Let's do a religion poll!

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic
Earlier in this this thread, and I didn't say you committed a fallacy, asshat. You said I said that after I complained of reductio ad absurdum. WTF. And so what then to your "point" of the invisible pink unicorn. Makes a lot of sense, now doesn't it? An apt analogy... it's invisible, while somehow pink, and yet a unicorn. Yes sir, you are full of logic. :roll:

Told ya

Riling Vic up is like going out in the rain and getting wet :laugh:

Well, I do get a bit frustrated and pissed off when people who are unable to understand my arguments insist on covering-up their ignorance by resorting to mischaracterizations of me. I find passive aggressiveness of that type to be more insulting than the worst of overt aggression and insults short of actual physical violence, and reply accordingly.

But hey, you've done nothing this whole thread but make personal attacks against me and pretend innocently that I am the one making the attacks, and as I realize that you actually believe your lies and delusions, I'm not expecting you to stop.

I learned long ago it's pointless to argue, you'd gladly spend 10 hours a day here claiming agnosticism while arguing theism with all the fervor of Jerry Falwell, calling anyone who calls you on the contradiction a name.

And once again, I'm forced to ask for examples of these accusations of yours, which once again, you won't provide. I'd like to know exactly which church this is you think that I could argue these arguments of mine at that wouldn't excommunicate me (edit: except Unitarian... I don't think they'd excommunicate Satan ).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

I know about the invisible pink unicorn. It's pointless IMO.

But calling something pointless doesn't make it pointless. It is what it is.

Like I said earlier (in reference to FSM), I could point to my dog, call him God, and then claim that God doesn't exist because my dog doesn't have God-like powers.

No, you couldn't. That wouldn't be consistent. You can't assign a label to an existent thing and then claim that the thing to which you refer with that label doesn't exist.

{snip}

And I specifically complained about the particular use of reductio ad absurdum as being anti-intellectual. For the reason demonstrated in the dog example. Read the f'ing posts.

The dog example is not an example of reductio ad absurdum. You really don't know what it is, do you?

If you're not going to bother reading, then don't bother replying, especially if all you're going to do is nitpick things irrelevant to the actual discussion. We'd get along better if that were the case. Thank you.

It's not my fault that I don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't seem that you do, either.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

I know about the invisible pink unicorn. It's pointless IMO.

But calling something pointless doesn't make it pointless. It is what it is.

Like I said earlier (in reference to FSM), I could point to my dog, call him God, and then claim that God doesn't exist because my dog doesn't have God-like powers.

No, you couldn't. That wouldn't be consistent. You can't assign a label to an existent thing and then claim that the thing to which you refer with that label doesn't exist.

{snip}

And I specifically complained about the particular use of reductio ad absurdum as being anti-intellectual. For the reason demonstrated in the dog example. Read the f'ing posts.

The dog example is not an example of reductio ad absurdum. You really don't know what it is, do you?

If you're not going to bother reading, then don't bother replying, especially if all you're going to do is nitpick things irrelevant to the actual discussion. We'd get along better if that were the case. Thank you.

It's not my fault that I don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't seem that you do, either.

Seriously. Read my posts or quit trolling. Maybe then you might be able to keep up, or at very least, learn how to think instead of just relying on by-rote book learning.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Seriously. Read my posts or quit trolling. Maybe then you might be able to keep up, or at very least, learn how to think instead of just relying on by-rote book learning.

ROFL. I'm not the one acting all haughty without understanding the meaning of the very terms I'm using. Seriously, look up reductio ad absurdum. You should be embarrassed by your misuse of it.

"You keep using this word... I do not think it means what you think it means"

LOL

"Physician, heal thyself!"

Oh man, these are too easy...

BTW nice job failing to address all of the challenges in my post. But *I'm* the one trolling... haha you're hilarious.

 

[imported_Tick]

TTT!

 

[natto fire]

Go figure, an Elite member turned this thread into P&N sludge. :roll:

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Go figure, an Elite member turned this thread into P&N sludge. :roll:

Just ignore it. It'll pass and get ignored if people post quality stuff.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Seriously. Read my posts or quit trolling. Maybe then you might be able to keep up, or at very least, learn how to think instead of just relying on by-rote book learning.

