The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: MrDebunk on March 11, 2016, 10:06:52 PM

Title: Atheism
Post by: MrDebunk on March 11, 2016, 10:06:52 PM
What are this forum's views with atheism? I'm one
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 12, 2016, 05:07:01 PM
The vast majority of people here are atheistic, and many, albeit not all, are ferociously anti-religion in any sense, with one or two being specifically anti-Semitic.

I personally am an Orthodox Jew. I get along reasonably well with a few of the atheists (they know who they are), clash with many (they ALSO know who they are), and naturally have no tolerance for the one or two anti-Semites (who MOST CERTAINLY know who they are).

In any case, although the primary "theorists" of "Flat Earth Theory" were mostly devout Christians, and used the Christian Bible to shore up their beliefs (think Rowbotham, Voliva, et al.), most of the FEers in here have been Atheists in my experience. Then again, So have most of the REers.

I am a Round Earther myself. And there certainly are other believers here, although I think most are Christian. One or two are Muslim, perhaps as many as five. I know there IS another Jew here, but he is not a religious one, to my knowledge.

So, my friend, you are in good company. Although I don't in any wise agree with you, welcome aboard. And do enjoy your stay.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: palmerito0 on March 17, 2016, 08:37:52 AM
I would say there are several fundamental Christians on the FE side, as they love to quote the KJV Bible literally.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on April 22, 2016, 08:11:23 AM
Could you join me on the vegan debate? Thanks.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65849.510 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65849.510)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 22, 2016, 09:20:44 AM
There have always been a few Christian fundies on this site, but now it seems there are a lot more. I suspect most of them think they're trolling the FES with their bible quotes. Same with the Islamic bunch. Roundies can't help replying to every thread they make.

I am agnostic, leaning towards atheism. Having been raised Baptist, it's difficult to completely wipe out the possibility of there being some god out there, but realistically there's no reason to think a higher power created all this bullshit.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 22, 2016, 12:28:31 PM
Not sure what to call myself. I consider the idea of a physical god, i.e. a god that could be observed as part of the empirical universe, to be not wrong, but incoherent. The attributes generally attributed to god are impossible to observe, so we can certainly never gain any emprical knowledge of god.

Since, evidently, we also don't have any a-priori knowledge of god, what remains is the pure idea of god, that our reason seems to be compelled to produce to avoid the problem of infinite regression. Based on that idea, one may hope for a god, or one may conclude that this god is really just an ideal for ourselves to strive after. I like the notion that everyone carries their god around in themselves, as an ideal containing a perfect version of themselves and the universe.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on April 22, 2016, 12:49:45 PM
I would really like to talk about God without being constantly insulted. There is one argument for his existence that makes some sense to me: the argument from desire. Basically, it's that all the human beings evidently, since there has always been some form of religion, have a desire for God. Well, when we naturally desire something, we can assume it exists. Human beings naturally desire water, and water exists. Human beings naturally desire food, and there is such thing as food. Why then wouldn't god exist? Of course, there is still a problem of evil, but it assumes that, if there is a god, it's omnipotent. It doesn't have to be. So, what do you think about it?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 22, 2016, 01:02:39 PM
I would really like to talk about God without being constantly insulted. There is one argument for his existence that makes some sense to me: the argument from desire. Basically, it's that all the human beings evidently, since there has always been some form of religion, have a desire for God. Well, when we naturally desire something, we can assume it exists. Human beings naturally desire water, and water exists. Human beings naturally desire food, and there is such thing as food. Why then wouldn't god exist? Of course, there is still a problem of evil, but it assumes that, if there is a god, it's omnipotent. It doesn't have to be. So, what do you think about it?

That is an interesting idea, but the difference here is that food and water aren't desires, they are necessities. You will die without them. The desire for a god, to me, is a desire to think there's something else besides this life. Something more meaningful. We invented gods to fill that desire.

When it comes to desiring food, it's not nutrition you desire, it's flavor and texture. If you're hungry you will eat plain food and feel satisfied. I think most of us don't know hunger.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 23, 2016, 03:03:43 AM
The number of religious people, even on the RE side, has increased significantly during the last 2 years. Strange that there are no real Neopagan New Age Hippie Cranks. FE should be attractive to those kind of people. There are also no Buddhists, no Hindus. That's sad, their presence would add colour to the often occuring religious questions on this forum. I find that the identification of Religion with Belief in God is a fallacy, that makes the whole debate of religion somewhat irrelevant to me.

As for me, I am quite 100% certain that God does not exist, because I can observe how this concept has originated in history. I am 100% certain that there is no Pink Unicorn for the same reason (I know who invented it). I am completely unbiased agnostic about the existence of fairies, because in this case I can't.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 23, 2016, 10:56:48 PM
FalseProphet, that is simply a stupid response, if I may be so bold. To say you know that no G-d exists implies that you are absolutely CERTAIN that the Universe came about by chance or accident. It simply isn't possible to know that. And the odds are so far against it anyway that...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 24, 2016, 12:28:59 AM
I would really like to talk about God without being constantly insulted. There is one argument for his existence that makes some sense to me: the argument from desire. Basically, it's that all the human beings evidently, since there has always been some form of religion, have a desire for God. Well, when we naturally desire something, we can assume it exists. Human beings naturally desire water, and water exists. Human beings naturally desire food, and there is such thing as food. Why then wouldn't god exist? Of course, there is still a problem of evil, but it assumes that, if there is a god, it's omnipotent. It doesn't have to be. So, what do you think about it?

I'm with Space Cowgirl in that your analogy doesn't really fit. Belief in a higher being isn't that kind of need. But it does seem to be an intellectual desire - perhaps even a necessity - for emotional and logical reasons. Emotional because we cannot imagine ourselves being gone, so we assume an afterlife which often, but not necessarily, includes a god. Logical because we try to find unifying principle behind all our experience, and that leads us to the highest unity, the absolutely necessary being, aka God.

FalseProphet, that is simply a stupid response, if I may be so bold. To say you know that no G-d exists implies that you are absolutely CERTAIN that the Universe came about by chance or accident. It simply isn't possible to know that. And the odds are so far against it anyway that...

It's possible to conclude that that which has no empirical evidence to support it doesn't empirically (physicall) exist. This isn't "certainity" in the strictest sense, but it is as close as we can get. Nevertheless, I do agree with you insofar as the (non-)existance of a metaphysical God is impossible to know.

As to "knowing" the Universe came about by chance or accident: It's a necessary conclusion. Science cannot possibly supply evidence of creation. By looking at the universe through the lense of possible experience, we will always only see the laws of nature (which in reality are all in our heads) at work, never a creator. Our perception distills the laws and regularities from that which we experience and would, even if a creator exists, always hide his hands behind the laws.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 24, 2016, 01:40:54 AM
FalseProphet, that is simply a stupid response, if I may be so bold. To say you know that no G-d exists implies that you are absolutely CERTAIN that the Universe came about by chance or accident. It simply isn't possible to know that. And the odds are so far against it anyway that...

No, I am not certain of that. All I say is that there is much more than  a choice between  Atheism in the common sense (=Ontological Reductionism) and Theism (=Belief in a personal ruler and creator of the universe). Both ideas seem rather primitive for me. That's what I mean, when I say, that this whole Atheism\Theism debate between those two sides is rather irrelevant to me. The only remarkable statement that I know in this context stems from the director of the Vatican Observatory, Father George V. Coyne, when he said to Richard Dawkins: "God is not a designer." God is also no ruler and no judge. God is not even a cause. God is not G-d at all.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 24, 2016, 02:37:43 AM
God is not G-d at all.

In the sense that they are spelled differently then yes.

Otherwise, another epic logical fail from the Clown Derf posse.

This thread has great potential for lulz; atheists are easily the most hapless of all the woebegone creatures inhabiting the interwebz.

Why?

Because they believe they're the smartest...

And, as Laurel & Hardy proved, dumb people who believe they're smart are an endless source of slapstick fun.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 24, 2016, 02:44:32 AM
dumb people who believe they're smart are an endless source of slapstick fun.

I used to think so when I first found this site. It is still funny somehow, but it is also sad. Laurel and Hardy are funny because they are not real. Real life idiots are sad. Sometimes they are funny, but actually they are sad.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 24, 2016, 02:55:14 AM
Real life idiots are sad. Sometimes they are funny, but actually they are sad.

No.

No; to me you're just funny.

Are you hungover btw?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 24, 2016, 03:30:54 AM
You're funny.

Thanks. But I hope it's a disinterested compliment.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 24, 2016, 06:55:52 AM
Thanks. But I hope it's a disinterested compliment.

You are hungover aren't you?

Because that was the worst attempt at a 'NO U!!!' by any Clown Derfer, ever.

Kinda creepy too...

But creepiness comes with the territory when you're dealing with the JREF disinfo-hive.

It may have something to do with the fact that JREF was founded by a predatory homosexual paedophile?

Toodle-pip, time-wasting sock-puppet shill who's not Dinosaur Neil at all, no siree-bob not him!

(lol it is DN cuz no-one else could sound that much like a chintzy old dyke! Well, except markjo on occasion; & we all know what HIS kink is, don't we?)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 24, 2016, 07:24:02 AM
Not a Designer, eh? Well, I am not a Catholic, so I don't have to agree with said priest. And it is equally stupid to say he is not a Cause, Ruler, or Judge.

To even make the argument that G-d might exist but isn't really G-d is nonsensical. If the Ontological Argument has been forgotten or never learned, allow me to spark your memory.

I can conceive of a Being a Greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.

Existence is greater than nonexistence.

Ergo, G-d exists.

Your statements purportedly make hash of that. In reality, they do not. They merely make you look foolish.

So where do we go from here?  Atheism is a fundamentally stupid and destructive perspective that leads to the exaltation of man over all Creation, as if WE were  actually responsible for it. We have seen what unbridled atheism accomplishes. To set oneself up as G-d, to make man the master of all he surveys is a very dangerous thing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 24, 2016, 07:37:21 AM
Thanks. But I hope it's a disinterested compliment.
brabbelbrabbel

You are creepy.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 24, 2016, 09:41:47 AM
To set oneself up as G-d, to make man the master of all he surveys is a very dangerous thing.

You are correct.

But this is a very thorny issue.

For knowledge of all the sephirot bar Keter will make a Man believe he is G-d, and give him great power.

But the final gate before Keter is Impassable.

And the oldest name for the keeper of that gate is Legba.

Realising that the gate to Keter can never be opened is the beginning of Enlightenment.

But realising why the gate can never be opened is a very destructive process.

Which is why so many strictures are put upon the study of Kabbalah.

Because it will destroy the unprepared & foolhardy.

This comment has an audience of one, Yaakov; yourself.

No-one else here has the slightest chance of understanding it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 24, 2016, 10:09:34 AM
Indeed, Papa Legba do I see your point. And that is PRECISELY why it becomes so silly when people with shallow minds like Madonna attempt to study Kabbalah.

 However, if it were only silly I could live it. The problem is that it is positively dangerous. And these Kabbalist institutions, once respectable, that now cater and pander to that kind of thing, the training of the unprepared and unqualified, to get gain, and to get their name in the media and thus obtain the glory of men, will one day have to answer to a Judge whose opinion is far more relevant than mine.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 24, 2016, 10:36:59 AM
The problem with celebrities like Madonna getting into 'Kabbalah' is that their profession is entirely reliant upon their having huge egos.

True, they also rely on manipulating emotions, & Kabbalistic knowledge will certainly help them achieve this...

But the single greatest obstacle between Man & Keter is Ego.

Which is why even gaining a glimpse of why Keter is inaccessible can be so destructive.

It is also why all prophets, from all religions, speak of 'awe', 'humility', 'fearing God', 'becoming as a little child', 'having no mind', etc, when coming anywhere close to the knowing of the will of God...

Legba is the oldest Deity of all mankind; yet he, & all the other voodoo Loa, slot neatly into the structure of Kabbalah...

All Deities from all religions do; this is why Kabbalah is the greatest intellectual achievement of Judaism, if not of all mankind.

Seriously; props to the Jews, they ain't anyone's mugs.

Respect is due.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 24, 2016, 11:52:05 AM
And now one can begin to understand Moshe Rabinu (Moses our Teacher) at the Burning Bush. Papa Legba indeed!

"'Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?

And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'""  Exodus 3:13-14, NKJV.

Moshe Rabinu truly spoke with Papa Legba. Legba is but a Face of the Great I AM. 3400 years ago did the I AM choose to speak with a humble shepherd, once a prince of Egypt, and in so choosing, did he set a People free.

And that People has blessed the world through Torah and Prophets, and Writings. Through the People of Israel has the bulk of civilisation been derived. European laws, customs, and culture, are mostly biblically based, and the NT is based on the Hebrew Bible it claims (but fails utterly) to supercede.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 24, 2016, 12:30:26 PM
I knew you'd get it.

Judaism took the basic principles of animism & refined them to logico-philosophical perfection.

Burning bush/burning ego (I AM); a glimpse of Keter through the bonfire of the Idols...

And that one glimpse of Keter made them all, as one, vow to never be any man's slave again.

And they've stuck to that vow through hell & high water.

Props to them Jews...

Still; I like the old ways.

I have to.

I owe Legba.

Some things are non-negotiable.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 24, 2016, 01:26:18 PM
The key to G-d has ALWAYS been to see His face as you are able. After all, only Moses has ever seen the true Face of G-d and lived.

Some see Jesus. Others see Papa Legba. Others see that which is. Krishna. Buddha. In these and countless other manifestations we are seeing what the Lord LETS us see. Jews may be the Chosen People, but even we have not been able to see the True Face of G-d. Only Moses has been granted that, AND the ability not to die doing it!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 24, 2016, 02:21:31 PM
Dunno, Yaakov; you seem to be straying close to anthropomorphising here & that's the lulziest mistake of the atheists...

Their conception of God is similar to that of a 6-year old kid's conception of Santa Claus; thus they act like sulking little brats who never got over being told Santa's not real & are continually acting out.

All deities are ultimately Abstractions of one form or other; the Judaic G-d, however, is a different matter.

To say it is the fount from which all Abstractions flow is not enough; it is more than that.

It is impossible to speak of, frankly; words do not suffice.

The commentaries of Maimonides are good in this regard.

Enough of that for now though; where are all these Atheists?

I have questions for them...

Good questions!



Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 24, 2016, 06:43:39 PM
Oh, I agree. Seeing G-d in human form is lazy. It is what is permitted for those who won't work harder. What WAS the Face of G-d that Moshe saw? I don't know. But it was something that no ordinary human could see and survive. Clearly NOT a typical human face!

Seeing the true Face of G-d is NOT Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, or any of those things. They are pale imitations of the True and Only G-d. For Moshe to even survive the Burning Bush experience must have been something, let alone the Revelation of Torah.

G-d is Spirit. And yet he has a Face. What is it? What is the sound of one hand clapping to a deaf man? A sentence with no meaning, yet full of significance to the blind man who would truly see.

G-d is all, and yet he is null. He who hath an ear, let him hear!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: palmerito0 on April 24, 2016, 08:50:19 PM
(http://)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 24, 2016, 09:51:49 PM
Multifundamentalist Rubbish

It is fascinating to see that you can express yourself in articulated sentences, but you shouldn't. You sound like a freaky poser, who pretends to understand something about Kabbala and Voodoo. (except for Yaakov, who applauds to everybody who bootlicks his Jewish ass.).
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 24, 2016, 10:17:03 PM
To even make the argument that G-d might exist but isn't really G-d is nonsensical. If the Ontological Argument has been forgotten or never learned, allow me to spark your memory.

I can conceive of a Being a Greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.

Existence is greater than nonexistence.

Ergo, G-d exists.

And the argument is bullshit. Terms can be empty without being imperfect, the second premise is unfounded. Existence and nonexistence are relations of a term to reality. By changing the relation of the term to reality (from "existance" to "nonexistance" or vice versa) I do not change the contents of the term.

While I can treat existance as a quasi-predicate and incorporate it into a term, this makes the argument tautological.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 24, 2016, 10:59:21 PM
Well if the argument is bullshit, you won't mind if I shoot you in the head then. Since your lack of existence is just as good as your existence...

Censors please note: I do not literally mean to threaten this idiot. Rather, I am compelled to display his stupidity clearly. Please do not take the first paragraph literally.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 25, 2016, 12:04:36 AM
Well if the argument is bullshit, you won't mind if I shoot you in the head then. Since your lack of existence is just as good as your existence...

Censors please note: I do not literally mean to threaten this idiot. Rather, I am compelled to display his stupidity clearly. Please do not take the first paragraph literally.

Cute. But if you wanted to show anyone that I was stupid, actually adressing my arguments might have helped.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 25, 2016, 12:15:15 AM
I did, asshole. Your arguments have been addressed by me saying that your death should not be relevant to you, since existence is no more significant than nonexistence.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 12:17:08 AM
Oh, I agree. Seeing G-d in human form is lazy.

Very much so; in fact it is also stupid, childish, and - strictly speaking - blasphemous.

Yet atheists simply cannot move beyond this crude concept; because many of them are either physically or emotionally brain-damaged.

Look at the ridiculous 'flying spaghetti monster' argument of which they are so embarrassingly proud, as well as their juvenile attachment to reductionist materialism; they simply cannot think holistically & are incapable of conceiving anything beyond the realm of their brute senses.

They are trapped in a Hell of circular reasoning & emotional immaturity, which explains their addiction to the artificially-stimulating-yet-ultimately-safe world of video games & robotic sci-fi characters such as Mr Spock; they are terrified of growing up & incapable of coping with the real world in all its glorious unpredictability.

Seeing the true Face of G-d is NOT Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, or any of those things. They are pale imitations of the True and Only G-d.

I disagree with the term 'pale imitations'; the term 'aspects' seems more accurate to me, inasmuch as they represent facets of G-d that can be understood by human perceptions, even though the entirety is yet ineffable.

But this is a minor quibble.

Anyway; it seems we have had a few atheists sticking their necks out & chipping in with their 'opinions'...

Sadly, however, I can make no sense of a single thing they wrote; one of them seems to have swallowed a library of post-modern philosophy books & is now regurgitating gobbets at random...

However, its sustained inability to spell the word 'existence' correctly rather lets its preening bullshit-display down.

As such it will simply be laughed at & ignored.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 25, 2016, 12:28:11 AM
I did, asshole. Your arguments have been addressed by me saying that your death should not be relevant to you, since existence is no more significant than nonexistence.

Aww, is someone upset?

Oh yes, my existance is relevant to me. But it doesn't follow that a defined term changes based in it's relation to reality. But that is what your argument requires. It states that the attributes of God change depending in it's relation to reality. This isn't the case unless you start out by defining God as "something which exists", at which point the argument is circular.

Short Version: putting a term in the group "things that exist" does not change the definition of the term. Else you could not judge whether X exists, since the judgement would change what X is.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 12:35:57 AM
Oh yes, my existance is relevant to me.

Not relevant enough for you to be bothered learning to spell it correctly, it seems...

Plus, you like to use the term 'reality' a lot, but offer no definition for it...

Good luck providing one!

Short Version: LOL!!!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 25, 2016, 01:37:50 AM
 
Plus, you like to use the term 'reality' a lot, but offer no definition for it...

"God exists" is not my claim. I can't define the terms, that's Yaakov's prerogative.

So far as I am concerned, reality is that which the subject puts in opposition to itself. Empirical reality is that which the subject perceives as outside affliction, i.e. the body of experiences.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kali on April 25, 2016, 01:52:50 AM
There is only one divine being and it is not that Semitic tribal desert cuck.

Praise Lastation, Noire is the One True Goddess.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 02:27:21 AM
So far as I am concerned, reality is that which the subject puts in opposition to itself.

Well, that explained nothing...

As usual.

Hey, 'ecthy baby' (lol!), remember when you said Newton didn't reference 'pressure' in his 3rd Law & when I showed he did you claimed he wasn't using it as a noun?

Ah - good times!

Anyhoo; enjoy your piss-poor, barely-literate, semantrickery...

I'll just wait til Yaakov gets back on & I have an adult to talk to.

Toodle-pip, 'ecthy baby' (lol!).
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 25, 2016, 02:28:23 AM
I consider myself an Atheist Agnostic, in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods, and do not think that it is possible to test (and therefore know) such a claim. I also think that most religious people accept this last premise, and have a belief based on faith, therefore being Theist Agnostics. In fact, I only know of one religion (Roman Catholics) which holds as dogma that god is provable logically, but most if not all Catholics I know of ignore that dogma, which seems to me a painful reminder of the inability of the Catholic church to correct the mistakes of their Saints.

Regarding the definition problem, I think this definitions are the most useful ones:
Theist: claims "There exists a god/gods"
Atheist: Does not believe the theist claim.
Antitheist: claims "There is no god".
Gnostic: believes that the theist claim is knowable.
Agnostic: does not believe the gnostic claim.

Note the Atheist and Antitheist positions are compatible, but are not necesarilly tied.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 02:42:50 AM
I consider myself an Atheist Agnostic, in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods

So; you believe that a God or Gods do not exist?

LOL!!!

So now we know what your Faith is...

Next!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 25, 2016, 02:46:47 AM
I consider myself an Atheist Agnostic, in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods

So; you believe that a God or Gods do not exist?

LOL!!!

So now we know what your Faith is...

Next!

I don't. I'm not an anti-theist. Can you please show where I stated such thing?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 03:34:09 AM
Can you please show where I stated such thing?

Sure...

Just as soon as you show me where a single thing you wrote makes sense.

I know you believe it made sense...

Just as 'ecthy baby' (lol!) believes he provided a definition of 'reality' that was in any way adequate...

But you didn't.

See; you'll never get through the gateway with all that Rube Goldberg snakes & ladders baggage rattling round inside your heads...

Legba keeps trying to tell you this.

But you just can't take a hint...

Atheism is a kind of Judaism

LOL!!!

Let's not forget them darn Buddhists too!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 25, 2016, 03:43:54 AM
Can you please show where I stated such thing?
Sure...
Just as soon as you show me where a single thing you wrote makes sense.
I know you believe it made sense...
Just as 'ecthy baby' (lol!) believes he provided a definition of 'reality' that was in any way adequate...
But you didn't.
See; you'll never get through the gateway with all that Rube Goldberg snakes & ladders baggage rattling round inside your heads...
Legba keeps trying to tell you this.
But you just can't take a hint...

Yes, yes, I know, I'm really dumb. But I think I read you saying I believed no gods exist. That's a positive claim that I do not support (and I don't remember ever supporting it, but I may have and forgotten. In any case, I currently don't). Please provide evidence for your accusation

Quote
Atheism is a kind of Judaism

LOL!!!

Let's not forget them darn Buddhists too!
Actually, some branches of Buddhism are atheist, too. Atheism does not entail "intelligence" or "areligiousness" in any shape or form. Scientology is very sketchy, but it appears they don't believe in a god either (they believe in aliens). Or Raëliens.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 03:56:34 AM
Please provide evidence for your accusation

Please stop chasing your own tail like a damn-fool dog.

It's embarrassing.

Actually, some branches of Buddhism are atheist, too.

'Some'?

LOL!!!

Oh, you're a real expert at this 'rilyjunn' stuff aintcha, conky-boy?

The lulz are beginning to pile up!

Pray, continue...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 25, 2016, 04:02:45 AM
Time for Morning Prayer. After all: the duty of the Jew is to keep the world moving through Daily Prayer.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 25, 2016, 04:20:18 AM
Please provide evidence for your accusation

Please stop chasing your own tail like a damn-fool dog.

It's embarrassing.

No further comment needed

Quote
Actually, some branches of Buddhism are atheist, too.

'Some'?

LOL!!!

Oh, you're a real expert at this 'rilyjunn' stuff aintcha, conky-boy?

The lulz are beginning to pile up!

Pray, continue...
Chinese branches of Buddhism are in practice theistic, unless you think that believing that Buddha was not only a messiah, but an actual cosmic entity, is not theistic. In fact, the idea itself of Maitreya, the Amitabha Buddha who grants passage to the equivalent of heaven in some buddhist branches, and specially boddhisatvas contain elements of godhood, which can be considered to be theistic (if not OMNIPOTENT theistic, more like greek theism). Similar concepts appear in Tibetan buddhism, and, as noted by some scholars, while the elite thinkers do indeed omit any theistic beliefs, the masses in practice hold a local mixture of prototheism and esotericism that can be regarded as theism.

Not only that, but many modern buddhists are actually multireligious, holding buddhism as a esoteric belief, and other religions as their transcendental religion (Cristianity, Islam, Zoroastrism if you go full new age, etc)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 25, 2016, 04:29:39 AM
The successive emergence of Yaakov, Legpa and Intikam has turned this thread into a battle of insults. Can't they see how hypocritical they sound, posing solemnly as seekers of truth or whatever, and yet not being able to react on arguments against their beliefs in another way than getting offensive?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 04:47:37 AM
No further comment needed

LOL!!!

#1 method for internet atheists to 'win' debates; by pretending that running away is victory.

Quote
Chinese branches of Buddhism are in practice theistic, unless you think that believing that Buddha was not only a messiah, but an actual cosmic entity, is not theistic. In fact, the idea itself of Maitreya, the Amitabha Buddha who grants passage to the equivalent of heaven in some buddhist branches, and specially boddhisatvas contain elements of godhood, which can be considered to be theistic (if not OMNIPOTENT theistic, more like greek theism). Similar concepts appear in Tibetan buddhism, and, as noted by some scholars, while the elite thinkers do indeed omit any theistic beliefs, the masses in practice hold a local mixture of prototheism and esotericism that can be regarded as theism.

Not only that, but many modern buddhists are actually multireligious, holding buddhism as a esoteric belief, and other religions as their transcendental religion (Cristianity, Islam, Zoroastrism if you go full new age, etc)

And copy-pasting bullshit by some idiot who understands even less than they do is another way for internet atheists to 'win' debates.

Buddhism is inherently atheistic; everyone knows this except you & your idiot.

The Hindus even have a ton of jokes on the subject; everyone knows this too, except you & your idiot.

Enjoy your snakes & ladders anyway, loser; it'll get you nowhere spiritually but you're too far gone to see that.

Your insults can't change the reality.

LOL!!!

Another idiot who doesn't understand 'reality'.

Lulz a-plenty today!

Look - more:

The successive emergence of Yaakov, Legpa and Intikam has turned this thread into a battle of insults. Can't they see how hypocritical they sound, posing solemnly as seekers of truth or whatever, and yet not being able to react on arguments against their beliefs in another way than getting offensive?

LOL!!!

You REALLY don't understand who Legba is do you?

Yet you still try to 'debate' religion with me...

Using 'reason' & 'logic' & 'facts'...

All the wrong tools for the job!

Did you honestly think that'd work out well for you?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 25, 2016, 05:52:08 AM
As for everyone else, after Morning Prayer, You're Welcome!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 25, 2016, 05:56:51 AM
The successive emergence of Yaakov, Legpa and Intikam has turned this thread into a battle of insults. Can't they see how hypocritical they sound, posing solemnly as seekers of truth or whatever, and yet not being able to react on arguments against their beliefs in another way than getting offensive?

LOL!!!

You REALLY don't understand who Legba is do you?

Yet you still try to 'debate' religion with me...

Using 'reason' & 'logic' & 'facts'...

All the wrong tools for the job!

Did you honestly think that'd work out well for you?

Everybody knows who you are, except JewishFascist and yourself.

No, I don't debate with you, I could be your teacher, if you wouldn't be a moron and proud of it.

For even if it's true, that reason and logic does not work out for everything, it is exactly what you badly need, bluesman.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 06:11:29 AM
As for everyone else, after Morning Prayer, You're Welcome!

Thanks, Yaakov; these robotic atheists can only think in black & white terms so don't understand the significance of prayer.

To them it's like putting a coin in a slot-machine; if they receive no immediate reward they think they've been duped & the act was therefore worthless.

This is because they cannot think holistically, in order to see prayer as part of a greater process...

Also; remember what I said on the Veganism thread about Flat Earthers & Holocaust Denial?

These psychos are actively pushing every kind of insane/anti-social/destructive behaviour; neutrals may wanna have a good, long think about why they're doing that...

Everybody knows who you are, except JewishFascist and yourself.
No, I don't debate with you, I could be your teacher, if you wouldn't be a moron and proud of it.
For even if it's true, that reason and logic does not work out for everything, it is exactly what you badly need, bluesman.

lol wut?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kali on April 25, 2016, 12:27:56 PM
All these pathetic Christcucks are feeling pretty rustled at the opinions of others, it seems. Nothing new there, though.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 01:34:05 PM
What Christcucks?

I ain't one & neither's Yaakov; he's an Orthodox Jew & I'm an African voodoo Loa.

Christ means nothing to either of us.

Still; never let the facts get in the way of your sock-puppet JREF shill bullshit, eh?

That's the way of The Flat Earth forum!

Well, that & blatant censorship...

Flat Earth & Holocaust Denial; the breakfast of Chumpions...

Enjoy your total social ostracism & jail-time, suckers!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 25, 2016, 06:09:26 PM
And the stupid seem to enjoy digging themselves yet deeper into their mire of dogshit. They seem quite good at it, don't they, Legba?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on April 25, 2016, 08:30:07 PM
Religion and science are two separate realms. It means it is impossible to "prove the (non)existence of a deity". Also that a religious text could be of scientific value.

I am an atheist; I don't believe there is a god and that it's a human construct made up to make sense of life.

At the same time I am agnostic in a sense that I have no way of ever proving my stance to be correct; there can always be a god that I don't see.

The gods made up by religions are used to gain and perpetrate power over people.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 25, 2016, 11:59:04 PM
And the stupid seem to enjoy digging themselves yet deeper into their mire of dogshit. They seem quite good at it, don't they, Legba?

Oh, yes; check this out:

Religion and science are two separate realms.

Well, the idea that there is a strict demarcation between religion & science is yet another symptom of Atheist's brain-damage, emotional immaturity & inability to think holistically...

