| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 11:09 PM
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| monkeybyte wrote: | Um, no. You mentioned some sources that you thought were credible, what is the criteria that makes them this way?
Because they're more mainstream and are covered by paid professionals?
To an extent that would be true, especially compared to a lot of nutbar blogs out there.
To an extent it's not, they're in the business of selling information, not necessarily news.
As for the nutbars, they're going to get a lot of undeserved support by default if mainstream journalists keep up their chickenshit hand wringing.
If the only the fascists will call a duck a duck, then they will displace the liberals in Europe.
If Muslim mods don't speak up more, I'll have to pigeonhole them with the Jihadis myself, regardless of my opinion of the fascists.
I'm still interested in your views on apostate sources like Rushdie and Ali. |
Please remove what's left of your mind from the furnace and stop playing coy. The word "Academic Sources," are you unable to fully understand the meaning and context of the word? But by that phrase alone it is indisputably apparent where the criteria for credibility resides. I've even explained sources which aren't credible, which again, probably due to your lacklustre reading comprehension, you've missed. A short run down would be: No Blogs, no opinion articles (for factual assertions,) no sites without basic journalistic values and no sensationalists or propaganda (like videos from youtube from angry atheists or people who don't know jack about any religion.) And even further, in this thread and others I've explained what reputable sources would be: Books, University Resources such as experts or article databases. And yet, with all this infomation I've given in not only this thread, but various others, somehow you've managed to miss it all.
How does that not explain the issue of credibility? Oh wait, it does, only you have to work to get that infomation. Get active.
Obviously, since I'm such a tight person about sources, I heavily research the sources I use. Even someone of your intellect could have easily deduced that. What makes the UN so credible? Continual reassessment, good polling polls, a plethora of experts among various other things. Reuters, what makes them so credible? Again, the same thing. Of course, no organisation can go without a blunder or be unbiased continually. However, because of the credibility they've achieved and the skill of their organization, they will catch most of these things, and offer their apologies and retractions, as an respectable source should and would. Reuters, in particular, unlike Fox and other sources, do have fairly objective reports that do not attach unneeded emotions or misrepresent facts intentionally. Again, blunders happen, and they are quickly corrected. They have ethical standards that come before their need to make a quick buck.
But just go ahead and kept your narrowed view of the world instead of branching out and idiotically put fascism with Islamic terrorism and Islamism, which are of the most diverse political and counter-political movements- It provides entertainment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
monkeybyte
Forum Master
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 3511
Local time: 2:09 PM
Location: At E's place for tea.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | Please remove what's left of your mind from the furnace and stop playing coy. The word "Academic Sources," are you unable to fully understand the meaning and context of the world? But by that phrase alone it is indisputably apparent where the criteria for credibility resides. |
I think you put too much faith in that tag, young sir. Not to come off as anti-intellectual or anything, but a lot of academics are sold on this apologetic bullshit right now. (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're not much of a Chomski fan. )
| Quote: | | I've even explained sources which aren't credible, which again, probably due to your lacklustre reading comprehension, you've missed. A short run down would be: No Blogs, no opinion articles (for factual assertions,) no sites without basic journalistic values and no sensationalists or propaganda (like videos from youtube from angry atheists or people who don't know jack about any religion.) |
Okay, so all small net sources are paranoid propaganda, and academics have a monopoly on credibility. You do realise that these people are often stuck in all day writing about what someone else wrote twenty years ago, right? Not that bloggers don't, but they can have the advantage posting at the scene. As for my reading comprehension, can you find it in your heart to forgive for trying to skim past your multiple redundant paragraphs of how horribly stunted the opposing view is? I know you're young, but you gotta polish that bedside manner, Atilla. That's quite an assertion about 'angry atheists' too. Do apostates not exist here?
| Quote: | And even further, in this thread and others I've explained what reputable sources would be: Books, University Resources such as experts or article databases. And yet, with all this infomation I've given in not only this thread, bug various others, somehow you've managed to miss it all.
How does that not explain the issue of credibility? Oh wait, it does, only you have to work to get that infomation. Get active. |
Smug, but fair enough. Again, if you can post your argument without the redundant reassurances to your comparatively massive intellect you might get better responses. Not just from poor damaged little me, but from others who seem to be dialog worthy.
| Quote: | | Obviously, since I'm such a tight person about sources, I heavily research the sources I use. Even someone of your intellect could have easily deduced that. What makes the UN so credible? Continual reassessment, good polling polls, a plethora of experts among various other things. Reuters, what makes them so credible? Again, the same thing. Of course, no organisation can go without a blunder or be unbiased continually. However, because of the credibility they've achieved and the skill of their organization, they will catch most of these things, and offer their apologies and retractions, as an respectable source should and would. |
Glad you didn't rule out fallibility, but do you know if these apologies and retractions are based in their own introspection, or responses (which include both the good ones and the knee jerk reactions)?
| Quote: | | Reuters, in particular, unlike Fox and other sources, do have fairly objective reports that do not attach unneeded emotions or misrepresent facts intentionally.Again, blunders happen, and they are quickly corrected. They have ethical standards that come before their need to make a quick buck. |
Compared to Faux, yeah, can't help but agree with that.  Though I have admit that when a Coptic family was murdered a few years ago for posting some abrasive shit to Muslims they were one of the few networks that made even a peep about it.
| Quote: | | But just go ahead and kept your narrowed view of the world instead of branching out and idiotically put fascism with Islamic terrorism and Islamism, which are of the most diverse political and counter-political movements- It provides entertainment. |
Aw, doodle, did I say that? Let's rewind:
| monkeybyte wrote: | If the only the fascists will call a duck a duck, then they will displace the liberals in Europe.
If Muslim mods don't speak up more, I'll have to pigeonhole them with the Jihadis myself, regardless of my opinion of the fascists. |
Now before I slam your reading comprehension, let me concede that I was talking about fascists gaining undeserved sympathy from Europeans who feel disenfranchised by the left. With three different threads discussing recurring themes right now, I should have been more specific.
Still wanna hear your opinions on Rushdie, Ali, oh, and maybe Hitchens and Sina. Pretty pwease? 
_________________
"Setting people on fire is wrong." -Todd "Squee" Casil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 11:09 PM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monkeybyte wrote: | | I think you put too much faith in that tag, young sir. Not to come off as anti-intellectual or anything, but a lot of academics are sold on this apologetic bullshit right now. (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're not much of a Chomski fan. ) |
I believe you make far too many assumptions and add far too little substance. Are you aware the prevailing “market” of people lashing out against Academic Institutes are mostly amateurish and/or zealous political bloggers, uninformed foreigners and oddly enough, anti-Islamists who very few are well-informed in argumentative debate or Islam; just having random tidbits, much like have parts of a jigsaw puzzle but not being able to complete it. And are you of the same breed or is unsubstantiated suspicion and minority opinion all you possess as your credentials? Your belief that Academia is overtly apologetic doesn’t mean it’s a real occurrence and if so limits the credibility of Academia. A belief and truth are separate realms.
It’s Chomsky, with a “y,” as you should be or are aware.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | Okay, so all small net sources are paranoid propaganda, and academics have a monopoly on credibility. You do realise that these people are often stuck in all day writing about what someone else wrote twenty years ago, right? Not that bloggers don't, but they can have the advantage posting at the scene. As for my reading comprehension, can you find it in your heart to forgive for trying to skim past your multiple redundant paragraphs of how horribly stunted the opposing view is? I know you're young, but you gotta polish that bedside manner, Atilla. That's quite an assertion about 'angry atheists' too. Do apostates not exist here? |
I wouldn’t have to frequently repeat and reiterate argot if most morons were able to grasp the gist faster, such as yourself. I guess America and its branches just aren’t as nourished intellectually as they used to be. Most contributors to these overabundance of laymen e-sources are unaware of the basics of simple citation let alone how to present information objectively without bulky corruption. These people are amateurish in both their presentation and knowledge about the majority of what they vehemently debate around. They're hardly experts in anything but sophistry yet you seem to expect me to consider their worth. Blogs, little “anti-whatever” sites, liberal websites run by intelligent yet knowledge defective amateurs: It’s their own fault; it has little to do with an imaginative monopoly on credibility.
