"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Friday, March 24, 2006

Just for grins and giggles and because I can - v.3

More entertainment at the expense of arrogant online skeptics. You can see previous fun here, here and here. More to come later, as there seems to be a never ending supply of such individuals. This particular guy went away rather quickly but his foolishness is quite evident. I don't mind a reasonable discussion, like the one in my Yes, there is a God post. However, when skeptics act like, well, a non-believer's version of Pat Robertson, with a heavy does of jackassery for good measure, they shouldn't be surprised when we respond with a bit of scarcasm and dismissal. It should be noted, that I've run across a few smart atheists that rip into these types on their side, as much as I do. Kudos to them, for recognizing and exposing the foolishness amongst their fellow travelers. Do these type of individuals and their actions mean atheism or whatever ism is false? Of course not. But it seems that some on the other side, view Pat Robertson's foolishness as a valid way to overturn any argument for Christian claims. So, let's have some fun at the expense of their village idiots equivalent.

I think therefore I'm damned...Wrote:

I bet you think your screen name is clever <--- sarcasm, In case you missed it.

The direct approach doesn't work with faith, that's why it's lasted so long. Arguing against them directly on reaffirms their faith, most of the time.

When you don't have a good argument, that's what tends to happen. Much like the drivel you're spouting now.

If you really care, you have to compromise and be more indirect when convincing them.

Deceptive tactics do not a lousy argument make stronger.

I have yet to figure it out,


but this way doesn't work anymore,

Here's a suggestion, You might want to honestly consider that you are wrong

they're too well prepared/indoctrinated.

Says the guy who cant give a direct argument.

Take away the foundations and their faith will collapse

Still waiting for something rational.

you can't make a direct attack work

See previous.

this I know.

You don't seem to know much


Filed under: Apologetics -- Christianity -- 4GrinsNGiggles

Blogs with open posts: The Real Ugly American -- Jo's Cafe -- Adam's Blog -- The Liberal Wrong Wing -- Rhymes With Right -- THM's Bacon Bits -- third world county -- The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns -- The Bullwinkle Blog -- Stuck On Stupid -- The Uncooperative Blogger -- gospel fiction - Mudville Gazette

Technorati Tags: Apologetics Christainity Atheism Religion

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: