Was my response to theist too harsh?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2016, 10:46 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(30-04-2016 06:10 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-04-2016 08:08 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  One can only so such through action,

Your actions can not demonstrate the truth of your claims. They may attest to the value of your philosophy but that is not the same thing. We are not asking for you to support your philosophy. We are asking for you to demonstrate that the things you claim to be true are, in fact, true. You'd understand the difference if you weren't a disingenuous, unbalanced, ignorant fool.

Quote: My opinion on something that happened to me and has since repeated in forms and been verified in many, many different fashions is without reversion in general, and always will be because of these very real things that I have experienced yet cannot repeat.

No, none of it has been verified except in your little delusional worldview.

Quote:This doesn't affect my skepticism in other unrelated things.

Free clue: being skeptical except for one area that you accept without evidence means that you are not a skeptic. You are an inconsistent, irrational fool. Given your obvious inability to understand what people are saying and your inability to think clearly I do not believe that you are a skeptic in any meaningful sense.

Quote:You cannot accurately judge my skepticism based on isolated interactions on an atheist forum.

Actually, I can. At the very least I can come close. You have a sufficient posting history for people to get a pretty good idea how you think and it isn't a pretty picture.

Quote:You would know, understand, and agree with that if you weren't predisposed to a biased perspective given the communication and or interaction limits or specifications.

You are drifting into word salad again. You do realize that you don't put sentences together the same way others do, right? Train of thought can be interesting but not when there's a switch and a gauge change every few feet. The wording of your posts makes it very clear that you do not think rationally.

Quote:Basically; you're talking out of your ass.
Define this reality you say I insulate myself from.
(29-04-2016 08:43 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Unforced,

I'll assume that was supposed to be 'Unfogged'

Quote:What do I insulate myself from? Could you be specific at all?

You insulate yourself from reality.

Quote:Surely you realize that I am present here and on other atheistic sites. I converse about all topics of relevence that I happen to catch.

No, you don't converse, you bloviate. Conversation requires listening to what others say and trying to understand it. You show no ability to do either.

Quote:I do read people's posts and contemplate them wholly.

I do not believe that. I have seen no evidence of it.

Quote:What you as an atheist somehow seem incapable of accepting is that while I can contemplate these things that are discussed or brought up by the atheist, I have done so before, long ago. These previous conclusions have been superseeded by new personal evidence. I know that's hard to conceive for people of such clear opened minds with apt means for discernment, but it is indeed the case.

I suspect you think you are being insulting but you are just so bad at it that it becomes funny. "Personal evidence" is a nonsense phrase. Evidence is demonstrable to others.

Quote:Anyway; saying I don't consider the things that I discuss and inquire on daily is pretty ridiculous.

I don't know if you consider things at any level; the evidence from your posts is that you do not understand the things that you discuss.

Quote:Indeed the Faith I speak of is different from what most all hypocritically call faith. Though I too am with falter and deviation from known will, I don't proclaim my sanctity or salvation. I have stated before that those here who are indeed honestly ignorant are safe...safer than me even. So yes, the Faith I speak of in general is a proper noun as it is differentiated from faith with only word when convenient, in many ways.

More word salad. That does not explain anything, it just shows that your thought processes are so warped that you are unable to communicate clearly. You need help.

Quote:Indeed, intially I had concluded a lack of God via honest thourough consideration. Pain, evil, atrocity, lack of dinosaurs in the creation story...all of these where obvious at about first grade. Only further understanding that there was no God came after that even through adulthood. So I was an atheist for the "right"reasons, but that's sort of an oxymoron.

As WD reminded me, you have previously said that you were an atheist because you hated god so you can't even keep your claims straight.

Quote:You claim I'm gullible because of your stereo type of the faithful most likely.

I claim that you are gullible because you state that you believe something based on incredibly bad evidence.

Quote:I doubt this has bein refuted by my posts as they are uhm vague, at times I guess. Vague isn't the best word. Left myself opened on that one, but stating my awareness of it could nearly be enough to silence a potential backlash. What will happen now? Sorry, ranting.

