Odoital1778412, is he...............

[drunkenshoe]

At least he wasn't an asshole.

Wasn't he? Why? Because he was politically correct with his language? He used a designed specific language and altered his expression at every point he thought he would get a reaction; he basically lied between 2 times in every 4 lines. He openly accused atheists of having a position of a nonbelief, because they just want and prefer to hate his god.

[TomFoolery]

At least he wasn't an asshole.

Agreed. There was no screaming (in Internet) tongues, no serious name-calling and threats of Hell were kept to an appropriate minimum.

[hrdlr110]

At least he wasn't an asshole.

I found his arrogance to be assholish - as I do with all arrogance.

[PickelledEggs]

At least he wasn't an asshole.

Was that sarcasm? Lol

Sent from your mom.

[the_antithesis]

Who?

This.

[SGOS]

Was that sarcasm? Lol

Sent from your mom.

No, I meant that.

[Mike Cl]

I said I would be disappointed if he left.  While I do agree that he was arrogant in a way, but I could see past that.  It was not the kind that ruffled my feathers---yet.  The kind of arrogance that ruffles my feathers was Giveme's.  He held himself above all, asking 'probing' questions, moving the target around so that the could supply you with 'come to jesus' moment, time after time--or so he fancied himself doing.  The second coming of Socrates to help us plebs grasp wisdom.  And he would never answer direct question or tell us what he actually thought about anything.  He was even more arrogant in his PM's.  Oboital gave the impression that he was well read, and that he was a scholar of 'orthodox christianity' (which he never defined) and had the answers.  I was looking forward to finding out what some of those were--and in some detail.  And, basically, right now for some reason, I feel I would not mind a word tussle dealing with the bible with a 'true' believer.  But I guess, any brush with somebody who will not wilt before his decades of dedicated study was too much for him.

[Mike Cl]

No, I meant that.

And I agree with SGOS.

[PickelledEggs]

No, I meant that.

oh.

[SGOS]

I think he was dedicated to his beliefs.  Like most Christians, I don't think he could see where his reasoning failed.  He got a little snippy with some thinly veiled cheap shots after his "flawless" (or so it seemed to him) reasoning got picked at enough times, but considering the general nature of the forum, I'll cut him some slack.

[Savior2006]

What I get off on is atheist being told their hostile when not even ten post prior we are being told we are going to be thrown in a pit of fire for being different than someone else.

"It's not that you're going to be thrown in hell for not worshiping God. It's that you've committed sins you entire life that AREN'T arbitrarily taken away because you don't worship God. It's totally a free choice, the same way it's a free choice if you give the bully your lunch money or get punched in the face."

I don't have an issue with people who believe in a type of god because it makes them feel good. It's people like Cross Shield that are the problem. They think their faith is fact, and everyone outside of that faith is deviant.

[the_antithesis]

I think that they think we have never actually heard any of the stuff they use to convince themselves to have faith... that's why we don't believe... so, when their first attempt fails and is met with people more aware of the argument than themselves, they probably feel about the size of an Antarctic tzizti fly.

This, really. Did he really think we'd never heard any of his shit before? What an arrogant little prick.

[drunkenshoe]

This thread is interesting.

Overall, people are ready to accept a Christian proselytiser who is lying through his teeth  -sorry, I don't recognise his style as 'religious rhetoric', it is not even that and it takes serious salt, I have yet to see something like that from forum jumping Christians- because he sounded like he had read about Christian theology, expressed himself in a well designed politically correct language, but get their feathers ruffled by a poster who tried to pretend as some 'Hey, I'm a wise guy, listen to me'.

Basically, Giveme being more secular than Odoital is the thing that gets to you. An idiot comes and you get offended by his very badly presented, clumsy 'strut', so much, some people couldn't even ignore him. May be, just because of that we should give Giveme more credit that he got to a bunch of atheists, who are usually well equipped to deal with a far more ugly and annoying arrogance thrown at them.

On the other hand, Odoital is harmful to anyone he might reach. Actually, a bunch of nonbelievers thinking that he was sort of OK, -esp. compared to a harmless idiot- should be the ringing bells. It's obvious he has been doing this for some time and all he did was suppress his language in an atheist forum, so the reactions to his proselytising would remain in a certain frame, he can control and answer, to go on to do the same. He marketed himself good and majority bought him.

It's very easy for people like Odoital, to get to other people on the fence; esp. vulnerable or if they are generally ignorant about their religion. Can you imagine how would he sound like to them? Nothing he says forces a brain to think. It just tries to convince and feeds constantly. How do you think some people around suddenly start saying that they have found new meaning in their religion? Most of them are listening people like Odoital, not some dressed up priest or make research that opened a new window to them. He is a natural, because he talks of religion as he is talking about a fact of life.

Giveme is an idiot, he is not harmful to anyone, but himself.

[Mike Cl]

This thread is interesting.

Basically, Giveme being more secular than Odoital is the thing that gets to you. An idiot comes and you get offended by his very badly presented, clumsy 'strut', so much, some people couldn't even ignore him. May be, just because of that we should give Giveme more credit that he got to a bunch of atheists, who are usually well equipped to deal with a far more ugly and annoying arrogance thrown at them.

On the other hand, Odoital is harmful to anyone he might reach. Actually, a bunch of nonbelievers thinking that he was sort of OK, should be the ringing bells. It's obvious he has been doing this for some time and all he did was suppress his language in an atheist forum, so the reactions to his proselytising would remain in a certain frame, he can control and answer, to go on to do the same. He marketed himself good and majority bought him.

It's very easy for people like Odoital, to get to other people on the fence; esp. vulnerable or if they are generally ignorant about their religion. Can you imagine how would he sound like to them? Nothing he says forces a brain to think. It just tries to convince and feeds constantly. How do you think some people around suddenly start saying that they have found new meaning in their religion? Most of them are listening people like Odoital, not some dressed up priest or make research that opened a new window to them. He is a natural, because he talks of religion as he is talking about a fact of life.

Giveme is an idiot, he is not harmful to anyone, but himself.

Yes, Shoe, it is interesting.  I was never offended by Giveme (or anybody else on this board--not about anything.) but was irritated at first because he refused to exchange ideas.  He kept doing his shuffle and would never really respond.  After numerous PM's and many, many attempts to get him to engage on line, he simply refused.  And I still am not sure why.  So, I became irritated, then pissed--even called him a few names hoping that would irritate him enough that he would engage me.  Never offended by him--annoyed, yes.  Then when he still refused to engage, I simply ignored him from then on.

The Cross is a different matter.  I wanted to keep him engaged until I could get to the basics of his 'facts'.  I simply wanted to figure out how the thought he 'thinks'.  I was getting to some of his core ideas, and for one reason or another (???) he quit.  I guess he really was here to 'turn' somebody.  But that is okay.  If his rhetoric can persuade, there is nothing I can do about that--I'm not the 'protector' of anybody on this forum--all can take care of themselves quite nicely.  I wanted to see in more detail where he came up with his ideas--these kinds of people interest me.  Knowing how they tick, the more easily one can expose their lack or, or faulty reasoning. 

I agree that Giveme is an idiot--and harmless to all but himself.  I deal with him by not dealing with him.  The Cross is much more dangerous.  So, for me I like to figure out how to nullify his particular danger--which is why I wanted to engage him in a discussion.  the Cross is frightening--giveme is not; frightening in that he is clearly insane, yet is not regarded as such--I would like to trace the source of his insanity more deeply.   

[stromboli]

Yeah, definitely. I said that to him when after what stated about rape. That we women should be 'prude' in our clothes to protect ourselves from rapists. And the way he expressed it. He used an indirect expression almost meant that it wasn't what he actually thought; he said 'I know people wold would agree that...' and then when forced to accept what he actually said, he said he didn't say that but 'it would be better not to tempt the men who would mean harm by way of dressing and that is not the same thing'. That's exactly what I was talking in the post above with language he uses. Basically, it is just a fucking con and lying through your teeth.

I wonder, what is his 'prude measure' of a skirt? Or a top? In what terms, I am a 'whore' or a 'slut' asking for it or a virtuous woman careful not to attempt the 'evil male folk'. You know, because humans don't have a sexual impulse and rape is aaall about sex. Oh and het men are rapists by their nature, they lose their minds, become animals when they see female skin, we shouldn't never forget that. Fucking bigots.

Its your fault

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Aka guilt transference

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.[2]

Taken to extremes in fundie cultures. In Mormonism "porn shoulders" short skirts etc.

In Islam even showing a woman's eyes can be too provocative, inciting men to lust. Feminism? Don't even go there. women are sinful lust machines and anything you do can incite men to sinful acts.

Odoital simply dismissed everything that didn't agree with his world view and that is exactly what theists do. The fact that every opposing source of proof he introduced came from Christian apologists is beside the point. The mere existence of it was sufficient to convince him of its legitimacy.