Arguing against religion

General discussion on the subject of religion, losing religion, and having no religion to lose...
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:32 am

ThePragmatic wrote:My expectations on this forum was clearly an real overestimation on my part. :frown:

That's a fair enough call. :D

Try think about it this way. It is rare to get a coherent argument out of any new forum members holding a weird belief system. If we only responded to those coherent people, the forum would be very quiet.

Therefore it is good to keep a handful of "representative" loonies here to act as standard bearers for their bizarre belief subsets. Thus we have two long term holocaust deniers, two long term religious members, a couple of Trump fanatics, two aliens are here members, an illuminati believer, a remote viewing believer and so on.

New forum members would have little chance of encountering these fringe dwellers if we only responded to the ones who could make coherent arguments.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Try think about it this way. It is rare to get a coherent argument out of any new forum members holding a weird belief system.

Mmmmm, weird belief systems.... http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data ... 1455379338
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17309
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:50 am

ThePragmatic wrote:My expectations on this forum was clearly an real overestimation on my part. :frown:

Sa brura!

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:41 am

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.

You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.


Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself. Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary. You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:12 am

Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:An arguement against religion is the
same as the arguement against any group.

Not exactly. You can argument against a religion without arguing against anyone in that group. For instance, you can argue against the tenets of a religion.


Would the group exist without it?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:15 pm

Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.

You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.

Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself.

You reflexively stated a non sequitur, for which I gladly take credit.

Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary.

From what I've seen of your posts, you cannot claim to be able to differentiate between between voluntary and involuntary reactions.

You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that memories are actual things.

As I said, you seem unable to learn.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:16 pm

Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:An arguement against religion is the
same as the arguement against any group.

Not exactly. You can argument against a religion without arguing against anyone in that group. For instance, you can argue against the tenets of a religion.

Would the group exist without it?

Yes.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:31 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Azania wrote: Those words are meaningless, useless.
You wrote them! :lol:
Azania wrote:Unless you can see what the are referring to you might as well write them on a piece of paper and wipe your hairy little arsehole with it.
Firstly, you missed the entire point. Your "insults" are simply hilarious, with bad spelling and unintended mixed metaphors. That's why your unwitting comedy insults are the highlight of your posts. :lol:

Secondly, as Shaka, Clarifyit4me or any other of your sock puppet names, you seem to have a fixation with bottoms, which is a bit weird. :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol: I own nothing, particularly a bunch of words you have copied and pasted onto a forum thread. You are so slow ellard I might as well go on vacation for a few months. The meaning of those words have gone. And the only point I've missed which is hardly surprising is the tiny little pin prick of an impression you have made in this dialogue. Bad spelling and unintended mixed metaphors, :lol: you should try reviewing your own posts before you start with your pedantical nonsense routine here. Do you see the pattern emerging? :lol: is it that time already? Soon you'll be throwing your dummy out and filing complaint. :lol: :lol: :lol: you've reach the bottom of the barrel again haven't you ellard? I can always tell when you've had enough of a verbal beating - out comes the rule book - the last resort :lol: ( chick my grama an spelyn bitch muvertrucker) :lol: :lol: If intelligence could be bought you would be a very dangerous little man indeed :lol: :lol: my sides are hurting :lol: :lol:

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:37 pm

Anyway ellard gords here now, you are dismissed. He's far more interesting despite being a hillbilly from the plains of Transcona.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:48 pm

Azania wrote:....a hillbilly from the plains of Transcona.

Now you've redefined the word hillbilly, too. How, for instance, could a hillbilly be from a plain of anything?

You need help, but I can't provide it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:28 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Firstly, you missed the entire point. Your "insults" are simply hilarious, with bad spelling and unintended mixed metaphors. That's why your unwitting comedy insults are the highlight of your posts. :lol:
Secondly, as Shaka, Clarifyit4me or any other of your sock puppet names, you seem to have a fixation with bottoms, which is a bit weird. :lol:

Azania wrote: I own nothing,
I kinda guessed that already...... :lol:
Azania wrote:You are so slow ellard I might as well go on vacation for a few months.
Make it ten years and I'll contribute $1 to your one way bus fare..... :lol:

One of your stranger habits is to claim you are not consciously posting anything and then start posting "Ell-ard retard, Ell-ard retard". Obviously I am a huge part of your sub-conscious make up. I'm very flattered that I have such a big effect on you.
The Buddha.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Azania's mixed up insult for today!

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:35 pm

Azania wrote:....a hillbilly from the plains of Transcona.
Gord wrote: How, for instance, could a hill billy be from a plain of anything?
Now, that was very very funny. I wonder if Azania will get what he just did?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17309
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:18 am

Nah, he/she/it is still beating innocent verbality into oblivion...

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:13 pm

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.


You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.

Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself.


You reflexively stated a non sequitur, for which I gladly take credit.


I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating a fact. But if you insist on using verbal acrobatics you might want to have a safety net in place. Otherwise you are destined to fall and hurt yourself .

Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary.

From what I've seen of your posts, you cannot claim to be able to differentiate between between voluntary and involuntary reactions.


On your part that is merely a matter of opinion, for which I am not in the least interested. And since an opinion is invariably attached to the mind you might want to look elsewhere .

You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that memories are actual things.


It is your obsession with words and images that confuses you. Memories are made up of thoughts and images, images are symbols that represent the spoken word. Words make up your thoughts. These are things, they actually appear in the mind as do the images -you remember them. But definitely not in the reality. There are no thing's in reality. Things come after the deed, not before. Remember being is not in existence.

As I said, you seem unable to learn.


I need not learn a thing to be, only to understand is the key

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17309
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:31 pm

Shakania wrote:...only to understand is the key

Ah, we're getting to the root of things. You understood wrongly. The teaching you proclaim to adhere to doesn't need, nor does it call for proselytizers.

Have a good day.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:37 pm

Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.


You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.

Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself.

You reflexively stated a non sequitur, for which I gladly take credit.

I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating a fact. But if you insist on using verbal acrobatics you might want to have a safety net in place. Otherwise you are destined to fall and hurt yourself.

"Verbal acrobatics?" Did you get that out of a book somewhere?

I gladly take credit not because you asked me to, but simply because I gladly take credit. Whyever do you think I would only take credit for something if you had asked me to do it?

Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary.

From what I've seen of your posts, you cannot claim to be able to differentiate between between voluntary and involuntary reactions.

On your part that is merely a matter of opinion, for which I am not in the least interested. And since an opinion is invariably attached to the mind you might want to look elsewhere.

All I see posted here are opinions. What have you got against opinions, and why do you feel it necessary to keep posting your own if you don't like them in the first place?

You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that memories are actual things.

It is your obsession with words and images that confuses you.

Are you unaware that you're attempting to communicate through words and images here? In other words, if you think I'm confused, then you must think it's because of what you're saying and the way you are failing to get your meaning across. This is, in fact, what I've said to you before -- that you don't know what you're actually saying.

So, you seem to be in agreement with me here, and yet you refuse to try to do a better job. Why is that, exactly?

Memories are made up of thoughts and images, images are symbols that represent the spoken word. Words make up your thoughts. These are things, they actually appear in the mind as do the images -you remember them. But definitely not in the reality. There are no thing's in reality. Things come after the deed, not before. Remember being is not in existence.

I believe you have misused the term "mind" when you meant "brain", so I'll respond as if you had phrased it with the more accurate term.

So in other words, you are aware that memories are real things. You are simply confused by something else, and insist on using the words "reality" and "existence" in a way that is contrary to their generally accepted meanings, while refusing to provide your own alternative definitions so as to make your claims from being understandable enough to refute.

As I said, you seem unable to learn.

I need not learn a thing to be, only to understand is the key

You need to learn in order to understand how wrong you are. Refusing to do so means you are wallowing gleefully in your own ignorance. I don't understand why you would choose such a life.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:38 pm

Azania, two days ago wrote:most of this bunch know they cannot argue with the facts hence the reason they do not stick around much
Azania, today wrote:I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating a fact.

Azania is a very very very confused lunatic, with a very short memory span. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:01 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Nah, he/she/it is still beating innocent verbality into oblivion...


Nah scrm I like to beat my scrambled eggs. :lol: :lol: :lol: Incidentally I thought of you whilst I was cracking the shell. It got me thinking. What is the significance of omitting the three letters from your user name scrAmblEdEggS (AEE)? I've got a few suggestions for an acronym if you like. :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:14 am

Azania wrote: Nah scrm I like to beat my scrambled eggs. :lol: :lol: :lol: Incidentally I thought of you whilst I was cracking the shell. It got me thinking. What is the significance of omitting the three letters from your user name scrAmblEdEggS (AEE)? I've got a few suggestions for an acronym if you like. :lol: :lol:


Can anyone translate this into a coherent post?

It appears Shaka has taken a couple too many tranquilizers today. :lol:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:14 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Azania wrote: Nah scrm I like to beat my scrambled eggs. :lol: :lol: :lol: Incidentally I thought of you whilst I was cracking the shell. It got me thinking. What is the significance of omitting the three letters from your user name scrAmblEdEggS (AEE)? I've got a few suggestions for an acronym if you like. :lol: :lol:

Can anyone translate this into a coherent post?