You are correct, vague isn't the right word. Confused and erratic would be closer to the mark. I'm not a psychologist but I get a very strong impression from your posts that you have some kind of mental illness. I am very serious when I say that you need help. You are not well.

Quote:My help is with me at all times. All I have to do is step back and observe. There you go; add that to the pile.

Stepping back into your own head is probably not the best solution. It just reinforces your little fantasy world. You need real help from a qualified practitioner.


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 10:49 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(30-04-2016 07:55 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(29-04-2016 04:14 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  [...] I was atheist for a long time whether you believe it or not. I was and still am sceptical. I have lied to my self in the past. That immature contempt you hold towards me, God, and religion is where I was about a decade ago, so don't act like you know something I don't about logic or deception. [...]

It's extremely unusual to read of a former atheist whose become a religionist. I can only assume that, as an alleged atheist, you didn't duly investigate and/or comprehend any of the natural sciences—geology, evolution, anthropology, biology, astronomy, genetics etc—at any meaningful depth, or read any of the copious scientific literature that more than adequately invalidates virtually all the tenets of every religion. And you must have been—in reality—a very soft atheist anyway.

By reverting to theism, you've chosen to voluntarily dumb yourself down, kill off millions of operative brain cells, and lower your IQ by 20 points. Sorry.
What tenets of religion have been invalidated that I adhere to, and by what specific paper are they invalidated?

Thanks

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 10:50 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:46 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 06:10 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Your actions can not demonstrate the truth of your claims. They may attest to the value of your philosophy but that is not the same thing. We are not asking for you to support your philosophy. We are asking for you to demonstrate that the things you claim to be true are, in fact, true. You'd understand the difference if you weren't a disingenuous, unbalanced, ignorant fool.


No, none of it has been verified except in your little delusional worldview.


Free clue: being skeptical except for one area that you accept without evidence means that you are not a skeptic. You are an inconsistent, irrational fool. Given your obvious inability to understand what people are saying and your inability to think clearly I do not believe that you are a skeptic in any meaningful sense.


Actually, I can. At the very least I can come close. You have a sufficient posting history for people to get a pretty good idea how you think and it isn't a pretty picture.


You are drifting into word salad again. You do realize that you don't put sentences together the same way others do, right? Train of thought can be interesting but not when there's a switch and a gauge change every few feet. The wording of your posts makes it very clear that you do not think rationally.

Define this reality you say I insulate myself from.

I'll assume that was supposed to be 'Unfogged'


You insulate yourself from reality.


No, you don't converse, you bloviate. Conversation requires listening to what others say and trying to understand it. You show no ability to do either.


I do not believe that. I have seen no evidence of it.


I suspect you think you are being insulting but you are just so bad at it that it becomes funny. "Personal evidence" is a nonsense phrase. Evidence is demonstrable to others.


I don't know if you consider things at any level; the evidence from your posts is that you do not understand the things that you discuss.


More word salad. That does not explain anything, it just shows that your thought processes are so warped that you are unable to communicate clearly. You need help.


As WD reminded me, you have previously said that you were an atheist because you hated god so you can't even keep your claims straight.


I claim that you are gullible because you state that you believe something based on incredibly bad evidence.


You are correct, vague isn't the right word. Confused and erratic would be closer to the mark. I'm not a psychologist but I get a very strong impression from your posts that you have some kind of mental illness. I am very serious when I say that you need help. You are not well.


Stepping back into your own head is probably not the best solution. It just reinforces your little fantasy world. You need real help from a qualified practitioner.


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

What Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 10:50 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(30-04-2016 07:55 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(29-04-2016 04:14 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  [...] I was atheist for a long time whether you believe it or not. I was and still am sceptical. I have lied to my self in the past. That immature contempt you hold towards me, God, and religion is where I was about a decade ago, so don't act like you know something I don't about logic or deception. [...]

It's extremely unusual to read of a former atheist whose become a religionist. I can only assume that, as an alleged atheist, you didn't duly investigate and/or comprehend any of the natural sciences—geology, evolution, anthropology, biology, astronomy, genetics etc—at any meaningful depth, or read any of the copious scientific literature that more than adequately invalidates virtually all the tenets of every religion. And you must have been—in reality—a very soft atheist anyway.

By reverting to theism, you've chosen to voluntarily dumb yourself down, kill off millions of operative brain cells, and lower your IQ by 20 points. Sorry.
I'm curious as to how many here are actually deists.

They must go to great lengths to divide themselves from traditional theists. This interests the shit out of me.


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 10:53 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(30-04-2016 11:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 09:20 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Poor diluted hypocrites.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

What do you get when you mix a kaboodle and a cazoodle? .... a clubuttle!!

Symbols, labels, and words used the way you convey them provide no manner of efficient communication for any purpose but trolling. You're mr. negativity always bringing bad and evil across all interactions you have with this manner of speaking.
Yes it was negative.

Like in kind to most posts directed at me, and as such obviously wrong and not beneficial to any.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 10:53 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:50 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 07:55 AM)SYZ Wrote:  It's extremely unusual to read of a former atheist whose become a religionist. I can only assume that, as an alleged atheist, you didn't duly investigate and/or comprehend any of the natural sciences—geology, evolution, anthropology, biology, astronomy, genetics etc—at any meaningful depth, or read any of the copious scientific literature that more than adequately invalidates virtually all the tenets of every religion. And you must have been—in reality—a very soft atheist anyway.

By reverting to theism, you've chosen to voluntarily dumb yourself down, kill off millions of operative brain cells, and lower your IQ by 20 points. Sorry.
I'm curious as to how many here are actually deists.

They must go to great lengths to divide themselves from traditional theists. This interests the shit out of me.


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Who is this nut job wanker Laugh out load Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 10:58 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(30-04-2016 11:21 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 09:20 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Poor diluted hypocrites.
This is all you got to say to multiple demonstrations of your own ignorance, numerous demonstrated instances of your willingness to lie, and a whole bunch of people explaining how words work cause you clearly don't know how they do?

Fuckin' amateur. Tuck tail and run, your outta your league kid.
To insist that one must write in a particular fashion, otherwise there is no possibility for others to understand it is to proclaim your own narrowmindedness, and the lack of a capacity to see things outside of arbitrary, man made definitions.

Regardless, it isn't lost on me that one or two hear and understand what I say.

And that's more than enough.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:58 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 11:21 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  This is all you got to say to multiple demonstrations of your own ignorance, numerous demonstrated instances of your willingness to lie, and a whole bunch of people explaining how words work cause you clearly don't know how they do?

Fuckin' amateur. Tuck tail and run, your outta your league kid.
To insist that one must write in a particular fashion, otherwise there is no possibility for others to understand it is to proclaim your own narrowmindedness, and the lack of a capacity to see things outside of arbitrary, man made definitions.

Regardless, it isn't lost on me that one or two hear and understand what I say.

And that's more than enough.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Facepalm I sure hope no one is dumb enough to believe your lies if they do then they don't belong here anyway, I'm sorry but you totally suck .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(30-04-2016 06:10 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-04-2016 08:08 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  One can only so such through action,

Your actions can not demonstrate the truth of your claims. They may attest to the value of your philosophy but that is not the same thing. We are not asking for you to support your philosophy. We are asking for you to demonstrate that the things you claim to be true are, in fact, true. You'd understand the difference if you weren't a disingenuous, unbalanced, ignorant fool.

Quote: My opinion on something that happened to me and has since repeated in forms and been verified in many, many different fashions is without reversion in general, and always will be because of these very real things that I have experienced yet cannot repeat.

No, none of it has been verified except in your little delusional worldview.

Quote:This doesn't affect my skepticism in other unrelated things.

Free clue: being skeptical except for one area that you accept without evidence means that you are not a skeptic. You are an inconsistent, irrational fool. Given your obvious inability to understand what people are saying and your inability to think clearly I do not believe that you are a skeptic in any meaningful sense.

Quote:You cannot accurately judge my skepticism based on isolated interactions on an atheist forum.

Actually, I can. At the very least I can come close. You have a sufficient posting history for people to get a pretty good idea how you think and it isn't a pretty picture.

Quote:You would know, understand, and agree with that if you weren't predisposed to a biased perspective given the communication and or interaction limits or specifications.

You are drifting into word salad again. You do realize that you don't put sentences together the same way others do, right? Train of thought can be interesting but not when there's a switch and a gauge change every few feet. The wording of your posts makes it very clear that you do not think rationally.

Quote:Basically; you're talking out of your ass.
What reality do I insulate myself from and how? As if I medicate by decree of a fake doctor. If one has emotional problems or discomfort they medicate to shield themselves from reality instead of changing the direction of their twisted existence based on what they know. Emotional significance is the only significance. So who is insulating themselves from reality?
(29-04-2016 08:43 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Unforced,

I'll assume that was supposed to be 'Unfogged'

Quote:What do I insulate myself from? Could you be specific at all?

You insulate yourself from reality.

Quote:Surely you realize that I am present here and on other atheistic sites. I converse about all topics of relevence that I happen to catch.

No, you don't converse, you bloviate. Conversation requires listening to what others say and trying to understand it. You show no ability to do either.

Quote:I do read people's posts and contemplate them wholly.

I do not believe that. I have seen no evidence of it.

Quote:What you as an atheist somehow seem incapable of accepting is that while I can contemplate these things that are discussed or brought up by the atheist, I have done so before, long ago. These previous conclusions have been superseeded by new personal evidence. I know that's hard to conceive for people of such clear opened minds with apt means for discernment, but it is indeed the case.

I suspect you think you are being insulting but you are just so bad at it that it becomes funny. "Personal evidence" is a nonsense phrase. Evidence is demonstrable to others.

Quote:Anyway; saying I don't consider the things that I discuss and inquire on daily is pretty ridiculous.

I don't know if you consider things at any level; the evidence from your posts is that you do not understand the things that you discuss.

Quote:Indeed the Faith I speak of is different from what most all hypocritically call faith. Though I too am with falter and deviation from known will, I don't proclaim my sanctity or salvation. I have stated before that those here who are indeed honestly ignorant are safe...safer than me even. So yes, the Faith I speak of in general is a proper noun as it is differentiated from faith with only word when convenient, in many ways.

More word salad. That does not explain anything, it just shows that your thought processes are so warped that you are unable to communicate clearly. You need help.

Quote:Indeed, intially I had concluded a lack of God via honest thourough consideration. Pain, evil, atrocity, lack of dinosaurs in the creation story...all of these where obvious at about first grade. Only further understanding that there was no God came after that even through adulthood. So I was an atheist for the "right"reasons, but that's sort of an oxymoron.

As WD reminded me, you have previously said that you were an atheist because you hated god so you can't even keep your claims straight.

Quote:You claim I'm gullible because of your stereo type of the faithful most likely.

I claim that you are gullible because you state that you believe something based on incredibly bad evidence.

Quote:I doubt this has bein refuted by my posts as they are uhm vague, at times I guess. Vague isn't the best word. Left myself opened on that one, but stating my awareness of it could nearly be enough to silence a potential backlash. What will happen now? Sorry, ranting.

You are correct, vague isn't the right word. Confused and erratic would be closer to the mark. I'm not a psychologist but I get a very strong impression from your posts that you have some kind of mental illness. I am very serious when I say that you need help. You are not well.

Quote:My help is with me at all times. All I have to do is step back and observe. There you go; add that to the pile.

Stepping back into your own head is probably not the best solution. It just reinforces your little fantasy world. You need real help from a qualified practitioner.


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2016 11:23 AM by adey67.)
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
Rather repeating yourself me thinks. Which doesn't make any sense at all, stop throwing out pez.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: