Words fail me.
-
Ro0ke wrote:
Those statements don't make sense.
They do make sense. Moreover, they are all true. (For, after all, things may make sense, and yet be false.) I have no experience of you, so I have no idea whether you (presonally) are willing to think critically about these things (as I already know that most of the persons who most frequently post here are not so willing). Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to assume, unless shown otherwise, that you are willing to think critically (and I am a reasonable man). What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
-
Yep. A total moron. He's got 25 years to think about it and rot.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Ro0ke wrote:
Those statements don't make sense.
They do make sense. Moreover, they are all true. (For, after all, things may make sense, and yet be false.) I have no experience of you, so I have no idea whether you (presonally) are willing to think critically about these things (as I already know that most of the persons who most frequently post here are not so willing). Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to assume, unless shown otherwise, that you are willing to think critically (and I am a reasonable man). What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
Ilíon wrote:
What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
Fair enough. I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Why do you people get so bent out of shape
We dont.
Ilíon wrote:
people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse
We dont espouse boiling babies. We just espouse that god doesnt exist. The reason we have morality is that it is good for society as a whole, and what is good for society as a whole is good for the individual. Our gross morality is selfish. I will treat others as I want them to treat me. At a finer level morality is dictated by social expection.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Ilíon Why do you people get so bent out of shape when people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse? . fat_boy We dont espouse boiling babies.
*Real* stupidity is not intentional; the "stupidity" of your comment is intentional. Therefore, your comment is not a reflection of actual stupidity, but of something else. I'm thinking it's a reflection of intellectual dishonesty (or, in old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon, it's a reflection of lying).
-
Certainly, this is a very emotional reaction, but it is inconsistent with the assertion that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;" there are no such things as "choices" and "responsibility." Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
What the hell are you talking about goober? You're so far off topic I'm not sure you're even on the right site, much less in the right forum. I wouldn't hazard a guess about the 'nature of reality' at all. And I've never claimed Atheism is the answer to anything, much less truth. I'm not an atheist. Sit down, take a few deep breaths, get a hold of yourself and take your medication. Or call your sponsor. Or do whatever it is that you're supposed to do when you start foaming at the mouth. Have you tried meditation? It has a good calming effect.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Ilíon Why do you people get so bent out of shape when people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse? . fat_boy We dont espouse boiling babies.
*Real* stupidity is not intentional; the "stupidity" of your comment is intentional. Therefore, your comment is not a reflection of actual stupidity, but of something else. I'm thinking it's a reflection of intellectual dishonesty (or, in old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon, it's a reflection of lying).
Ilíon wrote:
people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse
We do NOT espouse boiling babies. Get it? Its simple. YOU are wrong. We DO NOT espouse boiling babies. We espouse the non existence of God. Our morality has a different root from yours. Dont you get it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ilíon wrote:
What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
Fair enough. I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
Ro0ke wrote:
I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
I didn't say anything about religion or irreligion ("religion" is rarely my topic); I'm talking about the logical consequences and logical entailments of atheism, of the denial that there is a God. I'm talking about assertions about the fundamental nature of reality. I'm talking about basic worldviews (there are only two available to us). The question of whether there is or is not a God isn't some irrelevant or unimportant (and/or uninteresting) hold-over from "the Dark Ages;" it is, rather, a question about the very nature of reality. It is, in fact, the First Question, because all other questions we can ask, and thus all answers we can possibly derive, logically follow from the answer we give to the question: "Is there a God?" edit: also, I wasn't talking about the definitions of such words as 'guilt' and 'innocence,' 'sanity' and 'insanity,' but rather the real existence of what those words refer to.
-
Who said we had to be sorry for the nsane? IMHO, the question between criminal and insane is relevant when it is about providing an answer. Should we put into jail mentally ill people? There's no chance that jail cures them, and the problem stays the same when they are released. Is jail a deterrent for such people? Probably not. So we put people behind bars after they committed such an action because we have no other solution to provide. We are not far from the Middle Age when insane people were locked somewhere.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
OK touché. But in a case like this, if there's a mental condition that caused this and not just a mix of evil and stupidity, what treatments would help him be 'normal?' Medication? Still can't let him out of confinement, all he has to do to kill somebody is stop taking his pills.
K. wrote:
Should we put into jail mentally ill people?
Plain old garden variety jail? Probably not. They should be treated for their illness in an institution that's equally secure as jail. But in a case like this, no jail, no treatment, just lethal injection. This guy is a fantastic argument for capital punishment.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
digital man wrote:
But you're just so easy.
We all know that assertion simply cannot be true; just look at how often some of you try to hit on me (*), to no avail: clearly, I am *not* easy. (*) How else do you people expect me to interpret all the sexual imagery that so many of you try to inflict upon me: extremely clumsy attempts at seduction.
Ahem, I've seen your picture: anyone who wears a burkha is automatically fugly and you compound it with your oversize ego and undersize intellect. Certainly not the type of lady I'd go for...
