to get irrate? It's infuriating and I don't think you have the social awareness to ever understand why you **** people off?
Hmm, I wonder how many people have blocked you?

You are not ever going to understand so there is no hope of coming to an understanding.

Well, if that really is you in the picture, and if you really are a MMfighter, good for you. If thats you, then yes, you are bigger then me. But, i still am in shape. And your size is not what matters. Respect matters.

Size doesn't matter, skill matters. I am highly skilled.

But size does matter because I've tapped out much much better grapplers who were way lighter than me. Thanks testosterone.
I'm not here to talk about fighting, which I love. This is about fighting with words.

Your big fail here is that you dont' seem to realize how disrespectful it is to ignore someones request to not talk about something and to not only insist on speaking about personal matters but become actually aggressive and try to tell me what I "will" care about.
The respect ship sailed and that was it. I told you, what did I say - DO NOT ASK FURTHER..... and you went all bat**** aggressive and disrespectful.

No matter how you spin it that is creepy.

Anyway.....i want to add something else. Assuming your a MMA fighter and thats you, under that scenario you would be pretty confident. Skilled fighting does increase confidence. But, that would not make you respectful. It would not make you disrespectful either. Because i know a guy who is a ryshe ru karate 10th degree black belt, very skilled and he is VERY respectful and actually one of the most sincere, genuine people i know (in person).

I am plenty respectful Until provoked.
I bet if your debated online with karate man it would end up the SAME WAY.
In fact how many times does this seem to happen to you? Hmmmm, wonder why?

That all said, i have to conclude that there is some other reason or reasons for you being disrespectful.

Disrespectful is your word. I respond in kind. If you find me harsh go back and re-read your posts and maybe you'll figure it out.
The only disrespect I see here is you not respecting boundaries.
When someone says "I don't want to discuss it" and you try to bully them and become a bigger dick - all bets are off.

Then you turn around and try to make me the one who is disrespectful.
You act like a manipulative bully. And because I don't back down I'm disrespectful? Insane.

Also, one more thing. Some people tend to think and you seam to be one, that comming across cocky with an additude and disrespectful that this equels being a honest real person.

That's not me. The disrespect is on you. Try respecting peoples boundaries.
The minute you refused to respect boundaries and become a bully I've lost all respect for you and am unimpressed with your intellect.

And a bully you are. Trying to tell me what I will care about, bully.
Trying to physically threaten me, bully. Even bringing up "if you were here you wouldn't" - what, have confidence? Confidence seems to upset you.

I'm only writing to say I don't fall for your manipulations. Everything you speak about being bothered by is what your seeing in yourself.

 

[Jollybear]

No, I was here, there was no point you made that ever turned out to be a point in your favor. Nothing.

Hey, if it makes you feel better, keep believing that delusion.

That's not why and I don't expect that you would understand.

It dont matter what you expect. Put that aside and HELP me understand by DIRECTLY answering my question. People that dont answer questions are the ones that lose debates.

When someone says "I don't want to talk about this subject" and you continue to push that, becoming even more demanding then your going to see less respectful responses in return.

No, your twisting that all around, upside down and inside out. Ill set you straight on that. IF you dont want to discuss the OT or evidence pertaining to it, THATS FINE. Ill respect THAT. I even told you id be willing to go back to the NT like you said. But if you DO but wanna come across cocky with me on it(which you have) then I WILL PUSH that you approuch with more respect. If you dont agree to those terms, then this debate is OFFICIALLY over.

Then you turn around and can't understand why someone would start to get irrate? It's infuriating and I don't think you have the social awareness to ever understand why you **** people off?
Hmm, I wonder how many people have blocked you?

Why wer you irate for? I was merely debating the WAY YOU wer debating. I was merely doing it in your ball court. Personally, i HATE debating like that. But, i saw you wer too cocky, so i said to myself, this guy needs the mirror put up to him in order to see a reflection of how he comes across. But, apparently, you still cant see it. Selfishness blinds people. Also kelly blocking me, thats her perogative. If she cant handle hearing someone defend views opposite to her own, oh well. Although its a bit odd she blocks me since i never ever held a conversation with her once on here. But hey, if people can block me, mayby some block you too? I know someone on here who blocked subductionzone and you and him agree on beliefs.

