Words fail me.
-
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:
-
And I have no objection to that. It is, after all, the very thing I am doing, though I am digging even deeper.
Ilíon wrote:
though I am digging even deeper.
That explains the pick ax... :~
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
The internet is where people can make completely base and tasteless comments with impunity. How is it exactly that burning a baby in a microwave oven is joke fodder? Was it worth it? Did you get a good laugh in? Shame on you.
-
Mauldin's lawyer, Sam Cammack, said his client would not get the treatment he needs for mental illness in prison. I think there is a good chance he would be stabbed multiple times and stuffed into a small space until he dies. That seems to qualify as "the treatment he needs" to me.
led mike
-
The internet is where people can make completely base and tasteless comments with impunity. How is it exactly that burning a baby in a microwave oven is joke fodder? Was it worth it? Did you get a good laugh in? Shame on you.
Edmundisme wrote:
How is it exactly that burning a baby in a microwave oven is joke fodder?
Baby jokes are funny. Especially dead baby jokes.
Edmundisme wrote:
Was it worth it?
Totally.
Edmundisme wrote:
Did you get a good laugh in?
Yes I did. I'm getting another good laugh right now.
-
I'm sorry for misunderstanding... let me restate the question... Why are there no such things as innocence and guilt if atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality?
Ro0ke wrote:
I'm sorry for misunderstanding...
No problem at all, no need to be sorry, no need to apologize. There is nothing at all culpably wrong with not understanding something. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification. Rather, it is the *refusal* to understand which is culpably wrong, it is the refusal to acknowledge and understand clarification which is culpably wrong. And when a refusal to understand is coupled with the sorts of behavior these 'atheists' (the quotes are because they only play at being atheists, for they refuse to understand what atheism entails) constantly exhibit, then such persons make themselves in all ways despicable.
Ro0ke wrote:
Why are there no such things as innocence and guilt if atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality?
In a nutshell: Concepts can be explained only by reference to mind(s). These things (innocence/guilt, responsibility/non-responsibility, sanity/insanity, rationality/irrationality, etc) are all concepts; as such, they exist only "within" a mind or minds. But atheism -- the denial that there is a God -- cannot logically make use of invocation of minds to explain anything, for the very nature of atheism is to deny that reality is fundamentally mental. I've made reference above to Richard Dawkins' article explicating his "dangerous idea," 'Let's all stop beating Basil's car,' the thesis of which is that concepts such as responsibility and blame (i.e. holding another responsibile for his actions) are faulty and false concepts, that these (and many other like) concepts do not accurately reflect the true nature of reality. Now, *IF* atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, THEN Dawkins' claims would be correct. The fact that he doesn't himself believe (as he admits and acknowledges in the conclusion of the piece) the view he's trying to advance certainly tells us something interesting about Professor Dawkins, but it doesn't change the fact that the view he is trying to advance follows logically and inescapably from atheism, from the denial that there is a God. Even though the thesis and claims Dawkins advances are false, and even though Dawkins is a liar (for he knows and even admits that he doesn't actually believe the assertions he's advancing), I highly recommend reading his entire article. Two Basic Worldview
-
The internet is where people can make completely base and tasteless comments with impunity. How is it exactly that burning a baby in a microwave oven is joke fodder? Was it worth it? Did you get a good laugh in? Shame on you.
-
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.
Go sit in a microwave.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
You know what else is beyond parody? Give up? Ya mum!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
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.
He's retarded, that's why. I wouldn't be surprised if his slave of a father beat his ass as a child - and if he didn't, he should have. Hard. Very hard. Preferably to death.
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
Ro0ke wrote:
I'm sorry for misunderstanding...
No problem at all, no need to be sorry, no need to apologize. There is nothing at all culpably wrong with not understanding something. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification. Rather, it is the *refusal* to understand which is culpably wrong, it is the refusal to acknowledge and understand clarification which is culpably wrong. And when a refusal to understand is coupled with the sorts of behavior these 'atheists' (the quotes are because they only play at being atheists, for they refuse to understand what atheism entails) constantly exhibit, then such persons make themselves in all ways despicable.
Ro0ke wrote:
Why are there no such things as innocence and guilt if atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality?
In a nutshell: Concepts can be explained only by reference to mind(s). These things (innocence/guilt, responsibility/non-responsibility, sanity/insanity, rationality/irrationality, etc) are all concepts; as such, they exist only "within" a mind or minds. But atheism -- the denial that there is a God -- cannot logically make use of invocation of minds to explain anything, for the very nature of atheism is to deny that reality is fundamentally mental. I've made reference above to Richard Dawkins' article explicating his "dangerous idea," 'Let's all stop beating Basil's car,' the thesis of which is that concepts such as responsibility and blame (i.e. holding another responsibile for his actions) are faulty and false concepts, that these (and many other like) concepts do not accurately reflect the true nature of reality. Now, *IF* atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, THEN Dawkins' claims would be correct. The fact that he doesn't himself believe (as he admits and acknowledges in the conclusion of the piece) the view he's trying to advance certainly tells us something interesting about Professor Dawkins, but it doesn't change the fact that the view he is trying to advance follows logically and inescapably from atheism, from the denial that there is a God. Even though the thesis and claims Dawkins advances are false, and even though Dawkins is a liar (for he knows and even admits that he doesn't actually believe the assertions he's advancing), I highly recommend reading his entire article. Two Basic Worldview
So...let me get this straight...if she weighs the same as a duck, then she's a witch?
-
Ilíon wrote:
Not that an observant person was ever in any doubt as to what 'atheists' are like.
No one is learning anything about me arsehole. I have been here since the first week of Code Project and everyone and anyone that matters already knows all about me. You don't, so just fuck off.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004