|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 23:09:12 GMT 10
Abuse not just once, but twice. After the pages I've endured from the two of you; I didn't realize there was a limit.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 23:20:24 GMT 10
Pretentious Popinjay and Doddering dunderhead what a tiresome tag-team of Bible barrackers. The jabbering Jeremiah and garrulous gargoyle of the religion board.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 23:33:08 GMT 10
He is probably redirecting his frustration at you Slarti, because in this "year of the Monkey", I'm not suffering any fools like him gladly. I've had enough of the nonsense from the "Bible Barrackers" on this board, and I'm gonna be giving 'em hell for the rest of this year at least! You may get caught in the crossfire of their annoyance, sorry. Just another fine example of Ed's "atheistic altruism? Drama queen, you hyperbolize your significance. Of all the things in my life that I am left to feel frustrated about, your knee-jerk prejudices don't rank very high at all. Get over yourself!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 27, 2016 7:46:47 GMT 10
Pack behaviour? Not nice. Huh? I was abused when I was being civil. And define pack behaviour, two people holding similar opinions is not a pack. All I have done is defend myself. Is that no longer allowed?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 27, 2016 7:49:09 GMT 10
Abuse not just once, but twice. After the pages I've endured from the two of you; I didn't realize there was a limit. So it is okay to abuse me when I have made a deliberate attempt to be civil to you and you return with that? Everyone can see who started it, but hey, you have the 'delete' key at your disposal so you must feel like such a big man.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 27, 2016 9:25:48 GMT 10
So it is okay to abuse me when I have made a deliberate attempt to be civil to you and you return with that? Really? ...When did that start exactly? I don't believe there has ever been even a brief respite in your sledging. You are right, though. I withdraw my unkind comment (s), and the spirit in which they were spoken. As for Ed's comments, they are more a reflection of his character, than it is of me or pim. You ought to be cogniscent of that and disassociate yourself from his childish behavior.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 27, 2016 9:44:55 GMT 10
So it is okay to abuse me when I have made a deliberate attempt to be civil to you and you return with that? Really? ...When did that start exactly? I don't believe there has ever been even a brief respite in your sledging. You are right, though. I withdraw my comment, and the spirit in which it was spoken. As for Ed's comments, they are more a reflection of his character, than it is of me or pim. You ought to be cogniscent of that and disassociate yourself from his childish behavior. A little research would tell you the last time I allegedly sledged you.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2016 11:26:40 GMT 10
Jeez slarti, accept the olive branch he's offering.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2016 11:44:57 GMT 10
Is that meant to be a helpful comment? Or another sledge?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2016 11:53:26 GMT 10
Then since the matter is between those two worthies, let us perhaps step back, give them some space, and resolve to refrain from gratuitous commentary.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 27, 2016 12:22:15 GMT 10
Jeez slarti, accept the olive branch he's offering. I would if it didn't come with an untruth.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 27, 2016 13:47:42 GMT 10
Another deliberately destructive and unhelpful sledge from the sidelines from Yorick. Alas! We know him well.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 28, 2016 3:33:04 GMT 10
I would if it didn't come with an untruth. Stop being disingenuous; you know far well that our rivalry extends far beyond a single thread; I making account for my part. I don't expect any apologies forthcoming for your role. That would require a virtue I've not seen from you. I am only responsible for what I say; I am not responsible for what you comprehend .
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 28, 2016 3:51:05 GMT 10
I was the one sledging, using quotes from Dr. Zachary Smith from the 1960's TV show Lost in Space, which I know Occam's was a fan of. ...!? Where did you ever get that notion? I never watched the show. It was way before my time. I saw the movie, though; It was painful. For sledging there are better sources; if I can spare your feelings I'd offer you a sampling.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 28, 2016 7:05:26 GMT 10
I would if it didn't come with an untruth. Stop being disingenuous; you know far well that our rivalry extends far beyond a single thread; I making account for my part. I don't expect any apologies forthcoming for your role. That would require a virtue I've not seen from you. I am only responsible for what I say; I am not responsible for what you comprehend . And the untruths continue.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 28, 2016 12:53:10 GMT 10
Calumny
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 28, 2016 15:20:35 GMT 10
Maybe you are not friends with Bill Mumy I was more of a fan of his "Lennier" character, on Babylon 5.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 29, 2016 7:45:47 GMT 10
So to give a quick summary of this thread (based on what has been posted so-far), basically RELIGIONISTS (ie....those who believe in an imaginary god) are IDIOTS and non-religionists (ie....those who don't believe in all that god bullshit) are SANE FOLKS.