ROFL. I'm not the one acting all haughty without understanding the meaning of the very terms I'm using. Seriously, look up reductio ad absurdum. You should be embarrassed by your misuse of it.

"You keep using this word... I do not think it means what you think it means"

LOL

"Physician, heal thyself!"

Oh man, these are too easy...

BTW nice job failing to address all of the challenges in my post. But *I'm* the one trolling... haha you're hilarious.

Of course you are. Your arguments are purely ego-driven and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, obviously intentionally done to disguise the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about besides the fact that you have no respect for the truth, simply your ego.
We've been here before, it's obscenely obvious to everyone but yourself and, quite frankly, it's annoying. You're a pompous blowhard.

Try this, you're arguing the invisible pink unicorn, a universally recognized reductio ad absurdum argument. Not a problem, except it's irrelevant to everyone except diehard atheists and the fundie theists they're trying to mock. It's also completely irrelevant to our argument over the definition of atheism, but it's well understood that you do such distracting segues on purpose in order to avoid conceding any points. Anyway, the IPU is pink and invisible, the dog is and is not. What's your problem besides your usual ego?

Moving on, the typical usage of the IPU or FSM to mock theists for their blind acceptance of authority and conformity. Because, let's be clear, that's what religion is all about. Internet theism/atheism debates are very very rarely about the actual postulation of the existence/non-existence of God, but about ego, authority, and conformity. Things which I have very little interest in, and whose distraction from actual intellectual discussions I find frustrating and annoying. This is because to actual insist that getting another person to believe as you has any bearing whatsoever on reality would be irrationally delusional in the extreme. That's why I said for you to read my posts. Obviously your ego prevents you from doing so, as it prevents you from understanding what you're really arguing about. That's pretty sad. Hopefully now you can see why you're just as bad as any bible-thumper, but... I doubt your ego will allow that. Go nip at someone else's neck.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Go figure, an Elite member turned this thread into P&N sludge. :roll:

Just ignore it. It'll pass and get ignored if people post quality stuff.

You don't read your own threads? I suggest you do, and you'll see this "P&N sludge" started when Garth flamed Amused. Thanks though.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Agnostic

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Go figure, an Elite member turned this thread into P&N sludge. :roll:

Just ignore it. It'll pass and get ignored if people post quality stuff.

Oh, I did, right after I saw another users name in his posts, I knew it would turn into a nested quote flame-fest, so I just hit reply there. You can imagine my surprise when I was right.

Anyhow, Tick, I still think it is a cool thread. Hell, you even added Jedi to the list, per request, not that it is what I voted for, but :thumbsup: catering to everyone.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Go figure, an Elite member turned this thread into P&N sludge. :roll:

Just ignore it. It'll pass and get ignored if people post quality stuff.

Oh, I did, right after I saw another users name in his posts, I knew it would turn into a nested quote flame-fest, so I just hit reply there. You can imagine my surprise when I was right.

Anyhow, Tick, I still think it is a cool thread. Hell, you even added Jedi to the list, per request, not that it is what I voted for, but :thumbsup: catering to everyone.

Thanks for your positive comments. It's nice not to get flamed at. I do wonder why some people voted Jedi, but what ever floats their boat.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Go figure, an Elite member turned this thread into P&N sludge. :roll:

Just ignore it. It'll pass and get ignored if people post quality stuff.

Oh, I did, right after I saw another users name in his posts, I knew it would turn into a nested quote flame-fest, so I just hit reply there. You can imagine my surprise when I was right.

Anyhow, Tick, I still think it is a cool thread. Hell, you even added Jedi to the list, per request, not that it is what I voted for, but :thumbsup: catering to everyone.

Thanks for your positive comments. It's nice not to get flamed at. I do wonder why some people voted Jedi, but what ever floats their boat.

Read Lucas' mentor, Joseph Campbell and you'll understand. Jedi-ism is a full-fledged mystical religion, complete with hero myths, the works. It was intentionally designed that way, and is arguably a major reason why the movies were so popular (the 1st 3 at least).

