|
Post by pim on Oct 4, 2016 22:36:37 GMT 10
Precisely. The SS reference was intentional and deliberate.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2016 22:36:56 GMT 10
Hahaha....Sporky's back!! A village is never complete without its idiot, so it's great to see him back. 😀 Let's hope he's armed with evidence instead of hope for once. If there is anyone who is an authority on idiocy Slarti, it's you. As for 'evidence ', if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence of an afterlife, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through .
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 5, 2016 22:48:05 GMT 10
Noli vexatores alere = (literally) do not nourish the harassers which as close as you could probably get to "don't feed the trolls" in Latin.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2016 22:57:36 GMT 10
Back to your opening statement: The peculiar thing about narcissism is only others can be thought narcissists, eh Slarti? Your observation here is vapid, and ultimately self-serving. For a narcissist can never be informed of his own narcissism; and a perceived mental illness does not exclude the possibility of being 'correct.' I think you need to widen your scopes on your judgement and consider people such as Mother Teresa, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther. And consider there may be other reasons a person might believe extends beyond mere self-preservation. These conversations you make, are tailored to the converted and ultimately get us nowhere. I leave you to your futility in good faith. You are welcome to respond with further opinions, but I'm unlikely to indulge you further. Do not mistake my silence as acceptance. I can and do accept a universe without me. When will your lot do the same? You really can't see any other reason outside of your own ego, that someone might believe in an afterlife? ...Really? --And you say 'we' are narcissists? Let me ask you something Slarti: When you go home and kiss your wife, do you believe you are simply touching autonomous animated matter moved by raw chemical reactions, or do you believe there is an actual person with feelings, thoughts and opinions in there? Have you ever asked proof of this from her? If not, then why aren't you being consistent?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2016 23:09:08 GMT 10
And KTJ?? Is he gonna "like" it? Pant pant, wags tail, wuff wuff me too!! Tummy tickle while I roll over please? Pant pant ...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2016 23:16:52 GMT 10
Anyway, this talk of the afterlife is all delusional speculation about something of which there is NO proof. Show me one shred of PROOF that death isn't THE END....PERMANENTLY....FOR EVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER!! Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 6, 2016 2:00:00 GMT 10
Energy cannot be created... No "god" then. God is the first Cause he never needed to be 'created'. And a first cause is necessary otherwise you'd have an infinite regress, which is logically impossible. Thermodynamics. It's a Law, and therefore irrefutable. Your move.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 6, 2016 4:02:58 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 6, 2016 6:11:41 GMT 10
A village is never complete without its idiot, so it's great to see him back. 😀 Let's hope he's armed with evidence instead of hope for once. If there is anyone who is an authority on idiocy Slarti, it's you. As for 'evidence ', if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence of an afterlife, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through . Oh dear, the old argument that an idiot doesn't know he's an idiot is certainly true for you, isn't it? Just let me state this: I am NOT the person who believes that the earth and universe was created by an imaginary creature who managed to create themselves and for the whole story to be written by men who had no idea of science and the order of events. You on the other hand are! Good luck to you with your hope and faith, I'll stick to real evidence.. I will come back on the rest of your idiotic points when time permits as I am heading off to work, suffice to say, I have already blown your Pascal's wager 'thermodynamics' hypothesis out of the water, so I don't know why you have chosen to bring it up again. Well, I guess, it's the idiot thing to do. Have a great day, I will.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 6, 2016 6:14:41 GMT 10
When posting a YouTube video, it is usually a good idea to read the \reviews first: "ehhh, not really that funny. I've been looking for anti atheist jokes but i cant find any. oh, and how Christian of you, to wish that once someone does, the chopping up grinding up and print the Bible on them. hurting other living things because they don't believe in the same thing as you, how very Christian of you." "Same here. I came here thinking it actually might be funny. Even as an Atheist myself I have learned to take things for what they are and can enjoy someone bashing atheism as long as it's funny, this was just downright ugly, to wish hateful " Just a few, there are many more as the don't likes double the likes.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 6, 2016 6:44:50 GMT 10
And here is a comedian who is actually funny:
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 6, 2016 9:05:08 GMT 10
No "god" then. God is the first Cause he never needed to be 'created'. And a first cause is necessary otherwise you'd have an infinite regress, which is logically impossible. Thermodynamics. It's a Law, and therefore irrefutable. Your move. First....can you PROVE your god even exists? Second....if you manage to PROVE your god exists, can you prove your god is a “he” and not a “she” or an “it”? Third....how ARROGANT to simply presume something is a first Cause. What came before that first Cause? You religionists are clearly “fucked in the head”
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 6, 2016 22:04:52 GMT 10
Anyway, this talk of the afterlife is all delusional speculation about something of which there is NO proof. Show me one shred of PROOF that death isn't THE END....PERMANENTLY....FOR EVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER!! Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. newstalkback1.proboards.com/thread/4850/pascals-wager-failing
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 6, 2016 22:16:46 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 7, 2016 8:42:39 GMT 10
Since you ask so nicely ... I wasn't aware of the problem. Nevertheless the point in the link is a valid one. In fact I post it again for Slarti's delectation , edification and education ... Slarti your Atheist Republic (thanks for the link) seems to emanate from North America. The language is a tad juvenile in a strident undergraduate sort of way and the feedback from readers thanks the publication for helping them "come out", as it were, as atheists. As if for them being an atheist was to live as an oppressed minority where you had to keep your atheist notions to yourself. In fact they're channelling gays who've come out of the closet. Now gays who come out of the closet have a real axe to grind. Gay-bashing and homophobia are part of the lived experience of gays even now. So for a gay to "come out" is still an act of courage. Given that here in Australia, and my memories go back to the 1950s, there never has been a problem with living openly as an atheist, I can never remember a time when atheists had to hide their atheism. I can never remember a time when atheists suffered discrimination. In my lived experience your religion has been a personal affair and it's something that's tolerated as long as you're not a ratbag (that wonderful old Australian word) about it by giving other people the shits with your god-bothering. To that I could add that in Australia your atheism is your affair and it's something that's tolerated as long as you're not a ratbag by giving other people the shits with your god-bashing. I think it's over the top, a bit rich, when atheists such as those in a mag like Atheist Republic claim the mantle of oppressed minority and steal the language of the gay movement in talking about "coming out". Sorry guys, that kinda language is taken by people who are genuinely oppressed and for whom "coming out" is an act of courage. It's presumptuous of you to try to move in on that type of action. Careful, your hubris is showing. Time for my morning coffee ... Read more: newstalkback1.proboards.com/thread/4850/pascals-wager-failing#ixzz4MLd7DLF2
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 9:14:40 GMT 10
God is the first Cause he never needed to be 'created'. And a first cause is necessary otherwise you'd have an infinite regress, which is logically impossible. Thermodynamics. It's a Law, and therefore irrefutable. Your move. Not that tired old "first cause" BOGUS point again? Your assertion that your "god" does not require a cause is ridiculous. It is an arbitrary cut-off placed by religious nutters. Did your "god" have a Mummy and Daddy? Did the place where your "god" supposedly arose from have a cause? You've tried this old argument before. It's a MASSIVE FAIL. Uh no. It's not considered a fail simply because you wish to be dismissive about it. If you want your view to be considered reasonable; it must be provided with a reason....Otherwise you are only crowing over your own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 9:25:45 GMT 10
It's a MASSIVE FAIL alright. Does your "god" exist in another dimension? How could your "god" exist in another dimension that had no cause? Outside our universe, and ergo outside the laws of nature (supernatural)You know, in the same way your proposed infinite cause exists in your cyclitic universe. Why ought that old canard work for you, but not I?
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 7, 2016 9:28:35 GMT 10
But you haven't yet put up the ABSOLUTE PROOF that your god exists.
So all this other discussion is mere piffle until the existance of god is absolutely proved.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 9:32:06 GMT 10
Ah ... but how did that god come into a place "outside" our universe if that place itself had no cause? See what I mean? The "argument" is never ending. It's a nonsense. Only things in a natural universe require causes. Time doesn't exist outside of our universe ergo, it's meaningless to speak of causes in this context. Since nothing can become 'before' or ' 'after', in a timeless universe. Ergo, God didn't originate in our universe, and is not subject to natural laws, particularly time itself.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 9:39:12 GMT 10
Since nothing can become 'before' or ' 'after', in a timeless universe. You still don't get it ... your "god" would have had to create itself ... it's a nonsense "argument". ...Says who? Only things in our universe require causes; It's a natural law. It doesn't speak to things existing outside of our universe and our Laws.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 9:46:21 GMT 10
Consider the following :
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 9:49:37 GMT 10
In a timeless dimension? ... that means that other dimension had no cause ... that means it was always there ... that means ... the dimension pre-existed your "god" ... No, because the idea of a timeless dimension 'causing' anything, is a Contradiction. Whatever/Whoever exists in a timeless dimesion must itself be timeless...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 9:52:45 GMT 10
Consider the following: Man created God. Your religion is bullshit. You wasted your time studying a mythological set of books. You got it backwards, but don't despair; your ignorance is temporary.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 9:54:34 GMT 10
... because the idea of a timeless dimension 'causing' anything, is a Contradiction. Precisely! An absurd and pointless circular "argument". It's only circular if you've arrived at a conclusion without considering the alternative. Lol Classic Yorick: You tout your position as 'reasonable' , but leave the conversation when you realise that it's indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 7, 2016 9:59:11 GMT 10
You still haven't put up ABSOLUTE PROOF that your god even exists as anything other than a delusion inside your mind.
|
|