Troll. Of course I am a Troll. You have so spoken. I dub thee Jack The Egyptian Ass.
Please. Do call a mod. I would like to see of a mod would agree with you. You will no doubt be filled with joy at this: if the mod is as blind as you are, then I will make my account inactive and leave. Happy?
Tell me, if you broadcast that someone is a Troll, and the mod finds that you were wrong, misrepresenting what I said, do you get banished for a while instead? I would like to know. Perhaps they will play politics and ban us both. What do you think? I think in that case I will stay. Sorry.
Take note of the following, if you wish.
Post 27 was aimed at Stile. Do you perhaps have 2 logins?
Post 28 was aimed at hooah212002. Do you perhaps have 3 logins?
Some of my responses were to those people, specifically. Making as if they were aimed at you as well is
ridiculous. Unless you completely agree with them...
every other reasonable poster on
...then they do. Enjoy, Jack.
Post 27. Me reacting to being labelled horrific & smelly; reacting to what could be easily construed as a threat to actually notify the police that I am a ‘crazy-hater’ (in these wonderful days of hate-crimes/thought-crimes.)
I think I'll have the police keep a close eye on you if you don't think other people matter.
Note that this reads as a statement of intent to act, since I have clearly stated that I do no think that other people matter: ‘as a matter of logic’ being the caveat. There are no obvious indicators that this is a joke. So as far as I know, my posts have been noted with the FBI (or whatever the relevant legal entity is.)
Technically I would argue for a life-long ban for making a statement like that. Wouldn’t you? Or are you also too damn stupid to distinguish between an abstract argument and a statement-of-intent-to-do-harm? I assumed that the relevant knuckle-head was kidding. So I let it slide. I really should not, but what can I do? What are my alternatives? Contact the FBI and ask them if I have been reported-on? Do you think I could complain to them if so? Don’t you just love big-government?
Do you see my... problem... yet, Jack. Just how calmly am I supposed to react to this sort of thing, Jack. I think I did amazingly well, Jack.
Oh dear, but YOU have to go and call in the mods. Because I was a widdle bit nasty. YOU declare that I am a Troll... why, because you feel like it.
Little. Child.
But let me continue.
Stile, in my opinion, did not get my point. (You did not get it either.)
Desire is not Reason. Desire has sweet blue nothing to do with it.
I am not saying WHAT kind of evil would occur: that would depend on the individual demoniac. I am not even saying that evil
necessarily WOULD occur.
A.1) Observe that there is no direct link between any two humans.
A.2) Logic dictates: GIVEN that there is no
binding reason to care about other humans in the slightest, it follows that:
A.3) Conclusion: Do what you want. (Good and evil are irrelevant.)
A.3.
should inevitably lead to evil. Or what is called evil by most people, most of the time. Which is the sum total of my point: a Gate, if you will, through which evil may pour.
(A minor implication of this is then: An atheist may not lay claim to both rationality and ‘goodness.’)
Care to explain to me how ‘desire’ is a requisite of the above? This is not an issue of emotion, it is an issue of logic. Do you get my point(s) yet? Or are you skimming again?
So. If you do not mind, I am not going to ‘Prove Desire.’ If you do mind, note that I do not care. I could be cute and call your ‘requirement’ an excellent example of a strawman, but I think your intentions were probably worse that merely that. (So why call you something better than what you are.) What is annoying, how your misreading (lets be nice for a moment) leads to calling me all sorts of fluffy and loving things.
=
Post 28 was a response to:
rationally, am I wrong?
Yes
Are we not, each and every one, commanded by the dictates of reason to walk a path named ‘Evil’?
no, only you christians. The rest of us are just fine. We are only classified as such by :GASP: christians.
Was this deserving of a response better than the one I gave? Really?
a) Yes. Deep. Oh the depth of this response to the central point of my little posting. It overwhelms me little mind.
b) you Christians. Minor insult. I asked for it. Although ‘waiting for the theists’ did not predispose me to niceness.
c) We are only classified as such... Missed the point completely. I mean, REALLY completely.
So us christians are scum. Fine. So. hooah212002, You are scum! Neener.
Also, given how hooah212002 responded to me (see ‘a’ above), how do you justify calling my You are attempts at humour (given the rationale-less 'Yes') Trolling? You are REALLY starting to annoy me, by the way. Who the damned Hell are you? Big Brother? Judge of All? Twit? (So hard to decide...)
Well yes, of course they are irrelevant; I have seen no mention of these ideas before you brought them up.
*
Although it can be explained through instinctual grounds (survival of the group is good for the individual...),
*
That's why we've created laws and jails and police and such.
You are wrong. Minor point. You could at least have done a word search before effectively claiming that I am inventing/lying. That is the problem I have with forum rules on this site: you can smear me, and claim misunderstanding. You can do similar things, several times, and I am not allowed to call you a dishonest liar. That really sucks.
You would call these two brights reasonable poster(s). Interesting. I do not see how that is possible, but what do I know. Maybe you just have really low standards. Or maybe your idea of ‘reasonable’ has ethically evolved into a new kind of moral equivalence via your vast insight and intellect.