And I apologize if you feel I crapped in your thread. I get a bit miffed at Garth's proselytizing technique, which is to intentionally obfuscate the definition and nature of atheism in order to convert agnostics.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Go figure, an Elite member turned this thread into P&N sludge. :roll:

Just ignore it. It'll pass and get ignored if people post quality stuff.

Oh, I did, right after I saw another users name in his posts, I knew it would turn into a nested quote flame-fest, so I just hit reply there. You can imagine my surprise when I was right.

Anyhow, Tick, I still think it is a cool thread. Hell, you even added Jedi to the list, per request, not that it is what I voted for, but :thumbsup: catering to everyone.

Thanks for your positive comments. It's nice not to get flamed at. I do wonder why some people voted Jedi, but what ever floats their boat.

Read Lucas' mentor, Joseph Campbell and you'll understand. Jedi-ism is a full-fledged mystical religion, complete with hero myths, the works. It was intentionally designed that way, and is arguably a major reason why the movies were so popular (the 1st 3 at least).

And I apologize if you feel I crapped in your thread. I get a bit miffed at Garth's proselytizing technique, which is to intentionally obfuscate the definition and nature of atheism in order to convert agnostics.

I do agree that Jedism seems like a religion, it just amazes me that people answered that. Thanks for the apology, just stop flaming.

 

[natto fire]

And Vic, I did not see any flaming on his part. An attempt to get the last word, yes, but that is how these pointless arguments always get started, everyone has to have the last word (irony noted, but you were the first person to call him out). That really seemed to get the flame-bait rolling, so I am assuming you two have sparred in P&N before? I am not trying to start crap, as I always like your posts in car threads, and know you are an intelligent person, which makes me wonder why you could not have just posted your opinion on your beliefs and left it at that. Arguing semantics is just as bad as trying to change peoples opinions as semantics are still pretty much opinion when you get right down to it.

Like I said, I stopped reading this thread after it became apparent is was just 2-3 people arguing back and forth. (It always happens when you use another poster's name in your post as even a remote call-out...)

Peace be with you, but it really is too bad this thread will be locked or moved to P&N, where the comedy will be lost on most of the raving lunatics that post there.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
And Vic, I did not see any flaming on his part. An attempt to get the last word, yes, but that is how these pointless arguments always get started, everyone has to have the last word (irony noted, but you were the first person to call him out). That really seemed to get the flame-bait rolling, so I am assuming you two have sparred in P&N before? I am not trying to start crap, as I always like your posts in car threads, and know you are an intelligent person, which makes me wonder why you could not have just posted your opinion on your beliefs and left it at that. Arguing semantics is just as bad as trying to change peoples opinions as semantics are still pretty much opinion when you get right down to it.

Like I said, I stopped reading this thread after it became apparent is was just 2-3 people arguing back and forth. (It always happens when you use another poster's name in your post as even a remote call-out...)

Peace be with you, but it really is too bad this thread will be locked or moved to P&N, where the comedy will be lost on most of the raving lunatics that post there.

You. Stop. We do not need another flame war. You just did what you accuse him of doing.

 

[Vic]

LOL.

Okay, I'm out of here. Enjoy your thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Of course you are. Your arguments are purely ego-driven and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, obviously intentionally done to disguise the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about besides the fact that you have no respect for the truth, simply your ego.

Hahaha... thank you for that eye-opening insight into my own ideals and motivations. You sure seem to think you're an expert on the contents of other people's minds. How asinine.

For his next trick, Swami Vic will endeavor to predict the next week's winning lottery numbers! Seriously, you've already embarrassed yourself enough. Just stop.

We've been here before, it's obscenely obvious to everyone but yourself and, quite frankly, it's annoying. You're a pompous blowhard.

If you would like to know what you think of yourself, ask yourself what you think of others, and you will have your answer.

Try this, you're arguing the invisible pink unicorn, a universally recognized reductio ad absurdum argument.

You still haven't bothered to learn what a reductio ad absurdum is. Here's a hint: The IPU isn't one. The IPU isn't even an argument. It's satire for Christ's sake.

Not a problem, except it's irrelevant to everyone except diehard atheists and the fundie theists they're trying to mock. It's also completely irrelevant to our argument over the definition of atheism, but it's well understood that you do such distracting segues on purpose in order to avoid conceding any points. Anyway, the IPU is pink and invisible, the dog is and is not. What's your problem besides your usual ego?

I don't have a problem. You have a problem, and it's a lack of coherency. You should start by learning to properly use the term "reductio ad absurdum."

Moving on, the typical usage of the IPU or FSM to mock theists for their blind acceptance of authority and conformity. Because, let's be clear, that's what religion is all about. Internet theism/atheism debates are very very rarely about the actual postulation of the existence/non-existence of God, but about ego, authority, and conformity. Things which I have very little interest in, and whose distraction from actual intellectual discussions I find frustrating and annoying. This is because to actual insist that getting another person to believe as you has any bearing whatsoever on reality would be irrationally delusional in the extreme. That's why I said for you to read my posts. Obviously your ego prevents you from doing so, as it prevents you from understanding what you're really arguing about. That's pretty sad. Hopefully now you can see why you're just as bad as any bible-thumper, but... I doubt your ego will allow that. Go nip at someone else's neck.

That's a lovely soapbox you have there. When you come down off it, maybe we could have a real discussion about the actual issues that apparently compelled you to get up on it in the first place.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Of course you are. Your arguments are purely ego-driven and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, obviously intentionally done to disguise the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about besides the fact that you have no respect for the truth, simply your ego.

Hahaha... thank you for that eye-opening insight into my own ideals and motivations. You sure seem to think you're an expert on the contents of other people's minds. How asinine.

For his next trick, Swami Vic will endeavor to predict the next week's winning lottery numbers! Seriously, you've already embarrassed yourself enough. Just stop.

We've been here before, it's obscenely obvious to everyone but yourself and, quite frankly, it's annoying. You're a pompous blowhard.

If you would like to know what you think of yourself, ask yourself what you think of others, and you will have your answer.

Try this, you're arguing the invisible pink unicorn, a universally recognized reductio ad absurdum argument.

You still haven't bothered to learn what a reductio ad absurdum is. Here's a hint: The IPU isn't one. The IPU isn't even an argument. It's satire for Christ's sake.

Not a problem, except it's irrelevant to everyone except diehard atheists and the fundie theists they're trying to mock. It's also completely irrelevant to our argument over the definition of atheism, but it's well understood that you do such distracting segues on purpose in order to avoid conceding any points. Anyway, the IPU is pink and invisible, the dog is and is not. What's your problem besides your usual ego?

I don't have a problem. You have a problem, and it's a lack of coherency. You should start by learning to properly use the term "reductio ad absurdum."

Moving on, the typical usage of the IPU or FSM to mock theists for their blind acceptance of authority and conformity. Because, let's be clear, that's what religion is all about. Internet theism/atheism debates are very very rarely about the actual postulation of the existence/non-existence of God, but about ego, authority, and conformity. Things which I have very little interest in, and whose distraction from actual intellectual discussions I find frustrating and annoying. This is because to actual insist that getting another person to believe as you has any bearing whatsoever on reality would be irrationally delusional in the extreme. That's why I said for you to read my posts. Obviously your ego prevents you from doing so, as it prevents you from understanding what you're really arguing about. That's pretty sad. Hopefully now you can see why you're just as bad as any bible-thumper, but... I doubt your ego will allow that. Go nip at someone else's neck.

That's a lovely soapbox you have there. When you come down off it, maybe we could have a real discussion about the actual issues that apparently compelled you to get up on it in the first place.

You. Get out of my thread.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: Garth
You still haven't bothered to learn what a reductio ad absurdum is. Here's a hint: The IPU isn't one. The IPU isn't even an argument. It's satire for Christ's sake.

Isn't satire (along with sarcasm) one of the most common forms of reductio ad absurdum?

Your sarcastic comment about Swami Vic and the lottery numbers was a text book example of reductio ad absurdum. But you already knew that, right?

 

[harobikes333]

you should add Lutheran to the poll

 

[Coolone]

LDS Here

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: harobikes333
you should add Lutheran to the poll

I had it, but hotchic mentioned that Lutheranism is a variety of Protestantism, so vote for that.

 

[IGBT]

..I'm a global warming agnostic.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..I'm a global warming agnostic.

Don't even start....