-
Ro0ke wrote:
I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
I didn't say anything about religion or irreligion ("religion" is rarely my topic); I'm talking about the logical consequences and logical entailments of atheism, of the denial that there is a God. I'm talking about assertions about the fundamental nature of reality. I'm talking about basic worldviews (there are only two available to us). The question of whether there is or is not a God isn't some irrelevant or unimportant (and/or uninteresting) hold-over from "the Dark Ages;" it is, rather, a question about the very nature of reality. It is, in fact, the First Question, because all other questions we can ask, and thus all answers we can possibly derive, logically follow from the answer we give to the question: "Is there a God?" edit: also, I wasn't talking about the definitions of such words as 'guilt' and 'innocence,' 'sanity' and 'insanity,' but rather the real existence of what those words refer to.
-
digital man wrote:
But you're just so easy.
We all know that assertion simply cannot be true; just look at how often some of you try to hit on me (*), to no avail: clearly, I am *not* easy. (*) How else do you people expect me to interpret all the sexual imagery that so many of you try to inflict upon me: extremely clumsy attempts at seduction.
I bet you dress up in a skirt and wear makeup don't you? I bet you have a full length mirror that you look in all the time. You masturbate while you stick a dildo up your ass while watching in that mirror.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
-
Ahem, I've seen your picture: anyone who wears a burkha is automatically fugly and you compound it with your oversize ego and undersize intellect. Certainly not the type of lady I'd go for...
digital man wrote:
Ahem, I've seen your picture: anyone who wears a burkha is automatically fugly and you compound it with your oversize ego and undersize intellect. Certainly not the type of lady I'd go for...
Actually this is his picture here: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142[^]
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
Once again you presume to speak for God. You pervert and degrade the teachings of Christianity with every breath you utter. You are an abomination and a liar who cares nothing about Christ or God, only about yourself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I have to admit, out of all the people with whom I have *arguments* (that is so feeble when you do that) you are by far and away the most completely ignorant, bigoted and just plain thick. You clearly have not a single idea of your own, do not understand anything outside of your own selfish world view, have never read anything other than that which supports your twisted ideals and generally have not got a clue. Even when challenged you shy away and refuse to answer simply asserting that only you know the truth. Well I hope your happy with it. I suspect you are quite alone and very lonely which is sad but you bring it on yourself. In short, you are a fool.
digital man wrote:
you are by far and away the most completely ignorant, bigoted and just plain thick. You clearly have not a single idea of your own, do not understand anything outside of your own selfish world view, have never read anything other than that which supports your twisted ideals and generally have not got a clue.
Do you think he beats Red Stateler on this? :rolleyes:
-
Ilíon wrote:
Translation: "Once again, Ilíon is correct and that really pisses!"
Not by a long shot. I'm affraid it will be a cold day in hell before I need to utter the words "Iliot is correct." But I'd love to see you prove me wrong.
Ilíon wrote:
You constantly assert that I have no "credibility,"
You keep proving it.
Ilíon wrote:
you constantly assert that what I say is false and illogical
No, I usually assert that you are insane and spout gibberish and yet have an overly hyper sense of pride in your meager mental faculties. You are without a doubt the most arrogant person I've ever encountered, and I've yet to see anything that would warrant it.
Ilíon wrote:
and then you keep "discovering" the very things you've asserted since day one
No, I keep pointing them out hoping some day you'll realize what we all know every time we read one of your posts.
Ilíon wrote:
it must have been higher previously
Very astute. Since previously I've said that you are loosing credibility fast.
Ilíon wrote:
asserted all along that everything I say is not creditable
Show me the post that says that, and I'll show you somebody else' post.
Ilíon wrote:
So, by your own admission, you were lying before
Incorrect.
Ilíon wrote:
Why should we believe that you are not lying now?
I couldn't care less what you believe. But who's this "we" you refer to?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
No, I usually assert that you are insane and spout gibberish and yet have an overly hyper sense of pride in your meager mental faculties. You are without a doubt the most arrogant person I've ever encountered, and I've yet to see anything that would warrant it.
Bravo.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Ilíon wrote:
Applied atheism
Actually sounds more like Christianity to me. Isn't Jesus the one who burns people alive forever? :laugh:
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
Certainly, this is a very emotional reaction, but it is inconsistent with the assertion that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;" there are no such things as "choices" and "responsibility." Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
Ilíon wrote:
If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean.
Horsesh!t. You can leave theology and the answer to live the universe and everything out of the discussion and still be able to meaningfully talk about the differences between a normal healthy functioning brain and one that is malfunctioning. As a matter of fact, I would wager that virtually all discussions about said mental states are probably devoid of reference to or dependency on religion or a lack thereof.
Ilíon wrote:
If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;"
Horsesh!t. Guilty is the state of being the cause of an adverse effect. Innocence is the state of not being the cause. Cause and effect. Again, perfectly meaningful and unchanged when including or excluding religious context.
Ilíon wrote:
Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
Horsesh!t. Though I have to wonder what your bizarre definitions of reason and rationality are, since you lack the ability to reason and the will to be rational. You do not have to know God to be able to use the gray matter he gave you, and rationality is not a characteristic only observed in the clergy. You can't possible believe all of the crap you post. How do you type with a straight jacket on anyway?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Why do you come here if you hold us all is such ill regards? Are you trying to save sinner's souls by berating them with rhetoric? I don't get it.
-
digital man wrote:
you are by far and away the most completely ignorant, bigoted and just plain thick. You clearly have not a single idea of your own, do not understand anything outside of your own selfish world view, have never read anything other than that which supports your twisted ideals and generally have not got a clue.
Do you think he beats Red Stateler on this? :rolleyes: