I've always wanted to ask this...
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Anyways here is just a brief timeline when there are moderators in Eternal Hope.
<![endif]-->
You guys know Facebok Timeline?
Well let me give u a glimpse of yourself. One thing about sgforums is.. the history remains forever… at least on the net.
2003
laurence82 17-Jab 2004
In my secondary, I had a gal friend who is a passionate christian, and she did once made me sit down in the canteen, and reading with her on The Daily Bread. Well, after that I told her I am not prepared to accept Christ in my life, but she was understanding, and we still remain friends.
In my JC, I had a gal friend who is passionate about Christianity, for her Jesus is everything, but we still get along, altho her passion scares other Christians away. So left me one guy only talk with her.
For me, aiyah, passionate or not, it doesnt matter, as long as they not overbearing, like keep pestering or even saying wrong things during an emergency like the above, just make sure dont be so overbearing and in the end piss people off. But at same time, everyone here should try to communicate with everyone...its challenging to communicate with someone so different, so passionate...try it!This is you laurence82, during your earlier years.
http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/66998?page=2
Laurence82 31 Jan 2004
As you can see. Laurence82 is still reasonable then. Because he is new. His posts are during a time of moderators. And he is not directly attacking Christianity. Just enlightening us on perhaps the misconception of it.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/68182
This thread sheds some light into the position of Laurence82. Still civil. Albeit it was in an Aunt Agony thread. WITH a moderator monitoring of course.
http://sgforums.com/forums/12/topics/84761
Notice that in these conversation in Eternal Hope, its still civil. Moderator SillyMe was still there during that time.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/86625
This one is interesting. Laurence82 actually advocates for statute based religious harmony.
“I am not sure how much of jurisdiction can the goverment have over internet content, especially with regards to using the religious harmony act.
Since its mabbe quite limited, some people use this chance to profess their hypocritical views on other religions here, which they couldnt do outside since they could be immediately be held under citizen arrest by people who are listening.
But it will be helpful to post some legal statutes here so that we can see how much of that act has been flouted here.
cheers”This is July 2004. Don’t believe me ? Read the content of the thread.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/85413
DaVinCi Code. Nothing major. Just showing that he was not the troll that he is now.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/87298
Catholics. Nothing major.. still within the 2004 period
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/87298
Laurence82 31 of August 2004
“btw, if anyone say i am pursuing an agenda here, yes i am, but not against Christians, but its about religious sensitivity...
, so i hope i wont be
called anti christ or something...
The last time i discuss this seriously when someone also raise abt the same topic last time...not abt ancestors, but generally on non believers too...
but i am glad we guys discuss this in a nice non flaming manner..”-This is where we can see his motive and ‘agenda’ reveal itself. This is the beginning of his crusade. Notice how offensive posts are edited by then moderator SillyMe . Notice how discussion still being civil.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/91468
Nice and civil. The likeable Laurence82 by everyone.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/98364
They may call out the Lord's name everytime, but they aint bad.
Besides, my friends from those churches turn out all right, and quite mature too.
You should see instead the behaviour of some Christians from traditional churches in this forum. Absolutely disgusting.”Still reasonable. Mentioning of trolls like Aloska is natural. U will always have one or two of them people like those around.
http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/100234
This thread is on Christians dating non Christians. The discussion inside is very civil. No personal attacks. No demeaning remarks. No supportive comments by trolls on trolls. All is nice and dandy.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/102335
Reconciliation between Chrstianity and science.
Notice how the discussions are STILL civil. With your usual StupidIsSmart explaining away why it isn’t so. But interestly, Laurence82 actually partaked in a meaningful discussion. Good times to read. I remember reading them.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/103641
I admit, its going to take some time to form a timeline. Given that your posts are 111,665 at 12/12 06.22am. And that is 248 times more than Hasene’s. Which means 2233 hours. But that can be shortened if I skip every 2 pages. Time can be shortened of course by giving it out to employees that have too much free time and don’t mind a little bit of bonus.
But it does bring back some good memories. The good old times when we at least saw eye to eye. But that will all change in 2008. Leading up to 2009.
Anyways here is just a brief timeline when there are moderators in Eternal Hope.
<![endif]-->
You guys know Facebok Timeline?
Well let me give u a glimpse of yourself. One thing about sgforums is.. the history remains forever… at least on the net.
