|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 5, 2017 15:08:50 GMT 10
Without PROOF that god/s exist, debating religion is all a waste of time. However, once that PROOF (absolute, naturally) is provided, then we can rationally debate religion. The issue isn't a matter of proof, rather will.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 5, 2017 15:49:54 GMT 10
How long has the Religion Board been in existence? How many years? How many times over that period have you put that tedious question? Have you ever been given an answer? Do you think you'll ever be given an answer? We both know the answer to those two questions. So, where does that leave you? No empirical proof, no deductive reasoning, or syllogism, leading to a logical conclusion - at least none that would satisfy you. So what's the outcome? Total stasis, no going forward or backward, you turn into a stuck needle on a cracked LP repeating the same old same old ... and the years pass, or rather time stands still because nothing changes: no fresh insights, no interesting new angle. Consequently it all turns in on itself and becomes destructive: you turn into Troll Two to Phil's Troll One and indulge in pack behaviour trolling anyone who pops his head up on the Religion Board to do what? Defend their religious faith? On the Religion Board? Shock horror! Isn’t it time you pack of trolls packed it in and found something else to do? Why do you only find fault in one side of the argument. I have clearly shown who trolls whom. And you endlessly troll all the Atheists without putting forward any argument against us, seriously! You run around from topic to topic against KTJ and Phil and now me. Let he who is without sin blah blah blah. So cutting to the chase (and I realize that Troll One, full of hubris and conceit, and with the overblown sense of his own importance that makes him the board's Hubris Man, will rush in ahead of you and try to make it all about him) your trolling the Religion Board over the past X years has been all about you getting your rocks off? Wow. That's kinda sad.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 5, 2017 16:09:12 GMT 10
Without PROOF that god/s exist, debating religion is all a waste of time. However, once that PROOF (absolute, naturally) is provided, then we can rationally debate religion. The issue isn't a matter of proof, rather will. Let's talk about WILL....sane, rational people have the will to resist the unproven god delusion inside their heads. Religionists lack the will to resist that unproven god delusion, so could be classified as feeble-minded.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 5, 2017 20:22:38 GMT 10
The issue isn't a matter of proof, rather will. Let's talk about WILL....sane, rational people have the will to resist the unproven god delusion inside their heads. Religionists lack the will to resist that unproven god delusion, so could be classified as feeble-minded. So Martin Luther King Jr "lacked the will" and was therefore "feeble minded"? So is Desmond Tutu, so were Friedrich Bonhoeffer and Cardinal Minszenty? So is Gus Dur in Indonesia and so was Gandhi in India? Quite apart from the hopeless and ignorant generalisation in that stupid statement (trust me, it's not "rational") it's also offensive in the value judgements regarding the disabled. But I think that somewhere in that benighted addled brain of yours there's a glimmer of awareness of these things. So why do you post this sort of drivel? There can only be one answer, can't there, Troll Two!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 5, 2017 23:19:25 GMT 10
No it just means you are ignorant of sin. Occam's ... it's a definitional thing. : "Sin" requires "God" to make up part of the definition. Hence, if "God" is taken away, the definition falls over. As Atheists contend that there is no "God", then by definition, they can't be "sinners". The Bible defines sin as: "knowing to do the right thing to do, and not doing it." Everyone with a conscience is aware of sin.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 6, 2017 5:36:48 GMT 10
A useful and accurate shorthand definition, Occam, and which in no way contradicts the more secular definition of "sin" given by the very authoritative Chambers dictionary (hard copy):
SIN: a moral offence or shortcoming esp but not exclusively from the point of view of religion; the condition of offending in this way; an offence generally; a shame, a pity.
But this type of reasoning from Lucky Phil - i.e. since "sin" is all about religion, and atheists don't believe in religion, ergo "sin" doesn't apply to atheists - is the type of soft soap sophistry that we get from racist bigots in relation to their Muslim-bashing: Islam is a "religion" and not a "race" so bagging out Muslims doesn't make me a racist nyah nyah nyah. Since down through the ages Christianity has been both the vehicle and the tool to express moral values in both your culture and ours, traditionally "sin" has been framed in a religious way. But I'm sure that respectable atheists with intellectual integrity, and not these phony atheists of the paleo variety that come to troll the Religion Board, wouldn't dispute the intrinsic "sinfulness" from a secular point of view of the following Seven Deadly Sins:
Pride
Covetousness
Lust (we can talk about that one)
Anger
Gluttony
Envy
Sloth (pronounced to rhyme with "both" and not "cloth" in the Queen's English)
But wait, there's more: traditional Christianity introduces a type of rank order by placing Pride at the head of that list. I don't think the others are in rank order but the Christianity I was brought up in insists that of the seven deadly sins, Pride stands out as the worst and most egregious. Now from the point of view of secular morality, I don't think a "respectable atheist with intellectual integrity" such as Sartre, Camus, Bertrand Russell or Simone de Beauvoir - or Christopher Hitchens - would disagree.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 6, 2017 8:14:59 GMT 10
But wait, there's more: traditional Christianity introduces a type of rank order by placing Pride at the head of that list. I don't think the others are in rank order but the Christianity I was brought up in... Ah, yes....the Roman Catholic variety of the Christian insanity. It's still all about god delusions inside human beings' heads.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 6, 2017 8:31:06 GMT 10
Channels Richard Dawkins probably without ever having read a hard copy book by Dawkins from cover to cover. Then pretends to be an "expert" and one of the "cognoscenti" by the affectation of casually dropping a Dawkins allusion in his drivel.
Oh and btw Richard Dawkins, for all his intemperate crankiness, nevertheless wouldn't live in a moral vacuum either and I couldn't imagine him dismissing Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy and Sloth as generic classifications for reprehensible behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 6, 2017 8:40:31 GMT 10
Whatever
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 9, 2017 6:35:24 GMT 10
Why do you only find fault in one side of the argument. I have clearly shown who trolls whom. And you endlessly troll all the Atheists without putting forward any argument against us, seriously! You run around from topic to topic against KTJ and Phil and now me. Let he who is without sin blah blah blah. So cutting to the chase (and I realize that Troll One, full of hubris and conceit, and with the overblown sense of his own importance that makes him the board's Hubris Man, will rush in ahead of you and try to make it all about him) your trolling the Religion Board over the past X years has been all about you getting your rocks off? Wow. That's kinda sad. What? Where do I state that I get my rocks off? Please re-read what I have said or have you gone to the Sporky School of Misquoting?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 9, 2017 6:46:20 GMT 10
I started this topic and you brought my name back into it for no reason other than to attack me. So it is pretty obvious who the troll is. No. I referenced you because it was relevant to our current discussion. There were no sneers, I simply stated a behavior you were culpable for in the past. If you disagree with what I said, attack that; not me. And stop being be disingenuous, this acrimony between us happened long before I mentioned you in this thread. You said it yourself, people who are factually mistaken about any subject and post it here, deserve to be ridiculed and bullied for it: And then you proceeded to make light of mental illness. ...How exactly does that put you on the moral high ground in this matter? So much material to work with, but I'll start with your hypocrisy first: You claim that I make light of mental illness, presumably because I described you as 'delusional'. Well, if you knew anything about the English language, you would know that 'delusional' means someone who is unable to understand the difference between 'rea' and 'not real' (like yourself). And as for the hypocrisy? In this very topic appears this post: What's this? A coup against Jody and Occam? You're delusional mate. You really ought to cut down on whatever it is you're smoking. You really are becoming the Tony Abbott of the board: "Make me mod or I'll trash the joint!" What a wrecker! Where was your criticism of Pim using exactly the same word in exactly the same context as me? Oh, that's right, you're a fair Mod and you only criticize those you disagree with and who you can't out-argue with facts. As for bullying you? Oh dear, pointing out that you put up a fake news story and believed it to be true. This not bullying, it is pointing out reality to you and you refusing to accept it. You seem to be under this perpetual delusion ( there it is again) that when someone points out where you are wrong, that they are bullying you. Simply solution - accept it when you make a mistake, own it and don't then try to hide your embarrassment by deleting the evidence! That is the truth that you are incapable of dealing with. Have a wonderful day.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 9, 2017 10:49:00 GMT 10
No. I referenced you because it was relevant to our current discussion. There were no sneers, I simply stated a behavior you were culpable for in the past. If you disagree with what I said, attack that; not me. And stop being be disingenuous, this acrimony between us happened long before I mentioned you in this thread. You said it yourself, people who are factually mistaken about any subject and post it here, deserve to be ridiculed and bullied for it: And then you proceeded to make light of mental illness. ...How exactly does that put you on the moral high ground in this matter? So much material to work with, but I'll start with your hypocrisy first: You claim that I make light of mental illness, presumably because I described you as 'delusional'. Well, if you knew anything about the English language, you would know that 'delusional' means someone who is unable to understand the difference between 'rea' and 'not real' (like yourself). And as for the hypocrisy? In this very topic appears this post: What's this? A coup against Jody and Occam? You're delusional mate. You really ought to cut down on whatever it is you're smoking. You really are becoming the Tony Abbott of the board: "Make me mod or I'll trash the joint!" What a wrecker! Where was your criticism of Pim using exactly the same word in exactly the same context as me? Oh, that's right, you're a fair Mod and you only criticize those you disagree with and who you can't out-argue with facts. As for bullying you? Oh dear, pointing out that you put up a fake news story and believed it to be true. This not bullying, it is