WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

Please pick one of the following here ...

1) You are an ape who is completely irrational in believing there is something wrong with people who do not read your mind.

2) Assuming other people know you only share opinions here when you post your stuff seems to me to be irrational, ape-like behaviour.


Things might be different out on the street, but right here is where we are now.

Last edited by leejosepho on 25 Apr 2011, 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Except in PPR. Maybe. In this place you should have your knives sharp.

Well, if that's the way it is, then I'm not safe posting here. I refuse to be around people who want to fight, just to fight.


I really thought I had found a website where I could be myself and be safe..... Looks like I have to keep on searching.

Yes it is. In matters of opinion, there is no "right" or "wrong." For anything else, if a person is wrong, the only way they can be wrong is if they are too stupid to be right.

Here we witness DW_a_mom attributing me disagreeing with her to me lacking understanding in something which is exactly one of the many things ska has done in this thread and was called to be against the ToS for.




You mean it is Schrödinger's book, yeah sure I agree with that. It is a book that can be manipulated to say whatever you would like it to say, all due to it being in such an ambiguous language and full of contradicting statements.. And I agree with you. That's by itself a greay way to prove xtianity wrong.





The Odyssey has lived more years. That does not mean I should believe in Zeus.

I am with non-literal Christians are lying to themselves camp.



Says who? The bible? The book that you yourself have stated is not good at stating anything? Or a church? or yourself? That's the problem. You yourself choose what the bible "says". In a way , you are controlling what your God says. So actually, you become your God's God. Ain't that twisted? From then to jumping to non-Christian theism (like me) is not a great leap and in fact, In my own experience the main difference between the two years ago me (the one that thought that you could simply not take the bible literally and cherry pick what parts you like about it) and the now me is that my belief does not anymore contradict itself.

This is non-sense. Einstein was wrong about many things, does that make him stupid? The sooner you stop linking your self-worth to the correctness of your current opinions the easier it will be for you to adapt and accept new truths as you learn them.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 25 Apr 2011, 8:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

OK, I don't have a problem with "you are wrong." That is a statment about their opinion or argument, not their being. But in this case there was a whole series of steps leading up to that statement indicating the actual translation was more along the lines of "you are wrong because you must be an idiot."

I do have a problem with calling people or groups of people irrational for what they believe. You may, however, say that to you the belief/idea/argument is irrational.

I know its a fine line but it happens tobe an important one to the person on the other end of the comment. One statement allows you to be seen as intelligent in other areas of life, while the other just discredits you completely and uniformly. The later is in violation of the TOS.

The rest of Wrong Planet is safe. But there is more latitude in PPR. That is simply the tone of the forum, and you make a choice before entering this little subsection if today you are in the mood to deal with it.

I do hope you explore the rest of our planet

Why? you keep posting opinions, yet you seldom include IMO or anything like that. In fact, nobody really remembers to imply that all the time.

PS: Misrepresenting ska's very personal post about how he feels about having to deal with Christians and taking it out of context is not winning you any points.



I should probably rephrase what I said: I don't care jack about winning. I'll still continue to state my opinion and my opinion is that it is horribly wrong to think that "You are wrong" is a personal attack.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 25 Apr 2011, 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is a huge difference between, "I disagree," which puts the emphasis on me and what I think, and "you are wrong," which puts the emphasis on the other person and tells them how they should think. "I disagree" is not offensive. "You are wrong" is.

You are wrong.


Edit: (This was added after I wrote the previous sentence, because I sometimes really feel like I need to edit a post after seeing how it looks, not to make anyone look oversensitive in his response) From what I can tell her reaction happened before I finished editing my post.)

Though seriously, whether "I disagree with you" or "I think you are wrong" it does not change the fact that I am putting a burden on you to defend your opinion/statement about something. It is still a my opinion vs. your opinion thing and the way I phrase it does not really change the situation.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 25 Apr 2011, 9:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You said that for the sole purpose of getting under my skin. I am leaving. Goodbye. I'm sure you don't care.

You used the "you" word.

What I perceive here is some sort of phobia to being told that one is wrong. The cure for a phobia is to be exposed to the phobia. ^^.

In reality, I insist in saying "you are wrong" because I am a rather immature person that cannot let people get away with things I disagree with. I really, really disagree with the conception that "You are wrong" is a personal attack. It boils my blood to think that people were attempting to get away with that in this forum, one in which we have always had good speech liberties that weren't non-sense. So I take personal offense to this all, it all makes me want to reinforce my point saying "you are wrong" is not wrong, and it is something I don't want to lose.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 25 Apr 2011, 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why? Isn't "beauty of the Bible as a fluid communication tool" a subjective thing? So that failing to understand it as such simply means you and I have a different approach or life experience? That you don't see it this way doesn't say anything about you, as a person. It just says I understand it one way, and you understand it some different way.

How would you have preferred I phrase it? OK, I probably should have used, "I don't feel those arguments apply because I believe the Bible is fluid communication tool."

But, however I phrased it, I did rather know you were going to think I was a little crazy; after all, this concept is not based in anything rational, it is entirely mystical. So maybe I was hedging my bests at the start of the post ... regardless, Thanks for not writing it, ie the "that's irrational" part

I wouldn't like you to rephrase it. It was fine, just like ska saying that those that believe in God of the gaps do so because of their own lack of understandings is fine.

You don't understand X, then you are wrong about Y. Is actually a very valid argumentation. You don't understand gravity, then you are wrong when you say that we cannot explain tides. You don't understand the bible correctly then you are wrong in your criticism about it. It is pretty valid and not a personal attack.

Couldn't you be a little nice to a new poster, let them get used to the place, before running them off?

Or would that interfere too much with the club?

When I was a moderator I fielded a lot of complaints about the bullies here in PPR, and I mostly defended the right of the forum to have it's own tone and temperament. But what you just did there, after seeing all the clues this was a new member wanting to fit in but not sure about the tone ... that type of tactic smacks of bullying. Let them tell you it bothers them, and then drive a stake in it.

Is that really what you want? Only the tough can venture in here?

I will drop my last warning in this thread, and refer you to what I posted above. You were told how to behave, not asked if you agreed with the rule.