Was my response to theist too harsh?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2016, 11:33 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 11:19 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Rather repeating yourself me thinks. Which doesn't make any sense at all, stop throwing out pez.
Yeah, that did happen twice. Weird.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 11:33 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 11:19 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Rather repeating yourself me thinks. Which doesn't make any sense at all, stop throwing out pez.
Yeah, that did happen twice. Weird.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You can be good without god..... No supernatural deities required
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
01-05-2016, 12:08 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  How can you not get that personal significance is significance?
It's only significant to the person. Not only that but people misplace and misunderstand the significance of what happened all the time. They also frequently confuse the source of the event all the time, especially when poorly educated and with a shitty understanding of logic, two problems you suffer from in spades kiddo.

(01-05-2016 10:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  How can you understand that emotional or worth is the only one worth speaking of?
This is just patently false. How something makes you feel has ZERO worth when determining what the truth of a situation or event is. In fact emotions frequently cloud our judgement.


(01-05-2016 10:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Can you literally repeat circumstances that have emotional consequence or significance for yourself, towards others in a way they would not only understand, but believe? No you can't.
Sure you can, it just depends on the kind of thing a person is claiming. If one of my family members was to die that has both emotional significance and consequences for me that aren't necessarily shared by others but can still be understood and be believed by them.
The problem is you are talking about stuff with no evidence, no logical consistency, that doesn't even make sense, while also actively lying about a dozen or more things mean that your word is worth next to nothing. You need evidence of what you claim if you want to bring it up in conversation or debate.

Now I want to ask you, what methodology did you use to ascertain that what you claimed happened to you was caused by god? How did you figure out it was god and not one of a billion billion other explanations? Something tells me you just decided that was the cause with no investigation or evidence.

(01-05-2016 10:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Knowledge is only truly knowable via self.
No, sorry but again for the millionth fucking time knowledge is demonstrable to other people. By definition. You have a belief, based on no evidence, not knowledge.

(01-05-2016 10:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  All else is not knowledge that I speak of.
There is utterly nothing you have spoken of that exists under the purview of knowledge, you have stupid beliefs based on shitty to no evidence. end of story.

(01-05-2016 10:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  This cannot be grasped with a materialistic view of existence.
Prove it. You are simply trying to take your arguments and assertions and define them as untestable and not needing to be demonstrated and that is not the case.
You made a claim, you were asked to demonstrate it's validity, and after 6 MONTHS of failing hilariously to do so you are not trying to take your claims and define them as inherently unproveable which both self destroying and massively dishonest. If your claim is unfalseifiable or unproveable then it's worthless as a hypothesis and can be discarded without even giving it a moments consideration. It's far more likely to be the ramblings of a mentally ill person who should be on medication than that god chose to talk to a thoroughly dishonest, uneducated, violent, nut job.

(01-05-2016 10:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Show me the law that states all is literally physical or material, and I will agree that personal knowledge and the conscious are irrelevant in this utterly materialistic existence.
First off there is no such thing as personal knowledge, knowledge is demonstrable. You have belief, and your willfully ignorant insistence on ignoring this FACT is not going to get any less false the more you repeat it.
Secondly no one made the claim that the conscious is irrelevant to existence, just that the things that live in your brain and can't be demonstrated are not knowledge and that what you fuckin' FEEL is irrelevant to what is or is not demonstrably true. So take the straw from that strawman argument and stuff it back inside your skull scarecrow, your ears are starting to make a whistling noise.

Thirdly WE don't have to show YOU sweet fuck all, you got that backwards, you are the one that claimed the existence of a god and now it's up to YOU to prove it. The natural world has already shown to exist it's up to YOU to demonstrate something outside the natural world. You have been given 6+ months to do it and you have failed. Every. Single. Time.
The burden of proof is on you kid, not us.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
01-05-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  How can you not get that personal significance is significance?
How can you understand that emotional or worth is the only one worth speaking of?
..
Knowledge is only truly knowable via self. All else is not knowledge that I speak of. This cannot be grasped with a materialistic view of existence.

Show me the law that states all is literally physical or material, and I will agree that personal knowledge and the conscious are irrelevant in this utterly materialistic existence.

broken record

And you consider yourself being a sceptic?
If scepticism was a religion, you would be burning on the stake, drowned in gallons of kerosene.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
01-05-2016, 12:10 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:49 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  What tenets of religion have been invalidated that I adhere to, and by what specific paper are they invalidated?

That the bible is a guide to morality is a specific religious tenet that you have claimed here that has been utterly obliterated by yours truly. That's a single example, would you like more?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
01-05-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:50 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm curious as to how many here are actually deists.
Well giving that the site is called The Thinking Atheist and not The Thinking Deist....probably not many.Drinking Beverage

(01-05-2016 10:50 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  They must go to great lengths to divide themselves from traditional theists.
Great lengths? I wouldn't say so, given that they have very clear differences and all.Drinking Beverage

(01-05-2016 10:50 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  This interests the shit out of me.
Why are you looking to expand the range of things you are clueless in?Drinking Beverage

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
01-05-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes it was negative.

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

Post to you contain negative remarks because you have earned them through your blatantly dishonesty and willful ignorance. You know what else they contain that yours doesn't? Fucking arguments.

Just because we treat you like the lying sack of dishonest dickery that you are doesn't mean we are wrong.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
01-05-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-05-2016 10:50 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  This interests the shit out of me.
Why are you looking to expand the range of things you are clueless in?Drinking Beverage

bwahahahaha ..... bwahahaha .... that's gonna leave a mark. Big Grin

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-05-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 10:58 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  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,...
Hahaha no. When multiple people DEMONSTRATE your lying, when they DEMONSTRATE your ignorance of the subject for all to see, when they utterly demolish every single objection and argument you have and your response is nothing more than to avoid every single point and criticism and utter out "you guys are sooopid!" that doesn't reflect poorly on anyone here but YOU.

Yes I'm going to insist that in an argument you actually address the arguments you silly fuck. That's not "narrowmindedness"..that's how an argument works.

(01-05-2016 10:50 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  and the lack of a capacity to see things outside of arbitrary, man made definitions.
First off you don't get to redefine words every time someone points out your using words wrong. Words have meanings and your repeated failure to understand this is why your a fucking -25 joke around here. One of the reasons anyway.

Also....can you provide any definitions that are NOT man made? lol Your super special definition of "knowledge" (which appears to be "any bullshit without evidence that I wanna claim") is man made. By you. Ignorantly. You idiot.


(01-05-2016 10:50 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Regardless, it isn't lost on me that one or two hear and understand what I say.

And that's more than enough.
First off most of us understand what you are trying to say, it's just that what you are trying to say is proven bullshit. Secondly even those people that you think understand you...think your full of shit. That's why you have zero support here.

You are DEMONSTRABLY full of shit.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
01-05-2016, 12:28 PM
RE: Was my response to theist too harsh?
(01-05-2016 05:48 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 08:39 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  Maybe you mean "deluded?"

Language murderer.
No I actually meant diluted.

Deluded would have worked too.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
I just can't get past this. Or in Pops speak: I just canned get passed this.

What, exactly, do you mean by "diluted" hypocrites? How would diluted and deluded be applicable to what you intended to say?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: