Still it's kinda telling how you're still so upset over one instance of the exact same behavior you direct towards others almost on a daily basis. So much for your promise to drop it, eh?

One, of trolling,

Two, that I exhibit the same behavior,

and Three, that I said anything about dropping it. All I said was that I would take your assertion on faith because I cannot prove it.

Keep asserting.

So you still refuse to provide links to this poster, and to these specific assertions?

I too will bookmark this thread.

Or the many other times you speak non-specifically about other posters you denigrate here.

So I suppose if I do this a few more hundred times, that will make us even, eh?

Are you employing the tu quoque defense?

Would it not be far easier to simply provide the links to this negative poster?

One might think so.

It's not as if your dehumanizing tactics go unnoticed.

Is it dehumanizing to ask someone who made an assertion to provide links to that assertion?

Links that would show what was asserted?

Is that dehumanizing, or basic Debate 101?

You know this because you've been told this many times, yet still continue to do it.

And some might do so to intimidate people in this group from posting.

Some people use broad brush attacks just because they are assholes and they feel emboldened to do so anonymously. Or perhaps they are powerless and ineffective in life and doing so makes them feel empowered in ways they can't otherwise. Or maybe they are just expressing their hatred for other types of people.

The reason(s) are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, but regardless there are those here who aren't going to give bad behavior a pass without pointing it out for what it is.

Many ignore, or are unaware, of their own behavior.

Here:

A good start.

But again the why isn’t a concern of mine. YMMV.

It doesn't seem like you are.

I have no dog in this fight, but seriously, it's really hard to believe you don't understand how you are being percieved. I know some people like that in real life. They usually get a diagnosis.

I could say the same about nearly everyone in this group.

Then uses as support the fact that you could say the same thing about others. Which is technically correct, but misses the fact that I was providing MY opinion about YOU. If you gave the same sort of answer in real life in certain clinical settings, you would in fact get diagnosed with something.

And I understand that this type of dialogue in a relatively safe setting serves as venting for many non-theists here.

I just said that people who act that way in real life get a diagnosis. Since it's the internet, no such diagnosis can be made and there are many other explanations for your behavior, but they are mostly less flattering.

this group.

Might they sense a certain hostility toward theists?

And how do you analyze yourself?

Yes, I think there is hostility towards religion and a lot of religionists don't want to deal with it. But those religionists who can deal with it are even more hostile. Those people are gone, except you who expresses your hostility with snideness, sarcasm and rhetorical fallacies. Not nice, but within the rules.

For myself, I am completely insane, so I don't give a shit.

Or can you?

But there are only a handful of theists who post here.

But please do not take my unprofessional and untrained affirmation of your sanity as evidence of anything other than my opinion.

And we all know how terrible and deficient my opinions are.

Why won't you answer?

Are you unaware of your behavior?

Or are you aware of it, and don't care how rotten it is?

My satirical posts about the DU Religion Group Choir were inspired by your continual references to a non-existent choir. I see you are once again referring to me in your posts, even when I am not the subject of the thread. I find that rather rude, especially when you reduce me to initials. It's even worse when you get the initials wrong, as you have also done with another DUer.

As for those requested links, I supplied them, below, in this thread. Oddly enough, they link to posts of which you were the author. Irony is a funny thing.

And you still made the mistake of misreading MN's actual claim and what I actually wrote.

Careful reading is critical to avoid the error that you made in confusing the word deceived with deceiver.

You'll find the "deceiver" reference therein.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280189

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280184

and the actual claim.

Try again.

Good evening, sir.

But again, you missed the point.

Not I.

I see nobody with those initials here. To whom do you refer, sir?

#s 1,6,8, and 12.

I do not read minds. Major Nikon.

When they are to your own posts.

I almost never use DU's advanced search tool, but it wasn't hard to find references to "deceiver" in the Religion group. I remembered seeing the word used here, but not who used it.

Or did you just stop at 2? I would have stopped there personally, enough to prove a point.

Oh, unless the challenge he is raising is that the word refers to Satan, he does include that in the quote he keeps reposting.

That was enough. Now, I don't know if he remembered using that word, but I remembered it appearing in posts, and was in that thread, too.

It's troublesome to me, for reasons I won't elaborate on. There's a pattern here of people attempting to demonize non-believers that has been going on since I joined DU in 2008. I stopped visiting this group for quite some time, but finally decided to return, because the topic of religion is one that interests me.

Oddly enough, this group would probably get no traffic at all if it were not for some people who are interested in religion, but do not believe that deities exist. It would probably be like some of the other groups under the religion topic. So, in some ways, those non-believers are actually part of why the group is the busiest group on DU, by a large margin.

On the other hand, our presence tends to perpetuate some negative aspects of discussions of religion. There always seems to be someone or a few who cannot stand the fact that some people do not and cannot believe in supernatural entities and phenomena. They have to inject an insulting tone into every discussion, which is too bad, I think.

Anyway, the real "deceiver" is not a non-existent supernatural entity, I think. It is, instead, a term that describes those who insist that their beliefs are true because they believe and who are compelled to enter any conversation that argues against that, even if briefly and with single sentence replies.

It's too bad.

There are so many.

Interesting that.

Interesting indeed.

I officially joined about two months before you did and completely back up what you say. This place was much different, there were many more like Gil, making it a far more hostile place for non-believers. Over time one side consistently couldn't play nicely and we are left with what we have today.

Pretending that decade didn't happen is in line with theistic thinking, the world started last tuesday so ignore any information that contradicts that.

Not only inject an insulting tone, but complain at any mention of non-belief, while shoving their belief awkwardly into every conversation.

Non-existent entity is right. And if it did exist they would be the ones worshiping it, because their god created it and they give it power.

Many of those who were here then are no longer here. They were not able to maintain a reasonable attitude and were shown the door eventually. I won't name any names, but those who were here remember them.

directed at theists who do post here.

I joined DU about the same time as you and Lordquinton. I remember it as well.

And that misreading can lead to errors.

After so many years of your posts being constantly misread you think you'd learn to be more clear.

MM and MN seem to have misread the "proof" that MM cites.

The claim by Major Nikon was that someone here used the word "deceiver" to refer to Satan or the devil or some evil entity. You claimed that was not true. So, I found the posts with a simple search using DU's Advances search tool. And here are those links again. There was no confusion between "decieved" and deceiver." Nope. Go look again:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280189

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280184

Now, that's the last time I will discuss this.

Here is the original claim:

Christians being Christian I guess.

He also knows exactly what he meant. I'm sure he got a particular satisfaction thinking those dirty atheists wouldn't pick up on his code speak and understand the dehumanizing insult, while other Christians might. The problem is he's not original as usual. He's far from the only Christian who does this, so it's not as if I haven't seen it before.

"Glad to meet you; hope you guessed my name..."

The deliberate misspelling of your initials constitutes further insult. Some former group members were more direct with their insults, but can no longer post here, usually. Obvious attempts at subtlety are obvious.

So, I thought I'd provide the links to the "deceiver" posts, pour encourager les autres.

I hope I didn't misquote Voltaire. Je sais que j'écris mal en français.

And more claims.

"Hyperbole" seems to be one of Gil's favorite words as he likes to throw that one around at other people baselessly. You'd think he would have spent some time trying to figure out what it means first.

From
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypobole

(rhetoric) A rhetorical figure in which several things are mentioned that seem to make against the argument, or in favour of the opposing side, and then they are refuted one by one.

Or at https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hypobole

Hypobole - A drastic understatement. The opposite of hyperbole.

So no, my memory is correct.

It was someone else who provided the definition. Is it really so hard to admit when you're wrong that you have to lie about it?

Don't make false claims.

He misused, or misunderstood, the term child rape apologia a number of times.

You are misunderstanding the term.

But continue to mock and insult others if it makes you feel better. I understand you have a need to put others down in order to raise yourself up.

And that is not an insult, simply an observation.

And rather than try to defend yourself on the merits, you argued about the definition of words.

Learn how to think.

But, you might want to research the term.

Apologia means defense, not apology.

Apology can mean defense, so as usual you are going on about subjects you don't understand. Meanwhile I have always used the word "apologia" to mean exactly that. If you inferred something else, then you fucked up.

I get that English may not be your first language, Gullible. However, if you are going to try and correct the grammar of someone else, you might want to make sure you know what the fuck you are talking about first. It might save yourself some future embarrassment. Then again, embarrassing yourself seems to be the one thing in which you are exceptional. Keep up the good work!

Your repeated misuse of the term child rape apologia is still relatively current.

So there is that.

As is your constant use of ad hominem.

Resort to ad hominem is a sure sign that there is no actual argument.

When you repeatedly try to convince others that down is up, your credibility suffers. Meanwhile you conveniently ignored that "apology" also means "defense" which was your other fuckup.

As far as ad hominem goes, when you intentionally fuck up my nym repeatedly even after being called out for it, you can expect the same in return. So again, you could benefit from following your own self rightousness sermon, Gullible, provided you don't want to look like a hypocrite.

Your use of initials is faulty, guillaumeb. Since you cannot seem to keep them straight, I suggest you forgo using them at all. Spell out the names of those you are calling out, and you will avoid such errors. That is my suggestion.

but calling gil out on his typos is completely fair game, since he has done that to other DUers on multiple occasions.

Sometimes I make a mistake and type Gullible.

I would suggest replacing "a mistake" with a more appropriate term.

What do you call this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310029

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310243

When you do it twice in the same thread even after being called out for it repeatedly, "mistake" doesn't seem to apply anymore. So whatever you call it, I'll go with that. Fair enough, Gullible?

So yes, you continue to make the same mistake.

You would be wrong even if I did not point out the error.

be confusion about identification, too. Perhaps he is confusing one person with another in his mind. I don't know. However, spelling out the names, rather than using initials would solve both problems.

My opinion, from your description, is that he does not hold with the view that end days require all of the Jews to return to Israel.

No one knows when the end time will come.people have been predicting it and being wrong forever.

Not all Christians are adimrers of Trump,either.

didn’t Christ say, about 2 thousand years ago, “there are some here today that will live to see my return.” So, there rapture came and went and we were left behind.

It's one of the contradictions between scripture and what is believed by some Christians. There's quite a large group of believers who think the end times is still to come and has requirements that must take place beforehand.

Those beliefs are supported by a hodgepodge of scriptural references, most of them from the book, "Revelation."

Bottom line is that none of it is based on any contemporaneous writings by actual witnesses, so who can say what is accurate, if anything, or who wrote it down.

Besides, those scriptures date back to times that were very much unlike today's times. The words have passed through many edits and translations, so it's likely that they bear only passing relationships with the originals, assuming those existed in the first place.

With so many varieties of Christianity to pick from, one can believe or disbelieve just about anything, and still be one flavor of Christian or another.

Some Christians don't even think they need to follow the Golden Rule or refrain from judging others, as Jesus supposedly taught.

I mean if you can ignore direct orders from the dude that allegedly started your religion, and yet still consider yourself a follower of his, I'd say all bets are off.

2000 years, and 47% of people in current generations think it will happen in their lifetimes. Now, that's weird egotism. Freaking amazing!

Democrats that trump is on about.