But we already knew that.

Anyhoo; if there is no Creator, then Life must have arisen through scientific principles, yes?

And one of the first rules of science is that it must be Repeatable & Observable.

So; here is your task, Atheists:

*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.

*Do not get back to me until you have.

Thank you please!

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on April 26, 2016, 02:01:35 AM
And the stupid seem to enjoy digging themselves yet deeper into their mire of dogshit. They seem quite good at it, don't they, Legba?

Oh, yes; check this out:

Religion and science are two separate realms.

Well, the idea that there is a strict demarcation between religion & science is yet another symptom of Atheist's brain-damage, emotional immaturity & inability to think holistically...

But we already knew that.

Anyhoo; if there is no Creator, then Life must have arisen through scientific principles, yes?

And one of the first rules of science is that it must be Repeatable & Observable.

So; here is your task, Atheists:

*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.

*Do not get back to me until you have.

Thank you please!

Good you're back here.

You forget one factor though; time.

We humans only live in the last minutes of the year of Earth. As an individual you only live microseconds. So we don't have the experience to see macro evolution happening, just like we don't see a plant growing if we only observe it for 1 day.

The dog race breeding is the best example of evolution happening on a "short term".

Religion is outside of the realm of science and can thus never ever be an answer to a scientific problem just as a scientist can never ever (dis)prove the existence of a god.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2016, 02:50:32 AM
And the stupid seem to enjoy digging themselves yet deeper into their mire of dogshit. They seem quite good at it, don't they, Legba?

Oh, yes; check this out:

Religion and science are two separate realms.

Well, the idea that there is a strict demarcation between religion & science is yet another symptom of Atheist's brain-damage, emotional immaturity & inability to think holistically...
Well, it is my opinion that science is the best and most reliable method to ascertain information about reality. However, if you want to go further, into the realm of metaphysics, then science specifically forbids itself from it, and you are free to use whatever you want, but proving the validity of such results becomes practically impossible. I happen not to believe in any such claim, so it is incredibly meaningless to me to discuss such things.

Quote
But we already knew that.

Anyhoo; if there is no Creator, then Life must have arisen through scientific principles, yes?
A Creator could have created life through purelly real methods, but I agree that religions don't generally accept this principle. Catholics are on the verge, though, since they generally accept science, interpreting scripture as a poetic, not literal, view of creation. I'm fine with that, or the idea that a omniscient god is obviously intelligent enough to creat a universe with laws such that life eventually arises on Earth, but I find those ideas pointless, since there is no way to distinguish a creator-less universe and a created universe in this manner.


Quote
And one of the first rules of science
Oh boy, here we go. Hold on, Im going to look this up on the Index of Creationist Claims. Let me guess: "You didnt personally witness it therefore it isn't science" right? I think that one was CA221.

Quote
is that it must be Repeatable & Observable.
No surprise, you got your science wrong. What the scientific method requires is that observations must be repeatable, NOT the events themselves. An example:
I see a corpse below a building. I look up and find out that the window is open. I go to the flat and there are cleaning paraphernalia near the window. The window is wet, and a cheap plastic stall is broken near it. It also seems like there is blood at the lower portion of the frame. Given all that, I am justified in making the hypothesis that the person fell down the window due to a broken stall, predict that they suffered from typical fall trauma, and I can also predict that, analyzing the stall's position, and the corpse's distance to the building, the blood came from their knees being hit by the lower frame as they fell. I then go to the corpse, and check that, indeed, it suffered from fall trauma, but it wasn't the knees that were hit, and instead there are strange bleeding marks on the hands. Then I might hypothesize that it was the hands that were cut, as the victim tried to stop itself from falling. Forensic analisys might then confirm or disprove my hypothesis, BUT: did you noticed? The original point stands. All evidence we found pointed towards the "falling person" hypothesis, even if specific details are still being determined. There is no single point of data that seems to even challenge it. So here's the question. If we can't throw this person again down this window, how do we know that it happened? Well, that's because what we need is repeatable OBSERVATIONS, not EVENTS. EVERYONE can go to the scene and see the evidence. The forensic material was published and is open for everyone to examine.
On the other hand, if I was to say that all that happened, but then someone came to the scene, and tried looking for blood, but
"Oh, I cleaned it all up"
Then searched evidence for a death in the appartment
"We moved another couple to the flat"
Checked the windowframe for evidence of damage
"We replaced it"
We even search the death records in the city
"They were secretly buried up on an unknown place and disintegrated so that no one will ever find them"
And then we ask the janitor, and he tells us he doesnt recall all of that ever happening

We have NO EVIDENCE to test. It doesnt matter to us that he publishes a paper on this case if there was no evidence for any other investigator to check. The observations are not repeatable.

Quote
So; here is your task, Atheists:

*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.

*Do not get back to me until you have.

Thank you please!
The scientific method is not a way of "creating things", nor was the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans elemental at the time of the origin of life (water isn't an element dude, cmon now). Many organic compounds, and many inorganic ones, were present at that time. The specifical composition is now thought to be more or less understood, but this is still a young field, and caution must be exercised, so it's perfectly fine to say that we don't know that. Nevertheless, that is a moot point, since we now know that basic organic compounds can come about from natural atmospheres and ocean compositions, even if we don't know the exact composition. It can happen in atmosphere X, so it is at least possible it happened on Earth.
Furthermore, abiogenesis isn't evolution. Abiogenesis is still a very young field, with not all the knowdlege we wish it had. Evolution, however, is a theory, with proven facts, and stabilished laws. Even if life was created by a magical being, that lifeform or lifeforms must have followed the princeples of natural selection, laws of genetics, and the concept of evolution at some point, since we KNOW that all lifeforms we have been able to test and investigate enough DO follow this principle.

In any case, all this rant is moot, since even if both evolution and abiogenesis were wrong, that doesn't prove a god. We could have been created by an alien race, born on a planet were evolution was possible, then seeded here. Or maybe there is a trascendental creator that seeds life, but has no quality considerable godlike except being eternal.

Or maybe the burden of proof is on the claimant, and you shouldn't believe that god created life until that has been proved.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 03:19:30 AM
LOL!!!

Just as I expected...

Lots of Words.

But no Microbe.

WHERE'S MY MICROBE, SUCKERS?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2016, 03:24:18 AM
LOL!!!

Just as I expected...

Lots of Words.

But no Microbe.

WHERE'S MY MICROBE, SUCKERS?

Quote
Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions. Proverbs 18:2
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 03:33:57 AM
Less words, more microbes please!

Because if you cannot Create a microbe using the scientific method, nor even Observe one being Created, then I suggest that Evolution has no scientific basis whatsoever & is simply a matter of Faith...

A Religion, in other words.

And as Evolution is the cornerstone of Atheism's brain-damaged Creed, that makes Atheism a Religion too...

So you'd REALLY better get cracking on that microbe hadn't you, Idiots?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 26, 2016, 04:08:27 AM
Because if you cannot Create a microbe using the scientific method, nor even Observe one being Created, then I suggest that Evolution has no scientific basis whatsoever & is simply a matter of Faith...

And you're wrong. Direct observation is not the only kind of observation.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 04:21:02 AM
Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 04:36:01 AM
Direct observation is not the only kind of observation.

Nice strawman!

But, as no-one has ever, via any kind of Observation, witnessed a live microbe being created out of the elements of the periodic table, plasma, etc, my point very much stands.

There is no scientific basis for evolution whatsoever.

None.

Thus, it is a matter of Opinion, or Faith, & ergo a Religion.

Just like Atheism is.

A Religion for brain-damaged emotional cripples, as it goes...

As you all are Proving with every brain-damaged, emotionally-crippled & evidence-phobic post you make.

Let me show you something Conker wrote to drive home my point:

it is my opinion that science is the best and most reliable method to ascertain information about reality.

He claims that, yet I have just Proved that Evolution has no scientific basis.

Will he change his Opinion then?

No; of course not.

Instead, he will spam endless tl;dr streams of WORDS at me in an attempt to make his desired REALITY become 'scientific fact'.

This is what you all do.

And it is why I have said, right from the start, that you all mistake WORDS for REALITY.

Neutrals might wonder why you do that...

I do not.

I know.

And it is Lulzy as all get-out!

Toodle-pip, JREF Losers!

Oh & p.s:

Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.

Quite.

Which is why I'm in for a VERY long & boring wait for my microbe...

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 26, 2016, 05:13:05 AM
Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.

Burden of proof is a legal concept, it doesn't apply to the question.

But, as no-one has ever, via any kind of Observation, witnessed a live microbe being created out of the elements of the periodic table, plasma, etc, my point very much stands.

To witness something implies direct observation. Observations made in the present can provide evidence for what happened in the past.

By the way, you're not talking about evolution, you are talking about abiogenesis.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 05:31:32 AM
"Burden of proof is a legal concept,..." etc. Are we trying to avoid the hole we have dug for ourselves? My point is that it is incumbent upon you to prove yours.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2016, 05:46:00 AM
Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.

Burden of proof is a legal concept, it doesn't apply to the question.

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material. In a more general sense, existance of an explanation or entity must be proven, but disbelief requires none (as it is the null hypothesis).

Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.
I assume nothing. You claim that everything has a creator. I do not know that, and it goes against what I know of the world (no one creates grass, it grows out of seeds, etc). But it doesn't matter, since the null hypothesis is NOT to believe in a creator until it is proven. Remember, atheists do not necesarilly believe that things dont have a creator, they simply not believe they do.
EDIT: a godlike creator, that is.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 05:49:08 AM
Which in itself is a positive claim.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 05:50:23 AM
I assume nothing.

You assume everything.

Especially that a single word you wrote makes sense.

As ever, you assumed wrong.

Now; MICROBE PLEASE!

Observations made in the present can provide evidence for what happened in the past.

LOL!!!

What next; the dog ate your homework?

Anyhoo; sorry but I don't have a Time Machine, & neither do you.

So you'll just have to rustle me up that microbe in the here & now, via the scientific method, or accept that your 'evolution' or 'abiogenesis' or whatever the hell you want to call it is simply a matter of Opinion, NOT science.

Again: MICROBE PLEASE!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2016, 06:02:55 AM
Which in itself is a positive claim.
Could you please state the positive claim that Im making?

I assume nothing.

You assume everything.

Especially that a single word you wrote makes sense.

As ever, you assumed wrong.

Now; MICROBE PLEASE!

Observations made in the present can provide evidence for what happened in the past.

LOL!!!

What next; the dog ate your homework?

Anyhoo; sorry but I don't have a Time Machine, & neither do you.

So you'll just have to rustle me up that microbe in the here & now, via the scientific method, or accept that your 'evolution' or 'abiogenesis' or whatever the hell you want to call it is simply a matter of Opinion, NOT science.

Again: MICROBE PLEASE!
Evolution nor abiogenesis state you should be able to produce microbes in 2016. Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes, edit their DNA, etc. Your claim that we should be able to create microbes using abiogenetical mechanisms is like saying we should be able to create a particle accelerator using rocks and sticks. After all, that's the only technology humans had, and yet it has evolved to become today's technology. Life is a continuum, and it has not only been shaped by the evolutionary proccess. It IS the evolutionary proccess. To point at individuals is missing the bigger picture. Nevertheless, even having sayed that, it is very possible that we may be able to build cells out of "nothing" before we are able to create protolife (which may even be impossible currently).
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 06:16:02 AM
Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

Wondered how long it'd take you to start outright Lying.

'Not Very' being the answer.

'Unfortunatelly' for you...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2016, 06:21:23 AM
Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

Wondered how long it'd take you to start outright Lying.

'Not Very' being the answer.

'Unfortunatelly' for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium)
A lab team created a non existing DNA string, which implanted into a bacteria, creating a partly artificial bacteria.
And the implantation/edition of DNA into other living beings is pretty much industry standard nowadays. I've noticed you ignored the rest of the post.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 06:34:04 AM
LOL!!!

Here is my original request, Liar:

So; here is your task, Atheists:

*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.

*Do not get back to me until you have.

Thank you please!

Here is what you wrote in the post before last, Liar:

Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

Yet here is what you have now flip-flopped to like the Liar you are:

A lab team created a non existing DNA string, which implanted into a bacteria, creating a partly artificial bacteria.

So NO, Liar, 'we' CANNOT Create living microbes from scratch using basic materials from the periodic table & plasma.

We can just dick about with ALREADY-CREATED ones...

Which everybody knew already & was NOT the point I was making.

You're done here now, Liar; why you chose to Lie so blatantly in defence of your Religion of evolution is up to others to judge...

I already know.

Pathetic little thing, ain't you?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 06:39:24 AM
The positive claim is that, "There is no Creator".
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 26, 2016, 07:01:24 AM
"Burden of proof is a legal concept,..." etc. Are we trying to avoid the hole we have dug for ourselves? My point is that it is incumbent upon you to prove yours.

Only insofar as the point is to convince someone. This is an open discussion, God will not simply spring into existence if I fail to support my atheism.

The positive claim is that, "There is no Creator".

No, it quite obviously is not. Are you trying to redefine language and/or logic here?

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material. In a more general sense, existance of an explanation or entity must be proven, but disbelief requires none (as it is the null hypothesis).

There is a subtle difference between the concepts. Burden of proof resolves a non-liquet situation by ruling against the party who bears it, but it does not answer the question. A null hypothesis is the default answer if the alternative theory cannot be established. Neither technically applies to metaphysical questions, since that would imply that we always have a definitive answer, and agnosticism would hence be illogical.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 07:27:07 AM
Forget it, Yaakov; Conker's already proved he doesn't deserve a seat at the big kid's table through his blatant lying & spamming of illiterate, oxymoronic twaddle like this:

Remember, atheists do not necesarilly believe that things dont have a creator, they simply not believe they do.

He's just a brain-damaged time-waster.

And Ecthy-baby (lol!) is another; here he is strawmanning for dear life again:

God will not simply spring into existence if I fail to support my atheism.

No-one said He would, you crook.

And there's no 'if' about your failure to support your Religion of Atheism.

Because of this: WHERE'S MY MICROBE?

However, what would be an interesting subject is the similarities between the concepts of the Creator in Voodoo & Deism, & to what extent these similarities are shared with the Judaic concept of G-d.

Do you have any thoughts?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 26, 2016, 07:44:45 AM
God will not simply spring into existence if I fail to support my atheism.

No-one said He would, you crook.

No? So you do have to independently prove His existence first?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 07:51:55 AM
Ecthy Baby Brain, trying to excuse yourself by saying, "I can't defend my argument, I have my head in my arse, but I am still right anyway, WAAAAH!" is about as stupid a thing as I have EVER seen on the Flat Earth Society, and that's really saying something! So take your ball and go home, Ecthy-Baby-Brain. The adults are talking now.

Legba, I think that the Creator in Voodoo as such can BE compared to Deism in the sense that He ordinarily lets lesser divinities worries about mundane matters. And yet he can BE compared to the Judaic G-d insofar as he can and does intervene in human history when he deems it appropriate. Really, folk Catholicism was a perfect match for Voodoo. Judaism would not have worked so well. We have no lesser beings to whom we go a and seek intercession and aid. Catholicism does. The Creator, as understood in Voodoo, if he had tried to be understood in Judaism, would have gotten very busy, I think.

Ecthy-Baby-Brain, his existence has already been proved.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 08:34:34 AM
And yet he can BE compared to the Judaic G-d insofar as he can and does intervene in human history when he deems it appropriate.

It depends on the source, but most interpretations of the Creator in voodoo (usually called 'Bondye') emphasise that, after creating the world, he left forever & is now unreachable. I'm inclined to agree with this &, as far as I am aware, this is precisely the same concept as Deism.

It is interesting that Deism became popular around the time that Europeans were 1st venturing into Africa, & that Deism was popular amongst the founding fathers of America, many of whom were slave-owners... I believe there may be a connection there.

Also, many of the founding fathers were also Freemasons, who I believe employ a crude version of Kabbalah (though it's hard to say with those cranks!); the congruities between the Sephirot of Kabbalah & the Voodoo pantheon have already been noted by myself...

Much food for thought in that, I'd say; but, as you point out, Judaism states that G-d can & does intervene in human affairs, so there the similarities end.

Unless, perhaps, we view the voodoo Loa as methods through which Bondye can intervene in human affairs?

Hmm... Not sure about that; my gut says the old fella upped sticks & buggered off for good.

Still, such musings are a pleasant way to while away the time whilst we wait for our Magically-Manufactured Microbe, eh?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 26, 2016, 08:41:32 AM
Science implies direct observation!

Cartoon time!

(http://)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2016, 09:50:43 AM
The positive claim is that, "There is no Creator".
It is a good thing, then, than neither I nor science does that claim, as I already explained. I simply not believe the claim that there is, because there is no evidence, and follow the evidence to its conclusion.

Here is what you wrote in the post before last, Liar:

Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

No, that's not what I wrote, as evidenced by you cutting the phrase just after a comma. I'm sorry you don't understand what it says.

Quote
So NO, Liar, 'we' CANNOT Create living microbes from scratch using basic materials from the periodic table & plasma.
Good thing no one claimed we can. We probably will on the future, but this is pure speculation from my part.

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material. In a more general sense, existance of an explanation or entity must be proven, but disbelief requires none (as it is the null hypothesis).

There is a subtle difference between the concepts. Burden of proof resolves a non-liquet situation by ruling against the party who bears it, but it does not answer the question. A null hypothesis is the default answer if the alternative theory cannot be established.
I think you misunderstand what we mean with burden of proof here. The null hypothesis is, in any existance claim, NOT to believe, by definition. Therefore, any claim of the form "There is" or "There is not" is opposing the null hypothesis ("Not to believe there is/is not"), so it requires proof. The null hypothesis is chosen this way preciselly because it is NOT an answer, it solves no conflict, has no explanatory value, and in general is nothing more than a placeholder for knowdlege we do not know or can know.

Quote
Neither technically applies to metaphysical questions, since that would imply that we always have a definitive answer, and agnosticism would hence be illogical.
Which is why I specifically restricted it to the material world:

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material.

Metaphysical claims are by definition not knowable by physical means, so they are outside the explanatory power of science.

Forget it, Yaakov; Conker's already proved he doesn't deserve a seat at the big kid's table through his blatant lying & spamming of illiterate, oxymoronic twaddle like this:

Remember, atheists do not necesarilly believe that things dont have a creator, they simply not believe they do.

I'm so, so sorry you don't understand the diference between believing it not to be and not believing it to be. It may have something to do with how english speakers find double negatives confusing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 10:16:47 AM
Given that I speak Spanish fluently, double negatives are not a problem for me. Nevertheless, by refuting a claim, you are making a claim, whether you admit it or not.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2016, 10:23:54 AM
Given that I speak Spanish fluently, double negatives are not a problem for me. Nevertheless, by refuting a claim, you are making a claim, whether you admit it or not.
In a jury, the veredict is "Guilty" or "Not guilty". Why? Because Not Guilty is not the same as Inocent. The judicial system does NOT judge inocence, and you CAN think someone is NOT inocent, yet Not Guilty too. It is the prosecutor's job to PROVE that the accused is guilty. We could also judge innocence, and then the same would apply. Someone would be Not Innocent until proven otherwise. The same applies to existance claims. I don't believe fairies exist, but that doesn't mean I believe they dont exist. They could. After all, they are way more plausible than a god.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 26, 2016, 10:29:38 AM
I think you misunderstand what we mean with burden of proof here. The null hypothesis is, in any existance claim, NOT to believe, by definition. Therefore, any claim of the form "There is" or "There is not" is opposing the null hypothesis ("Not to believe there is/is not"), so it requires proof. The null hypothesis is chosen this way preciselly because it is NOT an answer, it solves no conflict, has no explanatory value, and in general is nothing more than a placeholder for knowdlege we do not know or can know.

But not believing, in the realm of empirical knowledge, implies believing something else. There are no blank spots in the empirical. Which is why I conclude the null hypothesis actually does answer the question, since if the hypothesis cannot be proven, the result isn't a non-liquet, the result is another, positive claim.

I understand that you say the null hypothesis is just a placeholder - the way I understand it, it is merely chosen to give the hypothesis something to disprove. But nevertheless, if the hypothesis ends up falsified, then some other theory takes it's place. The null hypothesis may not precisely be that other theory, but it is the placeholder.

Which is why I specifically restricted it to the material world:

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material.

Metaphysical claims are by definition not knowable by physical means, so they are outside the explanatory power of science.

Ah sorry, I overlooked that. No disagreement here.

Ultimately, the point I wanted to make is that just throwing around "Burden of proof" isn't an argument. If we have an empirical question, claiming your opponent hasn't satisfied their "burden of proof" is meaningless unless you have a better alternative theory. If we have a metaphyiscal question, the concept is meaningless altogether since metaphysical truths either follow by deduction from a-priori knowledge or are unknowable.

Given that I speak Spanish fluently, double negatives are not a problem for me. Nevertheless, by refuting a claim, you are making a claim, whether you admit it or not.

But not a positive claim. If you want to work with burden of proof, there is a difference.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 10:32:50 AM
You are clearly not an attorney in the Anglo-American system of Jurisprudence. "Innocent until proven Guilty." But if not proven guilty, innocence is presumed. It is not guessed at or debated. The innocence is assumed. In Spain, which operates under the Code Napoleon, I know things work differently.

Ergo, if you say there is no G-d, that IS a positive claim.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 26, 2016, 10:41:15 AM
You are clearly not an attorney in the Anglo-American system of Jurisprudence. "Innocent until proven Guilty." But if not proven guilty, innocence is presumed. It is not guessed at or debated. The innocence is assumed. In Spain, which operates under the Code Napoleon, I know things work differently.

But "innocence" isn't a defined attribute. It is simply the absence of guilt.

Ergo, if you say there is no G-d, that IS a positive claim.

That is simply not what "positive claim" means.
X is Y is a positive claim
X is not Y isn't
X is not-Y is a synthesis of positive and negative claim in that it contains a positive attribution of an undefined ("negative") attribute.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 10:44:33 AM
He is NOT making the claim that X is not Y. He is claiming that X does not exist. That is a positive claim, Ecthy Baby Brain.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kali on April 26, 2016, 10:56:47 AM
All of you blasted heathen Christcucks, kikes, and weed-smoking degenerates will face a reckoning when Noire-sama's holy fury bears down upon you. Leave your self-righteous baboonery behind you or come to terms with the termination of your sorry existence; either way there won't be any of you low beasts left when the furnaces of Lastation blaze a smoking trail into the new millennium.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 26, 2016, 10:57:21 AM
He is NOT making the claim that X is not Y. He is claiming that X does not exist. That is a positive claim, Ecthy Baby Brain.

I can reformulate "X does not exist" as "X is not existing". There is a "not" in there. That usually means it isn't a positive claim.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 11:02:52 AM
Ecthy Baby Brain, "G-d does not exist." means precisely that. It is a positive claim however you dress it up or not. the Emperor has no clothes. It Is as simple as that.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 26, 2016, 11:28:18 AM
Ecthy Baby Brain, "G-d does not exist." means precisely that. It is a positive claim.

Every claim is a "positive claim", so he is right here. You positively assert something. You can say "unicorns do not exist" or "that what exists is unicornless". Both are positive assertions about the realm of existence. The more precise your assertion is, the less likely it is that it includes a negative grammatical particle, that's the only difference. To say, Yaakov is a Fascist is a more precise statement about him than to say, he is not a Liberal.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kali on April 26, 2016, 11:37:44 AM
Ecthy Baby Brain, "G-d does not exist." means precisely that.
Children like you don't belong on the internet. Spell your words out.

And of course your filthy desert sky pappy doesn't exist. The characteristics ascribed to that wretched false idol are clearly impossible or incorrect. The Abrahamic god is no more real than your absurd internet identity.

Even if a wicked little rat like him did exist, it certainly deserves no respect or worship. Only a truly simple-minded slave would willingly bow down before such an obviously antagonistic creature. The hero of the Abrahamic mythology is none other than Lucifer, who desires for man to gain knowledge and power, to achieve apotheosis and cast aside that petulant demiurgic tyrant.

All of it is just the ramblings of the mad, though, as there is only one Divine and she has no association with Semitics.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 11:48:17 AM
Here is what you wrote in the post before last, Liar:

Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

No, that's not what I wrote

Of course it's what you wrote you Liar.

Are you mental?

Now; WHERE'S MY MICROBE?

Blah blah blah blah...

If you wish your Religion of Evolution to be accepted as scientifically correct, then please prove it using science.

Because all you have proffered so far is semantic bullshit.

And it's getting more than a little obvious you have nothing else.

So, again: MICROBE PLEASE!

*************************************************

Nobody cares, markjo.

You're just another self-hating jew...

No wonder you are so resentful of Yaakov, who embraces what you are too anal & selfish to accept.

Still; bully on, JREF pedos... Bully on!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kali on April 26, 2016, 11:57:51 AM
Nobody cares, markjo.
markjo? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?
Quote
You're just another self-hating jew...

No wonder you are so resentful of Yaakov, who embraces what you are too anal & selfish to accept.
This is an utterly bizarre attack. I don't know what could possibly lead you to believe that I'm Jewish.
Quote
Still; bully on, JREF pedos... Bully on!
I don't know what JREF is but I'm certainly not a pedophile.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 12:07:50 PM
LOL!!!

Look at 'kali' replying to posts in the exact same manner & wording that ex-mod markjo employs, yet claiming it is somehow not ex-mod markjo, as though no-one in the entire history of the internet has ever used sock-puppets before, ever.

You are dead in the water, ex-mod markjo; your 29,000-shitpost Empire of Nowhere has crumbled around you, revealing the sad little man behind the curtain you are, pulling levers as though your life depends on it...

Everyone sees this.

Everyone.

Which is why this forum is a ghost-town.

Toodle-pip, King Lear; blow, wind - crack your cheeks!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Kali on April 26, 2016, 12:11:43 PM
LOL!!!

Look at 'kali' replying to posts in the exact same manner & wording that ex-mod markjo employs, yet claiming it is somehow not ex-mod markjo, as though no-one in the entire history of the internet has ever used sock-puppets before, ever.
The more obvious and actually correct alternative to your delusional paranoia is that we just write similarly. Of course there's no way to dissuade you from your madness, especially given that you're almost certainly high on drugs, so I won't waste time with it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Ecthelion on April 26, 2016, 12:14:16 PM
Ecthy Baby Brain, "G-d does not exist." means precisely that. It is a positive claim however you dress it up or not. the Emperor has no clothes. It Is as simple as that.

Look, I don't care what you call it, but if you state someone has a burden of proof for making a positive claim, then you should be able to explain what makes the claim "positive" and why they, and not you, have the burden of proof.

Every claim is a "positive claim", so he is right here.


Then why call it "positive claim"?

You positively assert something. You can say "unicorns do not exist" or "that what exists is unicornless". Both are positive assertions about the realm of existence.


I agree, but only insofar as we're talking about empirical existence. But that was never specified by Yaakov. And in any event that God doesn't empirically exist is obvious.

The more precise your assertion is, the less likely it is that it includes a negative grammatical particle, that's the only difference. To say, Yaakov is a Fascist is a more precise statement about him than to say, he is not a Liberal.

On the formal level, there is a difference. A positive statement links to a defined term. A negative statement leaves open infinite possibilities.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 26, 2016, 12:20:09 PM
This is an utterly bizarre attack.

Papa Legpa's is here primarily to insult people. He doesn't even read most of the posts he comments and does not care if he makes sense or not. Just take him as a clown.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 26, 2016, 12:25:22 PM

The more precise your assertion is, the less likely it is that it includes a negative grammatical particle, that's the only difference. To say, Yaakov is a Fascist is a more precise statement about him than to say, he is not a Liberal.

On the formal level, there is a difference. A positive statement links to a defined term. A negative statement leaves open infinite possibilities.

Provided that there are infinite possibilities.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 01:21:15 PM
we just write similarly.

LOL!!!

'Just a coincidence'...

Sure; sounds completely legit & just a simple mistake that anyone could make.

NOT!

Really; just give it up markjo - we ALL see you for what you are...

An out-of-control control-freak who's losing control of his ability to control his shitty two-bit controlled environment.

Sickening to witness, but lulzy as all Hell.

Anyhoo; WHERE'S MY MICROBE?

Cough it up, Religi-tards.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 26, 2016, 01:45:26 PM
WHERE'S MY MICROBE!?!?

Papa Leg-pee, piss-drunk, weaving through the streets in search of his imaginary pet
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 02:06:19 PM
They're trying to shitpost it down the memory-hole, but here's the request I made pages ago that none of the Atheists have yet met:

So; here is your task, Atheists:

*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.

*Do not get back to me until you have.

Thank you please!

Until they do, I am quite correct in rejecting the concept of abiogenetic evolution as unscientific & merely an Opinion.

A Religion, in other words...

And an especially weak one at that, as even one single contrary fact seems to send its members into a terminal tail-spin...

Oh, & thanks for referring to me as papa leg-pee, 'false prophet/Rayzor/evil edna/psyopticon'...

Because that's the exact same phrase your cluesforum shill-persona ICfreely just used for me.

LOL busted!!!

How shit at your shit job are you, you shit, shit, shit shill?

VERY, VERY, VERY, INDEED!

Toodle-pip, ICfaily!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 26, 2016, 02:48:40 PM

Now; WHERE'S MY MICROBE?


In your pants.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 26, 2016, 03:41:12 PM
Give me your address, social security number, and date of birth. I will ship the microbe to you.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 05:55:56 PM
The existence of G-d has already been proved. To do so again would be repetitive. Just because none of you atheists have bothered to read philosophy doesn't mean that the rest of us are that abysmally stupid.

Dipshit calling himself after the Indian Goddess of Death and Destruction, who glorifies Lucifer. Know you not that Jews believe not in the Devil?

Appararently not. Angels have no free will in Judaism. They cannot rebel. Ha Satan, The Adversary, is the Prosecuting Attorney of G-d's Heavenly Court. He is the Tempter because that is WHAT G-d wants him to be.