2003
laurence82 17-Jab 2004
In my secondary, I had a gal friend who is a passionate christian, and she did once made me sit down in the canteen, and reading with her on The Daily Bread. Well, after that I told her I am not prepared to accept Christ in my life, but she was understanding, and we still remain friends.
In my JC, I had a gal friend who is passionate about Christianity, for her Jesus is everything, but we still get along, altho her passion scares other Christians away. So left me one guy only talk with her.
For me, aiyah, passionate or not, it doesnt matter, as long as they not overbearing, like keep pestering or even saying wrong things during an emergency like the above, just make sure dont be so overbearing and in the end piss people off. But at same time, everyone here should try to communicate with everyone...its challenging to communicate with someone so different, so passionate...try it!This is you laurence82, during your earlier years.
http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/66998?page=2
Laurence82 31 Jan 2004
As you can see. Laurence82 is still reasonable then. Because he is new. His posts are during a time of moderators. And he is not directly attacking Christianity. Just enlightening us on perhaps the misconception of it.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/68182
This thread sheds some light into the position of Laurence82. Still civil. Albeit it was in an Aunt Agony thread. WITH a moderator monitoring of course.
http://sgforums.com/forums/12/topics/84761
Notice that in these conversation in Eternal Hope, its still civil. Moderator SillyMe was still there during that time.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/86625
This one is interesting. Laurence82 actually advocates for statute based religious harmony.
“I am not sure how much of jurisdiction can the goverment have over internet content, especially with regards to using the religious harmony act.
Since its mabbe quite limited, some people use this chance to profess their hypocritical views on other religions here, which they couldnt do outside since they could be immediately be held under citizen arrest by people who are listening.
But it will be helpful to post some legal statutes here so that we can see how much of that act has been flouted here.
cheers”This is July 2004. Don’t believe me ? Read the content of the thread.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/85413
DaVinCi Code. Nothing major. Just showing that he was not the troll that he is now.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/87298
Catholics. Nothing major.. still within the 2004 period
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/87298
Laurence82 31 of August 2004
“btw, if anyone say i am pursuing an agenda here, yes i am, but not against Christians, but its about religious sensitivity...
, so i hope i wont be
called anti christ or something...
The last time i discuss this seriously when someone also raise abt the same topic last time...not abt ancestors, but generally on non believers too...
but i am glad we guys discuss this in a nice non flaming manner..”-This is where we can see his motive and ‘agenda’ reveal itself. This is the beginning of his crusade. Notice how offensive posts are edited by then moderator SillyMe . Notice how discussion still being civil.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/91468
Nice and civil. The likeable Laurence82 by everyone.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/98364
They may call out the Lord's name everytime, but they aint bad.
Besides, my friends from those churches turn out all right, and quite mature too.
You should see instead the behaviour of some Christians from traditional churches in this forum. Absolutely disgusting.”Still reasonable. Mentioning of trolls like Aloska is natural. U will always have one or two of them people like those around.
http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/100234
This thread is on Christians dating non Christians. The discussion inside is very civil. No personal attacks. No demeaning remarks. No supportive comments by trolls on trolls. All is nice and dandy.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/102335
Reconciliation between Chrstianity and science.
Notice how the discussions are STILL civil. With your usual StupidIsSmart explaining away why it isn’t so. But interestly, Laurence82 actually partaked in a meaningful discussion. Good times to read. I remember reading them.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/103641
I admit, its going to take some time to form a timeline. Given that your posts are 111,665 at 12/12 06.22am. And that is 248 times more than Hasene’s. Which means 2233 hours. But that can be shortened if I skip every 2 pages. Time can be shortened of course by giving it out to employees that have too much free time and don’t mind a little bit of bonus.
But it does bring back some good memories. The good old times when we at least saw eye to eye. But that will all change in 2008. Leading up to 2009.
Dec 2004
“· Firstly, what it got to do with the Buddhist? Oh i forgot, its our honeybunzie again...
Secondly, u realli sure teachers dont force u to attend Mass or Chapel service in Xtians schools? Think again....i come from one such JC which does that.
To add, last time I used to give some deference to christianity and the believers..
