You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

Collection of Pentangeli "troll" posts - No. 2

Here is a classic discussion between the two lead "robust" debaters in the Phil&Rel forum and Pentangeli who was branded a "troll".

Thread: Scientific analysis of religion ... possible?

A nice example of a "robust" quality debate or classic trolling?
Indi wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...more cherry picking. What about the race of Giants who lived in the time of Genesis?
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. "
Complete baloney.

Don't forget the dragons, and the unicorns, and the satyrs... or all the talking animals. Or my favourite part: the battle between the wizards.

Bikerman wrote:
A favourite of mine is Exodus.
The bible gives us 600,000 men of fighting age in the party. A bit of reasonable estimating puts the entire group at somewhere around 2 million (allowing for older people, women and children).
At the time the entire population of Egypt was probably around 3 million.
So they would have formed a line 10 abreast, 150 miles long (without allowing for livestock and supplies).

Shurely Shome Mishtake Moneypenny?

Bible inerrancy? ROFLMAO.

Pentangeli giving back in exact same measure.
pentangeli wrote:
I wanna see an elephant eat a mountain bear. That would probably get a few youtube hits. And Bikerman, if a circle is always flat then Euclid never propagated materialization either. Plus, how about letting the Aramaic zero-shy numerology slide, yeah? There was no zero digit. 600,000 could be 6 to 6 trillion. Not to mention, it was probably calculated something like forty-four and twenty eons ago.

Then this very ironic but classic troll post appears - note backseat moderating, swear words, flaming, trolling:
Indi wrote:
You see, you say shit like this - shit that is completely non-sensical, completely idiotic, completely unrelated to the topic or anything that anyone has said in it - and you force me to make one of two conclusions. Either you're an idiot, and you've completely misunderstood something that someone has said so far (and honestly, if Bikerman hadn't spotted it - assuming he's right - i never would have, because i never would have dreamed that someone who thinks they're smart enough to mouth off wouldn't know the difference between the verb "to bear" and the noun "bear"), or you're a lunatic. So, inevitably, when i call you out as a dumbass or a crazy person, you're going to get defensive and whine about how mean i'm being, when in reality i've made the only reasonable conclusions i could make about you. (That's actually the reason i haven't been bothering to reply to any of your posts - they're just too nuts, too dim, or both, to make it worth my time to bother.)

i'm going to offer you some advice:
  • Don't try to be a smart-ass, because it really doesn't look like you have the intellectual heft to keep it up. Just make your points clearly and intelligently. Don't try to be clever; you're just coming off as nuts.

  • When someone says something that you think is completely absurd and idiotic, before you start mouthing off to mock them... make sure that's what they really mean. Ask them for confirmation. You might have misunderstood what they said, or maybe they just made a typo. Either way, intelligent conversation will be much better served by clarifying things first, before trying to mock them for their stupidity - especially when there's a very real chance that they're not the stupid ones.

  • In general, approach the debate with a little bit of humility, because first of all, these people - Bikerman, Ankhanu and others - are not dumb people - quite the opposite - and, secondly, you really do have much to be humble about.

Bikerman wrote:
The Arameic number system is a complete red herring. The genesis account is not written in numbers, it is written in textual language. The word 'Yom' or 'Yaum' is used - it means a day .................... [] Portion omitted because of lack of space []

Bikerman, i don't know why you even bother to engage in the "day" debate. ^_^; Even if the facts weren't plainly obvious just by the context itself, it should be plainly obvious that these modern day apologists all have their heads up their asses... because for them to make the claim that the writers of the text didn't mean "day" literally means that they would have to be claiming to understand ancient Hebrew better than the people that wrote it. Because the people that wrote it clearly understood the word to mean a literal day... that's the whole point of the Sabbath. It's not once every seven weeks, it's not once every seven months, it's not once every seven years and it's certainly not once every seven billion years... it's once every seven days. If they wanted to mean a long, long period of time, they had plenty of other words they could have used, but they didn't - they literally meant days.

But like i said, i don't know why you even bother to engage in that debate, because not only is it silly... it's pointless. Because even if you allow that "days" meant periods of time ranging from billions of years to millions of years to - presumably femtoseconds (unless the "day" God rested on meant the entire universe was without God for a whole 24 hour period!!!)... even if you allow that interpretation the fable is still plainly wrong. Because no matter how long each "day" is... the events are still out of order. That's a game breaker right there. The account has night and day created before the sun and stars, fruit trees before animals, birds before land animals, etc. etc..

Not only that, but the events are even out of order between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2!!!

Don't bother getting dragged in to a debate about what the ancient Jews meant by "days" when the ancient Jews themselves show they clearly, literally meant "days" (as if it weren't obvious enough from the text). It doesn't matter how long the "days" were... the account is clearly not in agreement with modern science at all.

And then Pentangeli responds in kind. BUT he is of course the troll. Indi's and Bikerman's posts are examples of robust debate.
pentangeli wrote:
You're certainly passionate and wordy about how irrelevant my input is in here, Indi.

But hey, if you want to launch personal attacks, step into my arena. Your inability to refute the "truth" problem no doubt butt-hurt you deeply. Egging on everyone else to do it because you didn't know where to begin, mainstay threatened though? Identity is at stake! Jesus, somebody do something! When challenged personally to locate one's money mouthward, you still failed. Miserably. I know this got stuck in your craw a little bit. Hence the last reply basically trolling through yet another thread you lack the intellect (and originality) to individually contribute to. Probably because you're the biggest no-mark here. I won't mention your blatant ass-kissing and coat tail riding of mods and so called intellectuals. I think that's already apparent to anyone with the slightest semblance of self respect and dignity to cringe at. And I don't need bulletin points to illustrate what you so painfully prostitute out yourself. I mean, I'd take the piss out of you, but you're giving it away, aren't you?

In future, if I want your opinion, nick-nack, I'll ask Bikerman for it.

No more tears.

2 blog comments below

sentiments moved to another blog.
Hello_World on Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:43 am

I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight
Josso on Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:08 am

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.