Hope that clears up the matter in a simple, concise way.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 29, 2016 9:58:05 GMT 10
You "like" this, Yorick? I realise that there's no getting through to KTJ because he's a simpleton whose development remains stuck at ... I dunno ... age 5? But with you the bar is supposed to be set somwhat higher. I'd got that impression not from your more recent posts but from much further back. I have zero problem with anyone declaring themselves to be an atheist and understand that it's possible to develop a sophisticated cosmic view that incorporates morality and contains depth & breadth, with atheism at its core. In fact I was looking forward last weekend to a session given by Richard Dawkins in person at Adelaide Writers Week in which he was scheduled to expound on just that topic and be open to questions from the audience. Alas and unfortunately he bailed out at the last minute so it was cancelled. The alternative was pretty good. That was Kerry O'Brien talking about his latest book Keating with Laura Tingle chairing the session. So the afternoon wasn't a failure. I should imagine that notable atheists such as Dawkins, Chomsky, the late Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer and others would reject with contempt KTJs puerile dismissal of people who profess a religious faith as "idiots". But you express agreement by "liking" KTJs post? KTJ hasn't changed over the years. He’s like stylus on a cracked record. But you're not the Lucky Phil of old. You appear to be regressing to KTJs level. A type of Benjamin Button. Pity
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 29, 2016 10:14:30 GMT 10
You "like" this, Yorick? I realise that there's no getting through to KTJ because he's a simpleton whose development remains stuck at ... I dunno ... age 5? But with you the bar is supposed to be set somwhat higher. I'd got that impression not from your more recent posts but from much further back. I have zero problem with anyone declaring themselves to be an atheist and understand that it's possible to develop a sophisticated cosmic view that incorporates morality and contains depth & breadth, with atheism at its core. In fact I was looking forward last weekend to a session given by Richard Dawkins in person at Adelaide Writers Week in which he was scheduled to expound on just that topic and be open to questions from the audience. Alas and unfortunately he bailed out at the last minute so it was cancelled. The alternative was pretty good. That was Kerry O'Brien talking about his latest book Keating with Laura Tingle chairing the session. So the afternoon wasn't a failure. I should imagine that notable atheists such as Dawkins, Chomsky, the late Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer and others would reject with contempt KTJs puerile dismissal of people who profess a religious faith as "idiots". But you express agreement by "liking" KTJs post? KTJ hasn't changed over the years. He’s like stylus on a cracked record. But you're not the Lucky Phil of old. You appear to be regressing to KTJs level. A type of Benjamin Button. Pity There you go again....sticking that ATHIEST label on people who simply “don't believe” in hocus-pocus clap-trap without PROOF being provided. What is it about you theists that you feel the need to stick a label on anybody who doesn't go along with your imaginary supernatural unproven bullshit?
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 29, 2016 10:18:04 GMT 10
Go and kiss your priest's ring. Which ring? The anal ring? Or the ring which slips onto a finger?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 14, 2016 11:47:09 GMT 10
So this is what atheist intellectualism has been reduced to on this forum? Schoolyard insults, and lickspittle toadying?
Well done.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 14, 2016 11:52:58 GMT 10
PROVE your god actually exists and isn't merely a figment of your imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 15, 2016 22:30:58 GMT 10
So this is what atheist intellectualism has been reduced to on this forum? Schoolyard insults, and lickspittle toadying? Well done. Well, it depends on your relative moral standing. Shit fights concerning insults about brown-nosing; being a lick-spittle and toadying are acceptable to some, other things are not. (Sorry, I accidentally deleted your "Chuck Swindoll" quote. Irrelevant, since I'm not a fan.) Just to be clear... Would you be affirming they are okay to you, then? ...'Cause you've demonstrated a lot of moral outrage over who did what when you are on the receiving end. That sounds more like cognitive dissonance, than relativism to me.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 15, 2016 22:32:21 GMT 10
PROVE your god actually exists and isn't merely a figment of your imagination. Prove the same, but for your mind or consciousness.
|
|