Shit for Brains , if you are going to argue, at LEAST know what the f**k you are talking about. Toodle pip, Dipshit!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 26, 2016, 06:51:32 PM
Know you not that Jews believe not in the Devil?


Why should us non-jews care what the jews believe, Papa Yakoff? Their desert fairytales have nothing to do with us.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 07:09:28 PM
Oh Symptom of a newfound STD, if you don't know what you are talking about it is best not to talk at all.Cheerio, Dumbfuck. And your orthography in English could use improvement, asshole.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 26, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
The existence of G-d has already been proved.

You realize, that you may have a hard time pretending having a decree in philosophy, when you insist on a "proof", that had been debunked even in the middle ages?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 08:46:04 PM
First off, your orthography in English needs improvement. Second, I do not refer merely to the Ontological Argument. And even if I did so refer, Guanilo's supposed "debunking" was a joke then, and remains so now. Even Plato spoke of the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover. You can do better than that, can't you, Prophet?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 26, 2016, 09:16:31 PM
First off, your orthography in English needs improvement. Second, I do not refer merely to the Ontological Argument. And even if I did so refer, Guanilo's supposed "debunking" was a joke then, and remains so now. Even Plato spoke of the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover. You can do better than that, can't you, Prophet?

My orthography, is correct, you possibly speak about my grammar (you may check out the difference between these terms in Wikipedia) Don't think that you can realize, how difficult it is to learn Western languages for someone who was brought up in a language that hardly has any grammar at all.

Who is Guanilo? The patron saint of seabird breeders?

We already worked out that Platon was a crank. So let him rest in peace.

Concerning that Uncaused Cause, Mr Yaakov ben William Craig, that's pre-Kantian philosophy. Nobody with a decree in philosophy would argue in this way unless he gets money for it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 26, 2016, 09:21:56 PM
Oh, come on! Anything pre-Kant is somehow not cool? Dude! You are a fucking Moron. As for your orthography, the word is "degree", not "decree", Shit for Brains.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 26, 2016, 09:45:16 PM
Don't think that you can realize, how difficult it is to learn Western languages for someone who was brought up in a language that hardly has any grammar at all.

LOL!!!

The old 'English is my second language' chestnut...

Favourite of all shills, everywhere, ever, to excuse the piss-poor grammar & spelling caused by their frenzied jumping from sock to sock, on thread after thread, on forum after forum, spamming hurriedly-conceived & ill-composed bullshit over everything on their little shill thought-policing list...

Damn, you are so shit at your shitty jobs; you know that right?

Anyhoo; still no microbe I see?

Clear Proof the Religion of Evolution has no scientific basis...

Angels have no free will in Judaism

Interesting, Yaakov; I didn't know that. At least there's one person here I can learn from.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 27, 2016, 12:38:41 AM
Oh, come on! Anything pre-Kant is somehow not cool? Dude! You are a fucking Moron. As for your orthography, the word is "degree", not "decree", Shit for Brains.

It was still not a matter of orthography, but a confusion in my vocabulary. And please keep your new dog on the leash, it is getting ridiculous. You may start to feel uneasy by this company yourself.

Kant was important, because he worked out the limits of pure philosophical thought. He raised awareness for the fact that it is naive trying to solve questions like the very beginning of the universe by mere reasoning. Something like the concept of an "Uncaused Cause" is a product of our mind, we have no reason to expect that it corresponds to something existing in "reality". It is true that his critique of reason led him to empty the notion of "reality" altogether (the "Ding an sich, on which no statement is possible). Modern philosophy did not thoroughly follow him on this way. But something you can call "epistemology" did not exist in Europe prior to Kant (while it has always been the heart of Indian philosophy). Herein lies his relevance.

Shit for Brains yourself, you Racist Turd.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 01:08:55 AM
Thank you for proving that your religion of evolutionary atheism has no scientific basis by avoiding the fact that a microbe cannot be created via the scientific method & attempting to drag the thread into meaningless copy-pasta pseudo-philosophical gobbledy-gook.

Also, please make your mind up whether I am a sock-puppet of Yaakov, or a separate person, or even a 'dog', lest people begin to suspect you are desperately slinging any kind of mud you can think up at me in a childish attempt to make da badd mann go awa-aa-ayyy!

Of course, anyone who has followed your posts will know for sure that there is something very strange & erratic indeed about the thought-processes & persona you present...

That is the problem with shared sock-puppets; they can't keep up a consistent narrative.

Can they, ICfreely?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 03:21:49 AM
Epistemology did not exist until Kant, eh? Well, IAm sure Rene Descartes would disagree, as would Thomas Aquinas. And that doesn't begin to TOUCH Anselm or even further afield, Maimonides.

 But lets just stick with Descartes. He was able to tear down the entire structure of existence to one sentence. "Cogito, ergo sum." From that he rebuilt the entire structure of existence. Now, I am NOT saying whether I agree with way in which he went about doing this. HOWEVER, and that IS the operative word, it IS epistemology on the lines of Kant and then some.

To be honest, I always thought Kant was a bit of an idiot myself. But saying the West never had Epistemology until Kant is to take yourself down a memory hole. Very stupid.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 27, 2016, 04:03:29 AM
Saying the West never had Epistemology until Kant is to take yourself down a memory hole. Very stupid.

I admit that it is an unjustifiable exaggeration to put it that way. The first who asked himself "What can we know?" - as far as we know, of course - in Western philosophy was Parmenides, I would say. But if you compare, for example, Descartes apodictic behavior with the scientific approach of Kant, you should understand the improvement.

Do you really think, because we can think of a God, we can postulate a God? That, because our mind encounters an infinitive regress, when he thinks of a cause of a cause of a cause, this is a "proof" that their must be an "Uncaused Cause"? It may convince you and I can comprehend that it does. But why does that have to be? And even if it does - this uncaused cause could be anything, it does not have to possess any of the qualities you associate with God.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 04:16:01 AM
Is the above garbage what you were referring to when you said you could 'teach' me, weirdo?

Look at this ffs:

it does not have to possess any of the qualities you associate with God.

LOL!!!

Please name all the qualities you associate with G-d, weirdo...

Give us all a laugh, eh?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2016, 08:19:34 AM
Saying the West never had Epistemology until Kant is to take yourself down a memory hole. Very stupid.

I admit that it is an unjustifiable exaggeration to put it that way. The first who asked himself "What can we know?" - as far as we know, of course - in Western philosophy was Parmenides, I would say. But if you compare, for example, Descartes apodictic behavior with the scientific approach of Kant, you should understand the improvement.

Do you really think, because we can think of a God, we can postulate a God? That, because our mind encounters an infinitive regress, when he thinks of a cause of a cause of a cause, this is a "proof" that their must be an "Uncaused Cause"? It may convince you and I can comprehend that it does. But why does that have to be? And even if it does - this uncaused cause could be anything, it does not have to possess any of the qualities you associate with God.

Yaakov is convinced that a metaphysical possibility is tantamount to a physical reality.  It is such an extreme logical clusterfuck, that I don't think you will ever dig him out of it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 08:25:39 AM
RAMA, that is simply a stupid response. You have your head so far up the ass of thinking everything can happen by accident that I will never get you out of that. Like Papa Legba, WHERE IS MY MICROBE?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 08:53:56 AM
I am Papa Legba, WHERE IS MY MICROBE?

Already told you, it's in your pants.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 10:10:34 AM
Yaakov is convinced that a metaphysical possibility is tantamount to a physical reality.

LOL!!!

Most of what the members of the Church of Atheism consider to be 'physical reality' is in fact metaphysical abstraction anyway, so they are the very last people to lecture anyone on 'reality'.

I've already shown Evolution to have no scientific basis & there's plenty more...

Their 'Big Bang' creation myth being a good one.

But as Atheist's Faith is so weak that they are incapable of coping with even the slightest challenge to it, I'll leave them be for now.

I mean, look at how butthurt this psycho got just because it couldn't answer my challenge to create a microbe using it's vaunted 'scientific method':

I am Papa Legba, WHERE IS MY MICROBE?
Already told you, it's in your pants.

See?

Total emotional insecurity & immaturity, incapable of facing up to anything that contradicts its tiny worldview, & so delusional it is actually using a sock-puppet to accuse the people it fears of being sock-puppets.

And, of course, FalseProphet avoided this:

it does not have to possess any of the qualities you associate with God.

LOL!!!

Please name all the qualities you associate with G-d, weirdo...

Give us all a laugh, eh?

These idiots dare not even define the thing they are denying exists ffs!

Total fail on every level.



Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2016, 11:20:00 AM
RAMA, that is simply a stupid response. You have your head so far up the ass of thinking everything can happen by accident that I will never get you out of that. Like Papa Legba, WHERE IS MY MICROBE?

That your only criticism is that I am stupid is evidence enough that you have no leg to stand on, because it is not even an accurate criticism.  I am not sure what I should expect from you, especially after aligning yourself with someone like Papa Legba, whose intellectual bark has been shown, time and again, to be far bigger than his bite.

Please though, keep on enlightening us with how a mere possibility is the same as a reality.  It is fascinating.


Total emotional insecurity & immaturity, incapable of facing up to anything that contradicts its tiny worldview


Oh, the irony.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: mathsman on April 27, 2016, 11:34:47 AM
The existence of G-d has already been proved. To do so again would be repetitive. Just because none of you atheists have bothered to read philosophy doesn't mean that the rest of us are that abysmally stupid.

Dipshit calling himself after the Indian Goddess of Death and Destruction, who glorifies Lucifer. Know you not that Jews believe not in the Devil?

Appararently not. Angels have no free will in Judaism. They cannot rebel. Ha Satan, The Adversary, is the Prosecuting Attorney of G-d's Heavenly Court. He is the Tempter because that is WHAT G-d wants him to be.

Shit for Brains , if you are going to argue, at LEAST know what the f**k you are talking about. Toodle pip, Dipshit!

In what sense does God exist?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 12:00:39 PM
Oh, the irony.

In other words: 'NO U!!!  ::)'.

Still working on that microbe I hope, Losers?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2016, 12:26:14 PM
I was like, "what microbe is he talking about?"  Then I went back and discovered that it is you asserting a "God of the Gaps" argument.  Good talk.  Can you deal with the actual evidence or not?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 12:42:40 PM
Cool story bro...

But no, I am not referring to a 'God of the gaps' argument.

I am referring to a complete & total absence of genuine scientific evidence for either abiogenesis or evolution.

But, as you are an obvious & repeatedly-busted generic disinfo-shill sock-puppet ID, I will not waste time on you further except for the purposes of mockery & humiliation as & when I see fit...

You are Legba's playthings, JREF freaks; not vice-versa.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2016, 12:53:38 PM
Cool story bro...

But no, I am not referring to a 'God of the gaps' argument.

I am referring to a complete & total absence of genuine scientific evidence for either abiogenesis or evolution.

But, as you are an obvious & repeatedly-busted generic disinfo-shill sock-puppet ID, I will not waste time on you further except for the purposes of mockery & humiliation as & when I see fit...

You are Legba's playthings, JREF freaks; not vice-versa.

So you are either ignorant or incapable of mounting an argument against all of the evidence that is easily sourced regarding evolution.  Are you aware enough to discern which?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 27, 2016, 01:05:52 PM
Why am I such a sock-puppet?

Because you apply neither science nor religion correctly. How could you.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 01:11:52 PM
^Tiresome gaslighting & gangstalking that doesn't work.

^Shills using sock-puppets to accuse genuine individuals of sock-puppeting lol psychos!

^Have no scientific evidence for evolution at all just pretending they have.

^Will now mirror my post just watch em go!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 01:28:24 PM
Give me attention! See me! SEE ME!!!

NO U!!!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 01:54:50 PM
^More sock-puppet gaslighting *Yawn!*

Seems I've hit a nerve with this topic as it's all shills to the pumps right now!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 27, 2016, 02:02:28 PM
Shills using sock-puppets to accuse genuine individuals of sock-puppeting lol psychos!

Just tried to remind you, my son.

No idea what's going on.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 02:10:15 PM
Lots of psychopathic mirroring & gaslighting...

But no answer to this:

Anyhoo; if there is no Creator, then Life must have arisen through scientific principles, yes?

And one of the first rules of science is that it must be Repeatable & Observable.

So; here is your task, Atheists:

*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.

*Do not get back to me until you have.

Thank you please!

Yup; the shills are in a frenzy tonight!

They're angry at me for busting their ICfreely shill on cluesforum too; but as ICfreely says that seriously ill people shouldn't trust doctors he wasn't that hard to bust, eh?

Shows the kind of sick freaks we're dealing with here though...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 27, 2016, 02:12:41 PM
Where can I get some plasma?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 02:14:51 PM
Yup; shill-frenzy confirmed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 02:37:46 PM
I need a hug.  :'(

Aww, it's going to be alright sweetheart.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 03:05:07 PM
Shill-frenzy intensifies...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 03:15:34 PM
Rhhhgbrghalghrrrrhglllr! TEEEEEEEEE!!!

That makes no sense at all. Are you sure you're OK, Papa Yaakoff? Want me to call someone?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 27, 2016, 03:39:06 PM
I just don't know where to get the plasma  >:(
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 04:04:55 PM
I just don't know where to get the plasma  >:(

Your nearest hospital, I suppose?

Or are we talking plasma as in "ammunition for the plasma gun I built in my basement"? In which case, I have no idea.
PM Papa Yaakoff, he strikes me as a man with connections.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 04:43:18 PM
In this case, the possibility must BE the reality, except that you are too blind and stupid to see it. So tell me, How DO things start by themselves? You who seem to think that shit can just form on its own, with absolutely no viable explanation as to why...

Its really a very simple argument, Shit for Brains.

A. I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.

B. Existence is greater than than nonexistence.

C. Ergo, G-d exists.

Trying to argue, as Guanilo did, that the argument fails based on the "great island" example fails in and of itself. An island is not necessarily great due to existence. In fact, if I proposed an island to exist in the middle of an inappropriate place, the results could be disastrous.

I have even heard someone propose that a greatest ham sandwich disproves the argument. Not at all. What if it is too big to eat, and there is no one with whom to share it, and no way to refrigerate the leftovers?

G-d clearly does not have either of these problems. But clearly, if I can conceive of him, he must exist, else the world would be rendered less logical.

Clearly the argument doesn't stand alone. That would be stupid. It stands together with other inductively strong arguments in favour of the existence of G-d.

And do realise that I never claimed that the existence of G-d could be deductively proved. It can be inductively inferred with very strong arguments. It cannot be deductively proved, unless someone is able to go to G-d's residence and come back with verifiable proof that he has been there, met the Almighty, and come back. So far that hasn't happened.

But denial of G-d is just straight out stupid. The atheist mindset is so fucked up its unbelievable to anyone with a brain. To claim that you know that G-d does not exist just makes you a complete 'Tard of the Eff variety. The result of atheism in human history has been destruction and death on a level unparalleled by any other ideology that has ever existed. The atheist sets himself up as the the master of all he surveys, and the result is disaster.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 05:04:49 PM
Much bullshit and rambling.

Yeah, that pretty much covers it.

Oh, and it's spelled "God", not "G-d". What are you afraid of?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on April 27, 2016, 05:32:33 PM
In this case, the possibility must BE the reality, except that you are too blind and stupid to see it. So tell me, How DO things start by themselves? You who seem to think that shit can just form on its own, with absolutely no viable explanation as to why...

Its really a very simple argument, Shit for Brains.

A. I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.
Define greatness. Also, this statement contradicts what I know about metrics (there is no point in a metric where there is no successor). Therefore, I reject statement A, since I can not conceive such a thing.

Quote
B. Existence is greater than than nonexistence.
First define greatness.

Quote
C. Ergo, G-d exists.
You missed the part where you define that greatest being as god. Your argument in your current form, even accepting all premises, holds no water since A and B do not imply C. Small correction, I know, I just wanted to be clear so you can correct it better.

Much bullshit and rambling.

Yeah, that pretty much covers it.

Oh, and it's spelled "God", not "G-d". What are you afraid of?

Jews, specially orthodox, are forbidden from speaking the name of god in vain. G-d is a cute and widely used translation of the several hebrew words used to circumvent that prohibition.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 05:51:24 PM
@Conker: Yeah I know. I just can't keep myself from asking. And yes, it is very cute.

Also, I think everyone here knows that Papa ben Avraham is not an actual jew. He just enjoys playing one on the internet.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 06:32:45 PM
Well, Conker, while giving you credit for courtesy, one cannot define Greatness when there is nothing greater to compare it to. Nevertheless, that Greatness is still Greater for existing. That IS the metric, if you will.

Having blocked Symptom-Fucktard, but seeing your response to him, I find it humorous that the Shit-for-Brains is still attempting to talk to me.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 07:01:02 PM

Having blocked Symptom-Fucktard, but seeing your response to him, I find it humorous that the Shit-for-Brains is still attempting to talk to me.

I find it equally humorous that you are still trying to convince us that you are an actual jew. And that you are pretending to have me on "ignore".

I also very much enjoy your other character "Papa Legba". Comedy gold.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 07:23:37 PM
Oh, you are on ignore. But sometimes I click show me the post just to see you make a fucktard of yourself. Like now, Shit for Brains. You claim I am not a Jew, but then try to insult me by recommending that Israel be bombed. Which is it, Shit for Brains? If I am not a Jew then that won't offend me much. In theory if I am it will, although given that you are such a fucking idiot I shall merely consider the source.

So, am I a Jew or not, asshole? Speak clearly, Shit for Brains.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 07:32:12 PM
Oh, you are on ignore. But sometimes I click show me the post just to see you make a fucktard of yourself. Like now, Shit for Brains. You claim I am not a Jew, but then try to insult me by recommending that Israel be bombed. Which is it, Shit for Brains? If I am not a Jew then that won't offend me much. In theory if I am it will, although given that you are such a fucking idiot I shall merely consider the source.

So, am I a Jew or not, asshole? Speak clearly, Shit for Brains.

1) You're not a jew. You are Papa Legba, an attention-starved troll.

2) Israel still needs to be carpetbombed back to the stoneage, regardless. Israel is a shithole.

3) Troll confirmed.

4) God is a lie.

5) This shit is so meta.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 07:41:13 PM
Like I said, Shit for Brains, I click show me the post just so I can watch you twist in the wind. So you hate Israel and Jews. Oh, well. With Shit for Brains for enemies like you, I hardly think we will worry. Let's be honest, a political discussion with you would hardly be worth my trouble. You're a fucking retard, and that is an insult to actual retarded persons.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 07:58:25 PM
Like I said, Shit for Brains, I click show me the post just so I can watch you twist in the wind. So you hate Israel and Jews. Oh, well. With Shit for Brains for enemies like you, I hardly think we will worry. Let's be honest, a political discussion with you would hardly be worth my trouble. You're a fucking retard, and that is an insult to actual retarded persons.

I have no problem with jews, I have a problem with Israel. Those are two seperate things. Of course you know that, but I guess you have to stay in character. That's OK Papa Yaakoff, I can respect that.

And you're right, a political discussion with me would hardly be worth your trouble, because you'd just end up crying like a little girl. And then I would have my way with you. We don't want that, now do we?  :-*
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 08:14:09 PM
See, Shit for Brains, anti-Semites like you try to use anti-Zionism as your way of covering up the fact that you really hate Jews. If I said I had no problem with the French but I thought France should be carpet bombed everyone would rightly say I belonged in a nut ward, or that I hated the French. So of course the same applies to Israel, asshole. But you know this, and just hope I buy your propagandistic little game. Sorry, little Nazi. Try again.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 27, 2016, 08:28:22 PM
Quote
I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.


The Animist Standpoint

There is no being greater than the other, cause there is no hierarchy of beings. All things are siblings. Everything can be talked to, but no one can be worshiped.


Quote
Guanilo

Probably Gaunilo of Marmoutiers


Quote
Ridiculous Jews

do not have enough self-control to keep rightly blocked users ignored.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 08:35:33 PM
Good girl. Run away like the coward that you are. That is what Nazis do after all.

PROPHET, you may be right about the spelling of the gentleman's name. It has been 20 years after all.

Its not a question of self control. I enjoyed making him choke. As far as the animist view, all I can say is, well, its a point of view. Not one I share, but OK. I still don't think it changes the force of the argument. G-d exists whether he is recognised by the animist or not.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 08:37:44 PM
And now I must be off. Good night.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 08:42:58 PM
Mommy never hugged me.  :'(

Lol!!

Pretends to be a right wing jew for attention. Is Papa Legba.

Lol!!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 08:45:47 PM


Quote
Ridiculous Jews

do not have enough self-control to keep rightly blocked users ignored.

"Rightly blocked"? Have I been a bad boy? I just want you all to love me, like you love Papa Yaakoff. Is that to much to ask for?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 27, 2016, 10:01:10 PM

I just want you all to love me.

Poor wretch. Instead you're getting carpet bombed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
Define greatness.

You lot have a cheek.

Remember me asking you all to define the qualities of G-d?

No answer.

So you cannot even define the very thing you are denying exists; that's how stupid you are.

Plus, you blatantly lied when I challenged you to create a microbe from naturally-occurring but inert elements, claiming it had been done when it has not, & lied again by claiming there is vast amounts of scientific evidence for your retarded Religion of Evolution, when again there is not...

As usual with Fundamentalist Atheists, you then went into a sock-puppet shitpost frenzy, trying to accuse Yaakov & myself of all your own sins...

You are losing this one & losing it very badly indeed.

And every neutral will see it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 11:01:58 PM

I just want you all to love me.

Poor wretch. Instead you're getting carpet bombed.

I know. It's horrible.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 27, 2016, 11:05:50 PM
Mhrreemhhhrrr. Hughuuuurdrrr!

Hey, you're gonna have to write English, so we can understand what you're trying to say. If you don't, we're not going to be able to help you.

Come on. Do your best.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 27, 2016, 11:39:48 PM
I notice Shit for Brains still can't find a response to my charge that he is an anti-Semite. No one recommended carpet bombing Indonesia during its VERY LONG domination of East Timor. No one has yet recommended that for China during its current occupation of Tibet. Or South Africa during its occupation of Namibia. And ALL of these occupations have been or are far more brutal than the Israeli occupation of the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs, and far less justified. None of those territories mentioned posed a direct threat to the countries by whom they were occupied. The "Palestinians"so-called have directly made it clear in Hamas' case that their goal is Israel's destruction and the killing of EVERY SINGLE JEW in the world. At least they are honest, unlike SYMPTOM of STD here.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 12:56:26 AM
I notice Shit for Brains still can't find a response to my charge that he is an anti-Semite. No one recommended carpet bombing Indonesia during its VERY LONG domination of East Timor. No one has yet recommended that for China during its current occupation of Tibet. Or South Africa during its occupation of Namibia. And ALL of these occupations have been or are far more brutal than the Israeli occupation of the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs, and far less justified. None of those territories mentioned posed a direct threat to the countries by whom they were occupied. The "Palestinians"so-called have directly made it clear in Hamas' case that their goal is Israel's destruction and the killing of EVERY SINGLE JEW in the world. At least they are honest, unlike SYMPTOM of STD here.

Trollin' trollin' trollin', keep them wheels a rollin'...

Give it up Papa. No one here believes you are an actual jew. Need a hug?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 01:03:02 AM
I notice Shit for Brains still can't find a response to my charge that he is an anti-Semite.

No-one here can find a reasonable response to anything; which is why they've all gone mental.

Because this is the typical Cultist response to any facts or logic that challenge their dogma.

Like I say, they cannot even define the very thing they are denying the existence of; how's that for delusional?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 01:06:16 AM
Oh, and for the record: I think North Korea is a shithole too. Does that mean I'm an "anti-asian"?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 01:16:04 AM
I notice Shit for Brains still can't find a response to my charge that he is an anti-Semite.

No-one here can find a reasonable response to anything; which is why they've all gone mental.

Because this is the typical Cultist response to any facts or logic that challenge their dogma.

Like I say, they cannot even define the very thing they are denying the existence of; how's that for delusional?

Oh, I can define "God".

The definition of "God" is "a lie". Like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

But you already knew that. Keep on trollin', Papa Yaakoff.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 28, 2016, 01:26:21 AM
Smooth move, Shit for Brains, but there are TWO Koreas to choose from. Buttfuck. And the only person I see questioning my Jewishness is you, Alterkaker, and a few others from AR who don't count.

So your definition of G-d is what G-d has never been. You misunderstand him as an old man with a beard and do not find him. Frustrated, you refuse to take responsibility for your action and instead whine and cry like a fucking infant. What a little bitch.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 01:49:14 AM
Blah-blah. Trolls gotta troll I guess.

And did I not type North Korea? You know, as in "not South Korea"? What's your point, Papa ben Yaakoff?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 01:52:18 AM
Oh, and for the record: I think North Korea is a shithole too. Does that mean I'm an "anti-asian"?

And I'd like you to answer this question. Without going off on some meaningless rant. Yes or no?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 01:55:11 AM
The definition of "God" is "a lie". Like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

See, Yaakov?

I called it pages ago:

Their conception of God is similar to that of a 6-year old kid's conception of Santa Claus; thus they act like sulking little brats who never got over being told Santa's not real & are continually acting out.

And why do they make this gross error?

Brain damage & emotional immaturity...

All this time & still no microbe; will they ever wise up to the fact they are in a Cult of the frailest & luziest kind?

Nope; just more acting out I'm afraid...

They condemn themselves further with every empty, childishly resentful post they make.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 02:25:36 AM
The definition of "God" is "a lie". Like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

See, Yaakov?

I called it pages ago:

Their conception of God is similar to that of a 6-year old kid's conception of Santa Claus; thus they act like sulking little brats who never got over being told Santa's not real & are continually acting out.

And why do they make this gross error?

Brain damage & emotional immaturity...

All this time & still no microbe; will they ever wise up to the fact they are in a Cult of the frailest & luziest kind?

Nope; just more acting out I'm afraid...

They condemn themselves further with every empty, childishly resentful post they make.

You really enjoy talking to yourself, don't you. Oh well, I guess that's what it's like having no friends and being shunned by your own family.

And again: The microbe is in your pants. It may or may not look somewhat like a penis. Only smaller. Much smaller. I could say it looks like a clitoris, but we all know you have no idea what a clitoris looks like. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's a-ok to be gay.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 02:37:41 AM
Of course, the revolting theory of Eugenics could not exist without the Religion of Evolution, too...

Yet more Pseudo-Scientific Horrors we have to thank the brain-damaged Cult of Atheism for.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 03:32:23 AM
Of course, the revolting theory of Eugenics could not exist without the Religion of Evolution, too...

Yet more Pseudo-Scientific Horrors we have to thank the brain-damaged Cult of Atheism for.

So now you're going to pretend that you don't believe in evolution? This just gets better and better.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 03:43:34 AM
And you're going to pretend you don't know I wrote this pages ago & that none of you have been able to do it:

So; here is your task, Atheists:

*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.

*Do not get back to me until you have.

Thank you please!

You can pretend that Conker didn't lie about it too, if you like?

Pretending being about all that you have done since you arrived here.

Besides, if 'Evolution' was scientific fact you wouldn't have used the word 'believe' in reference to it...

As ever, you are condemned by your own vocabulary.

Toodle-pip, Great Pretender!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 28, 2016, 04:22:53 AM
Weird that a bunch of people on an Internet forum can't reproduce abiogenesis in a lab.

Have you googled "evidence for evolution" yet? Or are you and Yaakov still having your theological circle jerk?

I eagerly await your next fallacious argument, fellater!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 04:23:26 AM
Massive logical fail.

 Try again. And this time with some effort.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on April 28, 2016, 04:26:28 AM
Or are you and Yaakov still having your theological circle jerk?

I wonder who is the left side of the brain and who is the right.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 04:42:48 AM
Weird that a bunch of people on an Internet forum can't reproduce abiogenesis in a lab.

Strawman.

Nobody can & you damn well know it.

Have you googled "evidence for evolution" yet?

If there was any that had validity you'd be spamming it like mad.

But there isn't so you're not.

Nice try though, Cultist time-waster.

I eagerly await your next fallacious argument, fellater!

Further evidence that Athe-autists can't do humour or logic, as well as having no genuinely scientific proof for their Religion of Evolution...

Which is also the wellspring behind the quaint concept of Eugenics, as if they weren't loathsome enough already.

They kinda skipped over where I said that btw, like they skip over anything that's inconvenient to their Religion...

So I'm saying it again.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 28, 2016, 05:11:14 AM
Weird that a bunch of people on an Internet forum can't reproduce abiogenesis in a lab.

Strawman.

Nobody can & you damn well know it.

No I don't know that. I am not up on current events in molecular biology. I do know, however, that precursors to amino acids have been created in environments replicating abiogenesis.

Quote
Have you googled "evidence for evolution" yet?

If there was any that had validity you'd be spamming it like mad.

But there isn't so you're not.

Logic fail. Does not follow. There is a website named talkorigins.org that details many and varied data sets that support evolution.

Quote
Nice try though, Cultist time-waster.

I eagerly await your next fallacious argument, fellater!

Further evidence that Athe-autists can't do humour or logic, as well as having no genuinely scientific proof for their Religion of Evolution...

Which is also the wellspring behind the quaint concept of Eugenics, as if they weren't loathsome enough already.

They kinda skipped over where I said that btw, like they skip over anything that's inconvenient to their Religion...

So I'm saying it again.

No one cares. That's why it was skipped over.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 06:18:24 AM
I do know, however, that precursors to amino acids have been created in environments replicating abiogenesis.

So we can make chemicals in laboratories; big whoopee!

Bit of a Giant leap from there to a living microbe though...

There is a website named talkorigins.org that details many and varied data sets that support evolution.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, wow!

There's a website called tolkienforums.com that contains many and varied data sets that support Middle Earth too...

Don't mean it ain't all fictional bullshit though.

No one cares. That's why it was skipped over.

Dropped the strawmen & opting for flat-out lies & running away now?

Typical Athe-autist Cult behaviour...

Fact is that LOTS of people will care that Eugenics is based entirely on the unscientific Religion of Evolution, numbnuts...

But only MORAL people will care; which explains why you lot don't.

Empathy being an emotion both autists & Atheist Cultists are notoriously lacking in...

Toodle-pip, Genocide-Enablers!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 28, 2016, 10:43:21 AM
I do know, however, that precursors to amino acids have been created in environments replicating abiogenesis.

"Precursors to amino acids?" What is that supposed to be? Amino acids form very easily under various conditions. They can even be detected in interstellar clouds.

There are multiple models how life could have developed and it is a fascinating field of science. But as I understand we are not even close to comprehend the origin of life. I'm not sure if I can expect that a self-reduplicating organism will be produced artificially during my life-time.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on April 28, 2016, 12:44:52 PM
Why the hell would we have to prove that it is possible to create a microbe in a lab? You, creationists, are ones claiming that it is possible to create microbes, not us, idiots.

Though I think we should let people believe whatever religion they want to as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 28, 2016, 01:12:26 PM
You, creationists, are ones claiming that it is possible to create microbes, not us, idiots.

You're not refering to me here, are you?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 02:21:40 PM
I think we should let people believe whatever religion they want to as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

That's very generous of you!

Thus, I will only agree to let you believe in your Religion of Evolution as long as you drop the eugenics & genocide...

Because they hurt a LOT of people.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 28, 2016, 02:59:23 PM
I am not currently genociding anyone.

I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHERE TO GET THE PLASMA  >:(
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 28, 2016, 03:46:30 PM
I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHERE TO GET THE PLASMA  >:(

Quote
Generally speaking, by the time a gas is hot enough to be seen, it’s a plasma.

So all you have to do is to light a match.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 28, 2016, 04:53:46 PM
Oh, I could use one of these candles. I will start burning the periodic table and let you know when a new microbe appears.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 28, 2016, 07:15:17 PM
Scientists have created a lifeform using the least number of genes they possibly could.  Scientists Create Artificial Lifeform (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3508249/Let-artificial-life-Scientists-create-minimal-cell-using-just-genes-needed-survive.html)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on April 28, 2016, 08:35:35 PM
Quote
That's very generous of you!Thus, I will only agree to let you believe in your Religion of Evolution as long as you drop the eugenics & genocide...Because they hurt a LOT of people.
Aren't you one of those who justify cruelty to animals with their religion?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 28, 2016, 08:41:56 PM
Dude! Animals ARE NOT PEOPLE, fucktard! They don't have the same rights as people. Get that through your fat fucking head. And as for your argument about government on the other page, anyone who believes in anarchy just confirms their fucktardedness.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 28, 2016, 09:34:18 PM
I do know, however, that precursors to amino acids have been created in environments replicating abiogenesis.

So we can make chemicals in laboratories; big whoopee!

Bit of a Giant leap from there to a living microbe though...

Did I say otherwise?

Quote
There is a website named talkorigins.org that details many and varied data sets that support evolution.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, wow!

There's a website called tolkienforums.com that contains many and varied data sets that support Middle Earth too...

Don't mean it ain't all fictional bullshit though.

Supporting my belief that you are incapable of mounting an argument against the evidence.  Good talk.



Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on April 28, 2016, 09:40:35 PM
Quote
Dude! Animals ARE NOT PEOPLE, fucktard! They don't have the same rights as people. Get that through your fat fucking head.
Since a person is defined as a self-conscious or rational being, little children also aren't people, yet it's wrong to be cruel to them. But since you also advocate genital mutilation...
Quote
And as for your argument about government on the other page, anyone who believes in anarchy just confirms their fucktardedness.
I was advocating libertarianism, not anarchism, you liar!

Funny that you don't even try to deny that you advocated a reincarnation of animal sacrifices.
And you also said that everyone should start drinking alcohol.
You are dangerous!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 10:45:44 PM
Scientists have created a lifeform using the least number of genes they possibly could.  Scientists Create Artificial Lifeform (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3508249/Let-artificial-life-Scientists-create-minimal-cell-using-just-genes-needed-survive.html)
For starters: Daily Mail? LOL!!!

For seconds: They haven't 'created' anything at all. They took a pre-existing cell & removed as much as they could without it dying.

So the headline should be: 'Scientists almost destroy natural life-form but don't quite succeed, so what?'.

Which takes us back to: Daily Mail? LOL!!!

you are incapable of mounting an argument against the evidence.
Can't mount an argument against something you didn't present, retard.

As ever with you lot, we're down to the 'pretending shit' stage...

Bet you're a big Lord of the Rings fan, ain't you?

Now; about that Eugenics & Genocide...

Worked out that's what your insane Atheistic religion of Evolution leads humanity into yet?

You should have, because it's already happened at least twice in the past century...

But as you already believe you're just Animals, how can you be expected to think or behave like Men?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 28, 2016, 11:14:54 PM
Oh & I just noticed this:

You, creationists, are ones claiming that it is possible to create microbes, not us, idiots.

What is the Religion of Evolution if not an attempt to explain the oxymoronic concept of Creation without a Creator?

It is still Creation, just through an implausible, illogical, unobservable, unrepeatable, unscientifically-verifiable process.

But yeah, as long as you Athe-autists have a label for everything, given you by the Scientard father figures you don't even realise are in fact the Priests & Deities of your brain-damaged Religion of Evolution, then you never have to actually Think about anything at all...

Just like the Dumb Animals you've been brainwashed into believing you are.

You are Perfect Slaves, inasmuch as you do not realise you are Slaves, & will even fight to the death for your right to be Enslaved or enforce your Slavery on others.

Which is worth a good old Legba LOL!!! for sure!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 28, 2016, 11:20:16 PM
Scientists have created a lifeform using the least number of genes they possibly could.  Scientists Create Artificial Lifeform (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3508249/Let-artificial-life-Scientists-create-minimal-cell-using-just-genes-needed-survive.html)
For starters: Daily Mail? LOL!!!

For seconds: They haven't 'created' anything at all. They took a pre-existing cell & removed as much as they could without it dying.

So the headline should be: 'Scientists almost destroy natural life-form but don't quite succeed, so what?'.

Which takes us back to: Daily Mail? LOL!!!

Perhaps you would rather trust Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/scientists-create-tiniest-life-form-yet-not-sure-what-it-is)?  How about Quanta Magazine (https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160324-in-newly-created-life-form-a-major-mystery/)?  Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/27/scientists-are-actually-creating-microscopic-life-in-laboratories-should-you-worry/)?

Here is an exert from the Quanta Magazine article.

Quote
Rather than editing DNA in a living organism, as most researchers did, they wanted to exert greater control — to plan their genome on a computer and then synthesize the DNA in test tubes.

So, no, they were not modifying existing DNA, they made it from scratch. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 12:18:56 AM
So, no, they were not modifying existing DNA, they made it from scratch.

And did this DNA then start to self-replicate on its own?

No.

Did they have to put it in an already-existing microbe for it to do so?

Yes.

Thus, my point still stands.

And to prove it, here are the final words from the Quanta article, which you somehow overlooked:

'If we are ever to understand even the simplest living organism, we have to be able to design & synthesise one from scratch. We are still far from this goal'.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 29, 2016, 01:06:21 AM
So, no, they were not modifying existing DNA, they made it from scratch.

And did this DNA then start to self-replicate on its own?

No.

Did they have to put it in an already-existing microbe for it to do so?

Yes.

Thus, my point still stands.

And to prove it, here are the final words from the Quanta article, which you somehow overlooked:

'If we are ever to understand even the simplest living organism, we have to be able to design & synthesise one from scratch. We are still far from this goal'.



It is true that they started with a host cell.  Essentially, it is really no different than the modus operandi of a virus, and viruses are considered to be life.  However, there is one main difference between the synthetic lifeforms and a viruses; the virus needs more living host cells in order to procreate but the man made lifeform can self replicate without being a parasite.  In that respect, I would say that the synthetic lifeform is more of a living creature than a virus is.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on April 29, 2016, 01:38:45 AM
Quote
It is still Creation, just through an implausible, illogical, unobservable, unrepeatable, unscientifically-verifiable process.
Ancient Romans would probably say exactly that if they heard the scientific explanation of a thunder.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 02:12:07 AM
the man made lifeform

Snuck that one in there, didn't you?

Ignored this one though:

And to prove it, here are the final words from the Quanta article, which you somehow overlooked:

'If we are ever to understand even the simplest living organism, we have to be able to design & synthesise one from scratch. We are still far from this goal'.

Don't perform your Athe-autist semantic disinfo-dance at me please; it's boring.

Ancient Romans would probably say exactly that if they heard the scientific explanation of a thunder.

Not if the scientific explanation was based on observable & repeatable facts.

Which the Religion of Evolution is not.

Any more flimsy strawmen you wish to deploy in the absence of scientifically-sound proof & evidence?

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 29, 2016, 02:55:13 AM
the man made lifeform

Snuck that one in there, didn't you?

Ignored this one though:

And to prove it, here are the final words from the Quanta article, which you somehow overlooked:

'If we are ever to understand even the simplest living organism, we have to be able to design & synthesise one from scratch. We are still far from this goal'.

Don't perform your Athe-autist semantic disinfo-dance at me please; it's boring.

I have no idea why you keep quoting a biologist who had nothing to do with any of the research that went into the creation of this synthetic lifeform.  However, since  you are so fond of quotes, I will show you one from the same article, but from the scientist who did actually make the minimalistic lifeform. 

Quote from: Smart Scientist
We could reduce billions of years of evolution to maybe years or months or weeks
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 03:43:26 AM
the scientist who did actually make the minimalistic alter the already-existent lifeform.

Fixed that for you; naughty boy!

We could reduce billions of years of evolution to maybe years or months or weeks

Get back to me when the 'could reduce' has changed to 'can & have reduced'.

But your semantic sophistry & general chimp-out in defence of your unscientific Religion of Evolution is duly noted.

Enjoy your Worship, and remember not to attempt any Eugenics or Genocide due to impatience at never, ever gaining genuine scientific proof of your Magic Monkey-Pooping Evolu-God.

Thank you please!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 29, 2016, 06:41:55 AM
Do you consider a virus to be a lifeform, Papa Legba?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 07:47:26 AM
Well, nobody seems to be sure of the answer to that, do they?

Which is probably why you are asking it.

But, as viruses can only reproduce by infecting living cells, they can hardly have been around before such cells came into existence, can they?

Anyhoo; has someone Created a virus, from scratch, using only inert elements, plasma, & natural forces such as gravity etc?

You know; thus recreating the conditions under which Life so miraculously sprang according to your Religion of Evolution?

Or are you just reaching for yet another Pot of Strawman Gold?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 29, 2016, 08:43:39 AM
you are incapable of mounting an argument against the evidence.
Can't mount an argument against something you didn't present, retard.

You can't use google?  Wow, well because I feel bad for you..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

Now go ahead and deal with that evidence rather than the challenge you are mounting which says nothing about the validity of the theories of evolution or abiogenesis. 

Quote
As ever with you lot, we're down to the 'pretending shit' stage...

Bet you're a big Lord of the Rings fan, ain't you?

I don't have to pretend fortunately.

Quote
Now; about that Eugenics & Genocide...

Worked out that's what your insane Atheistic religion of Evolution leads humanity into yet?

You should have, because it's already happened at least twice in the past century...

But as you already believe you're just Animals, how can you be expected to think or behave like Men?

Please show that evolutionary biologists are responsible for every instance of eugenics.  You understand that bad people will justify their bad acts with whatever is convenient.  Atheism is not immoral, the perpetrators of the holocaust were.  Atheism is amoral, because it is not an idea that relates to morality at all.  Perhaps you need to look the word up in the dictionary?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 29, 2016, 08:46:32 AM
Well, nobody seems to be sure of the answer to that, do they?

Which is probably why you are asking it.

But, as viruses can only reproduce by infecting living cells, they can hardly have been around before such cells came into existence, can they?

Unless they mutated from something that does not infect living cells in to something that does.  W0w!

Quote
Anyhoo; has someone Created a virus, from scratch, using only inert elements, plasma, & natural forces such as gravity etc?

You know; thus recreating the conditions under which Life so miraculously sprang according to your Religion of Evolution?

Or are you just reaching for yet another Pot of Strawman Gold?

Tell me, do we have to create a planet before we can discover what leads to the creation of planets?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 29, 2016, 08:50:56 AM
Quote
Dude! Animals ARE NOT PEOPLE, fucktard! They don't have the same rights as people. Get that through your fat fucking head.
Since a person is defined as a self-conscious or rational being, little children also aren't people, yet it's wrong to be cruel to them. But since you also advocate genital mutilation...
Quote
And as for your argument about government on the other page, anyone who believes in anarchy just confirms their fucktardedness.
I was advocating libertarianism, not anarchism, you liar!

Funny that you don't even try to deny that you advocated a reincarnation of animal sacrifices.
And you also said that everyone should start drinking alcohol.
You are dangerous!

Children are people, asshole. Animals are not.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 29, 2016, 09:22:04 AM
And no, asshole. A human is not necessarily rational. A Human is a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens,, and deserves Human rights regardless of its mental state. A human might be mentally ill, or be an infant, or have Alzheimer's, etc. They still are guaranteed human rights, Shit for Brains. Animals ARE NOT HUMANS.

Oh, and Asshole. One of those human rights is the right to practice religion, one aspect of which is to enter the Covenant through circumcision. It does no harm, so it isn't mutilation, Buttfuck. You don't like it, deal with it. At least we don't rape civilians for entertainment like Croats have been known to do.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 29, 2016, 09:48:19 AM
Quote
Dude! Animals ARE NOT PEOPLE, fucktard! They don't have the same rights as people. Get that through your fat fucking head.
Since a person is defined as a self-conscious or rational being, little children also aren't people, yet it's wrong to be cruel to them. But since you also advocate genital mutilation...
Quote
And as for your argument about government on the other page, anyone who believes in anarchy just confirms their fucktardedness.
I was advocating libertarianism, not anarchism, you liar!

Funny that you don't even try to deny that you advocated a reincarnation of animal sacrifices.
And you also said that everyone should start drinking alcohol.
You are dangerous!

Children are people, asshole. Animals are not.

My dogs are people  >:(
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 29, 2016, 09:57:49 AM
More so than FlatEarthDenial, I suspect. At least I know my dog is.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 12:23:49 PM
Now go ahead and deal with that evidence rather than the challenge you are mounting which says nothing about the validity of the theories of evolution or abiogenesis.

LOL!!!

So you expect ME to go find the evidence you avoid posting, then present it, then refute it?

GTFO.

Also, how does the fact that evolution/abiogenesis has never been empirically observed or repeated by anyone, ever, have nothing to do with the scientific validity of said theory?

Again, GTFO.

Quote
As ever with you lot, we're down to the 'pretending shit' stage...

Bet you're a big Lord of the Rings fan, ain't you?

I don't have to pretend fortunately.

Oh yeah; I KNOW you're a big fan of Fantasy bullshit.

Please show that evolutionary biologists are responsible for every instance of eugenics.

Please show where I said it was just evolutionary biologists you Liar.

I said it was Atheists & I was correct to do so.

Oh look; a double-shitpost from Rama Set, there's even more...

Unless they mutated from something that does not infect living cells in to something that does.

That's right; just evolute the problem away with teh evolutory magic wand!

Pathetic.

Tell me, do we have to create a planet before we can discover what leads to the creation of planets?

Gone from strawmen to straw-planets now have we?

Ambitious!

The only proof for teh evulooshun you have offered is the evolution of your Lies.

You are mental.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on April 29, 2016, 12:37:05 PM
Quote
Not if the scientific explanation was based on observable & repeatable facts.
Which the Religion of Evolution is not.
Any more flimsy strawmen you wish to deploy in the absence of scientifically-sound proof & evidence?
Fossils, genetics, embryology, vestigial organs, geographic distribution of similar species…
But, yeah, you probably have some nonsensical ad-hoc explanations, just like FE-ers have.
Quote
Children are people, asshole. Animals are not. And no, asshole. A human is not necessarily rational. A Human is a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens,, and deserves Human rights regardless of its mental state. A human might be mentally ill, or be an infant, or have Alzheimer's, etc. They still are guaranteed human rights, Shit for Brains. Animals ARE NOT HUMANS.
"Blacks are not whites, and therefore they don't deserve to have rights!"
Quote
Oh, and Asshole. One of those human rights is the right to practice religion, one aspect of which is to enter the Covenant through circumcision.
Your rights end where rights of the others begin. A child has a right not to be harmed as much as you have the right to practice your irrational beliefs in ancient mythology religion.
Quote
It does no harm, so it isn't mutilation, Buttfuck.
Yes, it does! It is extremely painful and reduces the sexual pleasure.
Quote
You don't like it, deal with it.
We shouldn't tolerate intolerance.
Quote
At least we don't rape civilians for entertainment like Croats have been known to do.
Come on now! There are rapists in every single nation! Fuck you!
Quote
More so than FlatEarthDenial, I suspect. At least I know my dog is.
Oh, the hypocrisy! So, your dog deserves to live but the animals you would sacrifice don't?!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 29, 2016, 12:51:06 PM
Now go ahead and deal with that evidence rather than the challenge you are mounting which says nothing about the validity of the theories of evolution or abiogenesis.

LOL!!!

So you expect ME to go find the evidence you avoid posting, then present it, then refute it?

Expected.

Quote
GTFO.

Also, how does the fact that evolution/abiogenesis has never been empirically observed or repeated by anyone, ever, have nothing to do with the scientific validity of said theory?

Again, GTFO.

Shifting the goal posts.  Not surprising.  Wish you could have an honest conversation, don't think you can.

Quote
Quote
As ever with you lot, we're down to the 'pretending shit' stage...

Bet you're a big Lord of the Rings fan, ain't you?

I don't have to pretend fortunately.

Oh yeah; I KNOW you're a big fan of Fantasy bullshit.

Good for you.

Quote
Please show that evolutionary biologists are responsible for every instance of eugenics.

Please show where I said it was just evolutionary biologists you Liar.

I said it was Atheists & I was correct to do so.

Oh look; a double-shitpost from Rama Set, there's even more...

Unless they mutated from something that does not infect living cells in to something that does.

That's right; just evolute the problem away with teh evolutory magic wand!

Pathetic.

What does the fact that some shitty people did terrible things due to a perverted understanding of atheism or Darwinism have to do with Atheism or Darwinism?  Are you saying that the Son of Sam is Christianity's fault?

Quote
Tell me, do we have to create a planet before we can discover what leads to the creation of planets?

Gone from strawmen to straw-planets now have we?

It's not a strawman in the slightest.  You are saying that because we have not recreated abiogenesis in a laboratory that abiogenesis is flawed.  That is the same analogy as I am making.  We have not created a planet and so our theories on the creation of planets mush be flawed.

Quote
Ambitious!

The only proof for teh evulooshun you have offered is the evolution of your Lies.

You are mental.

Was that supposed to be witty?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 29, 2016, 01:21:59 PM
Quote
Not if the scientific explanation was based on observable & repeatable facts.
Which the Religion of Evolution is not.
Any more flimsy strawmen you wish to deploy in the absence of scientifically-sound proof & evidence?
Fossils, genetics, embryology, vestigial organs, geographic distribution of similar species…
But, yeah, you probably have some nonsensical ad-hoc explanations, just like FE-ers have.
Quote
Children are people, asshole. Animals are not. And no, asshole. A human is not necessarily rational. A Human is a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens,, and deserves Human rights regardless of its mental state. A human might be mentally ill, or be an infant, or have Alzheimer's, etc. They still are guaranteed human rights, Shit for Brains. Animals ARE NOT HUMANS.
"Blacks are not whites, and therefore they don't deserve to have rights!"
Quote
Oh, and Asshole. One of those human rights is the right to practice religion, one aspect of which is to enter the Covenant through circumcision.
Your rights end where rights of the others begin. A child has a right not to be harmed as much as you have the right to practice your irrational beliefs in ancient mythology religion.
Quote
It does no harm, so it isn't mutilation, Buttfuck.
Yes, it does! It is extremely painful and reduces the sexual pleasure.
Quote
You don't like it, deal with it.
We shouldn't tolerate intolerance.
Quote
At least we don't rape civilians for entertainment like Croats have been known to do.
Come on now! There are rapists in every single nation! Fuck you!
Quote
More so than FlatEarthDenial, I suspect. At least I know my dog is.
Oh, the hypocrisy! So, your dog deserves to live but the animals you would sacrifice don't?!

Negroes are humans. Animals are not, Shit for Brains. Since circumcision is done on infants, there is little pain, asshole. Done on an adult that would be different. My country has never established rape camps like yours has. Anybody who doesn't believe in a Creator is a fucktard and should not be allowed out in public. My dog actually deserves to live more than you do.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:39:20 PM
********************************************************************************

Not interested in circular gish-gallop reductionist bullshit from a proven generic sock-puppet ID.

Post some genuine empirically-observable evidence for your Religion of Evolution or GTFO, markjo.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 29, 2016, 01:44:07 PM
********************************************************************************

Not interested in circular gish-gallop reductionist bullshit from a proven generic sock-puppet ID.

Post some genuine empirically-observable evidence for your Religion of Evolution or GTFO, markjo.

Why would I do anymore for you than I have?  It is not like you have a case, or even a point which you could build a case on.  You have no credentials, and you are not pleasant to talk to.

Anyway, i thought Markjo was me.  Can you please keep your trolling clear and easy to follow?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:49:23 PM
*********************************************************************************************************************************

Oh look your comments just keep turning to asterisks, markjo...

Maybe you should try posting evidence rather than time-wasting sock-puppet bullshit.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 29, 2016, 01:50:36 PM
Post some genuine empirically-observable evidence for your Religion of Evolution

(http://media4.picsearch.com/is?bpAT_Qo4jwPBc-8QUgaAl_VFadIFjpGuG8lyCUW3qug&height=341)

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 29, 2016, 01:54:51 PM
Damn, that's me finished!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 29, 2016, 02:05:31 PM
Oh look your comments just keep turning to asterisks, markjo...

Maybe you should try posting evidence rather than time-wasting sock-puppet bullshit.

I provided references to evidence right in this thread.  How about that?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stanton on April 29, 2016, 08:41:25 PM

. . . dumb people who believe they're smart are an endless source of slapstick fun.



 ;D


Gods were created to promote social cohesion
and explain the unknown.







Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 29, 2016, 09:10:48 PM

. . . dumb people who believe they're smart are an endless source of slapstick fun.



 ;D


Gods were created to promote social cohesion
and explain the unknown.

Citation needed.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Stanton on April 29, 2016, 09:42:39 PM

Gods were created to promote social cohesion
and explain the unknown.


Citation needed.
[/quote]


Every religious text ever written.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 30, 2016, 12:04:35 AM
************************************************************************************

Yeah, it just keeps happening...

Oh well.

NO U!!!

*Yawn!*

Gods were created to promote social cohesion and explain the unknown.

Nah; twats & frauds like Dawkins & Hawking were created for that...

By Eugenicists like the Fabian Society.

You're just too dumb to see it.

I notice you've dropped the 'bemused neutral' schtick you tried on in your prying PMs btw...

And reverted to full-on hive-mind shill mode.

You all do it in the end...

Legba sees through the lot of you.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2016, 12:07:41 AM
Legba sees through the lot of you.

Is he your son or something?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on April 30, 2016, 12:50:03 AM
*****************************************************************************

 ::)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on April 30, 2016, 03:04:02 AM
...genuine empirically-observable evidence for Evolution...

Try to see the irony, Apeman!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 30, 2016, 05:33:52 AM

Gods were created to promote social cohesion
and explain the unknown.


Quote
Citation needed.


Every religious text ever written.

That made no rational sense.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on May 01, 2016, 01:44:47 AM
Quote
Negroes are humans. Animals are not, Shit for Brains.
And why shouldn't anyone but humans have a right to live???
Quote
Since circumcision is done on infants, there is little pain, asshole. Done on an adult that would be different.
"Children feel pain less than adults do." Citation needed!
Quote
My country has never established rape camps like yours has.
Anyone who reads that knows that's bullshit!
Quote
Anybody who doesn't believe in a Creator is a fucktard and should not be allowed out in public.
In my opinion, anyone who says that everyone should start drinking alcohol should not be allowed out in public!
Quote
My dog actually deserves to live more than you do.
And what about those innocent animals that would be sacrificed if the animal sacrifices were reincarnated, as you suggested it?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 01, 2016, 02:14:57 AM
Point 1. Emotionalism and 16 year old sentimentalism. Can be disregarded.

Point 2. ask aany doctor, who will tell you the pain is less on an infant and they heal much faster than an adult would.

Point 3. Ask the Bosnian women who were inmates of said camps during the Balkan Wars, set up both by Serbia AND Croatia, Asshole.

Point 4. Your opinion has no value. I never said everyone should start drinking. I said there were slight health benefits if one already did.

Point 5. First off, the word "reincarnated' is NOT the appropriate word, but OK. 2nd, pure emotionalism and 16 year old teenaged pimply angst. May be disregarded.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 01, 2016, 05:33:11 AM
Point 3. Ask the Bosnian women who were inmates of said camps during the Balkan Wars, set up both by Serbia AND Croatia, Asshole.

The Idea that there were any 'innocent' sides in the latest Balkans Berserkathon is sadly mistaken.

Here is a typical incident from my military friend's experiences in that Godforsaken shithole:

1: My friend's unit is told there is trouble in some backwards peasant hamlet.

2: Friend's unit goes to investigate & finds murder, mayhem, etc being inflicted by one faction upon another...

3: Friend's unit rescues victims & escorts them to 'safe' area.

4: A few days later, friend's unit is called back to same area due to reports of further trouble.

5: Finds the 'victims' have armed themselves, returned & are now gleefully massacring their former persecutors.

6: Friend contacts HQ to find out what to do, but as it is a UN op the system of command is fubar & nobody knows anything.

7: After being roundly mocked & increasingly threatened by ex-victims-now-persecutors for several hours, friend finally decides to pull out & leave them to it, vowing to never bother trying to help any of these bloodthirsty maniacs ever again & just get him & his unit back to Britain alive.

8: Is laughed at & shot at by people whose lives he'd previously saved as he leaves just to really rub the lesson in.

Yeah; the Balkans... Fuck that place.


Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 01, 2016, 05:41:31 AM
Point 3. Ask the Bosnian women who were inmates of said camps during the Balkan Wars, set up both by Serbia AND Croatia, Asshole.

The Idea that there were any 'innocent' sides in the latest Balkans Berserkathon is sadly mistaken.

Here is a typical incident from my military friend's experiences in that Godforsaken shithole:

1: My friend's unit is told there is trouble in some backwards peasant hamlet.

2: Friend's unit goes to investigate & finds murder, mayhem, etc being inflicted by one faction upon another...

3: Friend's unit rescues victims & escorts them to 'safe' area.

4: A few days later, friend's unit is called back to same area due to reports of further trouble.

5: Finds the 'victims' have armed themselves, returned & are now gleefully massacring their former persecutors.

6: Friend contacts HQ to find out what to do, but as it is a UN op the system of command is fubar & nobody knows anything.

7: After being roundly mocked & increasingly threatened by ex-victims-now-persecutors for several hours, friend finally decides to pull out & leave them to it, vowing to never bother trying to help any of these bloodthirsty maniacs ever again & just get him & his unit back to Britain alive.

8: Is laughed at & shot at by people whose lives he'd previously saved as he leaves just to really rub the lesson in.

Yeah; the Balkans... Fuck that place.

Ja, bare regn med at du har "venner" i militæret. Jævla gjøk.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 01, 2016, 06:08:09 AM
Thank you for your zero-content post.

Your multi-lingual shilling abilities are noted.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 01, 2016, 06:37:46 AM
Well, there is no doubt that Europe would be far better if the Balkans and everybody there could simply be cut off and turned into an island.

But Balkan Boy here seems to know little of his own country's history. Not that that surprises me any.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 01, 2016, 09:09:05 AM
Well, there is no doubt that Europe would be far better if the Balkans and everybody there could simply be cut off and turned into an island.

Nice image; isn't there a film that posited something similar? Kusturica's 'Underground' I think?

Sadly, the Balkans have always been the Crux of Empires, geo-politically speaking...

Even the Romans knew this.

But Balkan Boy here seems to know little of his own country's history. Not that that surprises me any.

I do not believe this entity is what it claims to be.

Why it is here, sowing deception, I do not care to fathom.

Deception is its Nature; that is all I need know.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 03, 2016, 06:23:59 PM
Well, there is no doubt that Europe would be far better if the Balkans and everybody there could simply be cut off and turned into an island.

But Balkan Boy here seems to know little of his own country's history. Not that that surprises me any.

Oh, so Norway is in the balkans now? Idiot.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 03, 2016, 09:05:55 PM
FLATEARTH is from Croatia, Asshole.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on May 05, 2016, 02:07:31 AM
Quote
Point 1. Emotionalism and 16 year old sentimentalism. Can be disregarded.
Could it be that you just feel that human beings are somehow special and that only they should have rights while in fact every sentient animal feels the same way about their own species?
Quote
Point 2. ask aany doctor, who will tell you the pain is less on an infant and they heal much faster than an adult would.
And, if I told you that the newest scientific discoveries show exactly the opposite, would you claim they are also a part of the conspiracy?
http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html (http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html)
Quote
Point 3. Ask the Bosnian women who were inmates of said camps during the Balkan Wars, set up both by Serbia AND Croatia, Asshole.
Croatia wasn't even involved in the Balkan Wars, it didn't even exist then. And how exactly does a century old war justify animal sacrifices?
Quote
Point 4. Your opinion has no value. I never said everyone should start drinking. I said there were slight health benefits if one already did.
Then everyone who says that alcohol at any dose causes irreversible brain and liver damage would be a part of the conspiracy.
Quote
Point 5. First off, the word "reincarnated' is NOT the appropriate word, but OK. 2nd, pure emotionalism and 16 year old teenaged pimply angst. May be disregarded.
No, you are using pure emotionalism. You feel that only human beings should have rights when in fact any sentient animal feels the same way about their own species.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 05, 2016, 02:11:52 AM
Norway

Thanks for that, Zalian!

I now have a useful Persia - Norway connection.

Tying up the loose ends for me nicely.

Would get you shot IRL...

But this is only teh interwebz so meh.

Toodle-pip, Loser!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 05, 2016, 09:41:57 AM
Since when did the Balkan Wars of the early 1990's take place a century ago, asshole? More like 25 years ago. And it is a proven fact that an infant heals from circumcision faster than a 13 year old. Ask any Jewish mother and any Muslim mother that lives next door, asshole. The Jew does it at eight days. The Muslim does it at 13 years. Just talk to their mothers, Shit for Brains.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on May 05, 2016, 12:49:30 PM
Quote
Since when did the Balkan Wars of the early 1990's take place a century ago, asshole? More like 25 years ago.
No, Balkan Wars were between 1912 and 1913. And you are not a history and philosophy professor, you are a troll. But, OK, you are a bit better at trolling than I was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Wars
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 05, 2016, 01:41:24 PM
I am not referring to THOSE Balkan Wars, Buttfuck. I am referring to the ones that accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991. You ARE stupid. We call these the Balkan Wars as well. Apparently some countries call them the Yugoslav Wars. Look them up under that designation. Nice parsing though. Trying to hide your nation's savagery by a name.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 05, 2016, 01:52:55 PM
Notice Asshole's quote. "...you are a bit better at trolling than I was." First the accusation. But then the admission. That he was trolling. Dude. You just made yourself look like a total buttfuck.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on May 06, 2016, 10:20:34 AM
No, you are a troll who has just fallen into a trap. If you were a history professor, as you claimed to be, you would have known the names of the wars you were trying to discuss about. You didn't show your knowledge even when you were reminded of the Balkan Wars by me mentioning that they were a century ago. Only when I showed you a Wikipedia link you made a silly ad-hoc explanation for your ignorance. If you type "Balkan Wars" into Yahoo, you get the results for the 1912-1913 wars, not for the Yugoslav Wars. And, no, I will not discuss them. I have no interest in learning history, nothing I say is going to change your mind and nothing you say is going to make me hate my entire nation. Perhaps you are not even a Jew as you claim to be. When I think about it, it seems pretty obvious. If you were a Jew who cared about Judaism, you wouldn't propagate the animal sacrifices.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 06, 2016, 12:16:50 PM
Of course you won't discuss the Yugoslav Wars. Such a discussion would force you to admit that your parents and their generation engaged in, or at the very least, tolerated, extreme savagery on a level unmatched even by the  Nazi Waffen SS. Good job, Ustashe Boy. As for the fire offerings of Israel being supported by Jews, read the prayer book of any Orthodox Jew, Asshole. Artscroll, Birnbaum, Singer, to name just three. Dumbfuck.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on May 06, 2016, 12:47:33 PM
Quote
Such a discussion would force you to admit that your parents and their generation engaged in, or at the very least, tolerated, extreme savagery on a level unmatched even by the  Nazi Waffen SS.
No, I am pretty sure that, if it did happen, they were, and still are, ignorant of it. And how could YOU know? You have just shown that you have no bright idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: AstronomyMaster on May 06, 2016, 01:24:51 PM
Kind of weird that you, FlatEarthDenial, believe both in libertarianism and in what you have been told in school about the history, which is probably heavily controled by the government.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 06, 2016, 02:08:37 PM
Norway

Thanks for that, Zalian!

I now have a useful Persia - Norway connection.

Tying up the loose ends for me nicely.

Would get you shot IRL...

But this is only teh interwebz so meh.

Toodle-pip, Loser!

Ah yes, the "Persia-Norway connection".

You got me there. ;D
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 06, 2016, 02:30:06 PM
Yeah. As ignorant as ordinary Germans were of the Holocaust. You are a fucking idiot.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 06, 2016, 02:31:21 PM
Yeah. As ignorant as ordinary Germans were of the Holocaust. You are a fucking idiot.

What are you on about now, Papa? Please, enlighten me.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on May 06, 2016, 09:24:16 PM
That troll claims that there is a giant conspiracy, involving even my parents, hiding the fact that there was a holocaust in Croatia in 1990's. I don't know whether we should feed him. I won't.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 06, 2016, 09:30:11 PM
That troll claims that there is a giant conspiracy, involving even my parents, hiding the fact that there was a holocaust in Croatia in 1990's. I don't know whether we should feed him. I won't.

Lol. Strange then that all of us over here in europe knows perfectly well that the shit hit the fan in the nineties. Seems like "the conspiracy" did a shitty job of covering it up.  ;)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 06, 2016, 11:05:26 PM
Ah yes, the "Persia-Norway connection".

You got me there.

Yes, I did.

 ;D
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 06, 2016, 11:14:39 PM
Ah yes, the "Persia-Norway connection".

You got me there.

Yes, I did.

 ;D

Yes, you certainly did.  :o
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 07, 2016, 05:38:35 AM
Wow, SYMPTOM. You and I could actually become friends. That's the second thing you have said with which I agree.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on May 07, 2016, 11:17:11 AM
Wow, SYMPTOM. You and I could actually become friends. That's the second thing you have said with which I agree.

Ha! if I hadn't persuaded him to punch kittens he would still bomb Israel!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 07, 2016, 06:00:03 PM
Wow, SYMPTOM. You and I could actually become friends. That's the second thing you have said with which I agree.

Sure. We can become friends. But first I'd like you and/or Papa to tell me more about this "Persia-Norway connection". I'm just dying to know.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 07, 2016, 06:01:36 PM
Wow, SYMPTOM. You and I could actually become friends. That's the second thing you have said with which I agree.

Ha! if I hadn't persuaded him to punch kittens he would still bomb Israel!

Lulz.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 08, 2016, 06:32:43 AM
That troll claims that there is a giant conspiracy, involving even my parents, hiding the fact that there was a holocaust in Croatia in 1990's. I don't know whether we should feed him. I won't.

Lol. Strange then that all of us over here in europe knows perfectly well that the shit hit the fan in the nineties. Seems like "the conspiracy" did a shitty job of covering it up.  ;)

Yes, isn't that odd how all of fucking NATO, including the USA and Canada, sent troops to stop the outright murder and mayhem that was going on because of those sick bastards. But according to Balkan Boy, no, this is all part of the conspiracy. Fucking Retard. Looked up the Yugoslav Wars yet? Better yet, asked your parents what THEY were doing in1991? Come on Balkan Boy.Time to learn the truth about shit.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on May 08, 2016, 12:55:01 PM
A funny thing is that you don't know if he is serious or not. The above post could be.
Quote
Yes, isn't that odd how all of fucking NATO, including the USA and Canada, sent troops to stop the outright murder and mayhem that was going on because of those sick bastards. But according to Balkan Boy, no, this is all part of the conspiracy.
When did I say that? I used to be a FE-er, but I don't believe in conspiracy theories any more. I find them rather stupid, childish and even insulting to the human race.
Quote
Looked up the Yugoslav Wars yet?
Found only something about the Bosnian women being raped by the Serbs.
Quote
Better yet, asked your parents what THEY were doing in1991?
Believe it or not, I have. They told me they were both in Osijek studying at university back then. And they, as I expected, know nothing about the supposed concentration camps or the supposed rape camps. Where do you think those camps were? And if you are going to claim that my parents are a part of the conspiracy, well, fuck you!
Quote
Come on Balkan Boy.Time to learn the truth about shit.
Stop pretending that you know anything useful to me.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 08, 2016, 01:06:02 PM
Quote
Such a discussion would force you to admit that your parents and their generation engaged in, or at the very least, tolerated, extreme savagery on a level unmatched even by the  Nazi Waffen SS.
No, I am pretty sure that, if it did happen, they were, and still are, ignorant of it. And how could YOU know? You have just shown that you have no bright idea what you are talking about.

Unless you're old, your parents were probably still in grade school during the war they are giving you so much shit about!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 08, 2016, 04:33:34 PM
The Wars were 25 years ago. Balkan Boy claims to be 16. Which would make his parents about 43 right now. So they would have been about 18. But with ALL of Yugoslavia exploding in all out warfare, particularly of the urban variety, which tends to be the worst kind, I find it rather hard to believe that college courses continued placidly uninterrupted. What are they NOT telling you?

Did they participate in the horiffic events that they SAY were only engaged in by the Serbs (but were in fact engaged in by both Serbs AND Croats)? I don't know. But did they probably have some ideas that shit was happening that ought not to have been? Probably. Very few Germans were involved in the Holocaust. But most knew it was happening.

There is some moral complicity there. How much is up to G-d to decide. Certainly your father is less guilty than a man who actually raped and impregnated a Bosnian woman, and I don't accuse him of that since I was not there. But I have a hard time believing he did not know about it when I did. And I am his same age now and was then! And I live in America, which helped put an end to the mess by engaging in bombing runs over the former Yugoslavia. So don't tell me that I could know something was going on when I was an 18 year old in California that he DIDN'T know being the same age in Croatia. Maybe neither he nor your mother wish to discuss the matter, as it is painful to admit the horrors of a nation's past. Some Germans still struggle with their nation's past, as do some Japanese. The Rwandans don't like to talk much about 1994, for that matter.

And culturally, I may be an English Jew, but by virtue of being Ashkenazi, many of us, including me, ultimately find our ancestry going back to Mediaeval Germany, and from THERE to the Levant (the region where Israel is). But after leaving the Levant, many of us made our homes in Germany for as long as 1000 years. The Holocaust was unbelievable to us, as much as Bosnian rape camps are to you.

So relax.Everyone's homeland fucks with their head at some point.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:38:31 AM
Yaakov, please tone it down a few notches.  I will have to start warning or banning if this keeps up. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 07:42:28 AM
Let me ask you a question, JROA. Tone down what? The truth? This, coming from a man who claims that Israel is as bad as the Nazi State. The Nazis committed genocide. Out of 9,000,000 Jews in Europe before 1935, they killed 6,000,000. You have openly accused Israel of genocide, even though the "Palestinian" population has MULTIPLIED by FOUR times since 1967. So, if you can outright LIE about Israel and not be removed from your position as Moderator and/or be banned from the site, why can't I tell the truth about Croatia?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 07:52:44 AM
Let me ask you a question, JROA. Tone down what? The truth? This, coming from a man who claims that Israel is as bad as the Nazi State. The Nazis committed genocide. Out of 9,000,000 Jews in Europe before 1935, they killed 6,000,000. You have openly accused Israel of genocide, even though the "Palestinian" population has MULTIPLIED by FOUR times since 1967. So, if you can outright LIE about Israel and not be removed from your position as Moderator and/or be banned from the site, why can't I tell the truth about Croatia?

I thought we were past that.  If you want to reopen that can of worms, then I am ready, but I do not want for you to run around the fora calling me an antisemite. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 08:12:06 AM
We are past it. But it is still a point that deserves consideration. And the fact remains that if I say that I like French people but think France should not exist, then I am rightfully called anti-French or just plain psychotic. And if I say that a nation has committed genocide when the group against whom it has supposedly committed genocide has actually INCREASED in population, then that implies that I am either stupid, or simply high. And I won't call you an anti-Semite if you don't act like an anti-Semite. And part of NOT being an an anti-Semite is to not hate Israel, just like part of NOT hating the French is NOT to hate France.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 08:34:53 AM
I am sorry, but did France displace?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 08:38:24 AM
Alright. Then how about China and dominating Tibet? Or Britain and Ireland? Or Indonesia and E. Timor? All MUCH more brutal than Israel's occupation. And only Israel has been so harshly criticised.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 08:45:17 AM
Even though China is our biggest trade partner, I DEMAND BDS!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 09:28:20 AM
Even assuming one does NOT bring in religious claims, just backing basic claims , Arabs have only lived in the land since the 600's. Beyond this, the Arabs left because the leaders of Arab countries told them to.

Very few Arabs have been displaced. Admittedly, some were. But Han China has done the same in Tibet, and to a greater degree than Israeli Jews ever have done. Tibetans are now divided into three areas, two of which are majority Han, Chinese Provinces, the third of which is The Tibetan Autonomous Region, into which Han continue to move at a large rate.

Tibetan culture is very moderated by the Chinese Govt. In Beijing. Although a revival of it has taken place in recent years, said revival is strictly controlled by the State. Anything that might register as greater freedom for Tibet is quickly stopped and strictly punished.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 10:51:38 AM
Are you comparing Israel to China?  From whom did China steal their country? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 11:13:21 AM
Well, if you could read, the Tibetans make that claim. And the Irish, at least the Catholics in Northern Ireland, claim that of the British. And like I said, very few Arabs were forced out. Most left voluntarily when the leaders of Arab nations told them to. Then those Arab nations would destroy Israel. Problem is, the Jews defeated the Arabs. The Arabs who did NOT leave are currently citizens of Israel, and have all the same rights and duties as Jews. Can any Jew say that in ANY Arab country? No. In fact, in many, they are forbidden to live at all. Only inMorocco can a Jew live as a full citizen, and since Morocco is an Arab Kingdom, he STILL doesn't have the same rights that an Arab has in Israel.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 11:20:18 AM
Well, if you could read, the Tibetans make that claim. And the Irish, at least the Catholics in Northern Ireland, claim that of the British. And like I said, very few Arabs were forced out. Most left voluntarily when the leaders of Arab nations told them to. Then those Arab nations would destroy Israel. Problem is, the Jews defeated the Arabs. The Arabs who did NOT leave are currently citizens of Israel, and have all the same rights and duties as Jews. Can any Jew say that in ANY Arab country? No. In fact, in many, they are forbidden to live at all. Only inMorocco can a Jew live as a full citizen, and since Morocco is an Arab Kingdom, he STILL doesn't have the same rights that an Arab has in Israel.

When did the Tibetans move out of Tibet and then come back thousands of years later claiming that the land was theirs all along?  ???
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 11:28:11 AM
And don't lecture me about Tibet. I have met the Dalai Lama's sister. I have spoken to her personally. I know the actual claims Tibetans make, from as close to the horse's mouth as you can get, pretty much. Not only did she tell me about it, and address me personally one on one, she personally gave me a small book she herself had written.

When Jews moved into Israel in the 1800s, the region was controlled by the Turks. Most of the land was owned by absentee Turkish landlords who charged the native felaheen rent.

The Jews bought the land from the Turkish owners often at 3 to 4 times the market value. They were certain to do it in a way that did NOT prejudice the current living situation of the fellaheen. This was part of the requirements that most Jews agreed to going into it.

And Jews never gave up their claim to Israel. Just because YOU are a fucking idiot that doesn't recognise Jewish claims to the land that go back 3800 years doesn't mean we are all that retarded.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 11:33:06 AM
When did the Tibetans move out of Tibet and then come back thousands of years later claiming that the land was theirs all along?  ???

It doesn't matter who did what when where to whom...

Fact is the Jews now own Israel & if you don't like it then come get some.

Good luck with that!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 11:34:57 AM
And don't lecture me about Tibet. I have met the Dalai Lama's sister. I have spoken to her personally. I know the actual claims Tibetans make, from as close to the horse's mouth as you can get, pretty much. Not only did she tell me about it, and address me personally one on one, she personally gave me a small book she herself had written.

When Jews moved into Israel in the 1800s, the region was controlled by the Turks. Most of the land was owned by absentee Turkish landlords who charged the native felaheen rent.

The Jews bought the land from the Turkish owners often at 3 to 4 times the market value. They were certain to do it in a way that did NOT prejudice the current living situation of the fellaheen. This was part of the requirements that most Jews agreed to going into it.

And Jews never gave up their claim to Israel. Just because YOU are a fucking idiot that doesn't recognise Jewish claims to the land that go back 3800 years doesn't mean we are all that retarded.

I am not concerned with how close you like to put you mouth to a horse, nor am I lecturing about Tibet.  I did not even bring up Tibet.  I simply asked when it was that they claimed ownership over their land after leaving for thousands of years, as you seem to enjoy comparing Tibet to Israel. 

And, to be fair, the Jews owned 10% of the land that they laid stake to.  Please don't make out that they bought the entire country. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 11:36:06 AM
When did the Tibetans move out of Tibet and then come back thousands of years later claiming that the land was theirs all along?  ???

It doesn't matter who did what when where to whom...

Fact is the Jews now own Israel & if you don't like it then come get some.

Good luck with that!

It does not matter... unless it happens to Hebrews.  That is what you are saying, right? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 11:39:42 AM
The Arabs living there, the so-called "Palestinians", have NEVER been a nationality. First, when Arabs ENTERED the area in the 600's, they were ruled by various Empires. Then by the Turks and finally by the British. Then by Jordan and Egypt for the W. Bank and the Gaza Strip respectively. Each of whom treated the so-called "Palestinians" worse than Israel ever did.

And Israel was offered, several times by the UN, various portions of Transjordan. They ALWAYS said yes, the Arabs ALWAYS refused. Finally, Israel said yes one last time on the smallest portion yet. The Arabs again said no, and the Israelis declared independence on that territory.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 11:44:08 AM
Just to let you know, the Muslims in the region of Arabia that we are discussing never agreed to allow the Jews to form a state.  Israel was forced onto them.  It is hard to say that there was a negotiation when one side keeps saying no, but the other side takes what they want anyway. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 11:50:41 AM
It does not matter... unless it happens to Hebrews.  That is what you are saying, right?

No; I'm saying that the Jews own Israel & if you don't like that FACT then bring it on...

Cos whining about it changes nothing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 11:51:19 AM
And of course you did not bring up Tibet. It would force you to hate the Chinese the way you hate Jews. And that is not fashionable.

People are moved around a lot. Muslims from India into Pakistan. Hindus and Sikhs in the reverse direction. Germans from the then Czechoslovakia to Germany. The fact that the Arabs CHOSE to leave the region by order of other Arabs is their problem. Current Arabs in Israel have gone on record in opinion polls as consistently saying they would rather live in Israel than any potential "Palestinian" state. Nobody AGREES to move. It usually is forced.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 12:03:16 PM
And anyone who considers the Levant part of Arabia is a   'tard.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:07:12 PM
It does not matter... unless it happens to Hebrews.  That is what you are saying, right?

No; I'm saying that the Jews own Israel & if you don't like that FACT then bring it on...

Cos whining about it changes nothing.

I did not claim that I was going to take over the Arab state; nor did I make any kind of claim to it.  I was simply trying to clarify your statement.  If the Arabs took their land back tomorrow and occupied and owned the Israeli regions, would you say the same things? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:08:27 PM
And of course you did not bring up Tibet. It would force you to hate the Chinese the way you hate Jews. And that is not fashionable.

People are moved around a lot. Muslims from India into Pakistan. Hindus and Sikhs in the reverse direction. Germans from the then Czechoslovakia to Germany. The fact that the Arabs CHOSE to leave the region by order of other Arabs is their problem. Current Arabs in Israel have gone on record in opinion polls as consistently saying they would rather live in Israel than any potential "Palestinian" state. Nobody AGREES to move. It usually is forced.

Why would I hate the Chinese if the Tibetans left their country and came back thousands of years later trying to claim it back?  This makes no sense. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:09:10 PM
And anyone who considers the Levant part of Arabia is a   'tard.

Do I need to cite demographic sources again? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 12:15:19 PM
And let me specify that by "Chinese" I should have said Han.

I could cite sources that indicate that the Levant is not part of Arabia. You are the only person I know of who claims that it is.

And I have already demonstrated that Arabs never ruled the Land of Israel except as parts of empires. In fact, even the Quran notes that Israel is the land of the Children of Israel.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:18:39 PM
So, then, all of the Arabian peninsula is part of Arabia except for a tiny little portion that you claim is part of a made up place?  That really makes a lot of sense.  ::)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 12:23:05 PM
Its not my fault you have never heard the word "Levant" before. Nor is my fault that you are the only dumbfuck who calls a Jew an Arab. Nor is it my fault that you never paid attention when reading the Quran. In general, the fact that you hate Jews is not my fault.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 12:23:45 PM
If the Arabs took their land back tomorrow and occupied and owned the Israeli regions, would you say the same things?

Yes.

You gonna stop whining about imaginary shit now?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on May 09, 2016, 12:25:01 PM
Why would I hate the Chinese

Chinese are devils. They are much worse than Penguins. They will getcha!!!  Now they own Malaysia, but tomorrow they will own America.

And you talk about a tiny state like Israel...ridiculous...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 12:27:33 PM
Like I said, the horrific brutality that the Han have heaped on the Tibetan population since 1959 has been FAR harsher than what Israel has done to the Arabs. The IDF uses leaflet drops, phone calls, and roof knocking to reduce casualties. Name me another army that does that.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:28:57 PM
Its not my fault you have never heard the word "Levant" before. Nor is my fault that you are the only dumbfuck who calls a Jew an Arab. Nor is it my fault that you never paid attention when reading the Quran. In general, the fact that you hate Jews is not my fault.

It is not my fault that some Jews like to make up a word to describe a tiny little portion of a peninsula so that they can claim that they are not Arabs, even though all credible demographic sources consider that tiny piece of land to be part of the peninsula that it is located on. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 12:30:49 PM
Actually, the word "Levant" is a European term, Shit for Brains.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:39:18 PM
If the Arabs took their land back tomorrow and occupied and owned the Israeli regions, would you say the same things?

Yes.

You gonna stop whining about imaginary shit now?

Imaginary, like state borders? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:41:15 PM
Like I said, the horrific brutality that the Han have heaped on the Tibetan population since 1959 has been FAR harsher than what Israel has done to the Arabs. The IDF uses leaflet drops, phone calls, and roof knocking to reduce casualties. Name me another army that does that.

Wow, the whole rest of the world thinks that those are actual bullets and rockets that they shoot at the Palestinians.  This is breaking news.  ::)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 12:44:04 PM
Well I have to catch a bus. I shall make you look dumb another time. Of course they kill Arabs in self defence. If Arabs dropped their guns, there would be peace. If Jews dropped their guns, there would be no more Israel.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:49:22 PM
Actually, the word "Levant" is a European term, Shit for Brains.

What difference does it make where the term comes from?  If the land is on a peninsula, then the land is part of that peninsula. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 12:52:45 PM
Well I have to catch a bus. I shall make you look dumb another time. Of course they kill Arabs in self defence. If Arabs dropped their guns, there would be peace. If Jews dropped their guns, there would be no more Israel.

This sounds like speculation and conjecture.  Is there anything else that you want to make up off the top of your head today? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 01:11:34 PM
Imaginary, like state borders?

Thank you for your whining about imaginary shit.

However:

It does not matter... unless it happens to Hebrews.  That is what you are saying, right?

No; I'm saying that the Jews own Israel & if you don't like that FACT then bring it on...

Cos whining about it changes nothing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 01:18:11 PM
Imaginary, like state borders?

Thank you for your whining about imaginary shit.

However:

It does not matter... unless it happens to Hebrews.  That is what you are saying, right?

No; I'm saying that the Jews own Israel & if you don't like that FACT then bring it on...

Cos whining about it changes nothing.

Repeating a fallacy over and over does not all of the sudden make it not a fallacy. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 01:28:09 PM
Repeating a fallacy over and over does not all of the sudden make it not a fallacy. 

LOL!!!

Please give me an overall strategy for removing all the Jews from Israel, a place that they OWN btw...

Then give me the tactics you would use to implement this overall strategy.

If you can think of even ONE concept that Mossad, the IDF & the Jewish business diaspora doesn't have completely covered I will give you a special Gold Star for being a Special Gold person...

Or you could just grow the fuck up & join Reality?

Cos the Jews are in Israel to stay.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 01:38:55 PM
Repeating a fallacy over and over does not all of the sudden make it not a fallacy. 

LOL!!!

Please give me an overall strategy for removing all the Jews from Israel, a place that they OWN btw...

Then give me the tactics you would use to implement this overall strategy.

If you can think of even ONE concept that Mossad, the IDF & the Jewish business diaspora doesn't have completely covered I will give you a special Gold Star for being a Special Gold person...

Or you could just grow the fuck up & join Reality?

Cos the Jews are in Israel to stay.

When did I make any kind of statement that even implied that I did not think that Jews should live in the Arabian land known as Israel?  Why would I come up with a strategy to get them out  of the Arabian land that they live in if I don't think they should leave?  The legitimacy of a state has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.  Jews live in pretty much every country of the world.  I never said I was against Judaism.  Why do you make up the conversation in your head instead of just reading what people actually write? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 01:42:57 PM
Thank you for proving you have no idea wtf you are talking about & are NOT an ex-marine.

Do carry on whining about imaginary shit, though; it is SO entertaining!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 01:48:44 PM
Thank you for proving you have no idea wtf you are talking about & are NOT an ex-marine.

Do carry on whining about imaginary shit, though; it is SO entertaining!

Is this your way of admitting that you made a mistake?  If so, I accept your apology for your erroneous claims.  Get back into character now, before people notice. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 01:55:52 PM
You seem very upset that Israel is a Jewish nation & that no amount of whining will change that FACT.

I have asked you for PRACTICAL suggestions to alter this FACT, but again, you have none.

Which would seem strange for an alleged ex-military type; but as we all know you are a fraud then meh...

Anyhoo; bottom line: Israel belongs to the Jews; if you don't like this FACT then bring it on!

And Good Fucking Luck with THAT!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 02:03:29 PM
Israel has been a Jewish state since a little before 1950.  Before then, Jews, Muslims, and Christians all lived in the same land in relative peace.  I have no reason to not want Jewish people in that part of Arabia.  As I stated earlier, Jewish people have lived and do live in pretty much every country in the world, including the counties of the Arabian peninsula.  You are the one who can not differentiate religion and politics. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 02:09:08 PM
I can differentiate OWNERSHIP from whining though...

And guess what?

The Jews OWN Israel.

ALL of it, from top to bottom.

If you want that to change then suggest ways to make it happen...

If not, then please stop whining about imaginary bullshit.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 02:14:30 PM
Not really.  The Jews run the Jewish parts of Israel.  The Palestinians run their part.  I am not saying there are no Jews in the Palestinian's portions or no Palestinians in the Jewish portions.  However, they have their own leadership and are, for the most part, segregated by their own choice.  The thing that is up for debate is where the boundaries are. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 03:06:00 PM
The thing that is up for debate is where the boundaries are.

Said no soldier, ever.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:08:36 PM
The thing that is up for debate is where the boundaries are.

Said no soldier, ever.

Good thing I was not a soldier.  I was a Marine. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 03:12:42 PM
So was markjo, allegedly...

Don't ask, don't tell, eh?

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:15:25 PM
So was markjo, allegedly...

Don't ask, don't tell, eh?



That was Clinton's army.  You seem to know a lot about it. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 03:16:00 PM
P.s. stop sending me warnings about low-content posts when you refuse to ban ridiculously obvious sock-puppet shills like sokarul who does nothing but, eh?

Semper Fi & all that, 'marine'...
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:18:48 PM
What makes you suppose that I did not send sokarul a warning as well? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 09, 2016, 03:24:12 PM
LOL!!!

What fun & games we play...

Now; does 'Semper Fi' have the same meaning to you as it does to markjo?

What are you both 'Always Faithful' to, precisely?

Hmm?

Different Masters, am I to believe?

Hmm?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:38:34 PM
LOL!!!

What fun & games we play...

Now; does 'Semper Fi' have the same meaning to you as it does to markjo?

What are you both 'Always Faithful' to, precisely?

Hmm?

Different Masters, am I to believe?

Hmm?

It means faithful to God, Corps, and Country, in that order.  I suppose you were trying to hook me into saying something, but I don't see where this is going.  Perhaps you could start quoting yourself repeatedly, just for old times' sake? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 09:16:19 PM
What fun! The anti-Semite carries on. The Jews have a historical claim to the Levant and always have. And yet you would tell me they don't belong there, that they pushed Arabs out, when in fact, MOST of those Arabs left because other Arabs told them to.

Meanwhile, you do NOT hate the Han. They have divided Tibet into three parts. Two of those are deliberately designed to be Han majority standard Chinese Provinces, where Tibetans receive no special considerations for their nationality. The one where they do, the Tibetan Autonomous Region, is less populated than the other two, and has been opened for settlement by Han. Under current laws, Tibetans will very soon be rendered a minority, not only in the two Provinces, but even in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. UNLIKE the Jews and Israel, the Han do not even have a HISTORIC claim to Tibet, nor do they claim to. And yet I do not see you pushing for BDS against China, and other punitive actions against the People's Republic. After all, that would require you to admit that you were anti-Han. And that is not PC. But hating Jews is ALWAYS PC. Pretty much anywhere in the world that is in fashion.

So I ask you again: who has more right to land: people with an acknowledged historic claim, or people with NONE, who themselves don't even make such a claim?

And you are the only dipshit that calls Jews Arabs. Or the Levant part of Arabia. Even Wikipedia isn't THAT stupid. And they are pretty stupid.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 09:26:51 PM
When did I say they don't belong there?  Last time I checked, I specifically told Papa Legba that I would not move any of them.  I also said that there are Jews in virtually every country in the world, even all across the Arabian peninsula and Middle East.  How do you interpret that as being antisemitic?  Also, you keep bringing up Tibet and comparing it to Israel, yet you will not tell me when the Tibetans left Tibet for thousands of years and then claimed the land back for themselves, even though other people were already living there. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 09:44:22 PM
Actually, there are virtually NO Jews living in the Arabian Peninsula outside the Levant, even if we are retarded like you and call the Levant part of Arabia. The Gulf States do not even permit Jews to visit, let alone live. As far as the broader ME, Egypt has about 500 Jews. There are none in any Arab countries except a few in Lebanon, numbered in the hundreds. And Morocco has 5000. It is the only country where a Jew can be a citizen. Iran, which is NOT Arab, has 25000, a sixth of pre-1979 Iran. They are not afforded the same rights as the Muslim majority.

In fact, because the Jews DO have a historic claim to Israel, you should be angrier at the Han for entering Tibet, which has NEVER been theirs, than at the Jews, for entering Israel, which has.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 10:13:09 PM
Oh. Took the time to look up fluoride and the Nazis. Jesse Ventura, former wrestler and Governor of Minnesota was the first to make the claim. Its also bullshit according to PolitaFact, which is an organisation that checks the "facts" that politicians state.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 10:20:05 PM
In fact, fluoride was first used in the USA. Medical professionals had observed with some curiosity that persons from a certain region of Texas had a slight yellowing of the teeth that others called "Texas Teeth". However, they also observed that these same persons had far fewer problems with their teeth. It was determined that the yellowing agent was the cause, and that if that agent were placed in water in reduced quantity, the same results could be obtained. It was determined that toothpaste had to have it also. The agent was determined to be fluoride.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 09, 2016, 10:26:11 PM
Well, I must and to bed. I shall continue to make you look stupid upon my return. Please. Keep it up. I find it, well, amusing.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 10:28:39 PM
Wrong thread, Yaakov.  We were discussing fluoride in the Vegan thread, not the Atheism thread. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on May 10, 2016, 02:08:54 AM
This land is myne, yadda yadda.
Give Palestine to their REAL owners, the Canaanites!
Praised be Ahura Mazda!

Even if you didn't recognize the Zoroastrian claim, you must then admit that the legal heir of the British administration would be the Palestinian goverment (the legal one, not Hamas), which didnt intended to make a muslim-only country.

Even if you didn't recognize the Palestinian claim, you must then admit that the legal borders of Palestine and Israel as defined in the UN act that created Israel are not respected by Israel, that considers ALL Palestine its own territory.

Even if you didn't recognize the legal borders of Palestine, that doesn't justify the ghettofication of the country, and the colonization.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2016, 04:05:48 AM
We have been over that. Occupation is NEVER easy, neither for Occupied nor Occupier. But in the Territories, they can and often DO take complaints to the Supreme Court of Israel, where they often win. Tell me in what occupied land that is allowed to occur OTHER than the so-called "Palestine"? Try it in Tibet, and see how quickly you get shot. What "Palestinian" Govt? Jordan, which controlled the West Bank until 1967? Egypt, which controlled the Gaza Strip until 1967? The "Palestinians" have never had their own govt. And why isn't anyone demanding BDS against Egypt for maintaining the same harsh blockade on the Gaza Strip that Israel does? Well, that would not be PC now would it?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2016, 04:14:30 AM
There has been no ghetttoising. The Arabs that CHOSE to leave did that to themselves. The Arabs that stayed make up 20% of Israel's population and are firmly entrenched in her civil, military, and national life. As citizens of the State, they have REPEATEDLY demonstrated in opinion polls that they wish to continue as citizens of Israel rather than joining any possible "Palestinian" state, or moving to another Arab state.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2016, 04:19:59 AM
So , have you all finished making asses of yourselves? But please. If you enjoy this, do go on. Its rather entertaining to see people make themselves look stupid.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2016, 04:58:28 AM
I DEMAND BDS against Egypt for its "illegal" blockade of the poor suffering "Palestinian" people, even though those people like to blow shit up.

I DEMAND BDS against China for its ACTUALLLY illegal occupation of Tibet. And they DON'T like to bow shit up! If anybody deserves to have their case looked at its them. And yet nobody criticises the Han or the People's Republic one bit.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2016, 09:09:28 AM
And it is hardly conjecture to state that if the Arabs in the Territories put down their guns there would be peace. If the Jews did, there would be no more Israel. Hamas was ELECTED to be the govt of the Gaza Strip. Their charter states clearly that they swear to destroy the State of Israel and kill EVERY Jew in the world. No Jew has ever taken an oath of that nature re: Arabs generally, or "Palestinians" particularly, let alone elected a govt with that as their primary purposes for existing.

I'm sorry. I don't want to die today. So I won't trust an Arab of any sort unless he gives me good reason to. And no, I am not a retard like you. Like most of the non-retard world, I realise that Jews are not Arabs, and Arabs are not Jews. But you are an anti-Semite. So I expect horseshit out of your mouth. You are not disappointing me there.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 10, 2016, 12:37:14 PM
It means faithful to God, Corps, and Country, in that order.

I hear differently.

Especially about the former, what with you being an atheist & all.

As for Israel, it is both owned & occupied by the Jews.

And it will remain that way until someone tougher & smarter comes along & takes it off them.

I do not anticipate this occurring any time soon.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on May 11, 2016, 07:00:13 AM
The JIDF is real, Yaakov is proof of it.

We have been over that. Occupation is NEVER easy, neither for Occupied nor Occupier. But in the Territories, they can and often DO take complaints to the Supreme Court of Israel, where they often win. Tell me in what occupied land that is allowed to occur OTHER than the so-called "Palestine"?
Oh, thank you overlords! We can sue the military for taking the land from us, which makes it ok to support this action!
And putting things in double quotes doesnt make them less real, "Yaakov".

Quote
Try it in Tibet, and see how quickly you get shot.
Im opposed to the Tibetan occupation, and, just like with Palestine, while I dislike the Tibetan theocracy, I must admit they would be the lawful goverment.

Quote
What "Palestinian" Govt? Jordan, which controlled the West Bank until 1967? Egypt, which controlled the Gaza Strip until 1967? The "Palestinians" have never had their own govt. And why isn't anyone demanding BDS against Egypt for maintaining the same harsh blockade on the Gaza Strip that Israel does? Well, that would not be PC now would it?
As with any country in ruin and civil war, many different organizations have claimed sovereignty of Palestine, or regions. In this case, the situation would be similar to "Berlin". Neither official administrations can be considered lawfully sovereign (although in Berlin this was a war spoils splitting that was likelly justified, but the "goverments" themselves could be only temporary and non-sovereign). The Palestinian question is a very complicated issue, which would require peace between many factions, and" international" help (which, seeing that "Israel" claims its ok to shoot to NGO boats because they are going to Gaza, sounds unlikelly).
And, yes, I strongly oppose the "Egyptian" goverment, or more precisely what remains of Egypt at this point, seeing that they are busy butchering each other, while no one moves a finger.

Quote
There has been no ghetttoising. The Arabs that CHOSE to leave did that to themselves. The Arabs that stayed make up 20% of Israel's population and are firmly entrenched in her civil, military, and national life. As citizens of the State, they have REPEATEDLY demonstrated in opinion polls that they wish to continue as citizens of Israel rather than joining any possible "Palestinian" state, or moving to another Arab state.
To leave.... where? Acording to "Israel" they ARE in Israel. Why are they treated diferently?


Quote
I DEMAND BDS against Egypt for its "illegal" blockade of the poor suffering "Palestinian" people
So do I. Glad we agree that the international community must fight human and sovereign rights violations.

Quote
, even though those people like to blow shit up.
For being a member of a "collective" that was being butchered by the millions not so long ago, you sure hold some racist opinions. West Bank is not Gaza, nor is the Gaza population Hamas. That would be like blaming the "jewish" "people" for bombing houses in Palestine.

Quote
I DEMAND BDS against China for its ACTUALLLY illegal occupation of Tibet. And they DON'T like to bow shit up! If anybody deserves to have their case looked at its them. And yet nobody criticises the Han or the People's Republic one bit.
Tibetan terrorism IS actually a thing, dude,its just that the Chinese grip on Tibet is even stronger. The sad thing is that "Israel" pretends to be a real modern democracy, instead of a militaristic semitheocracy. We KNOW China is shit. We don't need to fight any kind of propaganda effort, China doesnt even try to deny it. And, yes, Free Tibet as in Free Software Fundation, I agree! Glad to see you'll help on this kind of sovereign issues. It would be really hypocrite to say that of China, yet ignore "Israelite" occupation. I'm sure you wont do that.

Quote
And it is hardly conjecture to state that if the Arabs in the Territories put down their guns there would be peace. If the Jews did, there would be no more Israel. Hamas was ELECTED to be the govt of the Gaza Strip. Their charter states clearly that they swear to destroy the State of Israel and kill EVERY Jew in the world. No Jew has ever taken an oath of that nature re: Arabs generally, or "Palestinians" particularly, let alone elected a govt with that as their primary purposes for existing.
As I already explained, not only Hamas claims goverment of Palestine. Fatah does as well, just as the PLO and the PNC, which are in my opinion one of the safest bets for a modern inclusive democracy in Palestine. But, of course, in civil war, whoever holds the guns and the Imams wins, and in this field is where Hamas wins. The funny thing is, that, aparently, Hamas is so entrenched in Gaza that it would be stupid to condemn the whole organization, since even antiterrorism pacifists work in Hamas to keep the country working. A woefull mess.


Quote
I'm sorry. I don't want to die today. So I won't trust an Arab of any sort unless he gives me good reason to. And no, I am not a retard like you. Like most of the non-retard world, I realise that Jews are not Arabs, and Arabs are not Jews. But you are an anti-Semite. So I expect horseshit out of your mouth. You are not disappointing me there.
I don't want you to die, but I don't want any palestine to die either. Your racist opinions are of no concern to me (well, actually, they should, since acording to other racists, I'm not Caucassian, but Arabian. I guess that makes me a terrorist. Gora Alka-Eta et al.), nor is your professionally verified psychiatric evaluation of my character from my posts on a forum about the Flat Earth. And, no, I am not an anti-semite. I don't hold any racist views on the judaic people. My opinion on a particular state makes me an antizionist, and my opinions on judaism (the religion) make me an opponent of the religion (a very hurting one, in my opinion, possibly up there with Islam). That doesn't mean I dislike or have any racist opinion of the people that practice it.


Note: the gratuituous usage of double quotes is intentionally inconsistent, as a joke. It is my intention that someone gets butthurt over it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:34:22 AM
When was "Palestine" ever independent? What currency did it use? What form of govt did it have? Show me a coin or bill of an independent state named "Palestine". Name me a leader of an independent "Palestine" before Arafat the Terrorist. Show me a map with an independent nation-state called "Palestine" on it.

Yeah. I thought so. Good luck with that.

Israel is NOT a semi-theocracy, although I think it should be Torah Observant. My personal views aside, freedom of religion is guaranteed in the State. The only thing that is NOT free is secularism. Given that Judaism is NOT currently privileged over either Christianity or Islam according to law would indicate that the State is NOT theocratic.

The official position of the State is that the Territories beyond the Green Line are NOT part of Israel. Jerusalem is all Israeli, and the Golan Heights have been formally annexed. But the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are recognised by the State as being territories outside of Israel currently under occupation.

Suggesting that ANY aspect of Hamas should be recognised when they have sworn the destruction of EVERY single Jew in the world makes you morally complicit with terrorists. Congratulations!

As I have often said, if I said I liked Frenchmen, but hated France, most people would consider me either stupid, insane, or simply a francophobe. You cannot oppose the existence of Israel and not be considered anti-Semitic, stupid, or insane. It is possible to oppose aspects of a nation's decision making of course, but eventually that reaches the point of opposing the nation itself.

Since Israel has a legal blockade of a military nature on Gaza, it would be within its rights to warn once and then sink any ship that attempted to run the blockade. The fact that it does not do this is a kindness that it CHOOSES to extend.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:58:21 AM
And Israel controls all this territory because in 1967 5 Arab Armies surrounded Israel to attack it. Israel attacked first like any smart nation. And then the Arabs started and lost the 1973 war. Who returns land they won fair and square? If you start fights you can't finish you deserve what happens to you.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 09:08:31 AM
Yaakov, you know as well as I do that the Philistines mentioned in the bible are the Palestinians of today.  To say they are not is to say that the Israelites of the bible are not the same Israelis of today. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 09:19:24 AM
In a word, Bullshit.  "Palestinians" are Arabs. Philistines were related to the people of Crete and to the Greeks on the one hand, and to Canaanites on the other hand.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 09:20:55 AM
::)

Phil·is·tine
ˈfiləˌstēn,-ˌstīn/
noun
plural noun: Philistines
a member of a non-Semitic people of ancient southern Palestine, who came into conflict with the Israelites during the 12th and 11th centuries BC.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 09:23:43 AM
The ROMANS invented the word "Palestina" as a name for the land after exiling most but not all Jews from the land . This was done deliberately to dejudaise the territory.

Exactly. As per your definition. "Palestinians" are Semitic. They are Arab.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 09:25:34 AM
The Philistines were non-Semitic. Related to Greeks and Cretans.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 09:27:33 AM
I have lunch with a friend. TTYL.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 09:31:05 AM
Their language may not have been Semitic thousands of years ago, but that does not mean that they do not speak a Semitic language today.  Oh, did I mention that both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 11, 2016, 02:49:37 PM
The JIDF is real, Yaakov is proof of it.

If the JIDF is real then why do you refuse to believe that multi-trillion dollar organisations like NASA & its US military-industrial masters don't have similar organisations bolstering them?

And if Yaakov is proof of the JIDF's existence then YOU are beyond doubt proof of NASA shill's existence.

And how does all this blather affect the FACT that Israel is owned, occupied & in every way that matters BELONGS to Jews?

The Arabs twice tried to change this FACT & twice they failed.

Because the Jews were tougher & smarter then they.

I see no reason to believe this pattern will change during my lifetime.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 04:47:34 PM
The fact that "Palestinians" speak Arabic is one reason they are considered Arab. The fact that other Arabs consider them Arabs is another. The fact that the Philistines ceased to exist as a coherent people is yet another reason why they don't exist today. The fact that no reputable historian tries to say that the modern Arab of the Occupied Territories are related to Philistines is yet another point. The ROMANS invented the word "Palestina", which is the Latinised version of "Philistia", which word had not been used in centuries to describe the territory of Eretz Israel. The fact that you are stupid and don't know this is yet another issue altogether.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 04:49:30 PM
What about the fact that Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 04:54:15 PM
And that is relevant how, dumbass? We know this. Arabs are Semites, Shit for Brains. So are Jews. Abraham was the father of Isaac, the son of the Promise, who was the father of Jacob, who was the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Abraham was ALSO the father of Isaac's half-brother Ishmael, the father of the Twelve Princes of Arabia. The Arabs have a claim on Arabia. They don't on Eretz Israel, Shit for Brains.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 04:58:46 PM
Why do the Arabs have a rightful claim on the entire Arabian peninsula, except for the tiny little portion that some Jews claim is not part of the peninsula, even though it is geographically located on that peninsula? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 05:00:33 PM
You are the only one who is retarded enough to say that the Levant is located in Arabia, Shit for Brains. Even Wikipedia disagrees with you.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 11, 2016, 05:00:52 PM
You're gonna give Yaakov an aneurysm. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 05:02:27 PM
You are the only one who is retarded enough to say that the Levant is located in Arabia, Shit for Brains. Even Wikipedia disagrees with you.

Then, why have I in the past, and will do so again, post wikipedia articles that specifically say that Israel is part of the Arabian Peninsula?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 11, 2016, 05:02:43 PM
You're gonna give Yaakov an aneurysm.

Fear not, Papa is strong. He can take it.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 05:03:50 PM
I already have one of those. Look up the word Levant in Wikipedia, Asshole.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 05:05:32 PM
That is WHY Wikipedia is NOT a valid source. One article says one thing, another says another.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 05:06:53 PM
Why do a few people call that tiny piece of land that is located on the Arabian Peninsula Levant when the rest of the people just call it the Arabian Peninsula? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 05:09:19 PM
That is WHY Wikipedia is NOT a valid source. One article says one thing, another says another.

Then, why did you tell us to look up Levant in wikipedia and then later claim that wikipedia is not a valid source? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 05:11:10 PM
And the reason WHY the progeny of Isaac got a certain area and those of  Ishmael another is not up to me,  Shit for Brains. That's just the way it is.

Ah, Shit for Brains, all of Europe calls it the Levant. So do most Americans. Only retards like you (precious few, thank G-d) call it part of Arabia.

To prove to you that your vaunted source cannot be trusted, Shit for Brains.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 05:19:16 PM
Well, I have SO enjoyed making you look like a total ass. If I were you, I would stop now, since you look like a total fuck-tard. But if you wish, DO continue. After all, it is amusing to me. I shall be back to humiliate you again another time.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 05:20:26 PM
Have you ever looked at a map of the Arabian peninsula, Mr. Levant? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 11, 2016, 05:20:42 PM
And now Papa Legba will take over.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 11, 2016, 05:24:53 PM
And the reason WHY the progeny of Isaac got a certain area and those of  Ishmael another is not up to me,  Shit for Brains. That's just the way it is.

Ah, Shit for Brains, all of Europe calls it the Levant. So do most Americans. Only retards like you (precious few, thank G-d) call it part of Arabia.

To prove to you that your vaunted source cannot be trusted, Shit for Brains.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Hurr. Durr.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 05:29:43 PM
Even the RE'ers make more sense than Yaakov does.  Thanks, Symptom. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 11, 2016, 05:45:28 PM
My pleasure.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:10:43 PM
Like I said. You seem to trust Wikipedia. What does it tell you in the article on the Levant, Shit for Brains?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
And so we have another epic fail for the Shit for Brains. First, the Asshole tries to say Jews are Arabs. This being proven wrong, he tries saying that "Palestinians" are NOT Arabs. Then he tries to say that the Levant is a part of Arabia. This is currently his schtick. Even though he looks like a fuck doing it.

Keep it up, Shit for Brains. And I AM a Round Earther, lest you forget, Asswipe. The fact that you are a Flat Earther and hate Jews is a personal problem. Personally, I think you need counselling and meds.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:23:44 PM
And the Levant is NOT a small region, Shit for Brains. It includes all of Israel, Lebanon, and AT LEAST Syria last I checked.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 08:26:52 PM
Did I ever say that the Palestinians did not speak a Semitic language?  And, what does the shape of the Earth have to do with anything in this thread? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 08:28:17 PM
And the Levant is NOT a small region, Shit for Brains. It includes all of Israel, Lebanon, and AT LEAST Syria last I checked.

Wow, did you make that up on your own, or are you just parroting things that you have heard? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:33:00 PM
You brought up Round Earthers, Cocksucker. What does the topic of Israel have to do with Atheism? But you got us here so fuck you. The Levant includes Israel, Cyprus, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Hatay Province in Turkey. Doesn't sound like anything called Arabia is on the list.

You specificaaly said the "Palestinians" were a non-Semitic people speaking a Semitic language, even though they themselves consider that they are Arabs and are considered by other Arabs to be such.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:37:06 PM
And the fact that you don't know the definition of the word "Levant" just means you are a fuck-tard.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:39:21 PM
It is your responsibility as a shitty student to look up words that are common that you don't know the meaning of due to being an idiot.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Could it be that the tiny little piece of land in the Arabian peninsula makes you the holder of the burden of proof?  Why should I be expected to prove that your people left for thousands of years, but still hold claim to the lands? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2016, 08:47:45 PM
Damn. 2 EPIC FAILS  in one night! Keep it up, CHUMP! well, I am off to bed., Shit for Brains.

Like I said, you are the anti-Semitic asshole that calls the Levant part of Arabia. You will harp on that, even though you were proven wrong a long time ago.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 08:59:18 PM
Oh, I am so sorry.  I did not realize that that tiny little piece of land that happens to lie within the Arabian Peninsula is not part of that Peninsula.  Tell me what to call it again, so I don't accidentally call you an Arab on the Arabian Peninsula? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 11, 2016, 09:16:59 PM
Oh, I am so sorry.  I did not realize that that tiny little piece of land that happens to lie within the Arabian Peninsula is not part of that Peninsula.  Tell me what to call it again, so I don't accidentally call you an Arab on the Arabian Peninsula?

Never-Never Land. You know, where the fairies, elfs, and right wing fundamentalist zionists live.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 09:30:50 PM
I'll be gone with a ban for a while.  I'll pick it up later. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 11, 2016, 09:57:25 PM
Boooo. This place is nothing without the webs worst moderator.  :-[
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 12, 2016, 04:10:53 AM
Except that a lot of them are left wing kibbutzniks. And like I said, somehow, Asshole, everyone in the world seems to have heard of the Levant but you, JROA, and that it includes about six different countries. Buttfuck.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 12, 2016, 04:14:59 AM
Banned? Does it have to do anything with being an anti-Semitic asshole?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on May 12, 2016, 01:21:47 PM
Except that a lot of them are left wing kibbutzniks. And like I said, somehow, Asshole, everyone in the world seems to have heard of the Levant but you, JROA, and that it includes about six different countries. Buttfuck.
Y'now, I was going to write about your answers, but whatever. Pshah.
And, no. At least here, Levante is a region of Spain. Israel is Israel, the land is called Palestine, or the Sinai peninsulae, etc.

Also, the perfectly usable english word "hippie" is valid for the obscure slangish "kibbutznik". Me, I prefer the term "lifestylist", and my experience with commune people (unless its a well organized commune a la french resistance communes) its that they don't hold any real economic idea, so they aren't really leftists. Srry dud
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 01:32:24 PM
Except that a lot of them are left wing kibbutzniks. And like I said, somehow, Asshole, everyone in the world seems to have heard of the Levant but you, JROA, and that it includes about six different countries. Buttfuck.
Y'now, I was going to write about your answers, but whatever. Pshah.
And, no. At least here, Levante is a region of Spain. Israel is Israel, the land is called Palestine, or the Sinai peninsulae, etc.

Also, the perfectly usable english word "hippie" is valid for the obscure slangish "kibbutznik". Me, I prefer the term "lifestylist", and my experience with commune people (unless its a well organized commune a la french resistance communes) its that they don't hold any real economic idea, so they aren't really leftists. Srry dud

Are you drunk?

Banned? Does it have to do anything with being an anti-Semitic asshole?

I hope not.

Because he wasn't that bad.

Just naive, really.

I never reported him, anyway, & I hope you didn't either.

Meh; who knows what goes on behind the scenes at this madhouse?

Know what? Think I'll go ask!

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 12, 2016, 02:26:52 PM
Banned? Does it have to do anything with being an anti-Semitic asshole?

No, it was for cussing people out, just like you do with every post you make.  Tone it down, just like I did. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 12, 2016, 03:21:46 PM
Except that a lot of them are left wing kibbutzniks. And like I said, somehow, Asshole, everyone in the world seems to have heard of the Levant but you, JROA, and that it includes about six different countries. Buttfuck.
Y'now, I was going to write about your answers, but whatever. Pshah.
And, no. At least here, Levante is a region of Spain. Israel is Israel, the land is called Palestine, or the Sinai peninsulae, etc.

That's because Spanish has different usages than English, idiot. But anyone who speaks English knows what I am talking about unless they have their head in their butt.

Quote
Also, the perfectly usable english word "hippie" is valid for the obscure slangish "kibbutznik". Me, I prefer the term "lifestylist", and my experience with commune people (unless its a well organized commune a la french resistance communes) its that they don't hold any real economic idea, so they aren't really leftists. Srry dud

A stupid response, since the Kibbutzim have been highly successful economically. Such a response merely indicates that you are indeed, as I called you, an idiot.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on May 12, 2016, 06:23:08 PM
Except that a lot of them are left wing kibbutzniks. And like I said, somehow, Asshole, everyone in the world seems to have heard of the Levant but you, JROA, and that it includes about six different countries. Buttfuck.
Y'now, I was going to write about your answers, but whatever. Pshah.
And, no. At least here, Levante is a region of Spain. Israel is Israel, the land is called Palestine, or the Sinai peninsulae, etc.

Also, the perfectly usable english word "hippie" is valid for the obscure slangish "kibbutznik". Me, I prefer the term "lifestylist", and my experience with commune people (unless its a well organized commune a la french resistance communes) its that they don't hold any real economic idea, so they aren't really leftists. Srry dud

Are you drunk?

I wish I was


Except that a lot of them are left wing kibbutzniks. And like I said, somehow, Asshole, everyone in the world seems to have heard of the Levant but you, JROA, and that it includes about six different countries. Buttfuck.
Y'now, I was going to write about your answers, but whatever. Pshah.
And, no. At least here, Levante is a region of Spain. Israel is Israel, the land is called Palestine, or the Sinai peninsulae, etc.

That's because Spanish has different usages than English, idiot. But anyone who speaks English knows what I am talking about unless they have their head in their butt.

So we have stepped down from "Everyone knows it" to "Everyone who speaks English except everyone but my troll buddies that are on this conversation". Cool.

Quote
Quote
Also, the perfectly usable english word "hippie" is valid for the obscure slangish "kibbutznik". Me, I prefer the term "lifestylist", and my experience with commune people (unless its a well organized commune a la french resistance communes) its that they don't hold any real economic idea, so they aren't really leftists. Srry dud

A stupid response, since the Kibbutzim have been highly successful economically. Such a response merely indicates that you are indeed, as I called you, an idiot.

You were using Kibbutzim as an insult, as a hook to the lefty label. If you did not do it intentionally, that's clearly another topic. And you'd better recheck your opinions on hippies. Coming from a country where cooperatives are enourmously more important than in other places, it somehow helps to the hippie and commune culture, I guess, since there are economically viable communes and hippies. I hold disdain for lifestylism, but I guess some new age loonies just want their vegan lvl 5 communities.
With love, to my dear: An idiot.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 12, 2016, 06:40:32 PM
You are drunk. I was NOT using the term Kibbutznik as an insult at all. Although I am not generally so far to the Left economically, I actually have nothing but respect for what they have accomplished.

You clearly understand very little about Judaism. You understand even less about Israel. I wish they were more religious than they are, but quite honestly, the Kibbutzniks have achieved in some measure what a Torah Observant State will achieve in full measure. For this, they are to be commended.

The fact that you speak English as a second language is fine. But when you wish to enter an argument that is in part linguistic, it behooves you to consider that we are NOT speaking Castilian. Even Spanish speakers outside Spain use the word Levant differently than you do, although they don't use it the way we do in English. But we are using English as the mode of communication. Ergo, that is what you have to work with.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on May 12, 2016, 06:59:49 PM
You are drunk.
I wish. As you already know, I don't drink alcohol in general. I also don't smoke, nor do drugs.

Quote
Not now, nor ever I was NOT using the term Kibbutznik as an insult at all. Although I am not generally so far to the Left economically, I actually have nothing but respect for what they have accomplished.
Except when you support the Francoist regime. Then you have a bit more than respect for the defenders against fascism.
In any case, I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote
You clearly understand very little about Judaism. You understand even less about Israel.
One man's opinion...

Quote
I wish they were more religious than they are, but quite honestly, the Kibbutzniks have achieved in some measure what a Torah Observant State will achieve in full measure. For this, they are to be commended.

The fact that you speak English as a second language is fine. But when you wish to enter an argument that is in part linguistic, it behooves you to consider that we are NOT speaking Castilian. Even Spanish speakers outside Spain use the word Levant differently than you do, although they don't use it the way we do in English. But we are using English as the mode of communication. Ergo, that is what you have to work with.

I like how you spin this into another argument. First of all, English is not my second language, it's my third. Second, as I said, you originally said "Everyone knows it" That's false. Then you changed it to "Everyone but you idiots knows it". False again. Then, "Everyone speaking english but you idiots knows it". That's false too. I'm fine with hyperbole, but at least keep it consistent.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 12, 2016, 09:50:31 PM
Ah, OK. Your response had NOTHING to do with what I said. Spain's governmental needs in the 1930's and the Kibbutzniks are not related to each other. Without Generalissimo Franco, the country would have turned into a Soviet puppet state much like East Germany or Poland or many other Eastern European states. Wouldn't that have been fun!

As for English, I don't care whether its your third or 15th. I also speak 3. But you evident ally DON'T know it well enough to be familiar with the use of common geographic/cultural terms like "Levant". And no, I am not picking on you. I would have problems with that in the third language I speak.

Unfortunately, I shall have to pick this up later. I have a lot of work to do these next few days and won't be able to sign in. TTYL.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 01:48:57 PM
I also speak 3.

Is one of them Greek?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 13, 2016, 02:13:53 PM
Ah, OK. Your response had NOTHING to do with what I said. Spain's governmental needs in the 1930's and the Kibbutzniks are not related to each other. Without Generalissimo Franco, the country would have turned into a Soviet puppet state much like East Germany or Poland or many other Eastern European states. Wouldn't that have been fun!

As for English, I don't care whether its your third or 15th. I also speak 3. But you evident ally DON'T know it well enough to be familiar with the use of common geographic/cultural terms like "Levant". And no, I am not picking on you. I would have problems with that in the third language I speak.

Unfortunately, I shall have to pick this up later. I have a lot of work to do these next few days and won't be able to sign in. TTYL.

When you say "I have a lot of work to do these next few days", you actually mean "I need to get my mom to throw another frozen pizza in the oven", right?

But don't worry, I still love you. So much.  :-*
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 15, 2016, 12:52:03 PM
You're Welcome!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on May 18, 2016, 03:36:53 PM
Thank you!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 02, 2016, 08:38:13 AM
The Wars were 25 years ago. Balkan Boy claims to be 16. Which would make his parents about 43 right now. So they would have been about 18. But with ALL of Yugoslavia exploding in all out warfare, particularly of the urban variety, which tends to be the worst kind, I find it rather hard to believe that college courses continued placidly uninterrupted. What are they NOT telling you?

Did they participate in the horiffic events that they SAY were only engaged in by the Serbs (but were in fact engaged in by both Serbs AND Croats)? I don't know. But did they probably have some ideas that shit was happening that ought not to have been? Probably. Very few Germans were involved in the Holocaust. But most knew it was happening.

There is some moral complicity there. How much is up to G-d to decide. Certainly your father is less guilty than a man who actually raped and impregnated a Bosnian woman, and I don't accuse him of that since I was not there. But I have a hard time believing he did not know about it when I did. And I am his same age now and was then! And I live in America, which helped put an end to the mess by engaging in bombing runs over the former Yugoslavia. So don't tell me that I could know something was going on when I was an 18 year old in California that he DIDN'T know being the same age in Croatia. Maybe neither he nor your mother wish to discuss the matter, as it is painful to admit the horrors of a nation's past. Some Germans still struggle with their nation's past, as do some Japanese. The Rwandans don't like to talk much about 1994, for that matter.

And culturally, I may be an English Jew, but by virtue of being Ashkenazi, many of us, including me, ultimately find our ancestry going back to Mediaeval Germany, and from THERE to the Levant (the region where Israel is). But after leaving the Levant, many of us made our homes in Germany for as long as 1000 years. The Holocaust was unbelievable to us, as much as Bosnian rape camps are to you.

So relax.Everyone's homeland fucks with their head at some point.
Suddenly I understand just how stupid it was for me to assert that cows on the dairy farms get raped. How is what you are doing any different? And how does that justify animal sacrifices, caused by people being religious? How does that justify being against animal rights? Unbelievable how far from the topic we got.
By the way, my parents are 52 and 53. You were off by ten years.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on June 03, 2016, 04:17:43 PM
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 04, 2016, 12:32:19 AM
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on June 04, 2016, 01:04:35 AM
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

Haven't seen his signature?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on June 04, 2016, 08:11:32 PM
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

If I traveled to a country where dogs are eaten, and I was offered a dish with dog meat? I would have no problem eating it.

And you don't have to tell me that pigs are smart, I am a farm worker. So I'm pretty sure I have interacted with pigs much more than you have.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 04, 2016, 11:31:39 PM
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

If I traveled to a country where dogs are eaten, and I was offered a dish with dog meat? I would have no problem eating it.

And you don't have to tell me that pigs are smart, I am a farm worker. So I'm pretty sure I have interacted with pigs much more than you have.
Great that you don't deny that animals you eat are smart! So, have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you have any idea what's happening there?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on June 07, 2016, 05:11:08 PM
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

If I traveled to a country where dogs are eaten, and I was offered a dish with dog meat? I would have no problem eating it.

And you don't have to tell me that pigs are smart, I am a farm worker. So I'm pretty sure I have interacted with pigs much more than you have.
Great that you don't deny that animals you eat are smart! So, have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you have any idea what's happening there?

Yes I have. And I've even slaughtered animals myself that I've had a "personal relationship" with, with my own two hands, a bolt gun, and a sharp knife. Trust me, when it comes to this kind of of stuff, you have nothing to tell me that I haven't already had first-hand experience with. And still, I'm not a "holier than thou" veggie. Imagine that.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 08, 2016, 12:40:58 AM
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

If I traveled to a country where dogs are eaten, and I was offered a dish with dog meat? I would have no problem eating it.

And you don't have to tell me that pigs are smart, I am a farm worker. So I'm pretty sure I have interacted with pigs much more than you have.
Great that you don't deny that animals you eat are smart! So, have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you have any idea what's happening there?

Yes I have. And I've even slaughtered animals myself that I've had a "personal relationship" with, with my own two hands, a bolt gun, and a sharp knife. Trust me, when it comes to this kind of of stuff, you have nothing to tell me that I haven't already had first-hand experience with. And still, I'm not a "holier than thou" veggie. Imagine that.
It's not hard to imagine. What's hard to imagine is that you think that being able to do such things somehow justifies them.

And, given the responses I got in the vegan debate, they aren't painting some unrealistic picture!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 08, 2016, 02:45:29 AM
In a thread about Atheism, you bring a video that has mostly bad religious (creationist?) arguments for eating meat. Strange.

We don't eat people because A) - It spreads disease and B) - Is not sustainable.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 08, 2016, 12:30:14 PM
Quote
In a thread about Atheism, you bring a video that has mostly bad religious (creationist?) arguments for eating meat. Strange.
Most of them aren't even religious. These are arguments meat-eaters bring up, as you can see in the vegan debate, just put in a different context (to show that they don't make any sense).
Quote
We don't eat people because A) - It spreads disease and B) - Is not sustainable.
How do you know that eating animals is any better? It also spreads disease, the most well-known being salmonella. It is going to get even worse, because factory farming is the greatest cause of the antibiotic resistance. Using animals for food, at least the way it's done today, is also environmentally unsustainable.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 08, 2016, 12:40:10 PM
I completely agree. Farming practices should improve. So should many other things. But it does not have to be the one or the other. Absolutes are silly.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 08, 2016, 01:02:09 PM
I completely agree. Farming practices should improve. So should many other things. But it does not have to be the one or the other. Absolutes are silly.
Sometimes they aren't silly. Is a complete lack of slavery silly?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 08, 2016, 01:11:04 PM
So, have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you have any idea what's happening there?
I suspect the clue is in the title.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 08, 2016, 01:15:08 PM
Touche. Although I can argue that slavery never did go away, and never will.

Animals will never have the same rights as people because they don't have the capability to fight for them. People will fight for animal rights, but even those people will be expressing their moral values to the animals. Not the animals values. If an animal can express it's values you would probably be less impressed with animals.

Also, when is it okay to kill an animal? Where is the line? Mammal, bird, reptile, worm, bacteria, plant? Nature does not have a line, so where do you draw yours?

This is a moral value argument, not a absolute argument. Hence my previous statement.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 09, 2016, 02:01:06 AM
Quote
People will fight for animal rights, but even those people will be expressing their moral values to the animals. Not the animals values.
So, do you consider animal psychology to be a pseudoscience?
Quote
Also, when is it okay to kill an animal?
Perhaps only if you have to choose between a human life and an animal life.
Quote
Where is the line? Mammal, bird, reptile, worm, bacteria, plant? Nature does not have a line, so where do you draw yours?
LOL! Too bad they didn't put that "plants are also alive" argument in the video (as if it justified killing humans). Well, animal rights advocates tend to stress the word "sentient" a lot, so I suppose the sentience could be the line.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 09, 2016, 02:16:52 AM
A lot of people are not sentient due to brain damage. babies do not identify self till quite some time. . .   Does that make them good to eat?
 But even sentience is a line that was drawn by people from a human perspective, it's again a human line. Nature does not care.

And animal psychology won't tell you what they find moral or good. They can only describe behaviour. They can't tell you if the cat feels morally conflicted for eating the mouse.

 This is all a moral argument. Not that I am against moral arguments at all. I just understand that moral arguments are self perspective arguments. And different people have different perspectives.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on June 09, 2016, 03:37:38 AM
I sometimes feel pity for people's pets for the way they are treated. Like birds in a cage. Or even cats spending a whole bored life in an apartement. Better for them being killed and eaten.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 09, 2016, 04:43:37 AM
Well, animal rights advocates tend to stress the word "sentient" a lot, so I suppose the sentience could be the line.
Most people draw the line at the same species.

Which animals are sentient?  Presumably I can still kill flies?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 09, 2016, 01:07:37 PM
Quote
A lot of people are not sentient due to brain damage.
If a person is in coma and it's very unlikely it will ever become conscious again, it's good to kill it.
Quote
babies do not identify self till quite some time. . .
Doesn't mean they aren't sentient.
Quote
Does that make them good to eat?
No, and for the same reason not every plant is good to be eaten.
Quote
But even sentience is a line that was drawn by people from a human perspective, it's again a human line. Nature does not care.
I am not sure. Sentient beings, with maybe few exceptions (suicides), value their own life. That's not just a human perspective.
Quote
And animal psychology won't tell you what they find moral or good. They can only describe behaviour. They can't tell you if the cat feels morally conflicted for eating the mouse.
You know that psychology also studies the motivations behind the behaviors, right?
Quote
This is all a moral argument. Not that I am against moral arguments at all. I just understand that moral arguments are self perspective arguments. And different people have different perspectives.
Look, I don't care if it would be possible for us to eat meat without causing suffering in some imaginary situation. It's not possible, and it probably won't be possible any time soon (though I admit I am terrible at predicting the future). I am not doing that, and I am going to criticize people who do.
Quote
Better for them being killed and eaten.
Killing an animal takes away all the suffering from their lives, but it also takes away all the pleasures from their lives. Do you think it's right to kill a slave to relieve it of suffering?
Quote
Which animals are sentient?
It's very hard to tell now. The vast majority of scientists agree that all the birds, all the mammals and octopuses are sentient. There are also many studies showing that fishes, or even insects, are sentient, though I have to admit I haven't looked at the other side (if there is one).
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on June 10, 2016, 02:13:31 AM
There's a thread already on veganism. Nevertheless,

The vast majority of scientists agree that all the birds, all the mammals and octopuses are sentient. There are also many studies showing that fishes, or even insects, are sentient, though I have to admit I haven't looked at the other side (if there is one).

Citation needed.
In any case, sentience is part, but not the whole, of intelligence (I actually think that it might be possible for something to be inteligent, yet not sentient. A hivemind would be an example). Consciousness is much more important, and all animals that have been proven to have it to a high degree are animals which are not eaten by western society. Dogs aren't one of them, by the way.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 10, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
There's a thread already on veganism. Nevertheless,

The vast majority of scientists agree that all the birds, all the mammals and octopuses are sentient. There are also many studies showing that fishes, or even insects, are sentient, though I have to admit I haven't looked at the other side (if there is one).

Citation needed.
In any case, sentience is part, but not the whole, of intelligence (I actually think that it might be possible for something to be inteligent, yet not sentient. A hivemind would be an example). Consciousness is much more important, and all animals that have been proven to have it to a high degree are animals which are not eaten by western society. Dogs aren't one of them, by the way.
Don't you think that scientists who made the Cambridge declaration on consciousness knew way better than you do?
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
What you are saying makes no sense to me, and it probably wouldn't make much sense to a scientist either.
In my opinion, every who thinks animals aren't sentient is delusional. Why would they sleep if they didn't feel tiredness? Why would they drink if they didn't feel thirst? Why would they eat if they didn't feel hunger? Why would they try to escape if they didn't feel fear and pain? Why would they play if they didn't feel happiness?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on June 10, 2016, 08:07:54 PM
There's a thread already on veganism. Nevertheless,

The vast majority of scientists agree that all the birds, all the mammals and octopuses are sentient. There are also many studies showing that fishes, or even insects, are sentient, though I have to admit I haven't looked at the other side (if there is one).

Citation needed.
In any case, sentience is part, but not the whole, of intelligence (I actually think that it might be possible for something to be inteligent, yet not sentient. A hivemind would be an example). Consciousness is much more important, and all animals that have been proven to have it to a high degree are animals which are not eaten by western society. Dogs aren't one of them, by the way.
Don't you think that scientists who made the Cambridge declaration on consciousness knew way better than you do?
Asuming your interpretation of that document is correct (which I cant check at the moment, from my phone), aparently no. Sentience, self-consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness, etc. are all different terms, and are independent of one and other ( to a point).

Quote
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
What you are saying makes no sense to me,
I understand. Explain your confusion and I'll give you my best explanation.

Quote
and it probably wouldn't make much sense to a scientist either.
I beg to differ, but in any case, a scientist's opinion on this is mostly irrelevant, since those terms are epistemological, not empirical.

Quote
In my opinion, every who thinks animals aren't sentient is delusional. Why would they sleep if they didn't feel tiredness? Why would they drink if they didn't feel thirst? Why would they eat if they didn't feel hunger? Why would they try to escape if they didn't feel fear and pain? Why would they play if they didn't feel happiness?

I can build a robot that avoids light. Why would it avoid light if it didnt felt fear? And once again: sentience is not intelligence, and I feel no moral quarrel with eating sentient beings, as long as suffering is minimized.
And just so you know, plants, all of them (that I know of) are sentient in the sense you are extending the word to mean.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 11, 2016, 02:20:20 AM
Quote
Sentience, self-consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness, etc. are all different terms, and are independent of one and other ( to a point).
Consciousness implies sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience and to feel, wakefulness, sense of selfhood, and the mind. Have you even read about consciousness on Wikipedia before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Quote
I beg to differ, but in any case, a scientist's opinion on this is mostly irrelevant, since those terms are epistemological, not empirical.
Maybe, but you can empirically study them. That's what neuroscience does. And you also empirically measure knowledge when you make an exam in school.
Quote
I can build a robot that avoids light. Why would it avoid light if it didnt felt fear?
First of all, nobody has ever demonstrated that robots can behave like sentient animals. Not even close. That only exists in science fiction. Real robots can't even walk like animals, yet alone do something more complicated. Secondly, even if they did, that wouldn't mean they are conscious. Ever heard of the Chinese room thought experiment?
Quote
I feel no moral quarrel with eating sentient beings, as long as suffering is minimized.
And why do you think it is?
Quote
And just so you know, plants, all of them (that I know of) are sentient in the sense you are extending the word to mean.
First of all, it takes much more plants to feel a meat-eater than to feed a vegetarian, because most of the plants we grow go to the farmed animals to eat.
Secondly, the claims of plant sentience are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. They are nonsense, they are like saying that in CERN there is a machine that ionizes thoughts into someone's coffee. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that's not a possibility.
Yes, plants do react to light, water and chemicals in the ground, but the perception doesn't occur. A perception would require a brain. If you claim there is a perception, determine the absolute and differential limen of it. Determine the types of adaptations of it. Prove that they are able to recognize and locate things around themselves. And good luck with having your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on June 11, 2016, 08:56:04 AM
Quote
Sentience, self-consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness, etc. are all different terms, and are independent of one and other ( to a point).
Consciousness implies sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience and to feel, wakefulness, sense of selfhood, and the mind. Have you even read about consciousness on Wikipedia before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Consciousness implies sentience, but sentience does not imply consciousness. Have you read what implies mean before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional)

Quote
Quote
I beg to differ, but in any case, a scientist's opinion on this is mostly irrelevant, since those terms are epistemological, not empirical.
Maybe, but you can empirically study them. That's what neuroscience does. And you also empirically measure knowledge when you make an exam in school.
I've never said otherwise. Most life that I can think of is sentient to the point you are using the word. Knowledge does not require intelligence.

Quote
Quote
I can build a robot that avoids light. Why would it avoid light if it didnt felt fear?
First of all, nobody has ever demonstrated that robots can behave like sentient animals.
Now you are moving the goalpost from sentient being to sentient animals. You are begging the question. You have to prove why is being a sentient animal diferent from being a sentient plant in terms of sentience.

Quote
Not even close. That only exists in science fiction.
I beg to differ, but whatever

Quote
Real robots can't even walk like animals, yet alone do something more complicated.
That's not true, since movement is unconsciously wired. Nor relevant, since machines can use wheels and treads, which are much more efficient means of transportation. In any case, here's artificial animaloid movement. (http://)
And lets not get into the world of Boids and swarm intelligence.
In any case, that's not important since we were talking about intelligence, not movement.

Quote
Secondly, even if they did, that wouldn't mean they are conscious. Ever heard of the Chinese room thought experiment?
The chinese room thought experiment proves that, empirically, intelligence is not special. A mouse can be trained to be the Chinese for that experiment. Does that mean the Mouse is intelligent? Or that it isnt? External experiments of capability are useless for intelligence testing. Nowadays, intelligence is defined mostly in terms of both capabilities, and learning process. In that sense, Artificial Neural Networks are a primitive form of "true" artificial intelligence. If you don't like the idea that a machine can become intelligent without aide, you can always enter the world of Symbolic intelligence. I warn you, though. Abandon all sanity thou who shalt study it.

Quote
Quote
I feel no moral quarrel with eating sentient beings, as long as suffering is minimized.
And why do you think it is?
Because plants are sentient too. Why do you feel no moral quarrel with eating plants? Why are you a MURDERER?

Quote
Quote
And just so you know, plants, all of them (that I know of) are sentient in the sense you are extending the word to mean.
First of all, it takes much more plants to feel a meat-eater than to feed a vegetarian, because most of the plants we grow go to the farmed animals to eat.
It takes roughly the same amount, ignoring animal activity losses. Animals act as energy converters, in that they take energy we cannot use, transforming it into energy we can use. Thanks to this process, we can feed much more people than we could by vegetarian diets. Unless you want to erradicate grass fields from the planet. Someone should run the numbers on that. I know that without fertilization, the entire surface of the earth could support 1 billion people. I don't know how much people could be fed without meat (ignoring medical disadvantages of vegan alimentation)

Quote
Secondly, the claims of plant sentience are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community.
Too bad, I can prove it to you. (http://)
Again, you are confusing sentience and intelligence. Plants are sentient, not self-aware. I don't eat self-aware beings.

Quote
They are nonsense, they are like saying that in CERN there is a machine that ionizes thoughts into someone's coffee. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that's not a possibility.
Yes, plants do react to light, water and chemicals in the ground, but the perception doesn't occur. A perception would require a brain.
Prove it. You seem to be like one of those people who say that animals obviously aren't intelligent because they don't talk. Perceptions do not require a brain, just a processor. Plants have processor systems.

Quote
If you claim there is a perception, determine the absolute and differential limen of it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1979.tb00870.x/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1979.tb00870.x/abstract)
Hell, they can even be drugged
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938472900662 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938472900662)

Quote
Determine the types of adaptations of it.
What do you mean? The adaptation provides protection to the plant from water, excesive sunlight, etc. Is this what you mean? I'm not a biologist, I'm simply quoting the expert's opinion.

Quote
Prove that they are able to recognize and locate things around themselves.
That's not required for sentience. A comatose human isn't able to do that, yet it's sentient, on your definition.

Quote
And good luck with having your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal!
I just linked you two papers published on respected, peer-reviewed journals. You can find sensibility data on Mimosa's fast plant response everywhere. You can even see the effects of drugs on its sensitivity. Just as some people dismiss animals as inferior, since they can't talk, you seem to discriminate against plants, just because they aren't furry.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 11, 2016, 10:29:17 PM
Quote
Consciousness implies sentience, but sentience does not imply consciousness. Have you read what implies mean before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
It [The consciousness] has been defined [in psychology] as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
And it's a scientific consensus, confirmed by over 2500 studies, that animals are conscious, namely the Cambridge declaration of consciousness.
Quote
That's not true, since movement is unconsciously wired.
You can't walk if you aren't conscious.
Quote
In any case, here's artificial animaloid movement.
It's a well-known thing that scientists are able to make a robotic leg that works in a way analogous to the legs of tetrapods, but aren't able to make a machine that controls them. That's the most widely known example of Moravec's paradox.
Quote
The chinese room thought experiment proves that, empirically, intelligence is not special. A mouse can be trained to be the Chinese for that experiment. Does that mean the Mouse is intelligent? Or that it isnt? External experiments of capability are useless for intelligence testing. Nowadays, intelligence is defined mostly in terms of both capabilities, and learning process. In that sense, Artificial Neural Networks are a primitive form of "true" artificial intelligence. If you don't like the idea that a machine can become intelligent without aide, you can always enter the world of Symbolic intelligence. I warn you, though. Abandon all sanity thou who shalt study it.
I have no bright idea what you are talking about. Alan Turing supposed that a Turing-complete machine that's able to pass the Turing test, namely being able to behave as if it were conscious for a few minutes by following a set of rules, can be considered conscious. The Chinese room thought experiment proves that the Turing test is total nonsense.
Quote
Animals act as energy converters, in that they take energy we cannot use, transforming it into energy we can use.
Most of those animals are fed with soy and grains. Why couldn't we use them ourselves?
Quote
I know that without fertilization, the entire surface of the earth could support 1 billion people.
Who is against fertilization? First of all, natural fertilizers can, and mostly are today, be made from plants. Secondly, synthetic fertilizers are much less damaging to the environment than animal agriculture is.
Quote
Too bad, I can prove it to you.
How does the permeability of the cell walls changing with pressure prove that a plant is sentient?!
Quote
Plants have processor systems.
And that processor system is…
Quote
Hell, they can even be drugged.
That's certainly not the way you determine whether something is sentient. If it were, the studies of the plant sentience wouldn't be considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Well, since you only gave me an abstract, I can just guess why. Which type of drug was used? They say "There is a close similarity in the effects of drugs on the sensitivity to mechanical stimulation in the sensitive plant Mimosa and the protozoan Spirostomum", not that those same drugs affect sentient beings (humans, mice…) in the similar manner. And there is nothing about the perception there!
Quote
What do you mean? The adaptation provides protection to the plant from water, excesive sunlight, etc. Is this what you mean? I'm not a biologist, I'm simply quoting the expert's opinion.
I meant, the adaptation of the perception, that is, that the perceived intensity of a stimulant is (slightly) decreasing with time, which is one of the basic properties of the perception.
Quote
A comatose human isn't able to do that, yet it's sentient, on your definition.
No, it's not sentient. Sentient is defined as having the power of perception by the senses. Being able to recognize and locate things around themselves is one of the basic properties of the perception. In fact, that's even how perception is defined on Wikipedia (understanding of the environment).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on June 13, 2016, 06:42:50 AM
@flat earth denial: Walking is obviously possible without being conscious; people can do it when they are asleep.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on June 13, 2016, 03:44:50 PM
Quote
Consciousness implies sentience, but sentience does not imply consciousness. Have you read what implies mean before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
It [The consciousness] has been defined [in psychology] as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
And it's a scientific consensus, confirmed by over 2500 studies, that animals are conscious, namely the Cambridge declaration of consciousness.
Thanks for agreeing with me that sentience doesn't imply consciousness. Took you a while. In any case, your definition intentionally misses "self-awareness", because you know most animals don't have self-awareness. With that skewed definition, lets see if a recursive neural network is conscious.


So either you ask PETA to raid my department everytime I format my hard drive, or you could consider that definition to be Greek philosophy levels of undefined useless word salad. I suggest the second, but I have to admit interest on that.

Quote
Quote
That's not true, since movement is unconsciously wired.
You can't walk if you aren't conscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepwalking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepwalking)

Quote
Quote
In any case, here's artificial animaloid movement.
It's a well-known thing that scientists are able to make a robotic leg that works in a way analogous to the legs of tetrapods, but aren't able to make a machine that controls them. That's the most widely known example of Moravec's paradox.
It's a well known thing that natural selection is able to make a glandulae that works in a way analogous to batteries, but isn't able to make neurones directly control a power plant, you see how ridiculous that argument is? The reason machines and biological systems are separate is because machines use systems biology is not specialized in, and viceversa. Not even that, we CAN control neural tissue.
(http://)

Neurons aren't magical items with properties that violate the laws of physics, they are processors. We understand how they work, we have for decades. The issue we don't have augmentations and the like is because of simple complexity, just as how we knew how the moon orbited in the 19th century, but had to wait to the 1959 to get there. Nature is incredibly optimized. It has had millions and millions of years to perfect itself to points only now we understand. 60 years ago, perceptrons were the size of a room. Now Google Translate packs Deep Learning neural networks into a battery powered device, gazillions of times more powerful than a MADALINE unit. The AI winter is dead. Summer is coming. And its gonna be great (for me).

Quote
Quote
The chinese room thought experiment proves that, empirically, intelligence is not special. A mouse can be trained to be the Chinese for that experiment. Does that mean the Mouse is intelligent? Or that it isnt? External experiments of capability are useless for intelligence testing. Nowadays, intelligence is defined mostly in terms of both capabilities, and learning process. In that sense, Artificial Neural Networks are a primitive form of "true" artificial intelligence. If you don't like the idea that a machine can become intelligent without aide, you can always enter the world of Symbolic intelligence. I warn you, though. Abandon all sanity thou who shalt study it.
I have no bright idea what you are talking about. Alan Turing supposed that a Turing-complete machine that's able to pass the Turing test, namely being able to behave as if it were conscious for a few minutes by following a set of rules, can be considered conscious. The Chinese room thought experiment proves that the Turing test is total nonsense.
Oh for fucks sake. That's not what the Chinese room proves. As I said, you can train a mouse to be the Chinese. Or a human. Or a machine. It does not matter. What the Chinese room proves is that the solipsism problem is undecidable, in other words, there is no single test, thought, experiment, observation, logical analisys, coin tossing, or any other method to ascertain intelligence. This applies TO EVERYONE. I can only trully know that I AM intelligent. For all that I know, you may all just be programmed robots. The fundamental breakthrough of the Chinese Room is that IT DOESNT MATTER. A machine cannot be proven to be intelligent just as I can't prove you are. The brain is a processor, and it performs computations. A Turing Complete machine CAN emulate the brain. The brain is a restricted turing machine (just as real computers). There is no evidence that the brain is a hypercomputer, before you go to that, and if it were, we could break the laws of physics. I am sorry that this hurts your narrative, but a bunch of stones performing rule 110 is able to do the same computations the brain does, given enough time and stones.

Quote
Quote
Animals act as energy converters, in that they take energy we cannot use, transforming it into energy we can use.
Most of those animals are fed with soy and grains. Why couldn't we use them ourselves?
Where do you live that soy is wasted on cows? Just give 'em hay. On the grain issue, they are fed grain waste, like the exterior of the grain, or simply grains humans don't like eating, like oats and barley (but they do like drinking it!). Have you ever been to a farm before?

Quote
Quote
I know that without fertilization, the entire surface of the earth could support 1 billion people.
Who is against fertilization? First of all, natural fertilizers can, and mostly are today, be made from plants. Secondly, synthetic fertilizers are much less damaging to the environment than animal agriculture is.
It was an example of how much impact these energy conversion systems have. Fertilizer, after all, is just converting non-usable biomass into food for plants. Its just the same as animal feedstock, but I don't have the data on how much human sustainabiliy depends on animal energy conversion, so I put forward a similar example I know the data on, plant energy conversion.

Quote
Quote
Too bad, I can prove it to you.
How does the permeability of the cell walls changing with pressure prove that a plant is sentient?!
How does the firing of pain receptors in muscle tissue with overpressure prove an animal is sentient?!

Quote
Quote
Plants have processor systems.
And that processor system is…

Plants don't have central neural systems, but they DO have processing and recepting systems, not unlike insects, for example. In Mimosa Pudica's example, potassium and calcium ion channels act as pressure sensors, creating action potentials transmited throughout the plant, similar to how neurons work.
They may also have memory: http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-mimosa-plants-memory-01695.html (http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-mimosa-plants-memory-01695.html)

Quote
Quote
Hell, they can even be drugged.
That's certainly not the way you determine whether something is sentient. If it were, the studies of the plant sentience wouldn't be considered pseudoscience by the scientific community.
Plant intelligence*. You keep confusing the words.

Quote
Well, since you only gave me an abstract, I can just guess why.
You can buy the paper yourself. Or you could pirate it, but you will understand why I don't link that here. Search engines will help you with that.

Quote
Which type of drug was used? They say "There is a close similarity in the effects of drugs on the sensitivity to mechanical stimulation in the sensitive plant Mimosa and the protozoan Spirostomum", not that those same drugs affect sentient beings (humans, mice…) in the similar manner.
Protozoans are sentient.

Quote
And there is nothing about the perception there!
Because perception is an epistemological term, and not a scientific one. Read the paper, I'm sure you'll understand then.

Quote
Quote
What do you mean? The adaptation provides protection to the plant from water, excesive sunlight, etc. Is this
what you mean? I'm not a biologist, I'm simply quoting the expert's opinion.
I meant, the adaptation of the perception, that is, that the perceived intensity of a stimulant is (slightly) decreasing with time, which is one of the basic properties of the perception.
Yep, as I even linked to you, its clear it is even remembered. Ion channels saturate over time, that's how neurons learn in a really small nutshell.

Quote
Quote
A comatose human isn't able to do that, yet it's sentient, on your definition.
No, it's not sentient.
Yes it is. It responds to stimuli. http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/neurologic-disorders/coma-and-impaired-consciousness/vegetative-state-and-minimally-conscious-state (http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/neurologic-disorders/coma-and-impaired-consciousness/vegetative-state-and-minimally-conscious-state)

Quote
Sentient is defined as having the power of perception by the senses. Being able to recognize and locate things around themselves is one of the basic properties of the perception. In fact, that's even how perception is defined on Wikipedia (understanding of the environment).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Understanding of the enviroment, and locating things around are two different things. Plants clearly show understanding of the enviroment, as do artificial neural networks. They even show Constancy, Grouping, and contrasting. In fact, one of the reasons ANNs were developed was to do grouping work (called in more pure fields "clustering").
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: palmerito0 on June 14, 2016, 11:10:03 AM
That roach the is sick. Impressive how far science has come.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 16, 2016, 03:23:15 AM
Yeah, why don't you start killing babies and justify it with some mind-game that "proves" they aren't conscious?
I guess that the reason they didn't include self-awareness in the definition of consciousness is because self-awareness is awareness of ones own consciousness, so that would be a circular definition. Besides, humans become self-aware only when they are 18 months of age. Do you think that younger children can't become unconscious because of an illness? And pigs, who we legally eat, are also self-aware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Infancy_and_early_childhood
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347209003571
Sleep is not unconsciousness, it is an altered level of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_level_of_consciousness#Definition
And, no, robots can't walk the same way humans, bats, birds and other bipedal walk. Yet they can solve differential equations. And I don't see how it's ridiculous to say that they therefore work in a way quite different than brains do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking#In_robotics
And Turing Test wasn't even intended to measure intelligence, it was intended to determine whether or not machines can think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Weaknesses_of_the_test
As for that your "Just give 'em hay." rhetoric, look, I don't know if cows can be healthy if fed only with hay (probably not), and that's irrelevant. The possibility of improving a system doesn't justify a participation in it now. If you knew that a car you can buy will explode, would you buy it just because you know the factory could do better?
And insects do have brains. Some of them even have pain receptors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Weaknesses_of_the_test
As for the protozoans being sentient, I'd suggest you to watch this video:

If Paramecium has any feelings, then it's a desire to be eaten.
As for that plant memory, I think it's not analogous to the sensory adaptation in animals. So, that plant stops responding to a stimulus of a certain intensity after it's been exposed to it many times. You stop feeling a touch of the clothing if it's long enough. Do you stop feeling that something is touching you if it has touched you many times?
Look, I don't know exactly why studying plant sentience is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, and I don't think I need to know. The idea that grass feels pain when I cut it is just too ridiculous to even think about.
As for that responding to stimuli, there is a difference between a vegetative state, minimally conscious state and a coma. Coma is a complete loss of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimally_conscious_state
I couldn't find any source saying that plants show constancy, grouping and contrasting.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think that most of the people who say that plants have feelings don't actually believe that themselves and are just being dishonest.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on June 16, 2016, 05:06:16 AM
Yeah, why don't you start killing babies and justify it with some mind-game that "proves" they aren't conscious?
Ouch, you sank my flotation line. My archnemesis, emotional strawmans! I guess I shall now retreat to my burgercave. In any case, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. Go to the Veganism thread if you want to discuss veganism.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 16, 2016, 11:48:40 PM
Yeah, why don't you start killing babies and justify it with some mind-game that "proves" they aren't conscious?
Ouch, you sank my flotation line. My archnemesis, emotional strawmans! I guess I shall now retreat to my burgercave. In any case, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. Go to the Veganism thread if you want to discuss veganism.
I was making straw mans? Well, if you write so nonsensically, don't be surprised if people misinterpret what you are trying to say! You are spreading misinformation about what consciousness is. Luckily, I checked your statements.