If they are credible sources, they should be able to show they are or someone should on their benefit.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | But fair enough. Again, if you can post your argument without the redundant reassurances to your comparatively massive intellect you might get better responses. Not just from poor damaged little me, but from others who seem to be dialog worthy. |
Your accusation of what you believe is my introspective intellectual reassurance doesn’t detract from the intelligence of other users nor does it force them to respond mindlessly. Their inability to intelligently form a coherent string of words has nothing to do with me. Secondly, I’m already aware of how intelligent I am as I’m continually acknowledged by my peers for such and continually don’t care. There isn’t a reason for me to reassure myself of something that outside forces won’t allow me to forget. So, if no doubt exists what is the reason why I must, as you claim, reassure myself of my intellect? There wouldn’t be a reason. Now, If you’re done playing “anyalse that psyche,” let’s get back on the topic trail you keep stumbling off of.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | Glad you didn't rule out fallibility, but do you know if these apologies and retractions are based in their own introspection, or responses (which include both the good ones and the knee jerk reactions)? |
Other than a few, most retractions came before most sources even noticed any given blunder. If a scandal springs up or noticeable fowl play arose (like in the doctored photo case,) contributors aligned with that scandal are fired without hesitation as part “no-shit on my streets” policy. So what conclusion do you come to?
| monkeybyte wrote: | Aw, doodle, did I say that? Let's rewind:
| monkeybyte wrote: | If the only the fascists will call a duck a duck, then they will displace the liberals in Europe.
If Muslim mods don't speak up more, I'll have to pigeonhole them with the Jihadis myself, regardless of my opinion of the fascists. |
|
After viewing the tape several times, why yes, you did say that. An unintelligent parallel and a piss-poor justification doesn't get more obvious than that. If you meant something else, you should have said it better than what you said.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | Now before I slam your reading comprehension, let me concede that I was talking about fascists gaining undeserved sympathy from Europeans who feel disenfranchised by the left. With three different threads discussing recurring themes right now, I should have been more specific. |
You can’t slam my reading comprehension. You’re aware you can’t and your conceding remark acknowledges you can’t. Who determines whether the sympathy gained was deserved- Is it you? That’s an equally horrible argument.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | Still wanna hear your opinions on Rushdie, Ali, oh, and maybe Hitchens and Sina. Pretty pwease? |
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monkeybyte
Forum Master
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 3511
Local time: 2:09 PM
Location: At E's place for tea.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | I believe you make far too many assumptions and add far too little substance. Are you aware the prevailing “market” of people lashing out against Academic Institutes are mostly amateurish and/or zealous political bloggers, uninformed foreigners and oddly enough, anti-Islamists who very few are well-informed in argumentative debate or Islam; just having random tidbits, much like have parts of a jigsaw puzzle but not being able to complete it. |
Agreed, but postmodernism has been a sickness that also has bled into the institutoins of the good guys. And not all bloggers are amature slobs.
| Quote: | | It’s Chomsky, with a “y,” as you should be or are aware. |
My bad, and thank you for not writing a 300 word paragraph diatribe about malignant brain tumors compromising my spelling.
| Quote: | | I wouldn’t have to frequently repeat and reiterate argot if most morons were able to grasp the gist faster, such as yourself. I guess America and its branches just aren’t as nourished intellectually as they used to be. |
My speculation would be that a lot of your key points get missed because you sandwich them in paragraphs of repetitive assertions of being a 'pearl among the swine'. Who are you trying to convince, us or you? I'm guilty of abrasive, assholish behavior myself, but I don't repeat the same slam over & over and if want to make a point, I try to make it visually detatched from my usual shit. Of course, if you're not interested in decent discourse that's your business, wether or not you wanna be honest about it.
| Quote: | | Most contributors to these overabundance of laymen e-sources are unaware of the basics of simple citation let alone how to present information objectively without bulky corruption. These people are amateurish in both their presentation and knowledge about the majority of what they vehemently debate around. |
Agreed.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | But fair enough. Again, if you can post your argument without the redundant reassurances to your comparatively massive intellect you might get better responses. Not just from poor damaged little me, but from others who seem to be dialog worthy. |
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | Your accusation of what you believe is my introspective intellectual reassurance doesn’t detract from the intelligence of other users nor does it force them to respond mindlessly. Their inability to intelligently form a coherent string of words has nothing to do with me. Secondly, I’m already aware of how intelligent I am as I’m continually acknowledged by my peers for such and continually don’t care. There isn’t a reason for me to reassure myself of something that outside forces won’t allow me to forget. So, if no doubt exists what is the reason why I must, as you claim, reassure myself of my intellect? There wouldn’t be a reason. Now, If you’re done playing “anyalse that psyche,” let’s get back on the topic trail you keep stumbling off of. |
See, this is what I'm talking about. Play it enough times and it just starts looking like this:
I'm not sure what kind of thrill you people get out of your online personas, well, at least I hope it's your online persona.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | Glad you didn't rule out fallibility, but do you know if these apologies and retractions are based in their own introspection, or responses (which include both the good ones and the knee jerk reactions)? |
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | Other than a few, most retractions came before most sources even noticed any given blunder. If a scandal springs up or noticeable fowl play arose (like in the doctored photo case,) contributors aligned with that scandal are fired without hesitation as part “no-shit on my streets” policy. So what conclusion do you come to? |
That's a fair response.
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | After viewing the tape several times, why yes, you did say that. An unintelligent parallel and a piss-poor justification doesn't get more obvious than that. If you meant something else, you should have said it better than what you said. |
I guess it would cause you searing physical pain to go back on anything, so I won't push ya, wouldn't want you to get hurt. 
| monkeybyte wrote: | | Still wanna hear your opinions on Rushdie, Ali, oh, and maybe Hitchens and Sina. Pretty pwease? |
Okay, okay, it's cool, you're not familiar with 'em, can't hold a physics guy at fault for not reading certian religous political stuff.
_________________
"Setting people on fire is wrong." -Todd "Squee" Casil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 11:09 PM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monkeybyte wrote: | | Agreed, but postmodernism has been a sickness that also has bled into the institutoins of the good guys. And not all bloggers are amature slobs. |
I don’t remember saying that all bloggers were amateur slobs or things to that effect. That’s because, wow, I didn’t state that. You’re under the assumption I’ve been doing this, which is probably why you bolded “most” a ways down the post.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | My bad, and thank you for not writing a 300 word paragraph diatribe about malignant brain tumors compromising my spelling. |
So that’s why you pretend to hold all the knowledge and pretend like only you can dangle the keys. Interesting.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | My speculation would be that a lot of your key points get missed because you sandwich them in paragraphs of repetitive assertions of being a 'pearl among the swine'. Who are you trying to convince, us or you? I'm guilty of abrasive, assholish behavior myself, but I don't repeat the same slam over & over and if want to make a point, I try to make it visually detatched from my usual shit. Of course, if you're not interested in decent discourse that's your business, wether or not you wanna be honest about it. |
Your speculations thus far have turn out to be very poor and based on incomplete information regarding me and your own poor attempts to fill in those gaps. It seems like you’ve repeated that course, this time around as well. If you’d like to make a point, go ahead, but I don’t have time to hear your lacklustre speculations.
| monkeybyte wrote: | See, this is what I'm talking about. Play it enough times and it just starts looking like this:
I'm not sure what kind of thrill you people get out of your online personas, well, at least I hope it's your online persona. |
No, it wasn’t what you were talking about. Because you are aware of my style, you can probably guess my response. However, regardless of the content of my response, you would have argued that what I replied was “what you were talking about.” Either way I reply of the known ways I reply, you have an argument to “counter” that, which is just the same concept that you can tailor to each reply. And at the end of that, you insert your trademark “Shit I’m not smart enough to make a snide comment so here is a cliché picture and saying” and insult.
Am I to be impressed by this? It got too predictable in your last argument with me that I just got bored of you.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | I guess it would cause you searing physical pain to go back on anything, so I won't push ya, wouldn't want you to get hurt. |
Or possibly there isn’t a need for me to go back on anything I said because both you and I are perfectly aware that what I said isn’t disputable because of your own concession, acknowledging your own flaws.
| monkeybyte wrote: | | Okay, okay, it's cool, you're not familiar with 'em, can't hold a physics guy at fault for not reading certian religous political[ |
Not wanting to discuss people irrelevant to the conversation doesn’t mean I’m not familiar with them, as you obviously know. Attempting to make it look like I don’t know of them is pretty rude of you, wouldn’t you know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Citizen X
Forum Plebian
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 185
Local time: 11:09 PM
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | Your point isn't a valid point. The problem with your point is that you assume that your interpretation of these religions and your subsequent "disprovable" of it, is both the correct interpretation and objective. |
The problem with my point is that I choose to use logic, sound evidence, and scientific fact when viewing a religion. People of religion choose to use inspiration, emotion, and faith to support their belief in their religion. When using the former, it is relatively simple to refute the foundation of most religions. When the latter is utilized, it is impossible to refute any religion. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of what one chooses to support their viewpoint. Just as many people of religion choose to accept Creationism over Evolution. One group chooses to utilize a different set of criteria over another to establish the foundation of their viewpoint. You may argue which set of criteria is the one that should be utilized, as many people do.
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | Regardless if religions do "spout new interpretations" to avoid it, there is no way to validate that your interpretation is "truth" of that religion. So what religions do or don't do to "avoid it," is irrelevant. Various interpretations of Genesis and what would become Genesis, have existed since the conception of Judaism to the pre-Judaic Semitic religions. Your interpretation is local to you, to your understanding and to your biases. Disproving your interpretation, only disproves that religion, for yourself. It doesn't work on a grander scale as you once thought. There is no way to disprove (likewise, prove) every interpretation of Genesis, so your shortcut cannot work. |
Most religions are based on a foundation. Within a given religion, there may be several sects, denominations, etc., of which the foundation may have some variation. But it is quite simple to determine the foundation in which a religion is established. Determining the foundation is not a matter of interpretation. Religions, generally, are not established on multiple foundations.
When studying and deciphering religious text, such as the Book of Genesis, most of the various interpretations that exist have very little bearing on religious foundation. The fact is, in regards to the Book of Genesis, the interpretation of most of the text that has any bearing on religious foundation, is generally not disputed. The interpretations that are generally disputed have very little bearing on anything of importance outside of the religious world
In speaking specifically about the Book of Genesis, what some people may dispute, is whether or not text that predates the Book of Genesis was used in writing the Book of Genesis. However, amongst the academic community, there is little dispute. Many passages within the religious writings of Sumerian text have various interpretations. But again, those varying interpretations are over minute details. Text that is in direct dispute of Judaism, Christian, and Islamic foundation is generally interpreted without major variation.
Many in the religious community dispute much of this information. They dispute this by suggesting that the Book of Genesis is not predated by any other text. All evidence, and there is quite a bit of evidence, suggests the opposite. But once again, people of religion choose to establish their belief on inspiration, emotion, and faith.