pointing out reality to you and you refusing to accept it. You seem to be under this perpetual delusion ( there it is again) that when someone points out where you are wrong, that they are bullying you. Simply solution - accept it when you make a mistake, own it and don't then try to hide your embarrassment by deleting the evidence! That is the truth that you are incapable of dealing with. Have a wonderful day. Slarti, You really need to stop. This isn't a game. You made the post with the purpose to antagonize me, you sought negative attention and you got what you came for. You don't need to humiliate a person just because you disagree with them; and a disagreements don't automatically make enemies. Mistake or no, I don't think anyone deserves to be bullied and ridiculed for what they say. Nor do they need to be reminded and belittled for a lapse in judgement. I pointed out the giant octopus was a hoax, but that wasn't enough for you. You needed to get your rocks off by trying to humiliate me. I erased that thread and I had Jody's support in doing so.You were in the wrong, and now you need to own it Full stop. I'm now saying desist. To push me further is considered harassment which contravenes the TOS. Want a vacation? Push me just a little bit further... I DARE you. I permanently removed Buzz, and I actually liked him. Think I won't do the same to you?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 9, 2017 11:11:16 GMT 10
I apologize in advance if I'll need to boot you, but no one will respect a mod's authority if there is no follow through.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 9, 2017 11:24:31 GMT 10
Sounds good. Now in keeping with the spirit of your suggestion: Is your complaint specifically about pim's sneering against you (personal), or all sneering in general? Just being objective.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 9, 2017 12:00:36 GMT 10
I had intended to refrain from commenting but since my name has been taken in vain and Hubris Man has decided to justify his nickname by wearing his hubris on his sleeve by taking credit for everything ... 1) I reject outright your definition of "sneer" no matter how often you spam the board with tedious and lengthy c & p's. So I will not allow the tenor or the content of my posts to be defined or vetted by you. 2) I'm not interested in getting into some sort of tedious non-debate about the place of "sneering" in discussion board exchanges. Sneers happen. Deal with it. If I go to the highly moderated comments section on the ABC website or to the comments at the end of op ed pieces in the online media such as the Guardian or the Fairfax media (or the Globe & Mail to cite a Canadian example) you'll see sneers aplenty. Get a grip. 3. You are not the mod on this board. Nor am I. The difference is that I don't try to act as if I am a mod. But, in your insufferable hubris, you do. It's like you can't help yourself. Here's some gratuitous advice: if your craving to be mod is so all-consuming that you can't help pretending to be one, why not start up a board of your own? I promise not to join
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 9, 2017 13:58:23 GMT 10
No that was not a sneer Hubris Man. No wait. Yeah I guess "Hubris Man" has a bit of a sneer about it. But so what! If the sneer fits then let not your sneers be constrained nor restrained! Not everything is about you. And no that isn't a sneer. Not everything is about you Hubris Man! Now that's a sneer! And a bloody good one! Well deserved too because you prance about the board (a sneer, I say! A palpable sneer! I wish I could sneer as effortlessly as Shakespeare. Now that guy was to a good sneer as Leonardo was to the Mona Lisa) displaying your hubris and gross over estimation of your own importance for the world to sneer at. I think "prance" qualifies as a sneer. And a quality sneer it is too. In any case what's the big hang up about sneers? Get a grip you man child.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 9, 2017 14:21:07 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 9, 2017 14:24:44 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 9, 2017 15:13:07 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 9, 2017 15:18:19 GMT 10
Now Shakespeare ... that guy was the master of the good sneer. This is how the Capulets react to Romeo when they first spot him. Rhyming sneers! God but I wish I could sneer like that:
TYBALT This, by his voice, should be a Montague.— (to his PAGE) Fetch me my rapier, boy.— What, dares the slave Come hither, covered with an antic face, To fleer and scorn at our solemnity? Now, by the stock and honor of my kin, To strike him dead I hold it not a sin. TYBALT I can tell by his voice that this man is a Montague. (to his PAGE) Get me my sword, boy.—What, does this peasant dare to come here with his face covered by a mask to sneer at and scorn our celebration? Now, by the honor of our family, I do not consider it a crime to kill him.
CAPULET Why, how now, kinsman? Wherefore storm you so? CAPULET Why, what’s going on here, nephew? Why are you acting so angry?
