Atheist LOL

[xmas1997]

If you were a true theist, you would act like God it watching you. You don't. I draw the only logical conclusion.

You have a valid point there.

[silverblk mystix]

Belief isn't a choice. It's something that's compelled by overwhelming evidence. You can no sooner choose to believe something than you can choose to not believe it. Let's see you not believe the Sun exists. Those who can make themselves believe things without compelling evidence are considered to be delusional.

The choice you do have, however, is to try to believe. That's what many theists are doing. They are either too lazy to learn otherwise or they are to frightened to draw the only logical conclusion available, that there is no god.


Let us call a spade a spade =

What YOU mean in that line - is evidence that YOU find compelling. Evidence that YOU believe to be true.

You are just giving an opinion - yet - you think because you used logic that this makes it more than an opinion -it isn't.

It is still an opinion.

[Clipper Nation]

So you believe that calling someone a beener is less offensive than calling someone a faggot?
I don't care, really, though it is hilarious how you try to be the arbiter of morality on here but default to the same tired old gay/cuck jokes whenever you feel threatened or are backed into a corner :lol


You believe that calling someone stupid - and then claiming you are more educated - makes sense?
False dilemma - it's possible to be educated and call a stupid person stupid, tbh....


You believe that following people around and standing up for them and fighting their battles - and then turning around and calling others a "semen shield" is not hypocrisy?
I don't fight anyone's battles - I call you a hypocrite because I read your posts, and I tell you when you're melting down because you do it constantly, tbh....

Meanwhile, whenever Avante's getting rightfully shat on in here for another stupid thread, pointless trivia spam, or clueless boast, in you come to defend him pretty much every time to defend and deflect, and vice versa :lol


Instead you gang up with other like-minded hypocrites and try to get that person banned
It's amazing how you've managed to twist the simple act of answering Kori's question into everyone "ganging up on you" - nobody forced you to melt down and get yourself banned, son, take some responsibility :lol

[DMC]

Let us call a spade a spade =

What YOU mean in that line - is evidence that YOU find compelling. Evidence that YOU believe to be true.

You are just giving an opinion - yet - you think because you used logic that this makes it more than an opinion -it isn't.

It is still an opinion.

If belief is a choice, why would I need compelling evidence? I could just choose to believe something, anything, and that would be that.

[silverblk mystix]

Non-informational paragraph. Character judgement, nothing else.


Absolutely untrue. You are a great example of this. You see who posted the post - you form a conclusion -
"this was written by a (insert label - mostly a negative label) and he is full of (insert more labels) ..."
- ??you haven't even posted yet - and you have already concluded that this person is wrong -Could there be anything more blind that this? Could you possibly ever see any new information if you already concluded that you are right and this person is beneath you? No - my statement stands and is irrefutable.

More non-informational gibberish. Again - you fit the paragraph as well as many others in here - yet - you do not see it, refuse to see it, or are completely being dishonest just because you aren't open enough to accept any new information.


Again...


Not a single word of anything you wrote has a point to it. It's all mumbo jumbo someone sold you and you drank the koolaid. How's your god Tom Cruise btw?


??Everything I wrote is truth and nothing but. I didn't invent it. It has been staring at you all this time but you are too busy seeing the world through your filters that you are rejecting obvious and self-evident truth. In other words - you are choosing to believe that what is in front of you and is in fact reality - does not exist.

Ironic - especially after the other post you posted regarding "belief"

[silverblk mystix]

If belief is a choice, why would I need compelling evidence? I could just choose to believe something, anything, and that would be that.


Because you just wrote this, maybe?


Belief isn't a choice. It's something that's compelled by overwhelming evidence. You can no sooner choose to believe something than you can choose to not believe it. Let's see you not believe the Sun exists. Those who can make themselves believe things without compelling evidence are considered to be delusional.

The choice you do have, however, is to try to believe. That's what many theists are doing. They are either too lazy to learn otherwise or they are to frightened to draw the only logical conclusion available, that there is no god.


_____________________________

[silverblk mystix]

If you're going to claim someone is a hypocrite then you're going to need to prove it.

Otherwise, you should just shut the fuck up. For your own good, tbh.


Or else?

[xmas1997]

If belief is a choice, why would I need compelling evidence? I could just choose to believe something, anything, and that would be that.

All belief is a choice, irregardless of its validity or not. Truth on the other hand is an entirely different matter.
For example, you can CHOOSE to believe I am a troll as you said in the other thread, but just because you chose to believe that, does not make it a truth, it is merely your opinion, and opinions cannot be proved one way or the other.

However BELIEF connotes an action that is taken each and every moment. You may wake up tomorrow and believe something entirely different than what you believe today, i.e. that I am not a troll.
You have to actively get involved to make the decision to BELIEVE anything at any point in time. And still, it is simply an opinion. On the other hand, truth always is true and is firmly outside of opinion. Yet you can have opinions about what you choose to believe as being truth, even if it isn't.

Furthermore, unless you are in actuality inside another persons mind, then you cannot KNOW their belief at that given moment, rather you are just guessing and thus assuming. There is much more latitude that you will be wrong in your assessment.

Truth is not true just because you say it is, nor just because the majority believes it is, thus the flat earth analogy that I gave you. Truth is true simply on its own merit. And most of the time stares us right in the face, yet we choose (free will again) to believe, or choose to believe, whatever fits our agendas at any given moment.
And if it doesn't conveniently fit neatly in our own self constructed little boxes, then we can choose again to disregard it, ....... or accept it, yet again.

Belief is not necessarily TRUTH.
Belief is only the action of acceptance of something, and thus falls into the category of opinion.
You are free to believe I am a troll, however just because you happen to believe that, does not make it so.

[Blake]

Or else?

Or else someone will call you on your stupid bullshit and you'll in turn melt down.

You should stop for your own emotional well being.

[xmas1997]

Or else someone will call you on your stupid bullshit and you'll in turn melt down.

You should stop for your own emotional well being.

Blake, you should really get off of SBMs ass simply because you choose to believe something different than him.
It would help matters if you could look at things with an open mind.
We learn things from the least likeliest sources sometimes.
And no matter how young or old we are, we never stop learning, unless we are brain dead, yet the jury is out on that issue too. :lol
Melt downs are a matter of opinion, not truth. However you have a free will and may choose to believe that any of us are melting down at any point in time. Still, that does not make it true. It is purely your opinion.
So, why fight wars over opinions? Isn't that a bit fruitless?
Just asking.

[silverblk mystix]

Or else someone will call you on your stupid bullshit and you'll in turn melt down.

You should stop for your own emotional well being.


So, in other words - nothing.

lol

[silverblk mystix]

Blake, you should really get off of SBMs ass simply because you choose to believe something different than him.
It would help matters if you could look at things with an open mind.
We learn things from the least likeliest sources sometimes.
And no matter how young or old we are, we never stop learning, unless we are brain dead, yet the jury is out on that issue too. :lol
Melt downs are a matter of opinion, not truth. However you have a free will and may choose to believe that any of us are melting down at any point in time. Still, that does not make it true. It is purely your opinion.
So, why fight wars over opinions? Isn't that a bit fruitless?
Just asking.


Hey careful now xmas -


you keep bringing that "truth" thing in here and you won't be making many friends in here. That "truth" thing is really a dangerous and inflammatory thing, people have gotten hurt pretty badly throughout history - some even crucified -

All for throwing that "truth" thing around!


Just keep making sense in here and you will be an outcast in no time with a target on your back.

:lol

[xmas1997]

Hey careful now xmas -


you keep bringing that "truth" thing in here and you won't be making many friends in here. That "truth" thing is really a dangerous and inflammatory thing, people have gotten hurt pretty badly throughout history - some even crucified -

All for throwing that "truth" thing around!


Just keep making sense in here and you will be an outcast in no time with a target on your back.

:lol

:lol
Oh well, it is what it is. Can't change the spots on a leopard at this stage of the game, even if I wanted to.
And according to DMC I am already a troll, all because I tried to open his mind a little bit, and even though I agreed with a few of his points.
So may as well let it all hang out at this point.
At the very most, I might learn something. And at the very least, I'll get a little humor out of it.
So if that happens, it wasn't a total waste of time.

[kamikazi_player]

I'm not even atheist and I still think this thread is fucking retarded

[xmas1997]

I'm not even atheist and I still think this thread is fucking retarded

Why is that?

[DMC]

Because you just wrote this, maybe?


Belief isn't a choice. It's something that's compelled by overwhelming evidence. You can no sooner choose to believe something than you can choose to not believe it. Let's see you not believe the Sun exists. Those who can make themselves believe things without compelling evidence are considered to be delusional.

The choice you do have, however, is to try to believe. That's what many theists are doing. They are either too lazy to learn otherwise or they are to frightened to draw the only logical conclusion available, that there is no god.


_____________________________

Your argument is that I use my own standards for proof for what I think someone else should accept as proof, but then if belief is by choice, what standards could I have? Food is a choice, I don't mention what standards others should have when deciding what to eat. You don't decide what to believe, you only decide what to try to believe and that almost always means it's not logical and/or there's not compelling evidence to believe it, but there might be a benefit to doing so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol at you of all people trying to take some grand moral stance against insults while spewing slurs and insults in other threads....

Much like SA210, there is no point in talking with sbm. They have no interest in anything other than you agreeing with them or going around in the same inane circles.

[DMC]

All belief is a choice, irregardless of its validity or not. Truth on the other hand is an entirely different matter.
For example, you can CHOOSE to believe I am a troll as you said in the other thread, but just because you chose to believe that, does not make it a truth, it is merely your opinion, and opinions cannot be proved one way or the other.

However BELIEF connotes an action that is taken each and every moment. You may wake up tomorrow and believe something entirely different than what you believe today, i.e. that I am not a troll.
You have to actively get involved to make the decision to BELIEVE anything at any point in time. And still, it is simply an opinion. On the other hand, truth always is true and is firmly outside of opinion. Yet you can have opinions about what you choose to believe as being truth, even if it isn't.

Furthermore, unless you are in actuality inside another persons mind, then you cannot KNOW their belief at that given moment, rather you are just guessing and thus assuming. There is much more latitude that you will be wrong in your assessment.

Truth is not true just because you say it is, nor just because the majority believes it is, thus the flat earth analogy that I gave you. Truth is true simply on its own merit. And most of the time stares us right in the face, yet we choose (free will again) to believe, or choose to believe, whatever fits our agendas at any given moment.
And if it doesn't conveniently fit neatly in our own self constructed little boxes, then we can choose again to disregard it, ....... or accept it, yet again.

Belief is not necessarily TRUTH.
Belief is only the action of acceptance of something, and thus falls into the category of opinion.
You are free to believe I am a troll, however just because you happen to believe that, does not make it so.

per say and irregardless

Enough said

[Blake]

So, in other words - nothing.

lol

No, the something is you melting down over and again.

It can't be good for you.

[xmas1997]

Much like SA210, there is no point in talking with sbm. They have no interest in anything other than you agreeing with them or going around in the same inane circles.

Apparently you have SBM and DMC mixed up. DMC had no intention of a constructive discussion, he just wanted a reason to cry "TROLL", and when I didn't give him one, he lost interest.
However SBM will actually discuss things with you and debate in a rational manner.
Unless you resort to insults and ridicule then he will respond in kind. If you don't neither will he.

[silverblk mystix]

Much like SA210, there is no point in talking with sbm. They have no interest in anything other than you agreeing with them or going around in the same inane circles.


There is no point - if you want to be stubbornly dishonest.

If you want to be truthful - just open your eyes and see-

the people that go on about insulting others and acting superior - in any subject -

Are no better and no worse than anyone else - so to hear you and your e-gang go on and on about how (insert poster's name) and (insert poster's name) are nothing but (insert labels) and (insert labels) is the height of hypocrisy because you do so much judging, condescending & insulting and labeling while calling out others.

It is so freeing to be able to admit that you are no better than anyone else. I admit it all the time and I have no baggage to carry - and feel so light that I can go through the eye of a needle. (gratuitous bible content reference intended)

It is wonderful.

[silverblk mystix]

Apparently you have SBM and DMC mixed up. DMC had no intention of a constructive discussion, he just wanted a reason to cry "TROLL", and when I didn't give him one, he lost interest.
However SBM will actually discuss things with you and debate in a rational manner.
Unless you resort to insults and ridicule then he will respond in kind. If you don't neither will he.




Ding! Ding! Ding!


Winner-winner Chicken Dinner!

[Blake]

Blake, you should really get off of SBMs ass simply because you choose to believe something different than him.
It would help matters if you could look at things with an open mind.
We learn things from the least likeliest sources sometimes.
And no matter how young or old we are, we never stop learning, unless we are brain dead, yet the jury is out on that issue too. :lol
Melt downs are a matter of opinion, not truth. However you have a free will and may choose to believe that any of us are melting down at any point in time. Still, that does not make it true. It is purely your opinion.
So, why fight wars over opinions? Isn't that a bit fruitless?
Just asking.

SBM has claimed spiritual truth as concrete truth.

I've asked for proof. He literally has told me I need to look inside myself to see his truth.

Stating opinion as just your opinion is one thing. Claiming something as fact is completely different.

He'd prefer to cry that I'm being mean for calling bullshit instead of backing up his claim or using the letters "imo".

You should stop crying on his behalf. There are already too many tears shed in this forum of late.

[Blake]

However SBM will actually discuss things with you and debate in a rational manner.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Blake]

??Everything I wrote is truth and nothing but. I didn't invent it. It has been staring at you all this time but you are too busy seeing the world through your filters that you are rejecting obvious and self-evident truth. In other words - you are choosing to believe that what is in front of you and is in fact reality - does not exist.

Ironic - especially after the other post you posted regarding "belief"

Ok, prove that it's the truth.



Now xmas, watch what happens here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Apparently you have SBM and DMC mixed up. DMC had no intention of a constructive discussion, he just wanted a reason to cry "TROLL", and when I didn't give him one, he lost interest.
However SBM will actually discuss things with you and debate in a rational manner.
Unless you resort to insults and ridicule then he will respond in kind. If you don't neither will he.

DMC is not a complete ass unwilling to backup what he says with logic. He will troll you certainly but that is not all he does.

From SA210, I don't see anything but youtubes, meme, misquotes, smilies and comments such as 'liar' or 'obamatard.' That is literally the entirety of his contribution.

sbm goes to the 'you are,' 'no you are,' 'you are,' 'no you are,' 'you are,' 'no you are,' 'you are,' 'no you are' route. His 'arguments' are almost completely complaints about the behavior of others.

It is a collassal waste of time. DMC is abusive certainly but he is not inane.

[xmas1997]

SBM has claimed spiritual truth as concrete truth.

I've asked for proof. He literally has told me I need to look inside myself to see his truth.

Stating opinion as just your opinion is one thing. Claiming something as fact is completely different.

He'd prefer to cry that I'm being mean for calling bullshit instead of backing up his claim or using the letters "imo".

You should stop crying on his behalf. There are already too many tears shed in this forum of late.

Actually I understood him pretty well.
If I may clarify a little, he did not say To look inside for HIS PERSONAL Truth, on the contrary, he said for YOU to look inside of YOU , for YOUR personal Truth. And you just might find that both Truths are one and the same.
He also said to lay aside all of your preconceived notions, fears, dogmas, worries, opinions, ego, insignificant knowledge, trivialities, etc. in order to get to the real Truth.
SBM does not have a monopoly on Truth, no one does, but he has a valid suspicion of the best way to get to it IMHO.
Does this help? Or does it really matter to you?
This much has been shown by all the great thinkers and doers in mankind's history, that if you seek the Truth, you will eventually find it. But if your mind is stuffed to the brim with pure D crap then it is next to impossible.
Maybe to some this sounds like mysticism or some such BS, but that is just another label that lazy ignorant people use to get out of putting forth the effort. Did Aristotle or Jesus or Einstein or Buddha or any of the other great thinkers give up?
Many thought them to be mystics in their time as well.

[Blake]

Actually I understood him pretty well.
If I may clarify a little, he did not say To look inside for HIS PERSONAL Truth, on the contrary, he said for YOU to look inside of YOU , for YOUR personal Truth. And you just might find that both Truths are one and the same.
He also said to lay aside all of your preconceived notions, fears, dogmas, worries, opinions, ego, insignificant knowledge, trivialities, etc. in order to get to the real Truth.
SBM does not have a monopoly on Truth, no one does, but he has a valid suspicion of the best way to get to it IMHO.
Does this help? Or does it really matter to you?
This much has been shown by all the great thinkers and doers in mankind's history, that if you seek the Truth, you will eventually find it. But if your mind is stuffed to the brim with pure D crap then it is next to impossible.
Maybe to some this sounds like mysticism or some such BS, but that is just another label that lazy ignorant people use to get out of putting forth the effort. Did Aristotle or Jesus or Einstein or Buddha or any of the other great thinkers give up?
Many thought them to be mystics in their time as well.

tldr

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is no point - if you want to be stubbornly dishonest.

If you want to be truthful - just open your eyes and see-

the people that go on about insulting others and acting superior - in any subject -

Are no better and no worse than anyone else - so to hear you and your e-gang go on and on about how (insert poster's name) and (insert poster's name) are nothing but (insert labels) and (insert labels) is the height of hypocrisy because you do so much judging, condescending & insulting and labeling while calling out others.

It is so freeing to be able to admit that you are no better than anyone else. I admit it all the time and I have no baggage to carry - and feel so light that I can go through the eye of a needle. (gratuitous bible content reference intended)

It is wonderful.

An entire post about nothing than other's behavior. Thank you for illustrating my point.

[silverblk mystix]

tldr


Here you are. This is where you are in life.

You whined that I didn't answer in the way that would satisfy you - then you tried to troll xmas into conversing with you respectfully -

Only to resort to the 8th grade insult -"tldr"

Any coincidence that truth only evades you? Any coincidence that unhappiness is what usually comes out in your words?

[silverblk mystix]

An entire post about nothing than other's behavior. Thank you for illustrating my point.


Is this all you really "saw"

And you wonder why I go on and on about "blindness?"

I just gave you a really gigantic clue about how to learn how to "see" by letting go of all your baggage - the way Jesus did -


and all you "saw" was the above garbage?


:lol


The sad part is that no matter how many clues you are given or how many truths fall in your lap or slap you in the face - you have to be the one that "sees"

No one can do it for you. Sad. Pathetic.

Ever wonder why you agree and follow the trolls in here? Ever question yourself as to why you are certain that these trolls are the way to go? Ever examine - the things they say? Ever pay attention to the garbage that they spew?

Ever?

It appears that you swallowed their falseness - whole and now you cannot recognize when truth is present.

[xmas1997]

DMC is not a complete ass unwilling to backup what he says with logic. He will troll you certainly but that is not all he does.

From SA210, I don't see anything but youtubes, meme, misquotes, smilies and comments such as 'liar' or 'obamatard.' That is literally the entirety of his contribution.

sbm goes to the 'you are,' 'no you are,' 'you are,' 'no you are,' 'you are,' 'no you are,' 'you are,' 'no you are' route. His 'arguments' are almost completely complaints about the behavior of others.

It is a collassal waste of time. DMC is abusive certainly but he is not inane.

Unfortunately DMC limits what he can discover by maintaining a closed mind. There are many tools we can use besides logic as I tried to explain to him, but I can only surmise that he got lazy and wanted others to figure things out for him. It doesn't work that way. You have to put in the work yourself. Only then will Truth be revealed to you. Otherwise it is all just hearsay and so much BS.
The logical thinker knows this and leaves no stone unturned. The lazy thinker is willing to take others word for it from either those who he happens to respect, or who he considers an authority. So that type of truth never really sinks in, it isn't owned.

[Clipper Nation]

There is no point - if you want to be stubbornly dishonest.

If you want to be truthful - just open your eyes and see-

the people that go on about insulting others and acting superior - in any subject -

Are no better and no worse than anyone else - so to hear you and your e-gang go on and on about how (insert poster's name) and (insert poster's name) are nothing but (insert labels) and (insert labels) is the height of hypocrisy because you do so much judging, condescending & insulting and labeling while calling out others.

It is so freeing to be able to admit that you are no better than anyone else. I admit it all the time and I have no baggage to carry - and feel so light that I can go through the eye of a needle. (gratuitous bible content reference intended)

It is wonderful.
SBM trying to deflect his constant whining and melting down onto everyone else per the usual....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Unfortunately DMC limits what he can discover by maintaining a closed mind. There are many tools we can use besides logic as I tried to explain to him, but I can only surmise that he got lazy and wanted others to figure things out for him. It doesn't work that way. You have to put in the work yourself. Only then will Truth be revealed to you. Otherwise it is all just hearsay and so much BS.
The logical thinker knows this and leaves no stone unturned. The lazy thinker is willing to take others word for it from either those who he happens to respect, or who he considers an authority. So that type of truth never really sinks in, it isn't owned.

Your epistemology is weak. I have had arguments with DMC before if you make a credible argument against his bias that he doesn't want to change, he goes away.

You have zero empirical basis for what you are claiming here. None. You can tap dance around this notion of mystical knowledge but there is no compelling reason for any objective observer to accept that. Cliches like stone unturned are bullshit. I have an open mind; I do not look for excuses to believe something. If there is an objective basis then by all means present one.

[silverblk mystix]

I am someone's troll who was embarrassed by SBM and now I can't stop my butthurt, I am also a sneaky person who reports others for doing the same things I do all the time but I am not a hypocrite- and I am not a snitch. I just report people!

[xmas1997]

Your epistemology is weak. I have had arguments with DMC before if you make a credible argument against his bias that he doesn't want to change, he goes away.

You have zero empirical basis for what you are claiming here. None. You can tap dance around this notion of mystical knowledge but there is no compelling reason for any objective observer to accept that. Cliches like stone unturned are bullshit. I have an open mind; I do not look for excuses to believe something. If there is an objective basis then by all means present one.

I have always thought that about you. That is another reason I like having you in some of these discussions.
You are right, he did go away, but that was not my intention. I was ready for more discussion. He had some good arguments.
As for my weak epistemology? How is it you find my philosophical leanings weak? I sure as hell don't try to pawn them off as perfect truths, rather as starting points to discuss ideas leading to truth, nothing more, nothing less. So in that respect, maybe they are weak.

Zero empirical knowledge? That is a strong accusation. Again I am not sure what exactly you are referring to that my empirical observation or experience has zero value of. Are you referring to my discussions concerning truth versus opinion, or truth versus belief, or what exactly.
Can we keep this civil without the attacks or is that how you intend to make your points?

[kamikazi_player]

Why is that?

this is no different than atheist baiting religious people into making stupid comments. At least atheist people are funny when doing this. Robdiaz sounds like a pathetic crybaby that just closes his ears when anyone is talking to him.

[Blake]

Is this all you really "saw"

And you wonder why I go on and on about "blindness?"

I just gave you a really gigantic clue about how to learn how to "see" by letting go of all your baggage - the way Jesus did -


and all you "saw" was the above garbage?


:lol


The sad part is that no matter how many clues you are given or how many truths fall in your lap or slap you in the face - you have to be the one that "sees"

No one can do it for you. Sad. Pathetic.

Ever wonder why you agree and follow the trolls in here? Ever question yourself as to why you are certain that these trolls are the way to go? Ever examine - the things they say? Ever pay attention to the garbage that they spew?

Ever?

It appears that you swallowed their falseness - whole and now you cannot recognize when truth is present.

you're a miserable, whiny person here.

That's the truth everyone sees.

[Leetonidas]

sbm still fagging up this thread I see :sleep

[Blake]

Here you are. This is where you are in life.

You whined that I didn't answer in the way that would satisfy you - then you tried to troll xmas into conversing with you respectfully -

Only to resort to the 8th grade insult -"tldr"

Any coincidence that truth only evades you? Any coincidence that unhappiness is what usually comes out in your words?

I'm not whining. Just explaining to xmas why I call you a fucking idiot.

:cry snitches everywhere :cry :cry

:cry i know the secret of true happiness :cry :cry :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have always thought that about you. That is another reason I like having you in some of these discussions.
You are right, he did go away, but that was not my intention. I was ready for more discussion. He had some good arguments.
As for my weak epistemology? How is it you find my philosophical leanings weak? I sure as hell don't try to pawn them off as perfect truths, rather as starting points to discuss ideas leading to truth, nothing more, nothing less. So in that respect, maybe they are weak.

Zero empirical knowledge? That is a strong accusation. Again I am not sure what exactly you are referring to that my empirical observation or experience has zero value of. Are you referring to my discussions concerning truth versus opinion, or truth versus belief, or what exactly.
Can we keep this civil without the attacks or is that how you intend to make your points?

Empirical means what it means. Look it up. I repeat there is zero empirical basis for the belief in god much less the christian iteration. That is not an accusation. that is an observation. Provide one empirical basis for the belief in god to counter that.

ideas leading to truth? No, an idea that leads to truth is observing how an electric current creates a EM field. You can take from that empirical truth and can build on it. That is not what you do. You want to believe something without any basis in the objective world and claim that truth can be found from it. I am interested on building on a foundation of truth and not wishful thinking and what I want to believe. The truth no matter how repugnant is still the truth.

[xmas1997]

Empirical means what it means. Look it up. I repeat there is zero empirical basis for the belief in god much less the christian iteration. That is not an accusation. that is an observation. Provide one empirical basis for the belief in god to counter that.

ideas leading to truth? No, an idea that leads to truth is observing how an electric current creates a EM field. You can take from that empirical truth and can build on it. That is not what you do. You want to believe something without any basis in the objective world and claim that truth can be found from it. I am interested on building on a foundation of truth and not wishful thinking and what I want to believe. The truth no matter how repugnant is still the truth.

If you will read my question again, in it was already the knowledge of the meaning of empirical, I know what it means so it isn't necessary for me to look it up.
I was moving beyond that in order to try to understand what specifically you were asking or referring to. Are we on the same page now?
Now I see what you really want me to do is give you empirical proof of God. Am I right? And you seem to want something of a physical nature that you can claim to be an indisputable Truth that you can build more truths upon. Am I right so far?

That is a different discussion than the one I was having which dealt with higher more intransitory truths such as thought or love, or imagination. Of those, we know they exist, but we don't know how or why.

As for giving you empirical proof of God, that I cannot do. At this point in time, I do not think anyone can. But you can also not prove the opposite, anymore than you disprove the existence of love, or thought. God and these other things are subjective, not objective.

Can you prove the existence of dimensions, such as time, or vector space for example? I doubt it, but we theorize.
We can theorize God as well, but can we prove it? No.
We can discuss the ramifications of all of the above, but just as we cannot prove the existence of Truth, we still accept them for what they are and thus dance all around them without ever coming to a concrete conclusion.