While I don't know much about the field, I think you are also misrepresenting what neural networks are. Basically, you need a whole processor to simulate one neuron, and it takes many many many neurons to create consciousness. Saying that your computer is conscious is therefore ridiculous. Your computer may have more than one CPU, but certainly not millions of them needed to make consciousness. Maybe multi-threading can enable one CPU to simulate more neurons, but certainly not millions of them.
The most complicated artificial neural network ever made was able to only detect cats on images.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 18, 2016, 05:01:00 PM
I enjoy tracking down animals.
I enjoy killing them.
I enjoy cutting them into pieces.
I enjoy cooking them.
I enjoy eating them.

Pretty sure they don't enjoy it as much as I do.

But then, their participation in the game is pretty much limited
to "ouch" and "dead".




Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on June 19, 2016, 09:31:16 AM
As I've posted before, I refuse to continue to debate with you. You are a dishonest poster. Stop wasting precious bandwith derailing this thread further.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on June 21, 2016, 04:54:40 PM
FlatEarthDenial be trippin' yo.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 27, 2016, 05:20:33 AM
Quote
I enjoy killing them.
Then maybe you suffer from ASPD. It's strongly linked with cruelty to animals. Don't take it very personally, but I would advise you to visit a psychiatrist.
Quote
But then, their participation in the game is pretty much limited
to "ouch" and "dead".
And this is called broken window fallacy. No, the game lasts as long as they would have lived if they had been free and you hadn't killed them. Except that you don't see what pleasures in their life they would have had then. You can justify pretty much any behavior by this.
Quote
You are a dishonest poster.
Well, I think that someone who argues that plants feel pain, as you did, is very likely to be dishonest.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on June 28, 2016, 05:39:32 PM
Just had a sandwich with some tasty salami. Dead animals are so fucking awesome.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 28, 2016, 10:42:47 PM
Just had a sandwich with some tasty salami. Dead animals are so fucking awesome.
That's just you trying to rationalize murdering them.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: palmerito0 on June 30, 2016, 12:58:14 AM
I don't think you're getting the clear message right now: he doesn't care.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on June 30, 2016, 06:47:27 AM
I don't think you're getting the clear message right now: he doesn't care.
What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on July 01, 2016, 07:53:52 PM
Just had a sandwich with some tasty salami. Dead animals are so fucking awesome.
That's just you trying to rationalize murdering them.

I don't need to rationalize anything. Meat is tasty. You are the one with issues, not me.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 02, 2016, 01:04:49 AM
Quote
I enjoy killing them.
Then maybe you suffer from ASPD. It's strongly linked with cruelty to animals. Don't take it very personally, but I would advise you to visit a psychiatrist.

Animals in the wild don't die of old age.
They get killed and eaten by something hungry.

Anthropomorphism is a Disney cartoon concept.


Quote
But then, their participation in the game is pretty much limited
to "ouch" and "dead".
And this is called broken window fallacy. No, the game lasts as long as they would have lived if they had been free and you hadn't killed them. Except that you don't see what pleasures in their life they would have had then. You can justify pretty much any behavior by this.

Hamburgers are made of cows, but nobody gives a crap about cows.



Quick joke . . .


"Dolphins are dying in tuna nets. OMG dolphins are dying!"

"What about the tons of tuna?"

"Fuck 'um, they taste good."






Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: palmerito0 on July 02, 2016, 10:20:18 AM
Well, dolphins are quite a bit rarer that tuna.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on July 02, 2016, 10:30:08 AM
Well, dolphins are quite a bit rarer that tuna.

And they are very intelligent. I'm against eating intelligent people. We should eat only the dumb ones.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 04, 2016, 07:39:53 PM
Well, dolphins are quite a bit rarer that tuna.


Not when cooked properly.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on July 05, 2016, 02:29:32 AM
Quote
I don't need to rationalize anything. Meat is tasty.
Mostly it isn't. You have to cook it or bake it, add spices, and so on to hide the bad taste of raw meat.
Quote
You are the one with issues, not me.
Unless you are a complete idiot, you do have issues with killing animals. You just don't want to admit that.
Quote
Animals in the wild don't die of old age.
What do the scavengers eat then?
Quote
They get killed and eaten by something hungry.
So, you think it's right just because it's a part of nature? Well, guess what, homicide is also a part of nature. Lions kill other lions.
Quote
Hamburgers are made of cows, but nobody gives a crap about cows.
Most of the people do care about cows, they just don't think about how their dietary choices affect those cows.
Quote
And they are very intelligent. I'm against eating intelligent people. We should eat only the dumb ones.
Well, since the most intelligent animals, birds and mammals, are conscious and therefore sentient, I agree with you on that. But, as for fish, we should be more careful because many experiments done on them indicate that they also feel pain, even though there appears to be no strong scientific consensus about that.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2016, 06:34:03 AM
This is one of your funnier posts

Quote
I don't need to rationalize anything. Meat is tasty.
Mostly it isn't. You have to cook it or bake it, add spices, and so on to hide the bad taste of raw meat.

So he doesn't know how things taste?  Cool. I guess all those people eating carpaccio for hundreds of years don't either. Is every plant delectable raw and unseasoned?

Quote
Quote
You are the one with issues, not me.
Unless you are a complete idiot, you do have issues with killing animals. You just don't want to admit that.

I like this game. My turn to rebut: unless you are an idiot you do believe eatin meat is good, you just don't want to admit it. I win right?

Quote
Quote
Animals in the wild don't die of old age.
What do the scavengers eat then?

You actually think scavengers only eat animals that die of old age?  This explains a lot.

Quote
Quote
They get killed and eaten by something hungry.
So, you think it's right just because it's a part of nature? Well, guess what, homicide is also a part of nature. Lions kill other lions.

Glad we can agree killing is part of the natural order. You know what isn't? Compassion to foodstuff.

Quote
Quote
Hamburgers are made of cows, but nobody gives a crap about cows.
Most of the people do care about cows, they just don't think about how their dietary choices affect those cows.

I think if you did a quick poll, everyone who eats hamburgers know what that it results in the death of cows.

Quote
Quote
And they are very intelligent. I'm against eating intelligent people. We should eat only the dumb ones.
Well, since the most intelligent animals, birds and mammals, are conscious and therefore sentient, I agree with you on that. But, as for fish, we should be more careful because many experiments done on them indicate that they also feel pain, even though there appears to be no strong scientific consensus about that.

Thanks, I really enjoyed this post
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on July 06, 2016, 07:35:20 AM
Quote
So he doesn't know how things taste?
Well, I do. I only don't know how it tastes to a person who tries to convince himself that he has done a good thing by killing an animal.
Quote
Is every plant delectable raw and unseasoned?
Well, many of them are. Some people think that we should only eat them, since that's what first humans probably ate. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Is any animal delectable raw? I don't think so.
Quote
You actually think scavengers only eat animals that die of old age?  This explains a lot.
No. Oh, for God's sake, how can an animal die in nature if not eaten by a predator. Yes, it can die by a predator or of old age. Then it can die of illness. Or starvation. Or dehydrtion. Or poisoning. Or drowning. How do you know what percentage of animals dies which way? And how is that even relevant?
Quote
Glad we can agree killing is part of the natural order. You know what isn't? Compassion to foodstuff.
Well, we don't know how carnivorous animals feel when they kill, do we? Anyway, we can be pretty certain that great population of predators, like humans are, according to you, supposed to be, isn't a part of natural order and that it probably destroys nature by itself. But there are some stuff about humans that also aren't a part of natural order, yet very few people would argue are bad, like medicine. I don't know how so many people find those appealing to nature arguments convincing.
Quote
I think if you did a quick poll, everyone who eats hamburgers know what that it results in the death of cows.
Well, probably some of them think it's chicken. I meant, most of them just don't think about it.
Quote
Thanks, I really enjoyed this post.
I'll try to be more clear: many people have that idea that only more intelligent animals can feel pain. And, for the most part, it's true, but, in case of fish, probably not.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 08:09:04 AM
Quote
So he doesn't know how things taste?
Well, I do. I only don't know how it tastes to a person who tries to convince himself that he has done a good thing by killing an animal.

I see what you did there.  Anyway, you admit to not knowing how things taste to him, so why are you trying to tell him how things taste to him?

Quote
Quote
Is every plant delectable raw and unseasoned?
Well, many of them are. Some people think that we should only eat them, since that's what first humans probably ate. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Is any animal delectable raw? I don't think so.

Cows are.  You may have noticed that one of the preferred ways to eat steak is crispy on the outside and warm and raw on the inside.  Its delicious.  Beef carpaccio is also delicious.  People also love them some runny egg yolks.  Then there is this thing called sashimi...

Quote
Quote
You actually think scavengers only eat animals that die of old age?  This explains a lot.
No. Oh, for God's sake, how can an animal die in nature if not eaten by a predator. Yes, it can die by a predator or of old age. Then it can die of illness. Or starvation. Or dehydrtion. Or poisoning. Or drowning. How do you know what percentage of animals dies which way? And how is that even relevant?

I didn't bring it up, just calling you out on you inconsistencies.

Quote
Quote
Glad we can agree killing is part of the natural order. You know what isn't? Compassion to foodstuff.
Well, we don't know how carnivorous animals feel when they kill, do we?

Probably not guilty or remorseful?

Quote
Anyway, we can be pretty certain that great population of predators, like humans are, according to you, supposed to be, isn't a part of natural order and that it probably destroys nature by itself.

If a titanic asteroid impacting at thousands of kms/h can't do that job, I am pretty sure the Earth will bounce back from humans man.  Don't sweat it, Gaia won't.

Quote
But there are some stuff about humans that also aren't a part of natural order, yet very few people would argue are bad, like medicine. I don't know how so many people find those appealing to nature arguments convincing.

There is nothing out of the natural order, by definition.

Quote
Quote
I think if you did a quick poll, everyone who eats hamburgers know what that it results in the death of cows.
Well, probably some of them think it's chicken. I meant, most of them just don't think about it.

That is seriously one of the most reaching and ridiculous comments you have made.  Unless you have some sort of polling to suggest otherwise, you can assume that people know that hamburgers are made from ground beef considering its prevalence in grocery stores, butchers, and in marketing for hamburger restaurants. 

Quote
Quote
Thanks, I really enjoyed this post.
I'll try to be more clear: many people have that idea that only more intelligent animals can feel pain. And, for the most part, it's true, but, in case of fish, probably not.

You said the science was unclear. On what basis are you now saying fish probably feel pain?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Symptom on July 06, 2016, 07:05:31 PM
The OP is an ass. Fact.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 06, 2016, 10:25:54 PM
Quote
Animals in the wild don't die of old age.
What do the scavengers eat then?

Leftovers from a kill.


Quote
They get killed and eaten by something hungry.
So, you think it's right just because it's a part of nature? Well, guess what, homicide is also a part of nature. Lions kill other lions.

Lions are bad, bad people?



Quote
Hamburgers are made of cows, but nobody gives a crap about cows.
Most of the people do care about cows, they just don't think about how their dietary choices affect those cows.

Everyone knows a steak is made of cow.



We keep a baseball bat on the boat to smack tuna on the brain.
Then we cut a notch down behind its head and forward to expose
its spinal column. Then we drive a thick piano wire down the spinal column
to destroy the nerves and cause the muscles to relax.
Then we rip out the gills and let the still beating heart pump out the blood.

If you want to live on asparagus pudding, have at it.

Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on July 09, 2016, 02:32:51 PM
Quote
Anyway, you admit to not knowing how things taste to him, so why are you trying to tell him how things taste to him?
Well, I am probably more objective than he is.
Quote
Cows are.  You may have noticed that one of the preferred ways to eat steak is crispy on the outside and warm and raw on the inside.  Its delicious.  Beef carpaccio is also delicious.  People also love them some runny egg yolks.  Then there is this thing called sashimi...
Well, most of the people do consider raw eggs yucky. And if raw fish or beef tasted so good, why would they hide its taste with spices and sauces? I haven't done much research on the subject though. I assumed that only people in some exotic far-away lands do that.
Quote
I didn't bring it up, just calling you out on you inconsistencies.
True, Bullwinkle did.
Quote
Probably not guilty or remorseful?
Makes some sense, but how do you know?
Quote
If a titanic asteroid impacting at thousands of kms/h can't do that job, I am pretty sure the Earth will bounce back from humans man.  Don't sweat it, Gaia won't.
Maybe not. The species die out, today mostly due to human activity, way faster than they evolve, you know.
Quote
There is nothing out of the natural order, by definition.
I don't understand. You said: "Glad we can agree killing is part of the natural order. You know what isn't? Compassion to foodstuff."
Quote
Unless you have some sort of polling to suggest otherwise, you can assume that people know that hamburgers are made from ground beef considering its prevalence in grocery stores, butchers, and in marketing for hamburger restaurants.
Don't bet on it. Many people I've talked to in real life don't know what factory farming is.
Quote
You said the science was unclear. On what basis are you now saying fish probably feel pain?
The number of scientists believing that. Look, you need to understand that pretty much everything science says is somewhat controversial, like the shape of the Earth is. And the best you can do is simply to follow the majority of the scientists. Even if what they say doesn't make a lot of sense to you. They have done way more research than you did.
Quote
Leftovers from a kill.
Like I've said, I haven't done much research on the subject, I didn't think it was necessary. And a quick search on Wikipedia doesn't let me evaluate your statement.
Quote
Lions are bad, bad people?
So, why copy them?
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on July 09, 2016, 06:59:42 PM
Well, I am probably more objective than he is.

Oh yes, you have no bias at all.  ::)

Quote
Well, most of the people do consider raw eggs yucky. And if raw fish or beef tasted so good, why would they hide its taste with spices and sauces? I haven't done much research on the subject though. I assumed that only people in some exotic far-away lands do that.

You think sushi is hidden behind spices and sauces?  It is literally raw fish on a bite size roll of rice wrapped in seaweed.  The most sauce that is used is a bit of soy sauce with wasabi. I used neither.  Ditto for a good steak: salt... thats it.  Are you from a small town?

Quote
Makes some sense, but how do you know?

Just an educated guess.

Quote
Maybe not. The species die out, today mostly due to human activity, way faster than they evolve, you know.

99% of all species ever are extinct.

Quote
Don't bet on it. Many people I've talked to in real life don't know what factory farming is.

So what does that have to do with the ingredients in hamburgers?

Quote
The number of scientists believing that. Look, you need to understand that pretty much everything science says is somewhat controversial, like the shape of the Earth is.[.quote]

The shape of the Earth is not controversial. 

Quote
And the best you can do is simply to follow the majority of the scientists. Even if what they say doesn't make a lot of sense to you. They have done way more research than you did.

So if the science is not clear, then you have no basis for your claim.  Got it.

Quote
Like I've said, I haven't done much research on the subject, I didn't think it was necessary. And a quick search on Wikipedia doesn't let me evaluate your statement.[.quote]

Great.

Quote
Quote
Lions are bad, bad people?
So, why copy them?

Because you don't understand sarcasm.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on July 11, 2016, 10:11:41 AM
Quote
You think sushi is hidden behind spices and sauces?  It is literally raw fish on a bite size roll of rice wrapped in seaweed.  The most sauce that is used is a bit of soy sauce with wasabi. I used neither.  Ditto for a good steak: salt... thats it.  Are you from a small town?
Yes, I am from a small town. Well, I don't know now. From what I knew before, the notion of it being natural for humans to eat meat seemed totally ridiculous. But now, there are people who consider raw meat tasty. There could be something more to it than I thought. I mean, there are still obvious problems with that. OK, they didn't have to use fire. But how could a natural human, that is, before the tools were invented, hunt and slaughter animals? It could eat insects though, but that's not what you are advocating for.
Quote
Just an educated guess.
Educated in what?
Quote
99% of all species ever are extinct.
Yes, but it occurred over an extremely long period of time, and they were replaced by new ones. And if anthropogenic extinction of species continues at this rate, about a half of all the existing species would go extinct this century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Modern_extinctions
Do you think the new ones will evolve that fast? And when do you think the Earth will have a chance to recover? Do you think that human beings will soon disappear or something? Why bet on it when we can do something about it today? Do you think it is right to kill humans just because the great majority of humans ever existing are dead by now?
Quote
The shape of the Earth is not controversial.
How? There are still a few scientists who believe the Earth is flat.
Quote
So if the science is not clear, then you have no basis for your claim.  Got it.
No, it's not.
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/KEY/Key_Brown2.01.12.15.pdf
So, only 3 commentaries out of 34 of them supported the notion that fish don't feel pain. So, that's 31/34=91% consensus that fish do feel pain.
The most honest position could still be I don't know, but to behave as if fish didn't feel pain is, well, risky.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: AstronomyMaster on July 14, 2016, 02:01:01 AM
Quote
Yes, I am from a small town.
So, how did you think the hunters hunt for money?!
Quote
But how could a natural human, that is, before the tools were invented, hunt and slaughter animals?
Now you use personal incredulity to disagree with the scientific consensus.
Quote
Do you think that human beings will soon disappear or something?
Well, you know, the probability of that happening, as estimated by scientists, is not so low. Some say it's 50% chance we will disappear in this century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction#Probability_estimates
Quote
So, only 3 commentaries out of 34 of them supported the notion that fish don't feel pain. So, that's 31/34=91% consensus that fish do feel pain.
I am not really sure if that's a random sample. Look at this article:
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/why-fish-likely-dont-feel-pain/
He cites many scientists supporting what he says.
Do fish look like they have feelings to you?
And do you think it's a scientific consensus that it's wrong to eat meat?!
Quote
The most honest position could still be I don't know, but to behave as if fish didn't feel pain is, well, risky.
Well, what can we do about it? We have found methods of ecologically raising, like aquaculture, and humanely harvesting fish, like electrofishing, you know.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on July 14, 2016, 02:54:15 AM
Quote
So, how did you think the hunters hunt for money?!
Well, I am pretty sure there are no professional hunters here for me to know such things. Anyway, I was a victim of the biased sample fallacy. I saw that game meat could be ordered in restaurants and that it is very expensive, so I assumed that it is how most of the animals after being hunted end up. Obviously that line of reasoning is very fallacious.
Quote
Now you use personal incredulity to disagree with the scientific consensus.
Well, personal incredulity isn't always wrong. And how do you know what's the scientific consensus on the issue?
Quote
Well, you know, the probability of that happening, as estimated by scientists, is not so low. Some say it's 50% chance we will disappear in this century.
I have heard of those stories, I just assumed that's all nonsense.
Quote
I am not really sure if that's a random sample.
I think it doesn't really have to be. These are scientists informed about the issue. I could have chosen to show the consensus of the veterinarians, who are thought that fish feel pain and what anesthetics to use when operate them and probably don't know about the controversy, then the consensus will probably be even higher.
Quote
He cites many scientists supporting what he says.
Well, that's exactly that article that got those 34 commentaries, 91% of which don't support it. The logic behind that article is fundamentally flawed. I could prove that same way that crickets don't hear by explaining in agonizing details how human ears work and citing the experts saying those details and the experts saying that crickets don't have anything similar to that. Of course, crickets do hear using their antennas. Then he goes on refuting the reasons for believing that fish feel pain, and what he is saying makes no sense to me and it didn't make sense to most of the other scientists in the fields either. That's probably similar to this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58309.0
Quote
Do fish look like they have feelings to you?
Well, a common response from vegans to this is that fishes didn't evolve to show their feelings because there was no pressure from sexual selection in their evolution, but that that doesn't mean they don't have them.
Quote
And do you think it's a scientific consensus that it's wrong to eat meat?!
Well, 60% of ethical professionals think so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat#Morals
But I don't think that could count as a scientific consensus. I know a few ethical professionals, and they are completely ignorant of science. Also, I know many of them accept deontology or virtue ethics, which allows them to basically make arbitrary rules without worrying about consequences. And, since most of them eat meat, they are biased.
If you eliminate such problems, the percentage will be much higher.
Quote
Well, what can we do about it?
Well, don't buy fish. Most of the fish today comes from unsustainable fishing, which painfully and stressfully kills five times as much fish as it catches, as a by catch. Needless to say what it does to the environment. Stop supporting it with your money. Fishers catch fish for money, and if we stop giving them money, they will stop doing that. I know you can't do the same for game meat, since hunters will almost certainly continue hunting even if you don't buy their products, but you can do that with fishers.
Quote
We have found methods of ecologically raising, like aquaculture, and humanely harvesting fish, like electrofishing, you know.
So, you think that just because scientists have found out how to use aquaponics, that means that fish you buy comes from it? LOL! Look, I know that what I am about to say may be hard to swallow, but everyone is an idiot. Including you and me. And whenever you think about something, keep that in mind. Scientists are not idiots when they talk about something in their field of expertise, but, otherwise, they are. It's not my glee to say that, but that's the conclusion from what I've learned being on forums and researching Wikipedia about what people do.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 14, 2016, 03:52:07 AM
Why does every thread get turned into one about vegans? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FalseProphet on July 14, 2016, 01:30:57 PM
OK, they didn't have to use fire. But how could a natural human, that is, before the tools were invented, hunt and slaughter animals? It could eat insects though, but that's not what you are advocating for.

Humans have used tools and fire for 100 000s of years. We inhereted this feature from our ancestor Homo erectus. It is not an invention of Homo sapiens at all. Also the Inuit eat raw meat all the time, so it does not seem to be a problem. By the way insects were eaten a lot here in Borneo until recently.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on July 15, 2016, 08:49:47 AM
Good God. This discussion, as stupid as it is, is STILL going on! Well, at least I have computer again. So I can make our retarded boy from the Balkans look stupid faster than previously, at least.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on July 15, 2016, 01:37:30 PM
Good God. This discussion, as stupid as it is, is STILL going on! Well, at least I have computer again. So I can make our retarded boy from the Balkans look stupid faster than previously, at least.
Lacum aperuit, et effodit eum, et incidit in foveam quam fecit.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on July 15, 2016, 01:45:35 PM
Tu vis, fellator.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on July 15, 2016, 01:58:58 PM
O, en una lengua mas moderna, vos deseas, joto.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on July 15, 2016, 02:24:23 PM
Quote
Tu vis, fellator.
Quote
O, en una lengua mas moderna, vos deseas, joto.
Moderator, I would encourage you to use Google Translate. Nice parsing though. Profanity in foreign and classical languages so that a moderator doesn't understand.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on July 15, 2016, 03:03:59 PM
And O, if they both don't apply so well.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on July 18, 2016, 05:42:59 PM
Magor mamrd, že jste
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 18, 2016, 10:53:53 PM
Beans are smart . . .


Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 19, 2016, 07:18:48 AM
Beans are good for your heart! (or so i've heard, probably a lie told by the chickens to get you stop eating them)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 19, 2016, 07:56:47 AM
Beans, beans, they're good for you heart.  The more you eat them, the more you f*rt. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 19, 2016, 09:00:42 AM
I bet beans are godless heathens.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Life Is Easy on July 19, 2016, 07:02:36 PM
Beans are good for your heart! (or so i've heard, probably a lie told by the chickens to get you stop eating them)
A Chicken meal with red beans and lot of Cranberry juice is essential for immortality!  8)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 20, 2016, 08:08:29 AM
Red beans are super double plus good.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 20, 2016, 01:13:22 PM
Beans are smart . . .
. . . because they follow the motion of the sun. 
Plants see the light! 

Humans?? 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on July 21, 2016, 01:01:06 PM
Blah-di-fucking-blah...

Hey shitehawk with the Masonic avatar!

You came here kissing sceptimatic's arse, saying how great he is, but now that every single fucking sock-shill here has turned on him where the fuck are you?

Nowhere, that's where.

Why?

Because you're a fucking fraud.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Rama Set on July 22, 2016, 06:37:03 AM
(http://www.wallpapersandbackground.com/images/i-miss-my-love--wallpapers-and-backgrounds.jpg)

Don't worry tender angel, scepti always comes home. This is the third rage quit of his, by my count.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 22, 2016, 04:25:51 PM
Beans are smart . . .
. . . because they follow the motion of the sun. 
Plants see the light! 

Humans??


Some, not all.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 22, 2016, 04:56:24 PM
Some, not all.
Some men are born blind. 
All men can feel the heat of the sun. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 22, 2016, 08:13:38 PM
Quote
So, how did you think the hunters hunt for money?!
Well, I am pretty sure there are no professional hunters here for me to know such things. Anyway, I was a victim of the biased sample fallacy. I saw that game meat could be ordered in restaurants and that it is very expensive, so I assumed that it is how most of the animals after being hunted end up. Obviously that line of reasoning is very fallacious.
Quote
Now you use personal incredulity to disagree with the scientific consensus.
Well, personal incredulity isn't always wrong. And how do you know what's the scientific consensus on the issue?
Quote
Well, you know, the probability of that happening, as estimated by scientists, is not so low. Some say it's 50% chance we will disappear in this century.
I have heard of those stories, I just assumed that's all nonsense.
Quote
I am not really sure if that's a random sample.
I think it doesn't really have to be. These are scientists informed about the issue. I could have chosen to show the consensus of the veterinarians, who are thought that fish feel pain and what anesthetics to use when operate them and probably don't know about the controversy, then the consensus will probably be even higher.
Quote
He cites many scientists supporting what he says.
Well, that's exactly that article that got those 34 commentaries, 91% of which don't support it. The logic behind that article is fundamentally flawed. I could prove that same way that crickets don't hear by explaining in agonizing details how human ears work and citing the experts saying those details and the experts saying that crickets don't have anything similar to that. Of course, crickets do hear using their antennas. Then he goes on refuting the reasons for believing that fish feel pain, and what he is saying makes no sense to me and it didn't make sense to most of the other scientists in the fields either. That's probably similar to this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58309.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58309.0)
Quote
Do fish look like they have feelings to you?
Well, a common response from vegans to this is that fishes didn't evolve to show their feelings because there was no pressure from sexual selection in their evolution, but that that doesn't mean they don't have them.
Quote
And do you think it's a scientific consensus that it's wrong to eat meat?!
Well, 60% of ethical professionals think so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat#Morals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat#Morals)
But I don't think that could count as a scientific consensus. I know a few ethical professionals, and they are completely ignorant of science. Also, I know many of them accept deontology or virtue ethics, which allows them to basically make arbitrary rules without worrying about consequences. And, since most of them eat meat, they are biased.
If you eliminate such problems, the percentage will be much higher.
Quote
Well, what can we do about it?
Well, don't buy fish. Most of the fish today comes from unsustainable fishing, which painfully and stressfully kills five times as much fish as it catches, as a by catch. Needless to say what it does to the environment. Stop supporting it with your money. Fishers catch fish for money, and if we stop giving them money, they will stop doing that. I know you can't do the same for game meat, since hunters will almost certainly continue hunting even if you don't buy their products, but you can do that with fishers.
Quote
We have found methods of ecologically raising, like aquaculture, and humanely harvesting fish, like electrofishing, you know.
So, you think that just because scientists have found out how to use aquaponics, that means that fish you buy comes from it? LOL! Look, I know that what I am about to say may be hard to swallow, but everyone is an idiot. Including you and me. And whenever you think about something, keep that in mind. Scientists are not idiots when they talk about something in their field of expertise, but, otherwise, they are. It's not my glee to say that, but that's the conclusion from what I've learned being on forums and researching Wikipedia about what people do.



(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/dentists_1674.jpg)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: origamiscienceguy on July 22, 2016, 09:43:47 PM
Some, not all.
Some men are born blind. 
All men can feel the heat of the sun.
Not all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain)
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 23, 2016, 01:31:40 PM
Some, not all.
Some men are born blind. 
All men can feel the heat of the sun.
Not all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain)
Some men choose the darkness. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: origamiscienceguy on July 24, 2016, 09:53:57 AM
Some people literally are physically unable to feel pain, or heat.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Charming Anarchist on July 30, 2016, 06:52:44 PM
Some people literally believe everything they read. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 31, 2016, 08:31:44 PM
Some people literally believe everything they read.

I don't believe that.   ;D
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 04, 2016, 11:36:40 AM
Some people literally believe everything they read.

I don't believe that.   ;D

I doubt your words. 
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 04, 2016, 01:30:34 PM
You're all a bunch of nerds, belieb dat.
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Conker on August 04, 2016, 05:25:29 PM
I believe that
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Papa Legba on August 08, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
I believe that

You live it, Poindexter...

Science absolutely proves the existence of a Creator.

It proves nothing about the nature of that Creator though.

Again, everybody intelligent understands this.

Both organised Religion & organised Atheism were created as fodder for cattle.

Enjoy chewing your cud, moo-tards!
Title: Re: Atheism
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 08, 2016, 09:56:37 AM
Atheists will simply grow out of it.