TYBALT Uncle, this is a Montague, our foe, A villain that is hither come in spite To scorn at our solemnity this night. TYBALT Uncle, this man is a Montague—our enemy. He’s a scoundrel who’s come here out of spite to mock our party.
CAPULET Young Romeo is it? CAPULET Is it young Romeo?
TYBALT 'Tis he, that villain Romeo.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 9, 2017 15:25:56 GMT 10
Then there's the Bible! Isaiah! That guy knew how to sneer! Isaiah 57:5 You burn with lust among the oaks and under every spreading tree; you sacrifice your children in the ravines and under the overhanging crags. Fire & brimstone in every syllable! A sneer, Hubris Man? You burst into tears at my sneers? You can't handle a good sneer!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 9, 2017 17:57:43 GMT 10
Aha! A sneering innuendo! A bit underhand too, and sneaky. Hubris Man's question to Occam, which is about me so I claim the moral right to answer - since I am eminently qualified to answer it and as qualified as Occam - is a type of "when did you stop beating your wife" question since to answer it implies that you're guilty of what the question implies. But the answer is another question, from me to you: do you really think that Occam and I have nothing better to do than caucus together and plan strategy regarding you? Oh the hubris of it all that he gives himself that sort of importance.
Gentle reader I can only leave Hubris Man to his hubris while I go to the opera: a performance of "Saul" by Handel at the Adelaide Festival Theatre.
Toodles!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2017 0:12:13 GMT 10
One would have to wonder what is going on when the person running around sneering with such frequency (in particular at KTJ; Ponto; Slarti and I) You should watch those pronoun objects Hubris Man, that should read "at KTJ, Ponto, Slarti and me" you ignoramus! So much for the poor grammar, now for the hubris. You are so riddled with hubris, Hubris Man, that I don't think you realise you're doing it. It's hard-wired into your DNA so to speak. What gives you the authority to speak for those other members? Can't they speak for themselves? You rush into an issue - and in this case it's an issue that you're confecting - and act as if you're the Pope speaking infallibly ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals. Well if you're the Pope I'm Martin Luther telling you to shove your Peter's Pence and indulgences right up where the sun don't shine (deliberate rhetorical use of an Americanism! - for effect!) Firstly KTJ - if I sneer at KTJ it's sneer for sneer. Besides, he's the board boofhead and makes outrageous statements. Anyone who sneers from his side of the Tasman during the Sydney Siege while people were dying that it "serves you right" deserves more than a sneer. Next you mention Ponto. Why? Because I call out his bigotry and racism? And you have a problem with that? Man you really have gone over to the George Brandis dark side haven't you when you defend his right to be a bigot and a racist. Then there's slarti. Now look Hubris Man pull your fucking head in. Slarti and I go back a lot further than you realise and if he didn't like something that I posted he wouldn’t need you to speak for him. And that leaves you. It's very simple Hubris Man: if you don't want to be sneered at then change the way you behave. Don't act in a way that invites a sneer. You are not the moderator of the board so don't act as if you are. Did slarti cop a warning? Isn't that none of your business? And what's this about me "trying my hardest to get you banned"? You really do have tickets on yourself don't you. You really think you're that important that I would "try my hardest" to get you banned? I alerted the mods - publicly, transparently and openly - to your vetting and bowdlerisation of my posts. And no that's no longer up for discussion. The mods have ruled on it, found against you and you've been warned. This is about you mate, not me. I realise you're desperate for victim status in this situation but the horrible truth (for you) is that you are no victim here. If you get banned it's not down to me. You brought up your pathetic little "sneering" non-issue so I thought I'dgive you a demonstration of how to sneer with class, style and élan - from the masters no less: Shakespeare and Isaiah. And you run off blubbering again about how unfair it is? You pathetic man child.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2017 2:21:39 GMT 10
I'm still awaiting an answer Phil: Why do you defend those protected by your interests, (names omitted as per request) but take exception only when the sneers are directed against you specifically? And how is it that you maintain a belief in moral relativism; yet when it comes to the actions of pim, the moderators must see him absolutely culpable? Your own moral outrage has come back to bite you in the arse: It's either absolute Free Speech, or moderated editing. You can't have it both ways. And before your Wolfpack starts snarling, let us remind them: "Those who make the forum rules, also get to enforce them."
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2017 2:32:06 GMT 10
You brought up your pathetic little "sneering" non-issue so I thought I'dgive you a demonstration of how to sneer with class, style and élan - from the masters no less: Shakespeare and Isaiah. And you run off blubbering again about how unfair it is? You pathetic man child. It's a valid point, Phil. Would you similarily mandate these works of literature also be censored? You require greater justification.
|
|