You can look at your hand and say with almost a certainty that this sure does look like my hand, it sure does feel like my hand, and maybe it tastes and smells and sounds like my hand, but we are finding out that your hand is much more than that, it is a complex mechanism made up of energy. And when you examine that energy at first you see spaces surrounding molecules. But even the spaces are not really spaces at all, but rather more tinier molecules, until you realize that the space you thought you saw was all an illusion. Everything is connected.

If this is weak then that is the best I can do at this point in time. And time? Another dimension that cannot be given a concrete definition that you can physically sink your teeth into. Science has theorized that time is actually circular in nature rater than linear, much like outer space. How can I prove this? I can't. Can you?
So if these are weak arguments, then they are what they are, but none of this says just because they are, does not mean that they are not Truth.

[DMC]

Is this all you really "saw"

And you wonder why I go on and on about "blindness?"

I just gave you a really gigantic clue about how to learn how to "see" by letting go of all your baggage - the way Jesus did -


and all you "saw" was the above garbage?


:lol


The sad part is that no matter how many clues you are given or how many truths fall in your lap or slap you in the face - you have to be the one that "sees"

No one can do it for you. Sad. Pathetic.

Ever wonder why you agree and follow the trolls in here? Ever question yourself as to why you are certain that these trolls are the way to go? Ever examine - the things they say? Ever pay attention to the garbage that they spew?

Ever?

It appears that you swallowed their falseness - whole and now you cannot recognize when truth is present.

This is you not knowing how to post cogent thoughts. Narrow all that down into "nuh uh"

[DMC]

If you will read my question again, in it was already the knowledge of the meaning of empirical, I know what it means so it isn't necessary for me to look it up.
I was moving beyond that in order to try to understand what specifically you were asking or referring to. Are we on the same page now?
Now I see what you really want me to do is give you empirical proof of God. Am I right? And you seem to want something of a physical nature that you can claim to be an indisputable Truth that you can build more truths upon. Am I right so far?

That is a different discussion than the one I was having which dealt with higher more intransitory truths such as thought or love, or imagination. Of those, we know they exist, but we don't know how or why.

As for giving you empirical proof of God, that I cannot do. At this point in time, I do not think anyone can. But you can also not prove the opposite, anymore than you disprove the existence of love, or thought. God and these other things are subjective, not objective.

Can you prove the existence of dimensions, such as time, or vector space for example? I doubt it, but we theorize.
We can theorize God as well, but can we prove it? No.
We can discuss the ramifications of all of the above, but just as we cannot prove the existence of Truth, we still accept them for what they are and thus dance all around them without ever coming to a concrete conclusion.

You can look at your hand and say with almost a certainty that this sure does look like my hand, it sure does feel like my hand, and maybe it tastes and smells and sounds like my hand, but we are finding out that your hand is much more than that, it is a complex mechanism made up of energy. And when you examine that energy at first you see spaces surrounding molecules. But even the spaces are not really spaces at all, but rather more tinier molecules, until you realize that the space you thought you saw was all an illusion. Everything is connected.

If this is weak then that is the best I can do at this point in time. And time? Another dimension that cannot be given a concrete definition that you can physically sink your teeth into. Science has theorized that time is actually circular in nature rater than linear, much like outer space. How can I prove this? I can't. Can you?
So if these are weak arguments, then they are what they are, but none of this says just because they are, does not mean that they are not Truth.

This is a troll, tasked with providing one empirical basis for belief in any god, writing War and Peace and not even coming near the task at hand.

[xmas1997]

This is a troll, tasked with providing one empirical basis for belief in any god, writing War and Peace and not even coming near the task at hand.

And this is another intelligent response?
Is your whole spiel accusing those who disagree with you as being a troll?
Seems like a fruitless venture to me.
But feel free to accuse, because that is apparently all you are capable of doing.
I wonder how far that has gotten you. :lol

[DMC]

And this is another intelligent response?
Is your whole spiel accusing those who disagree with you as being a troll?
Seems like a fruitless venture to me.
But feel free to accuse, because that is apparently all you are capable of doing.
I wonder how far that has gotten you. :lol

What do you mean "how far"?

[xmas1997]

What do you mean "how far"?

No, what do you mean, "what do you mean 'how far'?"
It is what it is.
Why ask a troll?

[silverblk mystix]

No, what do you mean, "what do you mean 'how far'?"
It is what it is.
Why ask a troll?


Baaam!

Troll regulated.

Nice.

[xmas1997]

I guess since now that I've been designated a troll by the "troll authorities" that I should assume the position?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you will read my question again, in it was already the knowledge of the meaning of empirical, I know what it means so it isn't necessary for me to look it up.
I was moving beyond that in order to try to understand what specifically you were asking or referring to. Are we on the same page now?
Now I see what you really want me to do is give you empirical proof of God. Am I right? And you seem to want something of a physical nature that you can claim to be an indisputable Truth that you can build more truths upon. Am I right so far?

That is a different discussion than the one I was having which dealt with higher more intransitory truths such as thought or love, or imagination. Of those, we know they exist, but we don't know how or why.

As for giving you empirical proof of God, that I cannot do. At this point in time, I do not think anyone can. But you can also not prove the opposite, anymore than you disprove the existence of love, or thought. God and these other things are subjective, not objective.

Can you prove the existence of dimensions, such as time, or vector space for example? I doubt it, but we theorize.
We can theorize God as well, but can we prove it? No.
We can discuss the ramifications of all of the above, but just as we cannot prove the existence of Truth, we still accept them for what they are and thus dance all around them without ever coming to a concrete conclusion.

You can look at your hand and say with almost a certainty that this sure does look like my hand, it sure does feel like my hand, and maybe it tastes and smells and sounds like my hand, but we are finding out that your hand is much more than that, it is a complex mechanism made up of energy. And when you examine that energy at first you see spaces surrounding molecules. But even the spaces are not really spaces at all, but rather more tinier molecules, until you realize that the space you thought you saw was all an illusion. Everything is connected.

If this is weak then that is the best I can do at this point in time. And time? Another dimension that cannot be given a concrete definition that you can physically sink your teeth into. Science has theorized that time is actually circular in nature rater than linear, much like outer space. How can I prove this? I can't. Can you?
So if these are weak arguments, then they are what they are, but none of this says just because they are, does not mean that they are not Truth.

We experience time. We experience motion through space. there are all manner of experiments in physics that describe this.

You hand can be your hand as a whole and still be reducible. Its called a sense of scale. Again we can recreate all of the above.

I am even fine with rationalism as long as the rationale is based in some verifiable truth and based on proven logic.

Bringing up partially understood topics like the nature of time in cosmology or the infinitesimal nature of matter at the plank scale and trying to equate it to your mystical nonsense is just horseshit. There is no reason to believe that any of that is true. Instead we consider it possible and do experiments to see whether or not it is true.

The above is nothing like the mystical bullshit that you are selling. You grant that it is not provable but still maintain its validity regardless. You don't even endeavor to prove it.

[xmas1997]

We experience time. We experience motion through space. there are all manner of experiments in physics that describe this.

You hand can be your hand as a whole and still be reducible. Its called a sense of scale. Again we can recreate all of the above.

I am even fine with rationalism as long as the rationale is based in some verifiable truth and based on proven logic.

Bringing up partially understood topics like the nature of time in cosmology or the infinitesimal nature of matter at the plank scale and trying to equate it to your mystical nonsense is just horseshit. There is no reason to believe that any of that is true. Instead we consider it possible and do experiments to see whether or not it is true.

The above is nothing like the mystical bullshit that you are selling. You grant that it is not provable but still maintain its validity regardless. You don't even endeavor to prove it.

I can accept your criticism in a civil manner because for the most part you use rational arguments.
However, your arguments begin to lose their validity due to your apparent need to resort to insults in order to make your points!
If you would refrain from those, then you just might get a rational response in reply.
If your aim is nothing but disrespect, then you should expect nothing but disrespect in return.
The choice is yours. It does not hurt me in the slightest, however it does hurt the overall credibility of your post, thus rendering it pretty much invalid and not worth discussing with you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can accept your criticism in a civil manner because for the most part you use rational arguments.
However, your arguments begin to lose their validity due to your apparent need to resort to insults in order to make your points!
If you would refrain from those, then you just might get a rational response in reply.
If your aim is nothing but disrespect, then you should expect nothing but disrespect in return.
The choice is yours. It does not hurt me in the slightest, however it does hurt the overall credibility of your post, thus rendering it pretty much invalid and not worth discussing with you.

Nice dodge. I deride with insults certainly. On the contrary to most that do so, I justify it. For example, I call your position mystical bullshit but I immediately explain that is because you admit that it is unprovable and you don't even try to prove it. I compare that with the things you were comparing it to like cosmology and quantum mechanics by pointing out that those are scrutinized with experimentation.

What I wanted to do was call your stance intellectual cowardice because that is how I feel about it but I left that out because I felt that was a personal insult; however, your position here makes it very clear that when the rubber actually meets the road when scrutinizing your beliefs that you will call me a meanie and pick up you toys and go home. So be it and so I will just say what I feel then. It still will be what it is.

My arguments are not rational. They are empirical. If you would like I can find a high school physics lab manual and we can go over the experiments for time and vectors. For the other, as I said, I am fine with rational constructs as long as they are derived from known truths. They are two completely different concepts.

[xmas1997]

Nice dodge. I deride with insults certainly. On the contrary to most that do so, I justify it. For example, I call your position mystical bullshit but I immediately explain that is because you admit that it is unprovable and you don't even try to prove it. I compare that with the things you were comparing it to like cosmology and quantum mechanics by pointing out that those are scrutinized with experimentation.

What I wanted to do was call your stance intellectual cowardice because that is how I feel about it but I left that out because I felt that was a personal insult; however, your position here makes it very clear that when the rubber actually meets the road when scrutinizing your beliefs that you will call me a meanie and pick up you toys and go home. So be it and so I will just say what I feel then. It still will be what it is.

My arguments are not rational. They are empirical. If you would like I can find a high school physics lab manual and we can go over the experiments for time and vectors. For the other, as I said, I am fine with rational constructs as long as they are derived from known truths. They are two completely different concepts.

It was never my intention to dodge anything, but it is your prerogative to feel that I am even though the truth is to the contrary. It just makes discussing it much more adversarial, and I didn't want to go that route because I approach this with a sincere desire to see all points of view and remain open minded. I am not so ego based as to close my mind to any and all ideas.

When you lace your points with clearly intentional insults, you cannot expect to get any sort of civil reply whiteout contention in return, and the discussion gravitates to the gutter. Didn't you realize this happen, or did you just want to be contentious? Because when you resort to that tactic to frame your points, they are neither rational nor empirical. They are adversarial.

I am always willing to go to the physics manuals for reference, it was after all my degree, while my minor was in philosophy. I have no fear there, and in point of fact prefer those routes. You seem IMHO not willing to keep emotionalism out of the discussion, otherwise why try to incite adversity with insults?

Is this how you go about making all of your points in everyday life? Do you best grow and learn this way?

I do not, nor will it persuade me of anything whether I am right or wrong about something. If it does you, my point was that you are simply discussing it with the wrong person.
Make all the excuses you like for my attitude about this, it will have little effect on me except to turn me off. Since I too have free will I choose to only discuss these things with civility because I learn the best that way.

Can you understand this? Can you see I am not evading? Can you see that I refuse to be put on the defensive in a simple forum of discussion?

If you can't then, then neither of us can help bridge the gap between our divergent point of views, thus rendering our discussion pointless, and ultimately fruitless.

So why bother? I have better things to do. So should you. It is not that I do not have a desire to discuss these things with you or anyone else for that matter, it just I refuse to be baited into being involved in what I consider to be an agenda of pissing contests.

IMHO I have wasted all this time and thought explaining these negatives, rather than spending it discussing the positives of what I really found interesting about your arguments.
Hope you understand my attitude now, and why I was reluctant, after reading your negative post.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was never my intention to dodge anything, but it is your prerogative to feel that I am even though the truth is to the contrary. It just makes discussing it much more adversarial, and I didn't want to go that route because I approach this with a sincere desire to see all points of view and remain open minded. I am not so ego based as to close my mind to any and all ideas.

When you lace your points with clearly intentional insults, you cannot expect to get any sort of civil reply whiteout contention in return, and the discussion gravitates to the gutter. Didn't you realize this happen, or did you just want to be contentious? Because when you resort to that tactic to frame your points, they are neither rational nor empirical. They are adversarial.

I am always willing to go to the physics manuals for reference, it was after all my degree, while my minor was in philosophy. I have no fear there, and in point of fact prefer those routes. You seem IMHO not willing to keep emotionalism out of the discussion, otherwise why try to incite adversity with insults?

Is this how you go about making all of your points in everyday life? Do you best grow and learn this way?

I do not, nor will it persuade me of anything whether I am right or wrong about something. If it does you, my point was that you are simply discussing it with the wrong person.
Make all the excuses you like for my attitude about this, it will have little effect on me except to turn me off. Since I too have free will I choose to only discuss these things with civility because I learn the best that way.

Can you understand this? Can you see I am not evading? Can you see that I refuse to be put on the defensive in a simple forum of discussion?

If you can't then, then neither of us can help bridge the gap between our divergent point of views, thus rendering our discussion pointless, and ultimately fruitless.

So why bother? I have better things to do. So should you. It is not that I do not have a desire to discuss these things with you or anyone else for that matter, it just I refuse to be baited into being involved in what I consider to be an agenda of pissing contests.

IMHO I have wasted all this time and thought explaining these negatives, rather than spending it discussing the positives of what I really found interesting about your arguments.
Hope you understand my attitude now, and why I was reluctant, after reading your negative post.

All I see is you whining about my behavior and still going the cowardly route of believing the unbelievable and not trying to prove it.

You give me an objective truth and then we can bridge the gap otherwise your wasting your time. Complaining because I think that your approach is intellectual cowardice or because I characterize beliefs not based on objective truth as mystical horseshit is not going to change my stance. If that bothers you then ignore me but if you are going to proselytize then I will say my piece whether or not you ignore me.

[silverblk mystix]

Actually I understood him pretty well.
If I may clarify a little, he did not say To look inside for HIS PERSONAL Truth, on the contrary, he said for YOU to look inside of YOU , for YOUR personal Truth. And you just might find that both Truths are one and the same.
He also said to lay aside all of your preconceived notions, fears, dogmas, worries, opinions, ego, insignificant knowledge, trivialities, etc. in order to get to the real Truth.
SBM does not have a monopoly on Truth, no one does, but he has a valid suspicion of the best way to get to it IMHO.
Does this help? Or does it really matter to you?
This much has been shown by all the great thinkers and doers in mankind's history, that if you seek the Truth, you will eventually find it. But if your mind is stuffed to the brim with pure D crap then it is next to impossible.
Maybe to some this sounds like mysticism or some such BS, but that is just another label that lazy ignorant people use to get out of putting forth the effort. Did Aristotle or Jesus or Einstein or Buddha or any of the other great thinkers give up?
Many thought them to be mystics in their time as well.


I never thanked you for your thoughtful take - unfortunately - you or anyone saying anything positive about me - won't make you any friends in here.

:lol


I also just read the above exchange and it appears that you are an intelligent person and open to truth - while the person insulting you - and then claiming superiority - only revealed himself to be far below someone that would be capable of a gentlemanly discussion.

It is what it is - and someone throwing out the phrase "mystical bullshit" is revealing that he is already closed off to any truth from the spiritual side.

Pretty revealing in itself.

[silverblk mystix]

All I see is you whining about my behavior and still going the cowardly route of believing the unbelievable and not trying to prove it.

You give me an objective truth and then we can bridge the gap otherwise your wasting your time. Complaining because I think that your approach is intellectual cowardice or characterizing beliefs not based on objective proofs as mystical horseshit is not going to change my stance. If that bothers you then ignore me but if you are going to proselytize then I will say my piece whether or not you ignore me.





^ this is someone who considers himself educated and accomplished and considers others as inferior ^


Insult after insult after insult - lead to wrong conclusions and flame wars. In other words - standard behavior by forum "intelligent" posters.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^ this is someone who considers himself educated and accomplished and considers others as inferior ^


Insult after insult after insult - lead to wrong conclusions and flame wars. In other words - standard behavior by forum "intelligent" posters.

Half of what you bolded aren't even insults. 'Complaining,' 'believing the unbelievable,' and 'not changing my stance' are insults?

And nevermind the original post in question that drew the complaints.

Nice story time about what I consider myself though. As I pointed out before. I justify what I say with reasons. You cannot even figure out what are insults.

You constant complaints on the behavior of others does little to mask your cowardice in regards to having your views examined. We can talk about the merits of empirical reductionism versus your christianity all day.

[silverblk mystix]

Half of what you bolded aren't even insults. 'Complaining,' 'believing the unbelievable,' and 'not changing my stance' are insults?

And nevermind the original post in question that drew the complaints.

Nice story time about what I consider myself though. As I pointed out before. I justify what I say with reasons. You cannot even figure out what are insults.


The bolded things are your way of communicating -

This IYO leads to what?

A civil conversation?

Is this how you communicate to someone's face?

If someone spoke to you - in this manner - what would be your reaction?

I know - in here - anonymously - you will label it whining and cowardly - and there is no reason for xmas to even reply to you.

You get what you pay for.

[Blake]

The bolded things are your way of communicating -

This IYO leads to what?

A civil conversation?

Is this how you communicate to someone's face?

If someone spoke to you - in this manner - what would be your reaction?

I know - in here - anonymously - you will label it whining and cowardly - and there is no reason for xmas to even reply to you.

You get what you pay for.

lol you get what you pay for

If you go the "give them a taste of their own medicine" route, your continued whining and complaining broadcasts you as being that much more of an emotional pussy.....And a hypocritical moron.

if the truth hurts, stop being a pussy, hypocrite and moron.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The bolded things are your way of communicating -

This IYO leads to what?

A civil conversation?

Is this how you communicate to someone's face?

If someone spoke to you - in this manner - what would be your reaction?

I know - in here - anonymously - you will label it whining and cowardly - and there is no reason for xmas to even reply to you.

You get what you pay for.

The whole post is how I communicate, dumbass. After your spiel about being a hypocrite and not giving a fuck, I cold really care less how you take how I write.

IMO, it leads you to understanding what I think and why I think it.

And why do you think I would care if he responds to me? While he may not like what I had to say I know he read it and I know that I put quite of bit of basis for thinking what I think. It has not escaped me that he, much like you do in everything, avoids the basis but that speaks more to me then what you do write.

[silverblk mystix]

^ conveniently forgetting that snitching is a pussy tactic ^ suddenly he is anonymously tough^

^returning insults - get you snitched out and banned ^ yet being civil and trying to discuss and point out hypocritical behavior makes you an "emotional pussy" ^ very confusing hypocrite talk^

[silverblk mystix]

The whole post is how I communicate, dumbass. After your spiel about being a hypocrite and not giving a fuck, I cold really care less how you take how I write.

IMO, it leads you to understanding what I think and why I think it.

And why do you think I would care if he responds to me? While he may not like what I had to say I know he read it and I know that I put quite of bit of basis for thinking what I think. It has not escaped me that he, much like you do in everything, avoids the basis but that speaks more to me then what you do write.


^ an educated person ^ in his opinion ^

[Blake]

^ conveniently forgetting that snitching is a pussy tactic ^ suddenly he is anonymously tough^

^returning insults - get you snitched out and banned ^ yet being civil and trying to discuss and point out hypocritical behavior makes you an "emotional pussy" ^ very confusing hypocrite talk^

It's confusing to you because you're stupid.

[silverblk mystix]

^ back to angry labeling ^ very conducive to intelligent conversations ^

*this freakin' spell checker on the new OSX Mavericks sux* it is a nazi - spell checker *

[Blake]

I don't care to have intelligent conversations with you any more. You can't keep up because you're stupid.

You also can't keep it civil. It takes little time for you to call me a cuck.


:cry :cry stop labeling me. Only I get to angrily label you. :cry :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^ an educated person ^ in his opinion ^

so this is the point where you try to get me to go in circles like you are doing with blake. it's a boring waste of my time. If you actually want to discuss an empirical basis for theism or really anything other than this insipid roundabout you seem to do every day then post about it. I am not going to waste my time further.

[Blake]

so this is the point where you try to get me to go in circles like you are doing with blake. it's a boring waste of my time. If you actually want to discuss an empirical basis for theism or really anything other than this insipid roundabout you seem to do every day then post about it. I am not going to waste my time further.

Yeah, it's a waste of time for me too.

sometimes it's boring, sometimes it's entertaining

[silverblk mystix]

^regulated trolls realizing they can't defend their stupidity when it is pointed out^

[Woo Bum-kon]

^regulated trolls realizing they can't defend their stupidity when it is pointed out^

You're not helping civil discourse with that language.

[silverblk mystix]

^ this troll of another troll has never said anything worthwhile in years ^

[Woo Bum-kon]

Your actions are still not conducive to civil discourse. If you're going to keep complaining about others throwing around insults, don't throw around insults yourself. Your actions speak much louder than your words.

[silverblk mystix]

^ someone please remind this troll the dozens of times that I have said - we are ALL hypocrites in here - only difference is that I admit it ^

the rest are in denial.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Then your complaints ring hollow. It makes no sense whatsoever to constantly complain about namecalling while name calling yourself. The only way to be taken seriously is to stop the namecalling yourself.

[Blake]

^ someone please remind this troll the dozens of times that I have said - we are ALL hypocrites in here - only difference is that I admit it ^

the rest are in denial.

you're too stupid to understand the definition of hypocrisy.

[Clipper Nation]

^ someone please remind this troll the dozens of times that I have said - we are ALL hypocrites in here - only difference is that I admit it ^

the rest are in denial.
You're apparently too stupid to grasp the point that whether you admit it or not, your hypocrisy means that your complaints about namecalling and trolling have no credibility, tbh... practice what you preach or STFU...

[silverblk mystix]

^ still in denial ^ one of the worst offenders btw ^

[Blake]

I'm not sure I've ever seen clipper nation preach.

Link his sermon.

[silverblk mystix]

You're apparently too stupid to grasp the point that whether you admit it or not, your hypocrisy means that your complaints about namecalling and trolling have no credibility, tbh... practice what you preach or STFU...


They weren't complaints - they were call outs - to remind all of you that no one is better or worse than anyone else. We all sling shit - only I am man enough to admit it.

The rest of you are righteous acting little hypocrites in denial.

Talk to me like an asshole - I will be an asshole 24/7.

Talk to me with respect - I will talk to you with respect.

Either one works for me - you choose.

[xmas1997]

I never thanked you for your thoughtful take - unfortunately - you or anyone saying anything positive about me - won't make you any friends in here.

:lol


I also just read the above exchange and it appears that you are an intelligent person and open to truth - while the person insulting you - and then claiming superiority - only revealed himself to be far below someone that would be capable of a gentlemanly discussion.

It is what it is - and someone throwing out the phrase "mystical bullshit" is revealing that he is already closed off to any truth from the spiritual side.

Pretty revealing in itself.

You are welcome. Odd though you have no problems communicating and having an intelligent discourse with me, yet these few others are resistant to it with you.
Makes no sense.

I regret not being able to do it with fuzzy though because I felt there were things he had to say that would have been beneficial and insightful to me.
He won't probably agree with this, but I felt his and my basis for discussion had much the same roots, and that we looked at things from an intellectual empirical and even an ontological standpoint.
And yet you read his response, and my defense to his insulting way of communicating.

It is a shame we cannot have a discourse without the baseless accusations though, and that my attempt to rectify it was seen by him as complaining rather than the real truth which was setting down reasonable boundaries of how we would do it in a decent and civil manner.

No skin off my back, however, and I will take it as "a word to the wise" in my future communications with him.
Lesson learned. I am beginning to see some patterns in this type of trolling, if indeed that is what it is.
I will nip things in the bud early next time, if indeed I bother to discuss anything of relevance with him again.

Some people do not seem to realize that a discussion is generally an attempt to come to a consensus of opinions among people, not among lower organisms. It does no one any good to hurl insult after insult especially if they expect anything other than that to return to them.

On the one hand, an argument with validity, ontological, empirical, theosophical, metaphysical, or whatever can only progress if both party's are willing, and able, to dispense with the scathing remarks.

And it is certainly hard to believe someone speaks to others scathingly in person on a regular basis. It is often very easy to do so while hiding behind a computer screen where there are no chances for negative repercussions.
I won't say it is the cowards way out, but anyone can judge that for themselves.

It is what it is. I'll try not to make that mistake again.
Some just prefer to end their points with derogatory remarks. They would never get very far with that sort of behavior in real life, nor in formal debates, nor in sit down informal discussions, none of which this is. This is a virtual medium, and apparently the normal rules of civil behavior sadly do not apply here ..... at least for some they don't. And here they do not.

[Woo Bum-kon]

They weren't complaints - they were call outs -

Those two are not mutually exclusive. You were still complaining.


to remind all of you that no one is better or worse than anyone else.

That depends entirely on the criteria being used.


We all sling shit - only I am man enough to admit it.

That is a complete and total lie. Nobody on here is attacking you about your complaining because they believe that they don't throw around insults. Not a single person is denying that they throw insults. Everybody who has issues with your complaining has those issues because your complaining is hypocritical.


The rest of you are righteous acting little hypocrites in denial.

I not once claimed to be righteous. You are the one with the self-righteous attitude.


Talk to me like an asshole - I will be an asshole 24/7.

Everybody knows that already. Most posters don't like you, so you decided to be the board contrarian.


Talk to me with respect - I will talk to you with respect.

No, you just suck up to other unpopular posters on here.

[silverblk mystix]

You are welcome. Odd though you have no problems communicating and having an intelligent discourse with me, yet these few others are resistant it with you.
Makes no sense.

I regret not being able to do it with fuzzy though because I felt there were things he had to say that would have been beneficial and insightful to me.
He won't probably agree with this, but I felt his and my basis for discussion had much the same roots, and that we looked at things from an intellectual standpoint.
And yet you read his response, and my defense to his insulting way of communicating.

It is a shame we cannot have a discourse without the baseless accusations though and that my attempt to rectify it was seen by him as complaining rather than the real truth which was setting down reasonable bound eras of how we would do it in a decent and civil manner.

No skin off my back, however, and I will take it as "a word to the wise" in my future communications with him. Lesson learned. I am beginning to see some patterns in this type of trolling, if indeed that is what it is.
I will nip things in the bud early next time, if indeed I bother to discuss anything of relevance with him again.

Some people do not seem to realize that a discussion is generally an attempt to come to a consensus of opinions among people, not among lower organisms. It does no one any good to hurl insult after insult especially if they expect anything other than that to return to them.

On the one hand, an argument with validity, ontological, empirical, or theosophical can only progress if both party's are willing, and able, to dispense with the scathing remarks.

And it is certainly hard to believe someone speaks to others scathingly in person on a regular basis. It is often very easy to do so while hiding behind a computer screen where there are no chances for negative repercussions.
I won't say it is the cowards way out, but anyone can judge that for themselves.

It is what it is, I'll try not to make that mistake again. Some just prefer to end their points with derogatory remarks. They would never get very far with that sort of behavior in real life, nor in formal debates, nor in sit down informal discussions, none of which this is. This is a virtual medium, and apparently the normal rules of civil behavior sadly do not apply here ..... at least for some they don't.

Agreed.

It is a no win -

If I complain about it - "you are a whiner"

If I return the insult- "ban SBM - he is shitting on the forum"

I just point out the hypocrisy now - mine and theirs - and amuse myself lol.

[Clipper Nation]

I'm not sure I've ever seen clipper nation preach.

Link his sermon.
I don't really whine about insults and name-calling because it's just part of the culture here (and because some people are clever and funny with it).... this is a loosely-moderated board, so insults are a way of self-policing against those who bring nothing but atrocious takes, meltdowns, and grade school-level trolling, tbh.....

SBM doesn't grasp this idea, and wants to blame others for how he's made himself into a pariah on here, so he hypocritically whines and complains about namecalling and perceived injustice and thinks that admitting his hypocrisy then gives him license to carry out the same behaviors he whines about, tbh....

Basically, SBM and his semen shields want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to look like they're taking the high road, but they also want to sling insults around at the same time against "popular" members of the board who they feel have wronged them.... newsflash: you can't have it both ways....

[DMC]

Agreed.

It is a no win -

If I complain about it - "you are a whiner"

If I return the insult- "ban SBM - he is shitting on the forum"

I just point out the hypocrisy now - mine and theirs - and amuse myself lol.

War and Peace Volume 2 followed by Les Miserables, the Raping of Tino.

[xmas1997]

Agreed.

It is a no win -

If I complain about it - "you are a whiner"

If I return the insult- "ban SBM - he is shitting on the forum"

I just point out the hypocrisy now - mine and theirs - and amuse myself lol.

I understand.
My interest here however is and has always been to possibly learn something, some new tidbit of information maybe, that will benefit my overall understanding. I never once claimed I had all the answers or even any of the answers.

I do get some measure of amusement here though. There are some very witty posters frequenting this forum.
When I got back into regular posting not long ago, because I found myself with some free time to do so, I made the common mistake of getting very involved in the pissing contests. I quickly realized that it was counter productive to my original goal.
You will remember our bash fest on each other, and how very little that accomplished.
After that I began to awaken to the realization that if I quit with the bashing and the use of ridicule, that maybe I would have a more favorable response, thus gaining the ends that I sought after.

Since quitting the insults and ridicule I have achieved some small bits of success towards this end, and certainly more than I did before while absorbed in using the negative tactics. I can at least say with honesty that I do not do that any more.
Been there, done that, gained nothing, lost nothing. :lol

I even refrain now from accusing others of that tactic. Rather I probe as to the whys, and wherefores of what it gains them.
Most agree with you, for their own amusement, and for the amusement of their peers. The first reason escapes me, and the second, I've long since grown out of. This should not be misinterpreted as criticism of you however. To each his own.

For me, I have been able to achieve more through the age old adage of doing unto,others as you would have them do unto you. I accord them with respect until they prove they are not worthy of that respect, but I also expect their respect as well.
For the most part this works. Unfortunately there are those others out there in virtual land who it never will work with because of there inherent negatively based agendas. For me, these are the trolls.
Sadly for them the only thing that does is make them look pretty damn foolish, but then should I expect any less of a fool? :lol

[silverblk mystix]

I don't really whine about insults and name-calling because it's just part of the culture here (and because some people are clever and funny with it).... this is a loosely-moderated board, so insults are a way of self-policing against those who bring nothing but atrocious takes, meltdowns, and grade school-level trolling, tbh.....

SBM doesn't grasp this idea, and wants to blame others for how he's made himself into a pariah on here, so he hypocritically whines and complains about namecalling and perceived injustice and thinks that admitting his hypocrisy then gives him license to carry out the same behaviors he whines about, tbh....

Basically, SBM and his semen shields want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to look like they're taking the high road, but they also want to sling insults around at the same time against "popular" members of the board who they feel have wronged them.... newsflash: you can't have it both ways....

In other words - you cherry pick who you snitch on.


How honorable.

[Blake]

You are welcome. Odd though you have no problems communicating and having an intelligent discourse with me, yet these few others are resistant to it with you.
Makes no sense.

Of course you have no problems with him. You give his crazy enlightened crap some merit.

[Blake]

In other words - you cherry pick who you snitch on.


How honorable.

You're claiming snitch with no evidence.

How dishonorable.

[silverblk mystix]

^ can't ever be happy ^ now he is unhappy that SBM and xmas have no problems between them ^ lol

[Blake]

^ can't ever be happy ^ now he is unhappy that SBM and xmas have no problems between them ^ lol

Lol ^ thinks I'm jealous

Crazy nut.

[silverblk mystix]

^ now he will blatantly rip off this > ^

[Clipper Nation]

In other words - you cherry pick who you snitch on.


How honorable.
Calling you out for what you and your semen shields openly do on here all day =/= snitching

[silverblk mystix]

^snitch with absolutely no credibility ^ thinking his opinion has validity ^ surefire sign of someone out of touch with reality^

[Clipper Nation]

^snitch with absolutely no credibility ^ thinking his opinion has validity ^ surefire sign of someone out of touch with reality^
There you go narrating your own posts in the third person again....

[silverblk mystix]

^shameful snitch without shame ^ makes the snitching even worse^

[Clipper Nation]

^shameful snitch without shame ^ makes the snitching even worse^


There you go narrating your own posts in the third person again....

[silverblk mystix]

^once a snitch....^ always....

[Blake]

^ now he will blatantly rip off this > ^

^ you gonna snitch on me? ^^^^^

[silverblk mystix]

^can't invent his own method^

[Blake]

^can't invent his own method^

^^^^^^^:cry :cry "I started a lame shtick that's really not a shtick :cry ^^^^^^^^^

[silverblk mystix]

^marching to my beat ^ good boy^

[xmas1997]

Of course you have no problems with him. You give his crazy enlightened crap some merit.

I have never really had a problem with you either, at least I can't remember if we did.
As for SBM, you should have read our posts at first, we clashed pretty heavily, the mud slinging was rampant on both sides.

But if both sides are somewhat intelligent, and reasonable, they are capable of ironing out their differences and/or opinions.
You never know from whom your next insight will come from. I got a few from DMC and fuzzy too, but in DMCs case he felt more secure in his accusation that I was a troll. Go figure.
In fuzzys case, he could not refrain from his insulting behavior for me to converse with him in a civil manner. You can't please everyone, he me and me him. It is what it is.

[Blake]

I have never really had a problem with you either, at least I can't remember if we did.
As for SBM, you should have read our posts at first, we clashed pretty heavily, the mud slinging was rampant on both sides.

But if both sides are somewhat intelligent, and reasonable, they are capable of ironing out their differences and/or opinions.
You never know from whom your next insight will come from. I got a few from DMC and fuzzy too, but in DMCs case he felt more secure in his accusation that I was a troll. Go figure.
In fuzzys case, he could not refrain from his insulting behavior for me to converse with him in a civil manner. You can't please everyone, he me and me him. It is what it is.

Neat.

[silverblk mystix]

Enough of the explanations - just bang my wife!

[Blake]

You're an idiot.

[silverblk mystix]

^back to insults ^ predictable ^ boring ^

[Blake]

^back to insults ^ predictable ^ boring ^

^by pure definition, this is hypocritical.

damn you're a dumbfuck.

[silverblk mystix]

^and...it looks ...like ^ yup ^ more angry name calling ^ just checking to see if he realized it yet ^

[Clipper Nation]

^once a snitch....^ always....


^can't invent his own method^


^back to insults ^ predictable ^ boring ^


^and...it looks ...like ^ yup ^ more angry name calling ^ just checking to see if he realized it yet ^


There you go narrating your own posts in the third person again....

[silverblk mystix]

^ is trying to figure out why he is my puppet ^

[Blake]

^and...it looks ...like ^ yup ^ more angry name calling ^ just checking to see if he realized it yet ^

I'm not angry, but yes, dumbass, I've called you names from almost day 1, dumbass.

You're still too stupid to understand what a hypocrite is, dumbass.

Let's see if you still try to claim I'm a hypocrite too.

Dumbass.

[silverblk mystix]

^ more cuck anger ^ coming to the surface ^ it appears she hurt him really bad ^

[xmas1997]

Neat.


Neat?
That's it, just neat?
I was trying to give you some examples, but all I get is "neat"?
Work with me here, Blake.
Yes, even SBM has some truths to impart, as do you.

[mouse]

Work with me here, Blake.



Which Blake are you referring to?

You guys have short memory issues. I told you Blake,Chump,and RandomLie share Government cubicles.


aF1SXnTgCY8

[silverblk mystix]

Which Blake are you referring to?

You guys have short memory issues. I told you Blake,Chump,and RandomLie share Government cubicles.


aF1SXnTgCY8


are they ALL snitches too?

I'd say yes.

[xmas1997]

Which Blake are you referring to?

You guys have short memory issues. I told you Blake,Chump,and RandomLie share Government cubicles.


aF1SXnTgCY8

Sorry, I forgot. :lol
Question, is that Fuzzy character the same? Or is he just antagonistic by nature?
His hostility reeks through each and every post in his attempts to appear intellectually inclined. But once you start discussing things with him he hides behind his pseudo intellectualism as he deflects the discussion toward pissing contests.
He fooled me at first, but I wised up to him quickly. Won't happen again. :lol

[xmas1997]

Which Blake are you referring to?

You guys have short memory issues. I told you Blake,Chump,and RandomLie share Government cubicles.


aF1SXnTgCY8

I have noticed that there is a decent mature open minded Blake, an antagonistic bitter Blake, a curious Blake, and an immature childish Blake, so I suppose it is impossible to discuss things with him .......er, them. :lol

However Chump seems the same each time I read one of his posts.

[Blake]

I have noticed that there is a decent mature open minded Blake, an antagonistic bitter Blake, a curious Blake, and an immature childish Blake, so I suppose it is impossible to discuss things with him .......er, them. :lol

However Chump seems the same each time I read one of his posts.

Fascinating. I'd argue I'm all of those every time except for bitter. I have no reason to be bitter against anyone here.

[RandomGuy]

"Atheism isn't a belief"


Webster disagrees;

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|nounthe theory or belief that God does not exist.DERIVATIVESatheist nounatheistic |ˌāθēˈistik| adjectiveatheistical |-ˈistikəl| adjectiveORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’


lol owning himself!



"rejection of belief in God or gods"

Sorry, your dictionary definition is not the one I would care to use.

You don't get to pick a definition that is not agreed on by both parties, otherwise basing assertions on such a definition is not only logically flawed, it is intellectually dishonest, which is about par for the course for you.

I would, and do define atheism as a rejection of claims about the existance of God.

[silverblk mystix]

"Atheism isn't a belief"









Sorry, your dictionary definition is not the one I would care to use.

You don't get to pick a definition that is not agreed on by both parties, otherwise basing assertions on such a definition is not only logically flawed, it is intellectually dishonest, which is about par for the course for you.

I would, and do define atheism as a rejection of claims about the existance of God.









Either definition does not refute the fact that you don't hold any higher or superior position on the issue of a god.

Rejection of belief - is just that - YOU reject the belief - it has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a god.

[Blake]

Either definition does not refute the fact that you don't hold any higher or superior position on the issue of a god.

Rejection of belief - is just that - YOU reject the belief - it has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a god.

Congrats for agreeing with him and moving goalposts all in one post.

Hard to do, imo

[xmas1997]

"Atheism isn't a belief"






Sorry, your dictionary definition is not the one I would care to use.

You don't get to pick a definition that is not agreed on by both parties, otherwise basing assertions on such a definition is not only logically flawed, it is intellectually dishonest, which is about par for the course for you.

I would, and do define atheism as a rejection of claims about the existance of God.

Try not to take this offensively, but Mouse has alleged you are more than one person using the same name but in different cubicles.

[Blake]

And mouse's allegations are relevant how?

[xmas1997]

And mouse's allegations are relevant how?

I prefer to talk to the same person for cohesiveness.

[Blake]

I prefer to talk to the same person for cohesiveness.

A good mediator, in my opinion, focuses strictly on what is said........no so much as to who said it.......definitely not on why it was said.

sorry, but your prospects at being a mediator here are looking rather bleak.

[xmas1997]

A good mediator, in my opinion, focuses strictly on what is said........no so much as to who said it.......definitely not on why it was said.

sorry, but your prospects at being a mediator here are looking rather bleak.

I just offered to help, which is more than anyone else has done. And I never would even considered charging a fee. :lol
But I would be impartial.
Just remember, I offered. And I have done this before and actually was successful. But you have only my word for that. I have never done it on the internet.
Anyway, I offered. 'Nuff said.

[Blake]

I just offered to help, which is more than anyone else has done. And I never would even considered charging a fee. :lol
But I would be impartial.
Just remember, I offered. And I have done this before and actually was successful. But you have only my word for that. I have never done it on the internet.
Anyway, I offered. 'Nuff said.

I'll probably forget you offered since nobody asked for your help in the first place.

No offense.

[xmas1997]

I'll probably forget you offered since nobody asked for your help in the first place.

No offense.

No offense taken.
It is what it is.

[silverblk mystix]

^cuck not bitter ^cuck not an asshole^ lol

[mouse]

Sorry, I forgot. :lol
Question, is that Fuzzy character the same? Or is he just antagonistic by nature?


Its an easy process to figure out. use math.......time online + post count X's the times you have to repeat yourself to the power of 3 persons to pull 8 hour shits ( I meant to say shifts but saw no reason to edit) and you get your answer.


you ever notice how you have to repeat yourself as each different posters is not up to date with the subject matter?

after all why would Chump ask "what do you think really happened on 9/11?" 24/7 the Government Shills need to leave some post it's on the monitor or brief them before they take over the cubicle.

I have worked with Government people some of them are very Anal they think they are above you..hence the way you get treated at various government buildings. Those assholes at DPS know you have no choice but to come to them for a Drivers License they have you by the balls they can be a rude as they want to be, where else are you going to go?


His hostility reeks through each and every post in his attempts to appear intellectually inclined.

Please never put those two words in the same sentence again. (when talking about Blake



But once you start discussing things with him he hides behind his pseudo intellectualism as he deflects the discussion toward pissing contests.
He fooled me at first, but I wised up to him quickly. Won't happen again. :lol


Then you move on and have intelligent conversations with others.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/9.jpg

[mouse]

However Chump seems the same each time I read one of his posts.


Not really. he was the one who got me to start investigating in the first place. After all I already told him 8 years ago "what I think happened on 9/11" but he won't stop asking its an old way to make others who don't read the first 90 pages of a 91 page topic on 9/11 they just read him asking so they assume we never replied.

I think with YouTube alone his ass gets waxed as the evidence keeps surfacing. Look at his style of posting he can go 8 hours not cursing and then 8 hours of cheesy insults, go search 9/11 topics.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bored/firedevil.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sorry, I forgot. :lol
Question, is that Fuzzy character the same? Or is he just antagonistic by nature?
His hostility reeks through each and every post in his attempts to appear intellectually inclined. But once you start discussing things with him he hides behind his pseudo intellectualism as he deflects the discussion toward pissing contests.
He fooled me at first, but I wised up to him quickly. Won't happen again. :lol

Nice. Now you are calling me out in threads when I am not even posting on them. I find you using a desire to sound intelligent as an insult to be absolutely delicious. "Fuzzy sounds smart. He is a big jerk. :cry"

I'm in your room, Raleigh.

It's interesting watching you meltdown from the moralism to what you are doing now. Much more frantic and pleading in tone.

[xmas1997]

Its an easy process to figure out. use math.......time online + post count X's the times you have to repeat yourself to the power of 3 persons to pull 8 hour shits ( I meant to say shifts but saw no reason to edit) and you get your answer.


you ever notice how you have to repeat yourself as each different posters is not up to date with the subject matter?

after all why would Chump ask "what do you think really happened on 9/11?" 24/7 the Government Shills need to leave some post it's on the monitor or brief them before they take over the cubicle.

I have worked with Government people some of them are very Anal they think they are above you..hence the way you get treated at various government buildings. Those assholes at DPS know you have no choice but to come to them for a Drivers License they have you by the balls they can be a rude as they want to be, where else are you going to go?



Please never put those two words in the same sentence again. (when talking about Blake





Then you move on and have intelligent conversations with others.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/9.jpg

Makes sense, but I was asking about Fuzzy.
In the end, you are correct. If they can't keep up, then they didn't want to take the time to read.
And if they are hostile in their discussions, then they aren't worth the effort.
Thanks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sup mouse.

[xmas1997]

Nice. Now you are calling me out in threads when I am not even posting on them. I find you using a desire to sound intelligent as an insult to be absolutely delicious. "Fuzzy sounds smart. He is a big jerk. :cry"

I'm in your room, Raleigh.

It's interesting watching you meltdown from the moralism to what you are doing now. Much more frantic and pleading in tone.

I guess you decided not to read the threads again, but then I don't blame you.
Just trying to get a better understanding from someone who has been here awhile.
Does that bother you for some reason?
I am wise to your agenda now, and just letting you know it won't work.
But don't take my word for it, put it to the test, flame to your hearts desire.
No one can make a bigger fool of you then you can yourself, certainly not me. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess you decided not to read the threads again, but then I don't blame you.
Just trying to get a better understanding from someone who has been here awhile.
Does that bother you for some reason?
I am wise to your agenda now, and just letting you know it won't work.
But don't take my word for it, put it to the test, flame to your hearts desire.
No one can make a bigger fool of you then you can yourself, certainly not me. :lol

My agenda is pretty transparent. I am not one to mince words. You are just now figuring it out?

I am just curious as to why you desire to try and seem as something you are not.

[xmas1997]

Uh huh, riiiight.

[xmas1997]

And mouse's allegations are relevant how?
Shouldn't you be asking Mouse that question?