Now i dont even bother when I see a statue of jesus..
muahahhahaha”---As you can see. Laurence82 has already deep hatred and a personal vendetta against Christians in particular. You can see that he starts to reveal his true nature. Someone how is intolerant, who is anti- religion, anti-christianity and we do whatever it takes to bad mouth or talk down a Christian be the Christian a good or bad one. He cannot be an objective person. Have a read. His discussion back then was still civil and makes sense. You can feel he wants to attack.. but was being reigned in. Chin Eng was then the Moderator too if I am not mistaken.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/108051
11 Feb 2005
“I am afraid u guys have to read up on Amway, who officially pave the way and started the MLM business in US in 1950s. It is plausible they use christian evangelism as a model to start MLM.
But i beg to differ that CHC or in fact any evangelistic or charismatic churches are MLM in structure and form. There are few very technical differences i must say, one being churches deal with spirituality while mlm deals with business strategies.
Although there are seemingly few similarities between them, i dont its right to label churches directly as having mlm structure. i will use it only in discussion regarding churches that seemingly want to con people out of their money. Even so, it is not right to label CHC as having mlm structure, the point being pointed out in earlier post.
'direct selling' or single level marketing or SLM' would be the best parallel in business world to compare with CHC.”--Now this is about City Harvest Church being an MLM. Notice how he was making sense. Acknolwedging the spiritual aspect and it’s difference. But If I were to fast forward to 2010. Which I will eventually point out, he claims Christianity IS MLM. Notice the inconsistencies ? Given that it is NOT in Eternal Hope, it is in a Multi Level Marketing forum, nevertheless shows his state of mind during the earlier years. Don’t believe me ? Link Below
http://sgforums.com/forums/14/topics/117114
2005 was a period of relative calmness. Eternal Hope modded. Posts and threads are still civil and controlled.
11 May 2005
“ever wonder why trolls and clones congregate at few places onli?
depends on how the mod run the place...
impartiality?
what a joke....
”“u dont see other forums going down, and their trolls only like once in a while will have
nowadays, u cant go into bar or chit chat w/o being suaned by mod or +1 by others, even if you have a well intentioned topic
do sumthing wrong, dont need to make yourself sound so exasperated as if whole world onli know how to blame you
no need to say things to suit yourself, one day say must be impartial and the other day say bo pian...
”---This is an extremely interesting thread. Here he seems to lament about the impartiality of the mod. And as usual.. starts a flame war.. AGAIN.. Let me highlight to you all that THIS.. is his style of flame and argument. You can clearly see how it has evolved intelligently and more aggressively over the year.
“his thread is just to raise awareness, since she will heck care ,i mean who else here can kick her out becos of her behaviour?
Its good some people raise points to support or against, but i would also like to point out that this thread is not just to debate responsibilities of mod, but also in light of recent events, really uncalled behaviour of mod, and the way the forums are going now. the Bear made a good point in his thread not too long ago, and one wonders why it doesnt happen to other SI forums as iveco as pointed out....
on one hand she expouse impartiality and on the other hand, enjoys watching two groups flaming each other for the fun of it...
pls dont cry helplessness and so on, when things doesnt prove u right....”----Looks like Laurence82 , you just have to eat back your own words now. Trying to deny.. trying to be willfully ignorant does not help your case as you can see here.
http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/131547
14 May 2005
----In this thread, its about Catholics and Protestants evangelizing. And u noticed that there was no condescending remarks, no personal attacks and full of civility and good discussion. And if you compare to the EXACT same thread in 2009,2010 and 2011… it becomes a massive troll flame war.
Even Laurence82 contributed to meaningful discussions.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/132093
27 May 2005
“this is not eternal hope man
this is eternal flaming forum....”-----My question then.. what was he doing in Eternal Hope then, and why does he STILL come into Eternal Hope now. Eventhough he is not a Christian and CANNOT contribute to anything to the Christian myth. Homosexuality seems to be the topic too.
-----Notice how it WAS a Christian Forum then, but you always got these people coming to challenge their faith. It’s not just a recent phenomenon.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/134029?page=1
13 June 2005
“Basically, i have very specific reservations, not about god, but about chhristianity, esp when someone call himself the prophet of god, and link himself to god thru this 'holy trinity'.
I have very specific reservations abt the Protestants, who used to justify their breakaway, among other stuff, including the reasons of Pope's excessess..