You are not ever going to understand so there is no hope of coming to an understanding.

And you see this ^ ? That is your problem right there. You assume i wont understand. You dont know that. You barely know me. If i ask you or anyone a question, and my questions are very specific and seek specific answers to them and you dont answer, well of course i wont understand because your not answering me. TRY me, answer my questions and see if i understand. Or, HELP me understand. Put in a real effort instead of wasting time dancing around.

Size doesn't matter, skill matters. I am highly skilled.

But size does matter because I've tapped out much much better grapplers who were way lighter than me. Thanks testosterone.
I'm not here to talk about fighting, which I love. This is about fighting with words.

Well apparently your great skill in physical combat has not rolled over well in fighting skillfully with words (e.g. skilled debate). Thats a fact to me. But, it is something you can work on and get better at.

Your big fail here is that you dont' seem to realize how disrespectful it is to ignore someones request to not talk about something and to not only insist on speaking about personal matters but become actually aggressive and try to tell me what I "will" care about.
The respect ship sailed and that was it. I told you, what did I say - DO NOT ASK FURTHER..... and you went all bat**** aggressive and disrespectful.

No matter how you spin it that is creepy.

One more time. Ill respect WHAT SUBJECT you want to debate. But, you MUST RESPECT my terms on how its debated. If you cant agree with that, then im sorry, this wont go further.

I am plenty respectful Until provoked.

No your not. But, that statement is true of me.

I bet if your debated online with karate man it would end up the SAME WAY.

Actually no it wouldnt. I in fact do stay in touch with him in text message. He is the same online as he is in person. And i already told you this in our past conversation, theres been some folks ive debated on here and the debate was very respectful, both ways, yet we disagreed. Is that hard for you to believe can happen? I can prove this, one of those debates is still on here recorded. I can give you that thread to prove to you what im saying if you dont believe me. Just say the word and ill give it to you. Also karate man holds the same worldview as i do. Just wanted to add that in. Not that it matters.

In fact how many times does this seem to happen to you? Hmmmm, wonder why?

Ummm, like i told you above, ive had debates where it went very well, yet we disagreed. But, sometimes this BS happends and it depends on the KIND of person im debating. Currently, im debating with another atheist on here in another thread and hes more respectful then you or subductionzone. Yet we firmly disagree with eachother. So, dont group everyone to be like your personality just because they hold the same beliefs as you do.

In fact, if leroy wer to come back on and debate you, he would probably be different then me, yet me and him believe the same. Not everyone is the same. But, that said, im telling you something very firm im standing on and thats respectful terms of debate. Thats something i will not let go of.

Disrespectful is your word. I respond in kind. If you find me harsh go back and re-read your posts and maybe you'll figure it out.

No need to, when you post me something i generally read it three times, plus THINK on it before responding. This is something im convinced on about you.

Let me put it like this, mayby youl understand what im saying if i put it like this. Even if your beliefs are right, how you debate and defend them is wrong.

The only disrespect I see here is you not respecting boundaries.

One more time, i disrespected your boundary because you disrespected mine. Like i said above, i merely saw the need to hold up the mirror to you. Apparently you dont like being treated how you treat me. Well then, treat me how you want to be treated then. Oh wait, you dont think your treating me how i treated you, because selfishness blinds.

When someone says "I don't want to discuss it" and you try to bully them and become a bigger dick - all bets are off.

Im the complete oposite of a bully. All i did was hold up the mirror to see yourself. Apparently, you dont like what you saw.

Then you turn around and try to make me the one who is disrespectful.
You act like a manipulative bully. And because I don't back down I'm disrespectful? Insane.

This is you. Your projecting yourself onto me. But your selfishness has blinded you.

That's not me. The disrespect is on you. Try respecting peoples boundaries.
The minute you refused to respect boundaries and become a bully I've lost all respect for you and am unimpressed with your intellect.

