|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 27, 2019 4:48:35 GMT 10
😁👍
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 27, 2019 4:56:01 GMT 10
🙃
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 27, 2019 9:36:50 GMT 10
I'll take Prickles' "atheism" seriously the day he spells "atheist" correctly.
Occam is of course 100% correct when he unpacks the meaning of "atheist" to demonstrate how it applies to Prickles. If "amoral" means "without morality" then "atheist" means "without God". Prickles waddles like an atheist and quacks like an atheist so go figure.
But atheism is respectable. Genuine atheists like Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Albert Camus and David Attenborough didn't have the label "atheist" thrust on them as part of some dark conspiracy by "religionists" (a word Prickles just invented) who Prickles claims invented the term "atheist". "Atheism" is a term genuine atheists wear with pride. You, Prickles, give atheists a bad name. You fool no one.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 27, 2019 10:20:02 GMT 10
So ... Sporky ... WHO or WHAT created your sky god?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 27, 2019 11:00:05 GMT 10
So ... Sporky ... WHO or WHAT created your sky god? What!! Ten years of trolling the Religion Board, ten boring years of the same old religion bashing insults, religion-bashing sneering and two-bob-each-way “I wanna sneer like a paleo-atheist troll but I don’t wannabe labelled as an atheist” and you’ haven’t progressed on from that stupid question? You seem to be a bit stuck, Prickles!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 28, 2019 5:20:38 GMT 10
So ... Sporky ... WHO or WHAT created your sky god? Your question is meaningless-- whether you agree there is a God or not you are stuck with the same fundamental issue. IE: An infinite regress of causes. So I could pose the same question back at you, only replace the word 'God' with whatever your preference is. ...But who says God is bound by natural laws?
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 28, 2019 10:26:54 GMT 10
Well, before you can ask that question about whether or not your god is bound by natural laws, you first have to PROVE your god even exists.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 28, 2019 15:28:35 GMT 10
Prickles the fly is you and the implacable human visage is Occam ...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 29, 2019 8:04:16 GMT 10
Well, before you can ask that question about whether or not your god is bound by natural laws, you first have to PROVE your god even exists. False. I only need prove that my theory is more plausible than yours. That's all that discourse involves.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 29, 2019 8:26:22 GMT 10
Ah, so tell us all about the evidence that your sky god is real.
After all, you just admitted it is mere theory and claimed it is plausible.
So put up the proof which makes your theory fact.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 29, 2019 11:03:49 GMT 10
No... In my opinion, I said it was more plausible than the notion that he wasn't real.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 29, 2019 13:31:44 GMT 10
Ah, yes ... I know backpedalling when I see it.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 29, 2019 14:28:40 GMT 10
Prickles you’ve been trolling Religion Board threads with this bullshit for 10 years now. Time to assess what you might have achieved. Do you think you’ve “proved” your “point”? Whatever you think your “point” is! Don’t ask us what the “point” of your ten years of trolling the Religion Board is. This is down to you. So whatever you think your “point” has been, do you think you’ve proved it? If you believe that you have proved your “point” then isn’t it time to move on? Ten years, mate! Ten fucking years! If on the other hand after ten years you STILL haven’t proved your point then maybe there isn’t any point to prove. So you’re a sad case: the paleo atheist troll, as distinct from an atheist with integrity in his atheism, who comes here to insult and abuse people about their religious beliefs. Be an adult for once. Make an adult decision about your role on the Religion Board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 11:00:27 GMT 10
Grim opens door ajar...peers in...OK, They're still at it...closes door quietly...
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 30, 2019 14:26:00 GMT 10
Trickles sees Grim's post, a post of the utmost integrity, and thinks "oooh here's a bandwagon!" and hops on.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2019 0:31:29 GMT 10
Ah, yes ... I know backpedalling when I see it. Obviously, your ability to 'see' requires a stronger prescription. Maybe you ought to learn to read in context, instead ..😁👍
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 31, 2019 0:57:18 GMT 10
“Read in context?” says an uncomprehending Prickles in utter bewilderment “what’s that?”
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Aug 31, 2019 8:04:50 GMT 10
Ah, yes ... I know backpedalling when I see it. Obviously, your ability to 'see' requires a stronger prescription. Maybe you ought to learn to read in context, instead ..😁👍 As soon as I saw that “notification” on my profile, I KNEW Sporky was stalking me ... yet again ... before I even clicked on it. You are soooooooooooooo predictable, Sporky. It must be all that religious brainwashing & indoctrination you had forced onto you when you were a kid, eh?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 31, 2019 9:58:57 GMT 10
Rubbish Prickles, nobody’s stalking you. Stop telling porkies.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 31, 2019 10:35:07 GMT 10
Obviously, your ability to 'see' requires a stronger prescription. Maybe you ought to learn to read in context, instead ..😁👍 As soon as I saw that “notification” on my profile, I KNEW Sporky was stalking me ... yet again ... before I even clicked on it. You are soooooooooooooo predictable, Sporky. It must be all that religious brainwashing & indoctrination you had forced onto you when you were a kid, eh? Ah! The Weasel cries 'foul', whence once again being caught in the henhouse. Or in this case, 'stalker'. Lol
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Sept 2, 2019 20:49:50 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 3, 2019 0:20:41 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 3, 2019 0:37:12 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Sept 3, 2019 8:03:46 GMT 10
PROVE your god exists.
When you put up that proof, then you can legitimately claim your god created stuff, including labels for religionists to stick on skeptics, such as the atheists label.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 3, 2019 8:54:13 GMT 10
Atheism is respectable. You aren't. Therefore you're no atheist. Is that a syllogism? The answer is no it isn't. Used properly, syllogism can be a good way of reasoning, but it’s very easy to make sloppy syllogisms by messing up the middle term that links the premises together, as in: "President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an Aquarius. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was great. Therefore all Aquariuses are great." Because so many are made poorly, the syllogism has a bad reputation. Poor, misleading, or tricky reasoning is often called “mere syllogism.” Watch, gentle reader, as Prickles demonstrates his consistent and repeated - and repetitive! - mastery of the sloppy syllogism
|
|