Now if you look, its more like Protestants' excessess, whereas the Pope, or the last Pope, try to reach a interfaith peace and harmony
I have very specific reservations against preachings by hypocrites who only make statements out of the Bible. Remember the time when your old-school dad demand total respect, obedience and attention, without any question about the way he do stuff, even of you know its wrong and ilogical?
Yup...”----Ladies and gentlemen, as you can clearly see. He has made his agenda intention clear. He is out against Christians. Especially Protestants. Since 2005.
My question to you Laurence82, why are you still in Eternal Hope ? His answers can be found in the next thread:
“Again, i dont condone this sort of actions, so dont expect me to shove off easily. Besides, the discussion in this forum provided much needed laughter and entertainment.
If you think you are quite justified, go and challenge stupidissmart. Only few were able to match his level of reasoning, rather than just being silly and discuss other faiths as if you know so much abt them.”----Let me assure you. You can see how he supports trolls, supports those that are in his line of thinking and not looking at things objectively. That was 6 years ago. And while StupidIsSmart has improved in his vocabulary and knowledge, while his reasonings are logical, they both exhibit the same character of not trying to understand the other person’s position and that you are always WRONG and they are RIGHT. Now in 2011, he still has the exact same mentality. But while StupidIsSmart has improved, Laurence82 clearly has not.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/136368
16 may 2005
As you can clearly see. The topic was Old Testament. Now its supposed to be a discussion between Christians . But then u got StupidIsSmart and Laurence82 coming in giving their piece of their mind. Its odd as they DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE… but yet they kept coming in to challenge the veracity of the bible.
----Seriously.. wha’ts up with that ? Is that a Chronic Troll or what ? Who the hell persistently goes into another’s house and tells them how to run and decorate their furniture ? Read for yourselves.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/132412
http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/136620
14 July 2005
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
I echo your sentiments, laoda.....
I guess by and large, most of the Christians here are familiar with those who are either philosophically against Christianity or are against the individuals who are Christians. While most of the more "seasoned" EH contributors are avoiding a protracted, thus pointless, discussion with the anti-Christians, we will be more than happy to discuss and when possible nudge seekers the way we see to be right. After all, as laoda, and myself (in the past) had maintained, this is a CHRISTIAN forum. No different from those who reside in Light of Atlantis or the Buddhist threat who may advice their seekers to go those ways, and as I have said before, it would be totally wrong to preach there. This is EH, you either come in to share, to seek or to argue. I'd ignore those who wants nothing more than to pick a fight.
To anyone who does not believe in God (or the Christian God), the prayers would not offend 'cos to these people God does not exist, thus the prayers will NOT work.
To believers, it is well within our agenda to try to nudge non-believers to our faith.
While, as most forumites may know, that I am totally against the forcing-down-your-throat brand of Christianity, I will be more than happy to provide some comfort and answers, and if such answers will lead an individual to Christ I will unabashly do it.
If I am addressing the needs of a specific individual and this individual feels that these needs are met, I would not consider the opinions of those who are not involved. They are totally unimportant.---Have a read. Here we have the mod Chin Eng. Obviously knows Laurence82 and his antiques. And when someone posts IN a Christian forum discussing about Christian belief and system, Laurence cannot take it. And this is his reply. Let me show that this was in 2005.
“Seriously chin eng, u starting to disappoint me.
but its allright, fundamentally, its never a christian way to be humble, to have non believers in their heart etc, despite many speeches that say so
its always 'our' way, 'our beliefs, that to acknowledge the presence and views of others...
*shrug*--- Notice how he has a very personal vendetta against Christians. I mean, its not like somebody posted in a Non-Christian forum asking for Non-Christian advice. See for yourselves.
This REALLY sheds light into the REAL Laurence82.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
1. All answers given to you were also done sincerely. You assume that they are not sincere.
2. Christians acknowledge that there is a God. You assume that He doesn't exist.
If he is not a christian, it is alright for him to believe in his own faith and assume that god does not exist am i not right to say that? Why does it sound like it is a crime for him to assume that god does not exist? -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
lols... why are things getting so heated up here? when all TS asked was a basic question on creation where he tinks that he cant get a satisfactory answer through google-ing.