If a religion is founded on false pretenses, does that not make the religion false? If the foundation of a religion is determined to have been established by the “editing” of text, that does not give the whole story and further un-validates the foundation on which the religion was founded, how does that not disprove the religion?
You state that every aspect of every religion must be proved wrong for the entirety of the religion to be proved wrong. But if the foundation is found to be false, this falsifies everything in which the religion stands. This does not disprove historical information, characters within the religion that may or may not have been proven historically, nor does this disprove supernatural acts suggested to have taken place. This only disproves the validity of that religion. At the very least, it should force a different ideology, or religion, that may or may not include the same historical locations, the same characters, and the same supernatural occurrences. But it does, in fact, disprove that particular religion.
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | So yes, every aspect of every religion does need to be disproved for the entirety of religion, to be a lie. Because this is an absolute statement, and they're serious fucking business. If you make one, you need to back it the fuck up like a pile driver. |
Again, I disagree. By stating that a religion is false, one is not stating that everything associated with that religion is false. If one were to prove that the foundation of Christianity is false, then the religion itself is proved to be false. This does not prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead; it does not prove that Jesus did not exist; it does not prove that Herod, or Pilate, or John the Baptist did not exist; it does not prove that the miracles of Jesus did not happen; it does not prove that there was no immaculate conception. But it does prove that the religion itself is false. And all of those happenings within that religion, if one still chooses to believe each happened, must be based on a separate ideology with a different foundation.
_________________
He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
He made a virus that would kill off all the swine
His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
Demands devotion, atrocities done in his name |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 11:09 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you look to my previous posts most of the arguments and statements you've made I have already made a comment on them, before your post. Now, can you give me a good reason why I should type out the same thing just to re-inform you of what I've already said? I'll do it if you give me a good reason, if not, just read what I already wrote to different posters which pretty much covers your entire reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antonivs
Forum Plebian
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 244
Local time: 10:09 PM
Location: Reeperbahn, Hamburg
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | If you look to my previous posts most of the arguments and statements you've made I have already made a comment on them, before your post. Now, can you give me a good reason why I should type out the same thing just to re-inform you of what I've already said? I'll do it if you give me a good reason, if not, just read what I already wrote to different posters which pretty much covers your entire reply. |
Then I guess your comments weren't convincing enough. Feel free to repost them, but don't expect that to settle the issue.
It sounds like you are one of those people who always has to have the last word. No wonder you've already posted 413 times since Feb. 3, 2008.
_________________
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Coca-Cola that the thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 11:09 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| antonivs wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | If you look to my previous posts most of the arguments and statements you've made I have already made a comment on them, before your post. Now, can you give me a good reason why I should type out the same thing just to re-inform you of what I've already said? I'll do it if you give me a good reason, if not, just read what I already wrote to different posters which pretty much covers your entire reply. |
Then I guess your comments weren't convincing enough. Feel free to repost them, but don't expect that to settle the issue.
It sounds like you are one of those people who always has to have the last word. No wonder you've already posted 413 times since Feb. 3, 2008. |
Then I guess the only thing you can do is guess. Feel free to guess some more, but if all you can do is guess then you'll never say anything worth listening to. Just like your previous statements, in which all you do, is guess.
It doesn't matter if what I said was convincing or not, it is correct. People's beliefs aren't valid proof for anything, however, the can feel free to believe in whatever they want to, even if they aren't correct. If they wish to turn a blind eye to any logics system because it may be in conflict with their beliefs, atheists to theists, then they can be a fucktard. If you have anything to add, add it. If you just want to continue acting foolishly making absurd assumptions about my character, well I guess I can't stop you from doing that now can I?
And since you aren't Citizen X, shut the fuck up, that question wasn't for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antonivs
Forum Plebian
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 244
Local time: 10:09 PM
Location: Reeperbahn, Hamburg
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | antonivs wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | If you look to my previous posts most of the arguments and statements you've made I have already made a comment on them, before your post. Now, can you give me a good reason why I should type out the same thing just to re-inform you of what I've already said? I'll do it if you give me a good reason, if not, just read what I already wrote to different posters which pretty much covers your entire reply. |
Then I guess your comments weren't convincing enough. Feel free to repost them, but don't expect that to settle the issue.
It sounds like you are one of those people who always has to have the last word. No wonder you've already posted 413 times since Feb. 3, 2008. |
Then I guess the only thing you can do is guess. Feel free to guess some more, but if all you can do is guess then you'll never say anything worth listening to. Just like your previous statements, in which all you do, is guess.
It doesn't matter if what I said was convincing or not, it is correct. People's beliefs aren't valid proof for anything, however, the can feel free to believe in whatever they want to, even if they aren't correct. If they wish to turn a blind eye to any logics system because it may be in conflict with their beliefs, atheists to theists, then they can be a fucktard. If you have anything to add, add it. If you just want to continue acting foolishly making absurd assumptions about my character, well I guess I can't stop you from doing that now can I?
And since you aren't Citizen X, shut the fuck up, that question wasn't for you. |
Thanks for proving me right.
_________________
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Coca-Cola that the thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 11:09 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| antonivs wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | antonivs wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | If you look to my previous posts most of the arguments and statements you've made I have already made a comment on them, before your post. Now, can you give me a good reason why I should type out the same thing just to re-inform you of what I've already said? I'll do it if you give me a good reason, if not, just read what I already wrote to different posters which pretty much covers your entire reply. |
Then I guess your comments weren't convincing enough. Feel free to repost them, but don't expect that to settle the issue.
It sounds like you are one of those people who always has to have the last word. No wonder you've already posted 413 times since Feb. 3, 2008. |
Then I guess the only thing you can do is guess. Feel free to guess some more, but if all you can do is guess then you'll never say anything worth listening to. Just like your previous statements, in which all you do, is guess.
It doesn't matter if what I said was convincing or not, it is correct. People's beliefs aren't valid proof for anything, however, the can feel free to believe in whatever they want to, even if they aren't correct. If they wish to turn a blind eye to any logics system because it may be in conflict with their beliefs, atheists to theists, then they can be a fucktard. If you have anything to add, add it. If you just want to continue acting foolishly making absurd assumptions about my character, well I guess I can't stop you from doing that now can I?
And since you aren't Citizen X, shut the fuck up, that question wasn't for you. |
Thanks for proving me right. |
You've made no statements in which you could be proven right about and nothing I say would validate that. You are aware that is the case. Your first reply was bait and regardless the content that I would have replied with, you would have given something similar to this reply. You had nothing to say in the first place you simply wanted to agitate me and provoke some sort of response. I guess you didn't get the hint in the first reply, did you?
Now I asked you the first time if you had anything to add, add it. I guess you don't, no surprise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VinceNoir
Nihilistic Tendencies
Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Posts: 542
Local time: 4:09 AM
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ever had the feeling you're watching the work of a flame bot and not a human?
_________________
Kindly stick your Quran/Bible/Torah up your holier-than-thou arsehole you square. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 11:09 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VinceNoir wrote: | | Ever had the feeling you're watching the work of a flame bot and not a human? |
No, but I have the feeling that you're trying too hard in attempting self-fellatio to what remains of your intellect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VinceNoir
Nihilistic Tendencies
Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Posts: 542
Local time: 4:09 AM
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No, but I have the feeling that you're trying too hard in attempting self-fellatio to what remains of your intellect. |
And you sir are a giant bag of cunts with a dead mother. Good day.
_________________
Kindly stick your Quran/Bible/Torah up your holier-than-thou arsehole you square. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr126
resident misanthrope
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8642
Local time: 4:09 AM
Location: Londonistan
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.” - Ayn Rand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