It appears Shaka has taken a couple too many tranquilizers today. :lol:

He's just having trouble figuring out what's real.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ThePragmatic
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:11 pm
Custom Title: Non-believer
Location: Sweden

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby ThePragmatic » Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:50 pm

Azania wrote:What do you expect from a forum where it's members are asleep. Besides simple logic says expect nothing and there will be no disappointment.

I was of course expecting you to reply. Although, I must admit that I was expecting a personal attack on me, not just the forum members in general. Perhaps I misjudged you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gord wrote:What were you hoping for? Maybe we can help. If not here, then there are other forums out there.

Thank you. That's actually a really good question, what was I hoping for? I find myself having a hard time answering that.

I guess I was hoping for a forum with serious discussion between opposing views, not just random flinging of poo at each other.
I know, I know, it's a public internet forum, so it's bound to be this n that n yada, yada. I guess my naivety filter failed and I got my hopes up to high.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ellard wrote:That's a fair enough call. :D

Try think about it this way. It is rare to get a coherent argument out of any new forum members holding a weird belief system. If we only responded to those coherent people, the forum would be very quiet.

Therefore it is good to keep a handful of "representative" loonies here to act as standard bearers for their bizarre belief subsets. Thus we have two long term holocaust deniers, two long term religious members, a couple of Trump fanatics, two aliens are here members, an illuminati believer, a remote viewing believer and so on.

New forum members would have little chance of encountering these fringe dwellers if we only responded to the ones who could make coherent arguments.

Well put, you are absolutely right.
My negative reaction was to the the constant ad hominem attacks, spitting on each other back and fourth. It's just so pointless and non-productive.
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:02 pm

ThePragmatic wrote: My negative reaction was to the the constant ad hominem attacks, spitting on each other back and fourth. It's just so pointless and non-productive.
That's fair. Pyrrho, the moderator, also frowns heavily on the childish exchanges and, I'd guess, most of the members, do so, also.

Some members use the "ignore this person" option, so they can't see the regular troll's posts. Some members simply don't bother reading and ignore the regular trolls posts.


On the other hand, some of the weirder trolls post "claims" that are so ridiculously funny that it is like watching an endless series of Monty Python skits. :D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:49 pm

I love childish exchanges, but only in the form of mockery of childish exchanges and the love of same.

That probably doesn't come through in my posts thought.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:11 pm

ThePragmatic wrote:
Gord wrote:What were you hoping for? Maybe we can help. If not here, then there are other forums out there.

Thank you. That's actually a really good question, what was I hoping for? I find myself having a hard time answering that.

I guess I was hoping for a forum with serious discussion between opposing views, not just random flinging of poo at each other.
I know, I know, it's a public internet forum, so it's bound to be this n that n yada, yada.

Well, there's the International Skeptics Forum, but I don't check in there much anymore so I'm not sure how the poo flinging is these days. There were serious discussions in the past if I remember correctly. It could still be happening: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... mindex.php

...drat, there was forum one I wanted to mention but I can't remember the name of it. I tried googling what I could remember, but the closest I came was the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Apparently I posted there 7 years ago! :pardon:

I guess my naivety filter failed and I got my hopes up to high.

too
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:01 pm

Gord wrote:I love childish exchanges, but only in the form of mockery of childish exchanges and the love of same.

That probably doesn't come through in my posts thought.


Every time I see this ~ I think of you.
Same sence of humour lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_the_Dog
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:19 pm

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.

You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.

Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself.

You reflexively stated a non sequitur, for which I gladly take credit.

I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating a fact. But if you insist on using verbal acrobatics you might want to have a safety net in place. Otherwise you are destined to fall and hurt yourself.

"Verbal acrobatics?" Did you get that out of a book somewhere?

I may have done, I may have just heard it somewhere. The consciousness records everything whether you are present of not. Where this figure of speech originated is irrelevant, what matters is its purpose of highlighting your habitual use of formal language. The fact is non verbal, what has a non sequitur have to do with the fact?
Gord wrote:I gladly take credit not because you asked me to, but simply because I gladly take credit.

For what? I didn't state a non sequitur, I stated a fact. A fact is not a non sequitur it is a fact, point simple point blank.
Gord wrote: Whyever do you think I would only take credit for something if you had asked me to do it?

Probably for the same reason why you would think that there was credit in the offering in the first place. Who can take credit for a fact? The fact is there before any notion of merit or demerit.
Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary.

From what I've seen of your posts, you cannot claim to be able to differentiate between between voluntary and involuntary reactions.

On your part that is merely a matter of opinion, for which I am not in the least interested. And since an opinion is invariably attached to the mind you might want to look elsewhere.

Gord wrote:All I see posted here are opinions.

And that's all you will see unless you investigate further.
Gord wrote:What have you got against opinions, and why do you feel it necessary to keep posting your own if you don't like them in the first place?

I have nothing against opinions and I do not feel it necessary to post my own, in fact! non compels. A fact is a fact whether you agree or not, you cannot argue with the fact.
You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that memories are actual things.

It is your obsession with words and images that confuses you.

Gord wrote:Are you unaware that you're attempting to communicate through words and images here?

I am aware that I am conscious within that focus of awareness there are words that of being exchange.
Gord wrote:In other words, if you think I'm confused, then you must think it's because of what you're saying and the way you are failing to get your meaning across.

You are confused because you think it is really happening - whatever it is you think you know. It is only because of your memory why you think there is continuity in what you say. To me it is all momentary, what is real cannot be contained in a memory.
Gord wrote:This is, in fact, what I've said to you before -- that you don't know what you're actually saying.

It is enough to know that words are being exchange, their meaning however sublime do not convey the fact of the matter.
Gord wrote:So, you seem to be in agreement with me here, and yet you refuse to try to do a better job. Why is that, exactly?

The why cannot be exact for you need to know who is asking before you can know the why. How can two minds agree if they are in different places? It is not a result of what I am saying why I think you are confused it's more to do with how you have understood what you think you already know.
Memories are made up of thoughts and images, images are symbols that represent the spoken word. Words make up your thoughts. These are things, they actually appear in the mind as do the images -you remember them. But definitely not in the reality. There are no thing's in reality. Things come after the deed, not before. Remember being is not in existence.

Gord wrote:I believe you have misused the term "mind" when you meant "brain", so I'll respond as if you had phrased it with the more accurate term.

Neither brain or mind can be seen as an accurate description for they are built on a false notion . The brain is an abstract idea of an abstraction idea.
Gord wrote: So in other words, you are aware that memories are real things.

NO! How can a memory of a thing be real if a thing in itself is not real? Ultimately no thing can be real. They may have a momentary reality based on your impartation of reality. In other words if you are not there then no-thing is there.
Gord wrote:You are simply confused by something else, and insist on using the words "reality" and "existence" in a way that is contrary to their generally accepted meanings,

What is consider general may be wrong altogether. When referring to the fact reality and existence are quite apart. Through no will or imagination can you interchange the two. Reality is not in the picture. The picture is merely a rendition of your brain consciousness , it may as well be smoke. What is real cannot be a product of the imagination. Existence is transient and related to something in time and space, it needs the support of consciousness. Whilst reality is in and of itself, unsupported. In general existence is considered real because of its tangibility but this is only during your waking state. What appears and disappears has no reality. Are you aware of anything tangible existing in your sleep?
Gord wrote:while refusing to provide your own alternative definitions so as to make your claims from being understandable enough to refute.

The reality cannot be defined so it is not a question of providing a definition. You can know it for yourself by being yourself. Nobody need provide you with a definition. It is self evident when you come to know what you are in reality.
As I said, you seem unable to learn.

I need not learn a thing to be, only to understand is the key

You need to learn in order to understand how wrong you are.

Being cannot be wrong, is it wrong for a tree to bear poisonous fruits? In reality whatever is done in the light of aware is right whatever is done in the darkness of ignorance is wrong. Become more aware of yourself as you are in reality and you will understand that nobody is doing anything, it all happens by itself.
Gord wrote: Refusing to do so means you are wallowing gleefully in your own ignorance. I don't understand why you would choose such a life.

There is neither ignorance nor knowledge. It is only because you have become self conscious of something in particular that you know of your ignorance and that of the others. When you go to sleep at night it is all forgotten. Remember your self consciousness is only in your waking state not in your sleep. You are only alive in your sleep.

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:47 pm

ThePragmatic wrote:
Azania wrote:What do you expect from a forum where it's members are asleep. Besides simple logic says expect nothing and there will be no disappointment.

I was of course expecting you to reply. Although, I must admit that I was expecting a personal attack on me, not just the forum members in general. Perhaps I misjudged you?


No doubt. Intelligent exchange of information naturally leads to intelligent conversation. But there are always those that feel it necessary to bring it down to the level of infancy.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gord wrote:What were you hoping for? Maybe we can help. If not here, then there are other forums out there.

Thank you. That's actually a really good question, what was I hoping for? I find myself having a hard time answering that.