For religious issues it would always be preferred to have an open mindset to criticisms and questioning. What i see here are a bunch of non christians trying to ask some questions but a bunch of christians who are so upheld about that faith that they take it so personally that these non christians are trying to bash their faith. Even up till now i dun see ppl like TCMC sprouting anything abusive against the religion itself. I do not know how was it being perceived as a religion bash or a word bash. It honestly felt more like it when questions are post that could not be answered, it becomes a bash on the reliability of the religion. Haven't one realised that all religions have questions that cannot be answered?
destiny,
I did give Tcmc the benefit of the doubt and engaged him with sincere answers at the beginning, though people then were already calling him a troll and questioning his motives and intents. But as it moved along his sincerity was called into question. Don't you think it is absurd that when he asked for Christian answers, and I supplied him with Christian answers from Christian websites, that he would whine and complain about the answers being predominantly Christian? I mean, what does he expect, that I go to the Buddhist Scriptures to support the Bible's doctrine of the Trinity?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
If he is not a christian, it is alright for him to believe in his own faith and assume that god does not exist am i not right to say that? Why does it sound like it is a crime for him to assume that god does not exist?It is absolutely right for anybody to believe in what they believe. I didn't say his stand is a crime in my reply, did I?
While he believes there is no God, it is not a crime for others to believe that there is a God, no?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
destiny,
I did give Tcmc the benefit of the doubt and engaged him with sincere answers at the beginning, though people then were already calling him a troll and questioning his motives and intents. But as it moved along his sincerity was called into question. Don't you think it is absurd that when he asked for Christian answers, and I supplied him with Christian answers from Christian websites, that he would whine and complain about the answers being predominantly Christian? I mean, what does he expect, that I go to the Buddhist Scriptures to support the Bible's doctrine of the Trinity?
i do not totally agree with you on that though becuase i do not feel that it is absurb for him to complain about the answer being predominantly christian. To me, it is highly unreliable if im asking for some proving and the source is used to prove the source. If u really wanna shut him up or to convince him whatsoever, it would prove more convincing to cross reference instead of using a christian source to prove a christian source. If it is not convincing at all, to ppl who are reasonably logical, such answers might be seen as no where near convincing ma. -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
1. All answers given to you were also done sincerely. You assume that they are not sincere.
2. Christians acknowledge that there is a God. You assume that He doesn't exist.
1. sgdiehard, please dont bear false witness on me. I have acknowledged your answers before and accepted our differences. What I have issue with BIC is everytime a difficult question arises, he says I am bashing or trolling, when i am not.
2. Sorry, there is no assumption made when we say there are no gods. We make the decision based on available religious texts from the main religions, do comparisons. We make the decision based on the inability to detect or measure "spiritual entities".
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i do not totally agree with you on that though becuase i do not feel that it is absurb for him to complain about the answer being predominantly christian. To me, it is highly unreliable if im asking for some proving and the source is used to prove the source. If u really wanna shut him up or to convince him whatsoever, it would prove more convincing to cross reference instead of using a christian source to prove a christian source. If it is not convincing at all, to ppl who are reasonably logical, such answers might be seen as no where near convincing ma.destiny,
If you ask seek a Christian answer, do you expect a Christian answer or not?
Or take it this way. You studied law before? The Statutes very large library and contains many acts, right? Do you use the act to support another act (they always refer to each other)? Or do you use a science textbook to prove a law? Can Tcmc accuse me of using one law to support another law? A basic lrule of hermeneutics is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Yet even this basic rule Tcmc is ignorant of, and still dare to boast about his knowledge of the Bible. Whether it is more convincing or not is subjective to persons, the point is, is the argument valid? Sound? You can call it confirmation bias if I cite 100 Jewish writers who wrote about the horrors of the holocaust. Question is, did it happen? Are what they write true? So what if they quote from each other? So what? Confirmation bias is something to look out for, but being bias itself does not mean being wrong. This is something Tcmc failed to note.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i do not totally agree with you on that though becuase i do not feel that it is absurb for him to complain about the answer being predominantly christian. To me, it is highly unreliable if im asking for some proving and the source is used to prove the source. If u really wanna shut him up or to convince him whatsoever, it would prove more convincing to cross reference instead of using a christian source to prove a christian source. If it is not convincing at all, to ppl who are reasonably logical, such answers might be seen as no where near convincing ma.BIC
I will reiteriate my point because even after ten times I have told you, it still doesnt get into your head and you still are spreading lies about me.
1. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CHRISTIAN SOURCES. IN FACT I USE CHRISTIAN SOURCES FOR THE DATE OF DEAD SEA SCROLLS TOO.
2. I have a problem with YOU using ALL religious sources. ALL. Academically speaking, you FAIL on every count. But maybe you dont know because you have never done a research paper or an argument paper before..........
So, please stop lying,
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
I will reiteriate my point because even after ten times I have told you, it still doesnt get into your head and you still are spreading lies about me.
1. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CHRISTIAN SOURCES. IN FACT I USE CHRISTIAN SOURCES FOR THE DATE OF DEAD SEA SCROLLS TOO.
2. I have a problem with YOU using ALL religious sources. ALL. Academically speaking, you FAIL on every count. But maybe you dont know because you have never done a research paper or an argument paper before..........
So, please stop lying,
Tcmc,
I shall overlook your ad hominem accusation.
I think your problem is the inability to interact with the sources I cite. You have repeatedly complained about the Christian sources, a convenient cop out to actually interact with the content.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
destiny,
If you ask seek a Christian answer, do you expect a Christian answer or not?
Or take it this way. You studied law before? The Statutes very large library and contains many acts, right? Do you use the act to support another act (they always refer to each other)? Or do you use a science textbook to prove a law? Can Tcmc accuse me of using one law to support another law? A basic lrule of hermeneutics is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Yet even this basic rule Tcmc is ignorant of, and still dare to boast about his knowledge of the Bible. Whether it is more convincing or not is subjective to persons, the point is, is the argument valid? Sound? You can call it confirmation bias if I cite 100 Jewish writers who wrote about the horrors of the holocaust. Question is, did it happen? Are what they write true? So what if they quote from each other? So what? Confirmation bias is something to look out for, but being bias itself does not mean being wrong. This is something Tcmc failed to note.
being bias itself means the credibility is doubtful... when the credibility is doubtful, it means the contents of the source is not trustworthly and could be bias. Then how is a bias content not being wrong? or in the least bears a "question mark" to what it claims? it is like i asked a hitler fan to write something about hitler. Whats the chances of it really bearing the total truth about hitler? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
I shall overlook your ad hominem accusation.
I think your problem is the inability to interact with the sources I cite. You have repeatedly complained about the Christian sources, a convenient cop out to actually interact with the content.
Lying and bearing false witness again.
1. I have "interacted" with your sources AND showed you how your sources are all biased. I even gave you a point by point refutation of the contents in one of the wbesites.
2. Again, academically speaking, you fail. No sound professor or research paper quotes from one source.
3. If i as an atheist can believe and use christian sources, I dont understand why you as a christian cannot use nonchristian sources.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
being bias itself means the credibility is doubtful... when the credibility is doubtful, it means the contents of the source is not trustworthly and could be bias. Then how is a bias content not being wrong? or in the least bears a "question mark" to what it claims? it is like i asked a hitler fan to write something about hitler. Whats the chances of it really bearing the total truth about hitler?destiny,
You have confused bias with credibility. Just because one is biased does not mean he is discredited. He is only discredited if his bias has resulted in his case being false or his argument being false. And you also confused being bias with being wrong. As I said before, EVERYONE is biased. There is NO exception. When you say it should bear a question mark, that already betrays your biasness towards that person. Proved my point isn't it? And what's the chance of an atheist being truthful about writing a book on atheism? Can I trust an atheism to be truthful and faithful to handling the Bible? Why should I?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
destiny,
You have confused bias with credibility. Just because one is biased does not mean he is discredited. He is only discredited if his bias has resulted in his case being false or his argument being false. And you also confused being bias with being wrong. As I said before, EVERYONE is biased. There is NO exception. When you say it should bear a question mark, that already betrays your biasness towards that person. Proved my point isn't it? And what's the chance of an atheist being truthful about writing a book on atheism? Can I trust an atheism to be truthful and faithful to handling the Bible? Why should I?
Exactly. You cant trust all atheists sources handling the bible. That is why you need different sources.
Exactly. You cant trust all christians "explaining" the bible. Bound to have bias too. THat is why you need different sources..
OMG. you just agreed that quoting from one source is bad.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. sgdiehard, please dont bear false witness on me. I have acknowledged your answers before and accepted our differences. What I have issue with BIC is everytime a difficult question arises, he says I am bashing or trolling, when i am not.
2. Sorry, there is no assumption made when we say there are no gods. We make the decision based on available religious texts from the main religions, do comparisons. We make the decision based on the inability to detect or measure "spiritual entities".
You made your decision based on what you think you know, we made our decision based on what we experienced, why is yours not an assumption and ours is?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Lying and bearing false witness again.
1. I have "interacted" with your sources AND showed you how your sources are all biased. I even gave you a point by point refutation of the contents in one of the wbesites.
2. Again, academically speaking, you fail. No sound professor or research paper quotes from one source.
3. If i as an atheist can believe and use christian sources, I dont understand why you as a christian cannot use nonchristian sources.
Tcmc,
1. You failed to see the kind of bias and prejudice again. Creation.com has more than 7000 articles, you gave a point by point refutation of the contents in that website? You lying bro?
2. Fact is, I did not quote from one source. Quoting two websites is two sources. You are merely complaining about my source being Christian. Anti-Christian bigotry bro?
3. This shows you were not truthful at all. Creation.com articles almost always have footnotes that cite secular sources. Did you know that? Of course not. You just want to take the easy way out of generalising things out of the way.
-
If religion is like a DVD player, all the movies in the world are like people living their respective lives....they can choose their choice of DVD players (different brands)...as long as the thing is working correctly....to me, I think that what brand is not important, the important thing is it can play those movies....so, basically the purpose of all DVD players are to bring joy, comfort to the viewers/users....
Similarly for the purpose of all major religions.... -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Exactly. You cant trust all atheists sources handling the bible. That is why you need different sources.
Exactly. You cant trust all christians "explaining" the bible. Bound to have bias too. THat is why you need different sources..
OMG. you just agreed that quoting from one source is bad.
Tcmc,
You must be so daft to fail to see that I am merely using your own argument against you. Unlike you, when I read books written by atheist I will examine what they actually write. I won't complain that they are atheists or quote from fellow atheists. Get it? It only makes you out to be a whiner.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. You failed to see the kind of bias and prejudice again. Creation.com has more than 7000 articles, you gave a point by point refutation of the contents in that website? You lying bro?
2. Fact is, I did not quote from one source. Quoting two websites is two sources. You are merely complaining about my source being Christian. Anti-Christian bigotry bro?
3. This shows you were not truthful at all. Creation.com articles almost always have footnotes that cite secular sources. Did you know that? Of course not. You just want to take the easy way out of generalising things out of the way.
BIC
1. Lying again. This i already have answered you too. Stop arguing in circles. I have said that you showed me only ONE page of the wbesite that was relevant to our discussion. ONE PAGE relevant to our discussion. Either you are lying or not reading. I refuted that points in that one page about proving the bible with itself. Remember?
2. Dont play the word changing game. One source = christian sources. When I say more than one sources, i mean christian and nonchristian sources. You should know what i mean because we have been discussing this for so long. I have always told you christian and nonchristians sources. Acting daft?
3. Lying again. You showed me one page of that wbesite which was relevant to our discussion. Not the whole wbesite. Need me to paste the discussion for you and what link you posted?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
destiny,
You have confused bias with credibility. Just because one is biased does not mean he is discredited. He is only discredited if his bias has resulted in his case being false or his argument being false. And you also confused being bias with being wrong. As I said before, EVERYONE is biased. There is NO exception. When you say it should bear a question mark, that already betrays your biasness towards that person. Proved my point isn't it? And what's the chance of an atheist being truthful about writing a book on atheism? Can I trust an atheism to be truthful and faithful to handling the Bible? Why should I?
Honestly i do not understand how a bias source can be reliable and credible. A bias source means it is no longer objective but subjective. It means it only offers a partial viewpoint essentially favourable to the likes of the person who created the source. When a source's credibility is already in question, it shld not be even considered in an argument already. Bias and credibility are not 2 seperate issues imo. A bias source is a discredited source imo. Precisely because everyone is biased, thats why when we are trying to do proving, we need multi sources from various avenues to prove something is right. In the proving of an event from many years back, it is usually prove only through multiple sources from various avenues speaking of the same incident then there's credibility. What i feel TCMC is doing here is that he needs more evidence from various sources other than christianity source to prove an event. Yes a christian source may be able to prove an event in a bible, but it is not as reliable as if u got get sources from other religions or even from non religious sources to prove the event right.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
You must be so daft to fail to see that I am merely using your own argument against you. Unlike you, when I read books written by atheist I will examine what they actually write. I won't complain that they are atheists or quote from fellow atheists. Get it? It only makes you out to be a whiner.
Great!
Then use atheist and christian sources when you argue about the bible, miracles or jesus! USe them. Not read them and reject them jsut because they are atheistic websites!
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Honestly i do not understand how a bias source can be reliable and credible. A bias source means it is no longer objective but subjective. It means it only offers a partial viewpoint essentially favourable to the likes of the person who created the source. When a source's credibility is already in question, it shld not be even considered in an argument already. Bias and credibility are not 2 seperate issues imo. A bias source is a discredited source imo. Precisely because everyone is biased, thats why when we are trying to do proving, we need multi sources from various avenues to prove something is right. In the proving of an event from many years back, it is usually prove only through multiple sources from various avenues speaking of the same incident then there's credibility. What i feel TCMC is doing here is that he needs more evidence from various sources other than christianity source to prove an event. Yes a christian source may be able to prove an event in a bible, but it is not as reliable as if u got get sources from other religions or even from non religious sources to prove the event right.
No one quotes from ALL christan sources when doing a research or argument paper in school one lah..
BIC is acting daft
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Honestly i do not understand how a bias source can be reliable and credible. A bias source means it is no longer objective but subjective. It means it only offers a partial viewpoint essentially favourable to the likes of the person who created the source. When a source's credibility is already in question, it shld not be even considered in an argument already. Bias and credibility are not 2 seperate issues imo. A bias source is a discredited source imo. Precisely because everyone is biased, thats why when we are trying to do proving, we need multi sources from various avenues to prove something is right. In the proving of an event from many years back, it is usually prove only through multiple sources from various avenues speaking of the same incident then there's credibility. What i feel TCMC is doing here is that he needs more evidence from various sources other than christianity source to prove an event. Yes a christian source may be able to prove an event in a bible, but it is not as reliable as if u got get sources from other religions or even from non religious sources to prove the event right.
Please see below short articles as worth a read, OK I'm being biased here when I said that. But please check it out
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2010/12/seven-principles-of-bias.html
and http://www.osnews.com/story/25257
and http://zerowing21.xanga.com/735192802/on-bias-as-an-argument/
Credibility is often a matter of perception and one's personal subjective view of another. A person's credibility is only impaired if he actually is shown to be in error because of his bias.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
You must be so daft to fail to see that I am merely using your own argument against you. Unlike you, when I read books written by atheist I will examine what they actually write. I won't complain that they are atheists or quote from fellow atheists. Get it? It only makes you out to be a whiner.
Hi bro,
just read through the posts from Badzmaro, in which Chin Eng said in 14/7/2005, I find there is great wisdom and wish to share with you.
"This is EH, you either come in to share, to seek or to argue. I'd ignore those who wants nothing more than to pick a fight.
To anyone who does not believe in God (or the Christian God), the prayers would not offend 'cos to these people God does not exist, thus the prayers will NOT work."On the last sentence, to me it simply means that our fundamentals are different, so even prayers won't work, what would all these discussions, argument, ....brings? nothing. It does sharpen our mind though.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Great!
Then use atheist and christian sources when you argue about the bible, miracles or jesus! USe them. Not read them and reject them jsut because they are atheistic websites!
Tcmc,
Do you know of an atheist website that argues for miracles in the Bible? Really.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Hi bro,
just read through the posts from Badzmaro, in which Chin Eng said in 14/7/2005, I find there is great wisdom and wish to share with you.
"This is EH, you either come in to share, to seek or to argue. I'd ignore those who wants nothing more than to pick a fight.
To anyone who does not believe in God (or the Christian God), the prayers would not offend 'cos to these people God does not exist, thus the prayers will NOT work."On the last sentence, to me it simply means that our fundamentals are different, so even prayers won't work, what would all these discussions, argument, ....brings? nothing. It does sharpen our mind though.
sgdiehard
Can you dont side with BIC blindly...........
He has done 2 wrong things.
1. Quote from all religious sources. It's called the error of confirmation bias. I use both christian and nonchristian sources.
2. Asking me to prove his claim
Not picking a fight with BIC. Jus want to correct him, academically.....