Ok, ill make a deal with you, ILL RESPECT YOUR boundaries IF YOU RESPECT MINE. Deal? EVEN EXCHANGE. How about it? You up for that?

And a bully you are. Trying to tell me what I will care about, bully.
Trying to physically threaten me, bully. Even bringing up "if you were here you wouldn't" - what, have confidence? Confidence seems to upset you.

Confidence is not the problem. You thinking i cant disrespect your boundaries but you can disrespect mine. Thats the problem and that is not going to happen.

I'm only writing to say I don't fall for your manipulations. Everything you speak about being bothered by is what your seeing in yourself.

I'm only writing to say I don't fall for your manipulations. Everything you speak about being bothered by is what your seeing in yourself

^ the mirror.

Also i have proof your a lier. In earlyer posts you said you dont care if someone respects you and that no one owes you respect. But now your saying you want me to respect your boundaries. So, you lied. You do care about respect.

Lying to me breaks MY BOUNDARY. Dont lie to me.

 

[lukethethird]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

Evidence that people are just as naive and gullible as ever.

 

[Jollybear]

Evidence that people are just as naive and gullible as ever.

Or evidence that people like you redicule the evidence presented without proper refutation and also evidence that your gullible enough to believe reality consists only of that which is within YOUR OWN experiences, but everyone else who experiences something else must he a lier or insane.

 

[lukethethird]

Or evidence that people like you redicule the evidence presented without proper refutation and also evidence that your gullible enough to believe reality consists only of that which is within YOUR OWN experiences, but everyone else who experiences something else must he a lier or insane.

There is no evidence to ridicule, and I haven't called anyone a liar or insane, I stated that believers in these Bible stories are gullible and naive.

 

[Jollybear]

There is no evidence to ridicule, and I haven't called anyone a liar or insane, I stated that believers in these Bible stories are gullible and naive.

I think your gullible and nieve to go with the natural explanation on the part of Jesus resurrection. The natural explanation is not the best. Thus you believing that id say makes you nieve and gullible.

 

[joelr]

It dont matter what you expect. Put that aside and HELP me understand by DIRECTLY answering my question. People that dont answer questions are the ones that lose debates.

I've directly answered, probably ....every question. You just sometimes either don't understand my answer or refuse to accept it.
Look at the countless times I've had to repeat answers.

I bet I've tried to explain why I'm uninterested in OT debates about oh, 21 times.

No, your twisting that all around, upside down and inside out. Ill set you straight on that. IF you dont want to discuss the OT or evidence pertaining to it, THATS FINE. Ill respect THAT. I even told you id be willing to go back to the NT like you said. But if you DO but wanna come across cocky with me on it(which you have) then I WILL PUSH that you approuch with more respect. If you dont agree to those terms, then this debate is OFFICIALLY over.

I challenge you to show me where I was cocky without first being provoked with some strange tactic or another.

Why wer you irate for? I was merely debating the WAY YOU wer debating. I was merely doing it in your ball court. Personally, i HATE debating like that. But, i saw you wer too cocky, so i said to myself, this guy needs the mirror put up to him in order to see a reflection of how he comes across. But, apparently, you still cant see it. Selfishness blinds people. Also kelly blocking me, thats her perogative. If she cant handle hearing someone defend views opposite to her own, oh well. Although its a bit odd she blocks me since i never ever held a conversation with her once on here. But hey, if people can block me, mayby some block you too? I know someone on here who blocked subductionzone and you and him agree on beliefs.

These are all generalizations.I do not believe you decided to "hold up a mirror" like some psychoanalysist but rather were frustrated because debates never favor a religious point of view.

And you see this ^ ? That is your problem right there. You assume i wont understand. You dont know that. You barely know me. If i ask you or anyone a question, and my questions are very specific and seek specific answers to them and you dont answer, well of course i wont understand because your not answering me. TRY me, answer my questions and see if i understand. Or, HELP me understand. Put in a real effort instead of wasting time dancing around.

That's all well and good but that isn't what's in this debate at all.
I could go back and paste all of the times I've explained why the magic mountain debate is pointless and it would fill several posts.
Of just trying to explain one simple little concept.

So explaining 17 (or more) times why this mountain issue is a waste of time isn't enough? It is.
The words you are saying do not match your behavior.

Well apparently your great skill in physical combat has not rolled over well in fighting skillfully with words (e.g. skilled debate). Thats a fact to me. But, it is something you can work on and get better at.

I always need improvement. Fact remains that any evidence we have covered has confirmed that the existence of any biblical character cannot be shown to be a historical person and that all signs point to creative fiction, mythology and the only thing that remains is faith.
My original point. So good or bad at debating, my point stands.

One more time. Ill respect WHAT SUBJECT you want to debate. But, you MUST RESPECT my terms on how its debated. If you cant agree with that, then im sorry, this wont go further.

I honestly don't know what "my terms on how it's debated" means?

No your not. But, that statement is true of me.

More mirror stuff, interesting.

Ummm, like i told you above, ive had debates where it went very well, yet we disagreed. But, sometimes this BS happends and it depends on the KIND of person im debating. Currently, im debating with another atheist on here in another thread and hes more respectful then you or subductionzone. Yet we firmly disagree with eachother. So, dont group everyone to be like your personality just because they hold the same beliefs as you do.

It's tempting but I'm not dragging anyone else into this.

Let me put it like this, mayby youl understand what im saying if i put it like this. Even if your beliefs are right, how you debate and defend them is wrong.

More generalizations. Means nothing until applied to a particular example.

One more time, i disrespected your boundary because you disrespected mine. Like i said above, i merely saw the need to hold up the mirror to you. Apparently you dont like being treated how you treat me. Well then, treat me how you want to be treated then. Oh wait, you dont think your treating me how i treated you, because selfishness blinds.

Oh, now you recognize your disrespect but it's was all a big psychological manipulation. Because I did that to you first.
Nice try. Except I didn't. So there's that.

Maybe in this new "generalization world" you're creating I did everything wrong but in the previous threads I did no such thing.

That's more manipulation tactics, "You made me do it, you did it first". Like I haven't already dealt with manipulative bullies ever before.
Their called "women".

Just kidding women-people, I know this happens in all relationships with men and women. It's not a gender issue.

Im the complete oposite of a bully. All i did was hold up the mirror to see yourself. Apparently, you dont like what you saw.

Except...you tried to bully me and I didn't bully you.
So.......there's that little problem......

But this new "mirror" angle is interesting.

This is you. Your projecting yourself onto me. But your selfishness has blinded you.

Yes, I'm such a bad debater but yet my lines are worthy of copy&paste?
Which is a validation to my writings.

Ok, ill make a deal with you, ILL RESPECT YOUR boundaries IF YOU RESPECT MINE. Deal? EVEN EXCHANGE. How about it? You up for that?

I don't recall even attempting to go past any boundaries?
I guess you'll have to refresh my memory.

Confidence is not the problem. You thinking i cant disrespect your boundaries but you can disrespect mine. Thats the problem and that is not going to happen.

Again what boundaries? You never had a complaint except the complaint that I wasn't answering personal questions?

I was like "stop" and you were all "no" and I was like "creepy" and you were like "what's creepy?"
which of course any human would then be like "infuriating" and then you go "why was I infuriatiing"?

Did I explain that clear enough?

I'm only writing to say I don't fall for your manipulations. Everything you speak about being bothered by is what your seeing in yourself

^ the mirror.

Wait, again you quoted me? Again with the mirror and the fantasy that it's all because of me?

Also i have proof your a lier. In earlyer posts you said you dont care if someone respects you and that no one owes you respect. But now your saying you want me to respect your boundaries. So, you lied. You do care about respect.

Lying to me breaks MY BOUNDARY. Dont lie to me.

No you're not getting it at all.
Say I'm standing on a subway car talking to some dude standing across from me. We talk about religion. I don't care if he respects me, not at all. I don't particularly respect him either. If he impresses me with his intellect I might respect him then.
BUT, I respect his rights as a person to not be physically or emotionally assaulted. I respect his right to polite conversation. If he starts getting animated or using annoying debating tactics I might debate a bit harder also.
If he gets rude with me I might also say something rude. If he keeps going I'll probably just excuse myself and stand somewhere else. No big deal. Wrong person to get involved with, I'll just move on. My bad.


Now what if he tells me outright during a conversation "I do not respect you"? Ok..and ....cool. Fine. It's his brain, he can think what he wants. He can say what he wants. He can not respect me all day. It's just now I have to figure out if he's being honest or trying to escalate violence. If I can't deal with his words I have freedom to leave. If he's peaceful and really just wants to say he doesn't respect me I'm fine with that. Nothing special about me.

Now if he puts his hand on me I'll ask him once to remove his hand.
If he doesn't my elbow will smash his opposite side frontal orbital bone then his own arm will choke him unconscious via a standing head and arm choke. No disrespect.

There is a difference between basic respect and actually respecting someone for a skill or talent or maybe I just respect the fact that they are so damn good looking.
But, I don't walk around asking people, in the middle of a conversation, if they respect me and then get irrate like some Neandrethal if they choose to not speak on it.
It sounds like drunk-guy talk agro talk. No thank you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jollybear]

I challenge you to show me where I was cocky without first being provoked with some strange tactic or another.

Heres an example of your cocky arrogance.

"Not even close. You know this. I know you know because in the past you've spoke about evidence and proof and such.
You know that even if this was the mountain the reason it's black could not be shown."

This statement is arrogant because your TELLING me what i know. You went beyond just telling me YOUR belief, to telling me WHAT i believe. Thats called cocky or arrogance.

How would you like it if i told you that YOU KNOW the bible is TRUE!

Youd probably start cursing again.

So, like i said you want respect, GIVE IT TOO. Respect is earned, yes, but its also EXCHANGED.

These are all generalizations.I do not believe you decided to "hold up a mirror" like some psychoanalysist but rather were frustrated because debates never favor a religious point of view.

You dont believe me huh? How does that not surprise me. Not only is there a respect issue here, theres a trust issue too. Which both of those go hand in hand. How can we possibly have any meaningful debate on the foundation of no trust and no respect? Its vertually impossible. The ship is gonna crash. Its not gonna go anywhere.

You see, you are indirectly saying im lying about doing a psychoanalysist test on you. But im not lying. And YOU GOT NO PROOF that im lying. I on the other hand where i called you a lier, i atleast had PROOF of that.

That's all well and good but that isn't what's in this debate at all.
I could go back and paste all of the times I've explained why the magic mountain debate is pointless and it would fill several posts.
Of just trying to explain one simple little concept.

You could repost all the times you threw articles at me, but i could repost all the times i threw counter articles at you and pinpointed things for you to consider.

Again, there doesent appear to be any willingness to DISCUSS evidence, just redicule, and reinstate your view and say im lying about what i believe.

So explaining 17 (or more) times why this mountain issue is a waste of time isn't enough? It is.
The words you are saying do not match your behavior.

I agree that its a waste of time debating this mountain with YOU. But my reason for saying its a waste of time and your reason for saying it, is NOT the SAME reason. Its a waste of time not because theres no good evidence for this location, its a waste of time because your mind is made up and theres no willingness to go deeper.

I always need improvement.

NOW i can respect this addmition, but, hopefully you put that into action and actually improve your debate skill.

Curious though, if your gonna admit you need improvement. Give me an example in our debate that you need to improve? Be consistent.

Fact remains that any evidence we have covered has confirmed that the existence of any biblical character cannot be shown to be a historical person and that all signs point to creative fiction, mythology and the only thing that remains is faith.
My original point. So good or bad at debating, my point stands.

False. You have faith. I also have faith. But you have faith the bible is mythology. We both have faith, but my faith is based on better reasoning and evidence, yours is not.

I honestly don't know what "my terms on how it's debated" means?

Ok, well, ill break it down for you and you tell me if you agree to these terms.

No red herrings. No ad hominum attacks UNLESS you have proof im lying. No double mindedness, in other words if your gonna debate the evidence then do it all the way. No preaching, just debate. Oh and no lying to me. And respect my boundaries, which are dont tell me what i know or believe and dont lie. And debate one section of evidence at a time, cant eat a whole pizza in one gulp.

Do you agree to these terms?

It's tempting but I'm not dragging anyone else into this.

If i give you the link showing how i debated with past folks and it was respectful both ways, im not BRINGING that person into this discussion, im just merely showing you an example of what im claiming can be the case. Plus its a public thread, not a private conversation. Theres no confedentiality going on. But, if you dont want the link, DO YOU BELIEVE ME on this, that people can have respectful debates and that ive had some? Yes or no?

That's more manipulation tactics, "You made me do it, you did it first". Like I haven't already dealt with manipulative bullies ever before.
Their called "women".

If there called woman, then you just called yourself a woman. Because YOU are the manipulator. And your constantly overrationilizing your selfishness.

Except...you tried to bully me and I didn't bully you.
So.......there's that little problem

Thats a lie. Because you bullied me, i decided to do a psychoanalysist on you and it proved you to be a lier. If you wer smart enough you would not have fallen in the trap. But you did, so "IM NOT IMPRESSED by your intelligence."

Yes, I'm such a bad debater but yet my lines are worthy of copy&paste?
Which is a validation to my writings.

No one is perfectly bad, that includes you. It dont mean your NOT a bad debater. You are. And when i repost your line its not validating what you say in application to me, its just me showing you your phony projections.

No you're not getting it at all.
Say I'm standing on a subway car talking to some dude standing across from me. We talk about religion. I don't care if he respects me, not at all.

You just keep telling yourself that, but i see clear signs that you DO want respect. I listen to peoples actions more then i listen to there words.

I don't particularly respect him either

And why dont you respect him? You dont even know him. And he didnt even do anything deserving disrespect at that point. So why would you not respect him?

If he impresses me with his intellect I might respect him then.

2 questions to this statement

1, how does someone impress you with there intelligence? Do they do it by AGREEING with your worldview? Or other?

2nd question. You said "might". So even if they impressed you, why is your respect to him still a MIGHT and not a given?

BUT, I respect his rights as a person to not be physically or emotionally assaulted. I respect his right to polite conversation.

Oh ok, so when you tell me what i know and always like to tell me "i dont care" and then act like you believe in polite conversation, sorry if i find it a bit hard to understand you.

If he starts getting animated or using annoying debating tactics I might debate a bit harder also.

What are annoying debate tactics to you? Does that mean someone who disagrees with your worldview or someone who defends there views using reason, logic and evidence?

If he gets rude with me I might also say something rude.

Oh ok, what if you say something RUDE FIRST, should he then just take it?

If he keeps going I'll probably just excuse myself and stand somewhere else. No big deal. Wrong person to get involved with, I'll just move on. My bad.

Fair enough.

Now what if he tells me outright during a conversation "I do not respect you"? Ok..and ....cool.

Lol, thats cool to you huh? .....really? Why is that cool that someone says they disrespected you?

Also when i told you i disrespected you in my psychoanalysist test, that ALSO must be COOL to you to, yes, no? Lol

Absolutely incredable.

Fine. It's his brain, he can think what he wants. He can say what he wants.

Ok, so then i can say whatever i want to you then? I can say your lying to me, i can say your a bully, cocky, arrogant, and you dont mind that?

Ok....if you say so.

He can not respect me all day. It's just now I have to figure out if he's being honest or trying to escalate violence.

Ok, so how do you figure out whos being honest and whos trying to escalate violence?

Also, im not trying to escalate violence, im being honest. When i did that test on you, you wer the first to say youd get up all in my face and start yellin. And yet IM TRYING TO ESCALATE VIOLENCE?

Keep lying to your selfish self man.

If I can't deal with his words I have freedom to leave. If he's peaceful and really just wants to say he doesn't respect me I'm fine with that. Nothing special about me.

Why are you fine with that? To truly be fine about it means you think you deserve to not he respected by him in his thoughts and words.

Now if he puts his hand on me I'll ask him once to remove his hand.
If he doesn't my elbow will smash his opposite side frontal orbital bone then his own arm will choke him unconscious via a standing head and arm choke. No disrespect.

Fair enough. However, if i wer in your shoes i would not break his bones. I would just merely throw him to the ground. But, thats the difference between a good man and a bad man.

Also curious, if you came up against a 8 foot, 400 pound muscle mass MMA fighter, a losing battle, would you attempt the same attack THEN? , and yes i know such a person dont exist, but its hypothetical.

Real courage will fight those bigger then you or the same size. But real courage also is not stupid either. Stupid would be to go against someone you just know youl lose. For courage to be a part of that situation, one would have to have a planned stradegy.

One more thing. You can break a bone, even kill, but you cant kill ideas.

Also, one more. Sometimes putting ones self in harms way is not stupid, nor strategic, its PRINCIPLE.

There is a difference between basic respect and actually respecting someone for a skill or talent or maybe I just respect the fact that they are so damn good looking.

I agree with that statement. However, you have not lived up to the first part, basic respect.

As for ugly people, i wont disrespect them because they dont look good. Thats not there choice that they look ugly.

But, I don't walk around asking people, in the middle of a conversation, if they respect me and then get irrate like some Neandrethal if they choose to not speak on it.
It sounds like drunk-guy talk agro talk. No thank you.

Actually you did get irate yourself. So, you do want respect unlike how you say you dont care if you get it and now its cool if you get disrespect.

Also, i was not irate in demanding respect, i was just setting firm boundaries. Then ordered you to comply with them. Then YOU get irate.

Your a lier. You keep lying. After being proved a lier, instead of admitting it, you keep sqirming your way out of it. But, im gonna hold you down on this.

 

[joelr]

Heres an example of your cocky arrogance.

"Not even close. You know this. I know you know because in the past you've spoke about evidence and proof and such.
You know that even if this was the mountain the reason it's black could not be shown."

This statement is arrogant because your TELLING me what i know. You went beyond just telling me YOUR belief, to telling me WHAT i believe. Thats called cocky or arrogance.

How would you like it if i told you that YOU KNOW the bible is TRUE!

Youd probably start cursing again.

So, like i said you want respect, GIVE IT TOO. Respect is earned, yes, but its also EXCHANGED.



You dont believe me huh? How does that not surprise me. Not only is there a respect issue here, theres a trust issue too. Which both of those go hand in hand. How can we possibly have any meaningful debate on the foundation of no trust and no respect? Its vertually impossible. The ship is gonna crash. Its not gonna go anywhere.

You see, you are indirectly saying im lying about doing a psychoanalysist test on you. But im not lying. And YOU GOT NO PROOF that im lying. I on the other hand where i called you a lier, i atleast had PROOF of that.



You could repost all the times you threw articles at me, but i could repost all the times i threw counter articles at you and pinpointed things for you to consider.

Again, there doesent appear to be any willingness to DISCUSS evidence, just redicule, and reinstate your view and say im lying about what i believe.



I agree that its a waste of time debating this mountain with YOU. But my reason for saying its a waste of time and your reason for saying it, is NOT the SAME reason. Its a waste of time not because theres no good evidence for this location, its a waste of time because your mind is made up and theres no willingness to go deeper.



NOW i can respect this addmition, but, hopefully you put that into action and actually improve your debate skill.

Curious though, if your gonna admit you need improvement. Give me an example in our debate that you need to improve? Be consistent.



False. You have faith. I also have faith. But you have faith the bible is mythology. We both have faith, but my faith is based on better reasoning and evidence, yours is not.



Ok, well, ill break it down for you and you tell me if you agree to these terms.

No red herrings. No ad hominum attacks UNLESS you have proof im lying. No double mindedness, in other words if your gonna debate the evidence then do it all the way. No preaching, just debate. Oh and no lying to me. And respect my boundaries, which are dont tell me what i know or believe and dont lie. And debate one section of evidence at a time, cant eat a whole pizza in one gulp.

Do you agree to these terms?



If i give you the link showing how i debated with past folks and it was respectful both ways, im not BRINGING that person into this discussion, im just merely showing you an example of what im claiming can be the case. Plus its a public thread, not a private conversation. Theres no confedentiality going on. But, if you dont want the link, DO YOU BELIEVE ME on this, that people can have respectful debates and that ive had some? Yes or no?



If there called woman, then you just called yourself a woman. Because YOU are the manipulator. And your constantly overrationilizing your selfishness.



Thats a lie. Because you bullied me, i decided to do a psychoanalysist on you and it proved you to be a lier. If you wer smart enough you would not have fallen in the trap. But you did, so "IM NOT IMPRESSED by your intelligence."



No one is perfectly bad, that includes you. It dont mean your NOT a bad debater. You are. And when i repost your line its not validating what you say in application to me, its just me showing you your phony projections.



You just keep telling yourself that, but i see clear signs that you DO want respect. I listen to peoples actions more then i listen to there words.



And why dont you respect him? You dont even know him. And he didnt even do anything deserving disrespect at that point. So why would you not respect him?



2 questions to this statement

1, how does someone impress you with there intelligence? Do they do it by AGREEING with your worldview? Or other?

2nd question. You said "might". So even if they impressed you, why is your respect to him still a MIGHT and not a given?



Oh ok, so when you tell me what i know and always like to tell me "i dont care" and then act like you believe in polite conversation, sorry if i find it a bit hard to understand you.



What are annoying debate tactics to you? Does that mean someone who disagrees with your worldview or someone who defends there views using reason, logic and evidence?



Oh ok, what if you say something RUDE FIRST, should he then just take it?



Fair enough.



Lol, thats cool to you huh? .....really? Why is that cool that someone says they disrespected you?

Also when i told you i disrespected you in my psychoanalysist test, that ALSO must be COOL to you to, yes, no? Lol

Absolutely incredable.



Ok, so then i can say whatever i want to you then? I can say your lying to me, i can say your a bully, cocky, arrogant, and you dont mind that?

Ok....if you say so.



Ok, so how do you figure out whos being honest and whos trying to escalate violence?

Also, im not trying to escalate violence, im being honest. When i did that test on you, you wer the first to say youd get up all in my face and start yellin. And yet IM TRYING TO ESCALATE VIOLENCE?

Keep lying to your selfish self man.



Why are you fine with that? To truly be fine about it means you think you deserve to not he respected by him in his thoughts and words.



Fair enough. However, if i wer in your shoes i would not break his bones. I would just merely throw him to the ground. But, thats the difference between a good man and a bad man.

Also curious, if you came up against a 8 foot, 400 pound muscle mass MMA fighter, a losing battle, would you attempt the same attack THEN? , and yes i know such a person dont exist, but its hypothetical.

Real courage will fight those bigger then you or the same size. But real courage also is not stupid either. Stupid would be to go against someone you just know youl lose. For courage to be a part of that situation, one would have to have a planned stradegy.

One more thing. You can break a bone, even kill, but you cant kill ideas.

Also, one more. Sometimes putting ones self in harms way is not stupid, nor strategic, its PRINCIPLE.



I agree with that statement. However, you have not lived up to the first part, basic respect.

As for ugly people, i wont disrespect them because they dont look good. Thats not there choice that they look ugly.



Actually you did get irate yourself. So, you do want respect unlike how you say you dont care if you get it and now its cool if you get disrespect.

Also, i was not irate in demanding respect, i was just setting firm boundaries. Then ordered you to comply with them. Then YOU get irate.

Your a lier. You keep lying. After being proved a lier, instead of admitting it, you keep sqirming your way out of it. But, im gonna hold you down on this.

"but my faith is based on better reasoning and evidence, yours is not."

Either delusional or a lie. You were not able to contradict one single piece of scholarship.

I can't read the rest. This literally reads like a letter from an ex-girlfriend. Total drama queen. Every sentence picked apart just for creating drama - no you lie, please respect me, I don't respect you, no you are, oh no arrogance...blah blah...Which I normally would read and suffer through all the *****y nagging, because girls are pretty and have big #$$#.
But from you, gross, no thank you. ignored.