=====
I am not going to address all the points you raised. None of them really matter, anyway, since you made several miss-judgements.
=
Defining good & evil.
This has never been done. Demanding that I do is dishonest: unless it seemed as if I attempted to do so, of course. If it came across like that, then kindly note that that was not my intent.
When I use the terms, I use them as they are used generally: rape, bad; saving life of drowning kiddy at risk of own life, good. More than that, I do not know. Neither do you: so kindly do not pretend some great wisdom on this subject. Asking stupid questions is not smart.
Wonderful! So you Christians really don't care about other's suffering. Fascinating.
Why would you assume that I speak for all Christians? Or even that I serve as a rough example of a ‘good’ one? Given that I embrace a label like ‘heretic’, given that I hate churchies, given my general demeanour, what could possibly justify you making such a statement?
Q: You might have asked why I do not care if that person goes to Hell or not.
A: We little maniacs are commanded to spread the gospel. That has been done. After that, the ball is not in my court. Freedom of choice. Did you note my use of the word ‘fool’? That has a specific biblical context in this case, by the way: something about: No, God, Heart, Fool.
I do not care if you go to Hell or not, either. Why should I?
Goodness removal of God’s free will...
Blah. Semantic-definition games. God made Hell. He made Heaven. He saves and He destroys.
You assume God does not exist, therefore you feel validated in playing games with words. I know he does exist (as much as anyone can, I guess), so I feel validated in not having a clue. Someday I will know. You will never know. My opinion on this (good) is stated a paragraph or two above this one.
Your answer is convoluted and lacks proof and substance.
You are the one who is attacking straw men.
(Strawmen? May I ask for clarification on this? I have no idea what you are talking about.)
I’ve been through this kind of pseudo-rationality before. Took me a while to realize that it is a simple excuse to avoid having to answer questions. Keep it up, and I will label you an intellectually dishonest liar; and start insinuating so repeatedly: unless you can properly describe how my argument convoluted and lacking in substance. Then we can talk. (Annoying, isn’t it? Condescending, isn’t it?)
Oh! I am SO overwhelmed by your awesome BRAIN! Ohhh! I could just FAINT!
Do you have any idea how silly you come across as, dude? At least my poopyness is upfront.
I'm sure that anyone would be able to identify someone who so obviously lacked any form of concern for another.
Perfect ignorance on the subject. I mean, you really have absolutely no clue.
Ah, the 'truthful' argument: the one where it cannot be disagreed with because it is fundamentally and consistently truth.
Ah, the silly philosophy argument. The one where the speaker sounds wise and intelligent, experienced in the ways of talking poopy (which is true.)
So you call me, in effect, stupid (speaking globally of all the posts.) Say that, in effect, my crazy ramblings are incomprehensible. But that you, the wise one, have granted them a glance and found them wanting. Well, you certainly are an evolutionist! I do not think you missed a single of the classics. (Actually I think you did, but I am not in the mood to waste more time on this part of your drivel, Jack.)
Sigh. Did you even try, a teeny bit, to grasp what I meant when I said that? Is it an 'argument' to state a highly obvious fact that there is no DIRECT link between humans? Is it? And the simple logic step based on that: does that qualify as being an 'argument'? Does it? I think not. Both are too simple, too basic to granted such august terminology. That is, of course, a matter of opinion. Words are only words, and you are free to name things as it makes you happy.
But in all seriousness, do not label anyone who disagrees with you as uncaring. It's descending and labels you as an unfair stereotyper.
not to mention undeniably incorrect.
Condescending.
Yes I am. Unlike you lot, I did actually slog my way through the whole business of finding out which God is the correct one, with all that that journey entails, devils and all.
I fail to see why I should respect your opinions on something which you have only a vague semi-academic interest in. Is this not rational? Is it not generally accepted that the opinion of a scientist (in a given area) trumps that of someone who is not? How is this different? I’ve been there. I’ve bled there. You couldn’t care less. I refuse to grant you, or anyone like you, equivalence on this.
Technically, Jack, YOU are being condescending for not granting that I might just not be a crazy incompetent liar: which alone could justify your placing an equivalence between us on this.
Boo. Hoo.
You see, I really do not care about a whole lot of things, like if Satan is the greatest power or not. (I really would quite happily start with the butchering if that was indeed the case.) Once I realized that supernatural things existed, I went and looked to see if ‘God’ existed. I really tried to do it right. In this, I am radically different from the churchies: Mystic and Heretic, I am called.
Am I proselytizing? Not my intension. (Like I’ve said: I do not care about you.)
So. I care, you do not. Period. Relatively speaking, of course: that was implied, I thought. Silly me. Strange that no matter how I try and cover most things, there is always wiggle room for ‘inventiveness’ by people like you.
Oh.
TO THE MOD: please note how Jack took my ‘condescension’ on one very specific issue and, unfairly, generalized it: is this not a clear-cut case of misrepresentation? Note also how similar this was to the other instances where the specific magically goes over into the general. Are these not every one misrepresentations?
I would also, should a Great Judgement occur, like to have a judgement on the fairness of Jack calling me a Troll.
Give us proof.
Come on, it's not that hard.
I, the idiot, call you: Moron.
Oh. And suffix: Condescending. (It sounds better that way... kind of technical, wouldn’t you say?)
He was not trying to allow you to proselytize. Please stop trolling.
Do you seriously consider calling what I said proselytizing. Wow. And ‘allow’, no less. Super-Wow. You really do have incredibly low standards. If this is what you consider an example of Trolling, then you are a silly little person.
If you want to get back to the topic at hand, then please, by all means do so. If you want to continue finger pointing, however, then please stop trolling. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.
Ah. Preparing for the Summoning of the Mod. Cute.
If my take on evil is correct, then the dilemma folds. Is that not on topic? Yes or No. When the other two Blind Ones either said nothing of relevance, and/or got what I was trying to say completely wrong (like you), is talking about that off-topic? Yes or No.
I'm sure you'll find that difficult as he's not really the Lord- he's just a naughty little boy.
A question. Given how annoying I find your statement, right now, am I allowed to respond in kind? Would you like me to curse your children? I can try, if you want. Hey, that sort of thing worked when I was a Satanist: maybe I’ll catch the Lord on an off day. Care to tempt me? You may have deduced that I am not kidding.
Or is a threat of, as far as you are concerned, imaginary violence requested from the Living God, the most Terrible Being in existence, frowned upon? Should I rather start adding-in demeaning comments on your children? (Fairness. You go after mine, so I go after yours. The Pretties are quite nice in this regard: I am not.) Would you perhaps prefer that instead? Please state your preference in this matter: I aim to please.
Otherwise perhaps a mod would like to comment on this: because know this, if people are allowed insults like this, then I WILL respond proportionately. It is only fair.
You are hinging your entire argument on this flawed and judgmental assumption:
For an atheist to be nice, would require the abandonment of reason. A choice.
Prove it, and then we'll talk.
This follows from the main point: that is why I said it. That should be clear. But you ignore the main point. So how do you propose I ‘prove it’? Strawman, much? Or does this travesty of logic have a fancy name of some kind. (Note: Feel free to post in whatever language makes you happy. Persoonlik dink ek dat al daai tik wat jy rook het you bietjie baie opgefok, boetie-boy: jy het die siel van 'n tik-hoer.)
Off topic, but you asked:
ToE = 'science.' Ha. Scam is more like it.
a) Adaptive molecular evolution has never been proven (non trivially). Not even in the lab. Amazing, that. Oh, and keep the little 'it is too slow to see' nonsense: you lot only have to demonstrate the tail-end of the event. Ah. But how does one define 'event.' Why, track molecular change, base by base, and show how something... wonderful... came into being. Of course, non trivially. Would you settle for, oh say, 10 bases? 5? Too many? Dude, this could be settled in a lab... oh wait, all those ClimateGate scientists LIED... And the Great-Herd-Of-Scienists stood idly by... Oh dear. The over-view of your experiments have just become a nightmare...
b) The magnificent way in which the hypothesis which was chosen to fit the data (markov, etc.)... is proven by the fitting the data to the Hypothesis. Awesome science.
c) the towering dishonesty of conflating under "descent with modification"::
c1) specie adaptation to environment via allele freq. shifts.
c2) virus & bacteria acquiring genes from their environment.
c3) adaptive molecular evolution
c) ... and then screaming that 'evolution has been proven'. Of course it has. It has been defined so as to be true. c1 and c2 are easy. c3, the actual crux, remains as magic: 'proven' because 'evolution has been proven.' Would it be against forum rules to call the evolutionary scientists of the world deceiving bastards?
d) The amazing dishonesties you allow among your own: there are several on talk.origins: just two are: 'fact of evolution' misrepresentation; the way 'multiple-proofs' of the tree-of-life is stated as, rather than an increase in the power of the shape of the tree.
e) there is more, but I haven't cared about this for a few months now, so I cannot exactly recall. What does it matter anyway.
Oh. And the fallout of ClimateGate are not ramblings. That the whole peer-review process collapsed so badly for climate-sciences, showing how, more than anything, ideology corrupted the science, will mean, logically, that you lot will not be able to use arguments like ">99% of scientists said" ever again. The presumption of functional self-governance was gifted to the sciences. And they sodomized it. So now it is gone. You see, all those hordes of religious idiots you (and I, but for different reasons) so despise, still had a basic trust in your general integrity. What they gave, they will take away. Perhaps they will even start chopping again... ah, those were the days :-)
I may be one of the first to point this out to you all, but that wave is coming in, sometime not too distantly. Surfs up, boys and girls, and them retard sharks are ticked-off.
I could go on a bit more: 'needs' not being part of the logic involved. Etc. Etc.
Since none of you feel like responding to the actual point I've made, this is a waste of time.
Should someone wish to respond sensibly, feel free. But what are the odds of that happening. Another of those great lessons in life: the truism of 'liberals will never argue the point.'
™ Version 4.2
