Originally posted by howardgeeWell then, howardpee (thanks for that one), I suggest you start acting your age. You are, in my not remotely respectful opinion, a pretty poor example of adulthood right now.
FYI I am 37 years old.
You're certainly not the only one around here - indeed, there are some Christians around here who make me cringe - but I honestly can't think of anyone else in these forums who displays their immaturity in such an arrogant fashion like it's something to be proud of. It's something I can expect from a teenager, or even a guy in their early 20s, but at 37?
Adults might give their close friends and workmates silly nicknames, but you're the only 37-year-old I know who thinks a way to bolster a debating point is by using that tactic.
It's pathetic.
If you want anyone to take you seriously and engage in debate with you, you're going to have use language appropriate to that. David C came in here and asked a question in an adult fashion, and I answered him accordingly.
But I don't think you DO want debate. You get some perverse satisfaction out of sniggering at people like a 10-year-old.
Well, if that's what you want, go and do it down the pub with your drunk mates who won't care. I come into THIS forum to explore ideas, to explain my faith, and to try and learn something from others.
In other words, the reason I'm so frustrated and disappointed is because I expect better. You're 37, you can deliver it.
Originally posted by howardgeeThis is what I'm talking about. Childlike, and breathtakingly arrogant all at the same time.
You don't know what B.O.O is, do you?
Such ignorance.
If someone doesn't know what you're talking about, how do you progress a DEBATE? By telling them, or by playing silly 'look at me, I'm superior' games?
And is this how you talk in real life? Because I wonder how your wife and/or children, if any, and your work colleagues can stand you.
Originally posted by howardgeeIt may come as a surprise to you, but the first prerequisite of a relationship with the Creator is humility, not 'experiencing Him,' whatever you take that to be.
If we have to submit to God's prerequisites before we can experience God, how can we know his prerequisites if we have never experienced God?
Typically circular arguing from the God squad.
Originally posted by orfeoI work with only a few thousand other people, thus I do not know anyone as ignorant as you. If I did, then I probably would not bother wasting my breath on some-one who believed God controlled lightning.
This is what I'm talking about. Childlike, and breathtakingly arrogant all at the same time.
If someone doesn't know what you're talking about, how do you progress a DEBATE? By telling them, or by playing silly 'look at me, I'm superior' games?
And is this how you talk in real life? Because I wonder how your wife and/or children, if any, and your work colleagues can stand you.
Of course the loved ones in my life are smarter than you, so I don't have any problem with them.
Dumb individuals like you and CodFace, Halistosis, etc are impossible to debate with rationally anyway. You all just ultimately fall back onto your spoon fed beliefs and quote the bible like it's, well like it's the bible.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy?
It may come as a surprise to you, but the first prerequisite of a relationship with the Creator is humility, not 'experiencing Him,' whatever you take that to be.
I mean, why should I be humble?
Why do I need to be humble to have a relationship with a supernatural being?
Is he/she/it not comfortable enough with their place in/out of the world to cope if I'm a complete prick to them?
This smacks of the old Catholic saying along the longs of 'Lord I am not worthy but only say the word and ...'
Or there's the suggestion that we are somehow automatically flawedto begin with in our lives.
Well f*#@ that!
I AM worthy. And while I make mistakes like anyone, there's no intrinsic flaws here ...
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeIf you want to start comparing academic records and IQ tests, I'm game.
I work with only a few thousand other people, thus I do not know anyone as ignorant as you. If I did, then I probably would not bother wasting my breath on some-one who believed God controlled lightning.
Of course the loved ones in my life are smarter than you, so I don't have any problem with them.
Dumb individuals like you and CodFace, Halistosis, ...[text shortened]... all back onto your spoon fed beliefs and quote the bible like it's, well like it's the bible.
Not agreeing with you does not automatically make me stupid, any more than being aggressive makes you automatically right.
Originally posted by orfeo"If you want to start comparing academic records and IQ tests, I'm game"
If you want to start comparing academic records and IQ tests, I'm game.
Not agreeing with you does not automatically make me stupid, any more than being aggressive makes you automatically right.
Thanks Orfeo, but a quick glance at our chess ratings should settle the IQ question in my favour.
Do you have a degree and a Master of Science too?
Originally posted by howardgeeDumb individuals like you and CodFace, Halistosis, etc are impossible to debate with rationally anyway. You all just ultimately fall back onto your spoon fed beliefs and quote the bible like it's, well like it's the bible.
I work with only a few thousand other people, thus I do not know anyone as ignorant as you. If I did, then I probably would not bother wasting my breath on some-one who believed God controlled lightning.
Of course the loved ones in my life are smarter than you, so I don't have any problem with them.
Dumb individuals like you and CodFace, Halistosis, ...[text shortened]... all back onto your spoon fed beliefs and quote the bible like it's, well like it's the bible.
And this is supposed to be an example of your open-mindedness? I know I'm probably the least mature on this forum but you are sure giving me a go at it.
4 edits
Originally posted by howardgeeChess ranking has to do with experience, not just IQ. I learnt the rules of chess as a child, but I probably only ever played 20 or 30 games. So basically all the chess technique I've learnt has been in the last two years on this site.
"If you want to start comparing academic records and IQ tests, I'm game"
Thanks Orfeo, but a quick glance at our chess ratings should settle the IQ question in my favour.
Do you have a degree and a Master of Science too?
Bachelor of Science. Bachelor of Laws with Honours. Associate Diploma in Music (pianoforte).
Tertiary entrance rank of 99.48 [for those not familiar with the system, that's a percentile ranking meaning I beat 99.48% of people in my 'senior year']. I think that made me about 15th in my year across the whole city/territory. 3rd at my school, out of several hundred people. I think we were the top school in the territory that year, and we definitely had the number one student. A couple of my teachers were very disappointed in me for scoring so poorly and not either beating that student or at least challenging for top spot.
My parents don't remember the score from the IQ test I did as a child, but it got me into a special class for gifted children.
1st adult IQ test I did with a headache, I scored 126.
Online one I did without a headache, I scored 138. That's consistent with my tertiary entrance rank, as it said I beat 99.44% of all the people who had taken the test.
So, even if you work with TEN thousand people, chances are only around 55 of them are smarter than me.
I don't really care what your personal IQ is. You can call me lots of things, but stupid or 'dumb' (incorrect usage of the word, by the way) isn't one of them.
Originally posted by amannionWhy should you be humble in the face of absolute perfection? I dare say it has more to do with absolute perfection than it does with you, but you don't strike me as one who is willing to give credit where credit is due, therefore...
Why?
I mean, why should I be humble?
Why do I need to be humble to have a relationship with a supernatural being?
Is he/she/it not comfortable enough with their place in/out of the world to cope if I'm a complete prick to them?
This smacks of the old Catholic saying along the longs of 'Lord I am not worthy but only say the word and ...'
Or there's ...[text shortened]... t!
I AM worthy. And while I make mistakes like anyone, there's no intrinsic flaws here ...
Originally posted by orfeoOn this site, you have played 600 games - that is 3 times as many as me and your rating is just over 1300, that is 500 less than me.
Chess ranking has to do with experience, not just IQ. I learnt the rules of chess as a child, but I probably only ever played 20 or 30 games. So basically all the chess technique I've learnt has been in the last two years on this site.
Bachelor of Science. Bachelor of Laws with Honours. Associate Diploma in Music (pianoforte).
Tertiary entrance rank ...[text shortened]... ngs, but stupid or 'dumb' (incorrect usage of the word, by the way) isn't one of them.
Before I joined this site, I probably played 200 games over a board, thus you have more experience than me. That's one excuse out of the window.
Ah diddums, did you have a headache when you scored 126 in an IQ test? More excuses, but regardless, I scored 165 in an IQ test (without a headache admittedly).
If the time you beat 99.44% was in Australia, then I've got news for you - the Australian level of education is viewed as a joke by English standards!
Regardless of any of this (and I don't want to get into a points scoring match), how can you claim to be so bright, when you fail to give a meaningful definition of your own God, and are in the top 0.5% of people retarded enough to believe that God causes lightning?
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeThe chess comment wasn't an excuse,
On this site, you have played 600 games - that is 3 times as many as me and your rating is just over 1300, that is 500 less than me.
Before I joined this site, I probably played 200 games over a board, thus you have more experience than me. That's one excuse out of the window.
Ah diddums, did you have a headache when you scored 126 in an IQ test? Mor God, and are in the top 0.5% of people retarded enough to believe that God causes lightning?
nor was the headache one (it was an explanation of the discrepancy between the two scores and which was more likely to be accurate),
the online test was all over the world (like most online things, you twerp),
you completely failed in your bullheadedness to understand that I wasn't TRYING to define God (in fact, none of my responses to you have taken more than about 5 minutes, you're not worth more of my time in one sitting than that),
nor did you ever understand the lightning discussion and the many different shades of meaning in the word 'control',
and I am done with this conversation.