I guess I was hoping for a forum with serious discussion between opposing views, not just random flinging of poo at each other.
I know, I know, it's a public internet forum, so it's bound to be this n that n yada, yada. I guess my naivety filter failed and I got my hopes up to high.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ellard wrote:That's a fair enough call. :D

Try think about it this way. It is rare to get a coherent argument out of any new forum members holding a weird belief system. If we only responded to those coherent people, the forum would be very quiet.

Therefore it is good to keep a handful of "representative" loonies here to act as standard bearers for their bizarre belief subsets. Thus we have two long term holocaust deniers, two long term religious members, a couple of Trump fanatics, two aliens are here members, an illuminati believer, a remote viewing believer and so on.

New forum members would have little chance of encountering these fringe dwellers if we only responded to the ones who could make coherent arguments.

Well put, you are absolutely right.
My negative reaction was to the the constant ad hominem attacks, spitting on each other back and fourth. It's just so pointless and non-productive.[/quote]

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:16 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Shakania wrote:...only to understand is the key

Ah, we're getting to the root of things. You understood wrongly. The teaching you proclaim to adhere to doesn't need, nor does it call for proselytizers.

Have a good day.


Not yet you haven't. Until you see yourself as you are in reality you are only scratching the surface. You can wait for life's lessons to come around but you may be in for a long wait. Or you can take it from somebody who knows - nobody in particular. The question is where does your interest lie? If it is with yourself then there is no teacher. If it is with the other then whosoever brings the message will be seen as a proselytiser. Hence the reason why one need only understand.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:53 pm

Azania, two days ago wrote:I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating as a fact.
Azania, yesterday wrote: I didn't state a non sequitur, I stated a fact. A fact is not a non sequitur it is a fact, point simple point blank. A fact is a fact whether you agree or not, you cannot argue with the fact.
Soooooo........which is your "correct" statement today Shaka? :lol: :lol: :lol:



Azania, two days ago wrote: I do not consciously do anything. It just happens
Azania, yesterday wrote:Nah scrm I like to beat my scrambled eggs. :lol: :lol: :lol: Incidentally I thought of you whilst I was cracking the shell. It got me thinking. What is the significance of omitting the three letters from your user name scrAmblEdEggS (AEE)? I've got a few suggestions for an acronym if you like. :lol: :lol:
So "You were thinking" but simultaneously claim you aren't consciously thinking? Which is your "correct" statement today Shaka? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hypocrisy (noun)
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:31 am

Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:I love childish exchanges, but only in the form of mockery of childish exchanges and the love of same.

That probably doesn't come through in my posts thought.


Every time I see this ~ I think of you.
Same sence of humour lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_the_Dog

Jake is only one of many muses that visit me every day. I also draw inspiration from Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, and that guy with the funny hair.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:10 am

Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.

You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.

Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself.

You reflexively stated a non sequitur, for which I gladly take credit.

I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating a fact. But if you insist on using verbal acrobatics you might want to have a safety net in place. Otherwise you are destined to fall and hurt yourself.

"Verbal acrobatics?" Did you get that out of a book somewhere?

I may have done, I may have just heard it somewhere. The consciousness records everything whether you are present of not. Where this figure of speech originated is irrelevant, what matters is its purpose of highlighting your habitual use of formal language. The fact is non verbal, what has a non sequitur have to do with the fact?

You do not have the facts, you have a confusing bewilderment.

Gord wrote:I gladly take credit not because you asked me to, but simply because I gladly take credit.

For what? I didn't state a non sequitur, I stated a fact. A fact is not a non sequitur it is a fact, point simple point blank.

You do not have the facts, you have a confusing bewilderment.

I take credit for your reflexive posting of a non sequitur.

Gord wrote:Whyever do you think I would only take credit for something if you had asked me to do it?

Probably for the same reason why you would think that there was credit in the offering in the first place. Who can take credit for a fact? The fact is there before any notion of merit or demerit.[/quote]
Anyone can take credit for a fact. Nor should one wait for you to offer them credit, where credit is due.

Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary.

From what I've seen of your posts, you cannot claim to be able to differentiate between between voluntary and involuntary reactions.

On your part that is merely a matter of opinion, for which I am not in the least interested. And since an opinion is invariably attached to the mind you might want to look elsewhere.

Gord wrote:All I see posted here are opinions.

And that's all you will see unless you investigate further.

Incorrect. All you have posted are opinions, and all I have posted are opinions. There is nothing more to see in our statements, regardless of "further investigation".

Gord wrote:What have you got against opinions, and why do you feel it necessary to keep posting your own if you don't like them in the first place?

I have nothing against opinions and I do not feel it necessary to post my own, in fact! non compels. A fact is a fact whether you agree or not, you cannot argue with the fact.

And yet all you do is post your own opinions and then complain when others post theirs.

I argue with facts quite often. I've uses them in my arguments in the past. Have you ever tried it? It can be quite refreshing.

You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that memories are actual things.

It is your obsession with words and images that confuses you.

Gord wrote:Are you unaware that you're attempting to communicate through words and images here?

I am aware that I am conscious within that focus of awareness there are words that of being exchange.

Just say "no" then.

Gord wrote:In other words, if you think I'm confused, then you must think it's because of what you're saying and the way you are failing to get your meaning across.

You are confused because you think it is really happening - whatever it is you think you know. It is only because of your memory why you think there is continuity in what you say. To me it is all momentary, what is real cannot be contained in a memory.

You are confused because you claim to know what I think when you show no ability to comprehend what I've said.

Gord wrote:This is, in fact, what I've said to you before -- that you don't know what you're actually saying.

It is enough to know that words are being exchange, their meaning however sublime do not convey the fact of the matter.

Where's that picture, I need that picture...ah! Here we are:

WRONG.png


Gord wrote:So, you seem to be in agreement with me here, and yet you refuse to try to do a better job. Why is that, exactly?

The why cannot be exact for you need to know who is asking before you can know the why. How can two minds agree if they are in different places? It is not a result of what I am saying why I think you are confused it's more to do with how you have understood what you think you already know.

Actually, the "why" can be reasonably exact. The reason why you think I'm the one who is confused is because, as usual, you're just wrong and just you don't know it.

Memories are made up of thoughts and images, images are symbols that represent the spoken word. Words make up your thoughts. These are things, they actually appear in the mind as do the images -you remember them. But definitely not in the reality. There are no thing's in reality. Things come after the deed, not before. Remember being is not in existence.

Gord wrote:I believe you have misused the term "mind" when you meant "brain", so I'll respond as if you had phrased it with the more accurate term.

Neither brain or mind can be seen as an accurate description for they are built on a false notion . The brain is an abstract idea of an abstraction idea.

Nah. Your weird religious beliefs are the ones built on false notions. I don't understand why you bother to post them here, on a skeptics website. Are you unable to deal with your uncertainties with your beliefs yourself, and feel the need to get others to critique them for you?

Gord wrote: So in other words, you are aware that memories are real things.

NO! How can a memory of a thing be real if a thing in itself is not real? Ultimately no thing can be real. They may have a momentary reality based on your impartation of reality. In other words if you are not there then no-thing is there.

Every thing is real in one sense or another. You cannot impart reality on something except by creating the concept in your own brain. But the thing upon which that concept itself is created was also a real thing, which existed regardless of you or your brain.

The Moon is there whether you look at it or not. It does cease to exist when you blink, and come back into existence when you open your eyes again. Only the imagery in your mind is affected by your blink.

Gord wrote:You are simply confused by something else, and insist on using the words "reality" and "existence" in a way that is contrary to their generally accepted meanings,

What is consider general may be wrong altogether. When referring to the fact reality and existence are quite apart. Through no will or imagination can you interchange the two. Reality is not in the picture. The picture is merely a rendition of your brain consciousness , it may as well be smoke. What is real cannot be a product of the imagination. Existence is transient and related to something in time and space, it needs the support of consciousness. Whilst reality is in and of itself, unsupported. In general existence is considered real because of its tangibility but this is only during your waking state. What appears and disappears has no reality. Are you aware of anything tangible existing in your sleep?

I won't quibble between ranks, a general is as good as a major to me, but you're attempting to redefine words in a way I cannot accept. Such differentiation may be useful in metaphysics, but not in physics, which is the study of actual reality rather than the mere concepts created by humans in their attempts (often misled) to understand themselves. Reality and existence are effectively synonyms.

If all you want to do is think in terms of metaphysics, go right ahead: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/ I'll stick with what I consider a more grounded approach, however.

Gord wrote:while refusing to provide your own alternative definitions so as to make your claims from being understandable enough to refute.

The reality cannot be defined so it is not a question of providing a definition. You can know it for yourself by being yourself. Nobody need provide you with a definition. It is self evident when you come to know what you are in reality.

Reality: the state or quality of having existence

Well, that was easy. Next!

As I said, you seem unable to learn.

I need not learn a thing to be, only to understand is the key

You need to learn in order to understand how wrong you are.

Being cannot be wrong, is it wrong for a tree to bear poisonous fruits? In reality whatever is done in the light of aware is right whatever is done in the darkness of ignorance is wrong. Become more aware of yourself as you are in reality and you will understand that nobody is doing anything, it all happens by itself.

You can be wrong, you've demonstrated it often by doing what you do.

Gord wrote: Refusing to do so means you are wallowing gleefully in your own ignorance. I don't understand why you would choose such a life.

There is neither ignorance nor knowledge.

There is definitely ignorance.

It is only because you have become self conscious of something in particular that you know of your ignorance and that of the others.

Wait, you just said there wasn't any ignorance. It was literally the previous sentence. You didn't even go 20 words before contradicting yourself.

This is what I keep telling you. You don't know what you're talking about!

You should seriously sit yourself down and figure out what you believe before you try explaining it to anyone else. Maybe you could read a book on the topic. Or maybe there's a comic book version, with pictures and Batman and stuff. That would be cool. I'd read that.

When you go to sleep at night it is all forgotten. Remember your self consciousness is only in your waking state not in your sleep. You are only alive in your sleep.

Uh, no, I remember my day while I'm asleep: It's called dreaming. And I'm alive all the time, otherwise I'd be dead, which is pretty much an irreversible condition.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:20 am

Azania wrote:My negative reaction was to the the constant ad hominem attacks, spitting on each other back and fourth. It's just so pointless and non-productive.
[/quote]
It might be interesting if "Azania" (or whatever board name he chooses next, or the one after that perhaps) were to post something productive. Who knows? There really hasn't been much to work with so far, unless one likes spitting on crazy people (personally I prefer using the hose, but whatever).
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 17309
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:09 pm

Sheesh, for how long now has Skanania been insisting that all things exist only through the labeling of Adam without ever - not once - offering any kind of encouraging evidence to even consider taking a closer look at his/her/its outdated claims?

I guess that the cult-ish mind trained to be gullible can no longer see that others haven't been snared yet, and, perhaps (and hopefully), never will...

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby nmblum88 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:43 pm

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My negative reaction was to the the constant ad hominem attacks, spitting on each other back and fourth. It's just so pointless and non-productive.

It might be interesting if "Azania" (or whatever board name he chooses next, or the one after that perhaps) were to post something productive. Who knows? There really hasn't been much to work with so far, unless one likes spitting on crazy people (personally I prefer using the hose, but whatever).[/quote]



Beg pardon?
Excuse me?
Did you say Azania (whomever that may be and why s/he is here) hasn't posted anything productive?

Will you define, productive, please? (For the frequent outsiders who aren't privy to the high standards of the core group.)
Do you mean s/he hasn't complained about his mother's cooking?
Or his father's temperament?
Of his own digestive troubles?
Or that he hasn't yet posted about 100 messages (over long years) correcting NOONE to NO ONE?
(And thus hasn't tasted the real joys of whatever it is that y mean by productivity.)


Poor Azania.... but then who knows?
Maybe he is an only child, with no-one to inspire him to the productivity of "I HATE my {!#%@} siblings.."


HAs if ever occurred to you - given what you slavishly accept and what you equally slavishly object to, that he might not have any relatives that "gives out blow jobs?" Or commit suicide?
After all does drama usually does only happen to leaders of men..... who so often have PRODUCTIVE things to report.


So maybe no one told him when he took the entrance exam that allowed him to enter here, that "productivity" was expected of him.
Or that he was required to produce a mental health certificate.
Maybe he read a few pages and mistakenly concluded ..."hey, great place to shoot the breezee, get a few rocks off."

Or maybe he was just deprived of the Ivy League education and wide experiences of life that that is required of anyone who chooses (willy-nilly) to call himself a Skeptic.

NMB

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby nmblum88 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:52 pm

Gord wrote:
ThePragmatic wrote:
Gord wrote:What were you hoping for? Maybe we can help. If not here, then there are other forums out there.

Thank you. That's actually a really good question, what was I hoping for? I find myself having a hard time answering that.

I guess I was hoping for a forum with serious discussion between opposing views, not just random flinging of poo at each other.
I know, I know, it's a public internet forum, so it's bound to be this n that n yada, yada.

Well, there's the International Skeptics Forum, but I don't check in there much anymore so I'm not sure how the poo flinging is these days. There were serious discussions in the past if I remember correctly. It could still be happening: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... mindex.php

...drat, there was forum one I wanted to mention but I can't remember the name of it. I tried googling what I could remember, but the closest I came was the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Apparently I posted there 7 years ago! :pardon:

I guess my naivety filter failed and I got my hopes up to high.

too



Sorry about my past post.
NOW I understand what you mean by productive!!
You mean sharing teaching skills!!
And now Azania will know that among typing Skeptics, "TOO"is required for a"also " and typing errors are not forgiven by the Ted Williams of swatting such corrections out of the ball park of this ..er...uh... Forum.
NMB

P.S. I hope he never noticed that yesterday you misspelled "huge"...
But perhaps you just wanted a hug..

NMB"

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby nmblum88 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:05 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Shakania wrote:...only to understand is the key

Ah, we're getting to the root of things. You understood wrongly. The teaching you proclaim to adhere to doesn't need, nor does it call for proselytizers.

Have a good day.


Wonder of wonders, miracle or miracles, Eggs!

You seem to have metamorphosed from a somewhat scrambled egg, perhaps over-cooked, into Queen Victoria.
NMB
P.S. Do you have the fabulous hat to go with the identity?
N.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:38 pm

nmblum88 wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My negative reaction was to the the constant ad hominem attacks, spitting on each other back and fourth. It's just so pointless and non-productive.

It might be interesting if "Azania" (or whatever board name he chooses next, or the one after that perhaps) were to post something productive. Who knows? There really hasn't been much to work with so far, unless one likes spitting on crazy people (personally I prefer using the hose, but whatever).

Beg pardon?
Excuse me?
Did you say Azania (whomever that may be and why s/he is here) hasn't posted anything productive?

Yup.

Will you define, productive, please? (For the frequent outsiders who aren't privy to the high standards of the core group.)

Sure. Productive: achieving or producing a significant amount or result.

Azania/Shaka/whatever other names he's posted under has been posting nonsense on a skeptics website without ever getting around to making a point. He seems to be stuck on the preamble to an opening argument.

Do you mean s/he hasn't complained about his mother's cooking?
Or his father's temperament?
Of his own digestive troubles?
Or that he hasn't yet posted about 100 messages (over long years) correcting NOONE to NO ONE?

I don't think he's done those things, no.

(And thus hasn't tasted the real joys of whatever it is that y mean by productivity.)

Those posts were productive, insofar as they were ends in and of themselves. None of them were opening statements that led nowhere.

Poor Azania.... but then who knows?

Poor Azania certainly doesn't.

Maybe he is an only child, with no-one to inspire him to the productivity of "I HATE my {!#%@} siblings.."

no one

HAs if ever occurred to you - given what you slavishly accept and what you equally slavishly object to, that he might not have any relatives that "gives out blow jobs?" Or commit suicide?
After all does drama usually does only happen to leaders of men..... who so often have PRODUCTIVE things to report.

I have no idea what you're asking me, so no, I don't think that thing has never occurred to me.

So maybe no one told him when he took the entrance exam that allowed him to enter here, that "productivity" was expected of him.
Or that he was required to produce a mental health certificate.

Neither of those are required. One would be nice, though.

Maybe he read a few pages and mistakenly concluded ..."hey, great place to shoot the breezee, get a few rocks off."

Except he doesn't do that.

Or maybe he was just deprived of the Ivy League education and wide experiences of life that that is required of anyone who chooses (willy-nilly) to call himself a Skeptic.

Oh dear, another one of "you people"! :lol:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27842
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:41 pm

nmblum88 wrote:Sorry about my past post.
NOW I understand what you mean by productive!!

Nope. Nor do you understand what I mean by humorous. But that's okay. I won't expect anything of you.

You mean sharing teaching skills!!
And now Azania will know that among typing Skeptics, "TOO"is required for a"also " and typing errors are not forgiven by the Ted Williams of swatting such corrections out of the ball park of this ..er...uh... Forum.
NMB

Not to worry, Norma, Azania won't learn a thing here. :mrgreen:

P.S. I hope he never noticed that yesterday you misspelled "huge"...
But perhaps you just wanted a hug..

Really? Why would you hope that? Norma! I find you very disingenuous right now. :nownow: You're not lying to me, are you?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Three easy steps to hypocrisy with Norma Supervitor

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:10 am

nmblum88 wrote: Beg pardon? Excuse me?


Three easy steps to hypocrisy with Norma Supervitor

Step 1
Pick and existing thread and avoid reading any of the existing discussion to find out what's going on.

Step 2
Interrupt that existing thread and tell all the skeptics that they are wasting their time arguing with people on a Skeptic forum. Make three posts in a row specifically telling those skeptics they are wrong and they should not tell people they are wrong on the internet.

Step 3
Congratulate yourself for telling forum Skeptics they were wrong, for telling other people they were wrong on the forum.

You really are an idiot Norma. :D

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:36 pm

Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:I love childish exchanges, but only in the form of mockery of childish exchanges and the love of same.

That probably doesn't come through in my posts thought.


Every time I see this ~ I think of you.
Same sence of humour lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_the_Dog

Jake is only one of many muses that visit me every day. I also draw inspiration from Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, and that guy with the funny hair.


Rick & Morty?
There's so much out there to train
people to be cartoonish. You toon easy!
Most people do~ makes it easier to accept
they exist. Hehe
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?


Return to “The Letting Go of God Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest