reg golb (attention whore) pulled his head out of the sand to drop this little turd in the pool back on an old post, Just look at Fiery and Poodles, the only blogs I read in this community, they are a study in duplicity.
Duplicity- Deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.
The irony of being called duplicitous by one of the most illogical, irrational, annoying fundies I have ever had the misfortune to meet has sent my irony meter straight into the red zone.
The only blogs you read in this community, reg golb (attention whore)? Do you mean my own personal circle of blogger friends, or the blogging atheist community as a whole?
You reg golb (attention whore) are the liar. You pretend to be rational, while spouting the most irrational bullshit on the planet. You claim to only read a few blogs, but keep turning up on various atheist blogs long after your welcome has worn out, like a particularly virulent strain of herpes.
Why do you read atheist blogs???? Especially if you think they are "duplicitous". Oh, I know why. Because none of your fundy friends give a shit about you or your "thoughts". But if you go to an atheist blog, and shit in our pool, you get all sorts of attention.
I would love to see links to christian blogs you regularly post to reg golb (attention whore).
Defend your assertion reg golb (attention whore) with links to duplicitous behavior on my part AND Poodles part.
Provide the links reg golb (attention whore) or delete my blog link from your favorites menu and stop coming back. Period.
If you don't know how to provide actual links, google it.
57 comments:
duplicity
Very simple to do for poodles. Anyone who read her rants would see it.
You on the other hand are a little more subtle, you're obviously better at disguising.
Here is my argument, and I am not trying to be coy like sir Richard.
You have been indonctrinated in atheism for however long you have been reading Dawkins and the like. Therefore, your attempts to be civil to your "fundy neighbor" are "deliberate deceptiveness in behavior" You try to act nice, and neighborly, then he gets skewered on you blog.
I see this as duplicity, if I am wrong, enlighten me.
Tellmeimrong had an great post about being homeschoolers.
Indoctrinate- to teach to accept a system of thought uncritically.
You poor deluded fundy. You know next to nothing about me and the assumptions you've made (incorrectly) have been already addressed here on my blog.
From the time I was young, I tried repeatedly to have a personal relationship with god, twice with other people praying over/for/with me.
I cried the first time my mate told me why he no longer believed there was a god of any kind.
I fought atheism tooth and nail.
I had spent my whole life believing there was a god watching over me, judging me, and ready to punish unbelievers with hellfire. I drug my feet trailing along behind him on his journey towards atheism
I read some of the books he was reading, a bit of Neotech by Frank R. Wallace, some of Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, all of the Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. These are NOT your typical atheist authors. After reading them and much thinking on my part, I came to the conclusion that the reason I had never been “born again” was because there is nothing out there. There is no higher being that gives a rat’s bread basket about me or my future. We’re on our own and this is the only life we get.
I spent the better part of 10 years feeling guilty about my lack of belief in god, wishing that there was a god, and that somehow I was wrong in my knowledge that he did not exist.
I had never heard of Dawkins or Harris or any of the other atheists you would include in your little phrase “the like" until I started my blog earlier this year. I still haven't read very many of their books and I don't think much of the writing style of Harris. Hardly uncritical.
As for the treatment of my neighbor, what did I say here on my blog that would not have been discussed in the “conversion attempt” that he insisted on? I made it very clear the contempt I had for his god, his concept of hell, and how evil I consider the entire notion. How have I skewered him here, that was not said in person? I suppose the term “shunned” didn’t come up, but that is a personal analysis of the way he is treating me. As for being nice in person, I am civil, he is civil. Do we really need to start a war over this?
Civility is not duplicity.
As for "uncritical". HA! Me????
If you were at all a faithful reader of my blog, you would know how much I delight in things that "make me think". Critical thinking mind you, stop and examine what is being said thinking, take a moment to turn it over in my mind examining it from multiple angles thinking.
Passively accepting any concept is not my style.
Uncritical? Me? Hardly.
Let me rephrase.
You are steeped in atheism.
That sounds better, you are a very "thoughtful" person, and a very intelligent one.
I was just making an observation.
You are civil, you say, to your neighbor. I take your word for it, so we have no arguments there.
I find the word "fundy" a slam, it is clearly meant to be derogatory.
The civility is not duplicitous, it is what is said here in light of that civility that I see as duplicitous.
It is just my observation. I am not here to crap in your pool. But when we clearly disagree on some things, what I have to say does muddy the water so to speak.
I would like to point out of flaw in your initial comment. You say that I am a liar. How so? because I pretent to be rational? I don't think I am pretending. I think I am trying.
One last thing before sunrise and hunting season begins. I agree with you on many of your posts. I would think an intelligent person like yourself would like a person like me being around. You don't seem like the person who would surround yourself with "yes" men and women. Think of me less like a troll, and more like an off-center point of view.
It is not dissenting opinions that bother me reg golb. Your past behavior on my blog has been attrocious. Up to and including your subsequent deletion of comments left here before you abandoned ship for a time.
Fundy is short for fundamentalist christian. It is applied to unreasoning evangelical types who are incapable of lifting their nose from the bible long enough to confront reality with a thinking and reasoning brain. They often spout bible verses, believe in faith over reason, and rarely have anything original to add to a discussion.
If the term no longer applies to you, then let your actions and words prove it, the usage will slip away.
Your past behavior garnered the term for you, until you live it down, you're stuck with it.
As for being a liar, I would have to say that as the past comments are gone, all I can say is... you are presenting yourself differently now then you did before. Maybe you've grown as a person. But this reg golb is not the same person I told to piss off a few months ago.
If so, that doesn't make you a liar, maybe it shows personal growth.
I suspend judgment on the liar comment until I've heard more of the new improved you.
I guess the use of the word fundamentalist is where I have the problem. I would argue that I have reasoned my faith. I am persuaded. That is what bugs so many people. I am sure that you would disagree(that I have reasoned anything).
I could call you a fundy atheist because i thought you were an unreasoning scientific naturalist. But I choose to give you the respect you are due as a human. I choose to think of atheists as people who have thought, and decided that there is no God. I just hope that atheists, who rely so heavily on science, will keep looking.
You see most atheist I have encountered believe in science. Except they readily admit that science has changed its mind many times on many things. They keep their minds open to new discoveries, inventions, ideas. I just have a hope that they will do the same for the spiritual realm. I hope they will keep their minds open to the possibility that my theory, while totally inconcievable to their current thought process, is still possible IF new information becomes available.
I don't know if my past behaviour was ATTROCIOUS, I was embarrassed of some of my comments and felt compelled to delete them. I hope I am improved like you so politely said.
Ahh. The spiritual realm.
Just so I can understand what you mean can you look at this list and tell me which one's you think are real.
I'm sure that will help me understand you better. KWIM?
1. Demons
2. Gargoyles
3. Headless horsemen
4. Cities in the Clouds
5. Unicorns
6. Undead
7. Giants
8. Guardian Angels
9. Ghosts
10. Gremlins
11. Dragons
12. Magic beans
13. Virgin birth
14. Leprechauns
15. The Loch Ness Monster
16. Ouji boards
17. A talking snake
18. Wishing on a star
19. Psychics
20. Elves
Tag, you're it for a new meme.
Ok, now that I have moved past the Meme and read this entry. WHAT THE FUCK! I don't pretend to be nice on my blog, ever!
Yea, I did lie, I got married in a catholic church knowing FULL FUCKING WELL I WAS AN ATHEIST. At the time it was important to my husband. We paid our money, that is all they really cared about. If their god was so all knowing then he should have told the priest I was lying.
Is that why I am duplicitous?
Nobody knows yet how I went from catholicism to atheism. Learning truth doesn't make one duplicitous.
Please I would love an example of my dublicity...
Oh and Protium...
Nessie is real, it is why I don't swim in lakes, that and brain eating bacteria.
:P
Reg, how the heck am I being coy? On some topics I am straight up, and on some I have reasons to back off, just like any other commenter.
Contrary to Reg's suggestion, atheism is not another faith system. Any ideas can be held blindly, either by a personal choice to live like a parrot, or because of an indoctrinating education.
Atheism, done right, is the only rational system. Any theism is necessarily irrational, necessarily!
One cannot reason from reality into fantasy. There is no continuum between them. It is either real or it isn't. Just as one cannot be half-pregnant, you cannot have it both ways. That the mind can imagine something that is not real, does not make it real.
Imagination used properly enables us to create wonderful new things by trying different combinations of ideas that may or may not make sense. The trick is to know what does make sense and what doesn't. God doesn't.
Reg cannot, "argue that [he has] reasoned [his] faith." Whatever he was doing was not reasoning.
Your coyness is in the way you pretend to be nice and personable, then what you say SMACKS anyone you disagree with right in the kisser.
"Atheism, done right, is the only rational system. Any theism is necessarily irrational, necessarily!" Wrong. Rational simply means evidence of thought, reasonable.
You say there is no continuum between reality and fantasy.
If I were dumb enough to let you define the two arguments, which I am not, you would have a great argument.
The two terms should be physical and spiritual (nonphysical).
I am not ready to admit the spiritual world is fantasy. Just because something is currently out of the realm of scientific proof doesn't mean it is fantasy. Just look at the evolution of the evolutionary theory. IF that was the case the origin of life SHOULD still be on the table for discussion with you. But since you have convinced yourself that only materialism is valid thought, I MUST BE irrational. That was not coy, it was sarcastic which I hate to be, but it comes out at times.
That is my 2 cents. It is evidence of thought. It is, however, not the end of the discussion like Richard believes his argument is.
Well Reg, that's stretching the use of "coy" and certainly its connotation.
Too many people think a strong argument is a smack in the kisser, but wouldn't it be better if they were to see the argument as an argument and then reason through it for their own benefit?
"Rational" does not mean evidence of thought, it means being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid. That excludes fantasy and wild guesswork.
Your use of 'spiritual' counts on an equivocation --a confusion of two different meanings-- since a "spiritual" experience can be had with or without invoking supernatural fantasies.
"Just because something is currently out of the realm of scientific proof doesn't mean it is fantasy."
That depends on the degree and nature of evidence for that 'something'. There is no evidence for gods, or for the 20 things Protium listed. As I have said elsewhere on fiery's blog, the onus is on the person asserting something to demonstrate its existence. Repeated claims without evidence are a frightful waste of everyone's time.
The God situation is so extreme, and relies on such abuse of reason and knowledge, that it cannot survive serious scrutiny. That is not my having been "indonctrinated [sic]", it is from reasoning things through without allowing flights of fancy and personal whim to take the place of what I really do know. The same is clearly the case with fiery, and a lot of other atheists.
Now, what is this about: "Just look at the evolution of the evolutionary theory. IF that was the case the origin of life SHOULD still be on the table for discussion with you."?
Life's origin on earth is not the mystery some would like to think. I can discuss this matter in detail right down to lipid double membranes (bilayers) formed in the primordial, oxygen-less, foaming, non-saline oceans some 3.5 billion years ago.
Perhaps some commenters on fiery's blog have some honest, non-sneering, questions about the Darwinian Evolution of species, and the 'Primordial Soup' view of how life on Earth likely formed.
Reg your final remarks are indeed evidence of 'thought' but, to be specific again, the right kind of thinking, in the context of a serious discussion, should be reason.
Any attempt to bring the unreal, wittingly or not, into one's thinking is a practice of irrationality.
Non physical does not mean anything golb. Either something is physical and therefore exists or it is not physical and does not exist. If there is a spirit and it is non physical what the hell is it made of? What is it? What do you think existence is? I would ask as protium has what evidence would you say there is for god anymore than enter own spirit here?
I would argue that I have reasoned my faith. I am persuaded.That is what bugs so many people. Reasoned? from what position? Were you an atheist who converted to faith? Surely your not trying to tell us you weren't brought up religious read indoctrinated. It's your belief that you have reasoned your way into faith that bugs people. I would love to hear your reasoning.
If you say people believe in science like people believe in god then you do not understand science. Science is not a belief system golb science is a demonstrable fact.
I am not ready to admit the spiritual world is fantasy. Just because something is currently out of the realm of scientific proof doesn't mean it is fantasy. Just look at the evolution of the evolutionary theory. IF that was the case the origin of life SHOULD still be on the table for discussion with you. But since you have convinced yourself that only materialism is valid thought, I MUST BE irrational. That was not coy, it was sarcastic which I hate to be, but it comes out at times.
reg reg reg tut tut tut simple errors in understanding science...first error is the word proof... this is why science is changeable because we look for evidence not proof....then we try and interpret or give the best possible explanation for what the evidence tells us. If we get new evidence then we may have to change our explanation of what is going on. It works reg believe it or not we have the proof (yes I said proof because there are some things that are facts and science is one I can demostrate if you want)
Secondly the origin of life is still on the table!!!! Evolution has noting to do with the origin of life it is the explanation for diversification of life after it originated.
*Tapping toe*
I am still waiting for evidence that I am duplicitous?
Seriously, accusations deserve proof... OH WAIT you're a god believer, never mind.
Bwahahahahah you rule poodles......He thinks he talks the talk and thats good enough for him..He is a total lightweight...His "proof" usually consists of a snideAnyone who read her rants would see it. and the use of words like simple and flawed and other derogitory words without any counter evidence.
That smack in the face that you feel from Richard's replies is called reality!!
"Poodles is for the most part a "bleeding heart liberal".
Bleeding heart liberals don't pretend to be smart and say things like this
"However, we live in America where racists are still free to believe their douchy thoughts."
Or how about this, you said
"I believe in equal rights for all."
When earlier you said
"I go to Vegas so much! The non drinking mormon douches who don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about and shouldn't have any say in alcohol related ANYTHING"
Is that enough?
Thank you for the response Richard and Johnny. I will return later and tell you where you are mistaken again. Be patient, it will be rewarded with true enlightenment.
Johnny,
Again you are wrong and show an embarrassingly limited awareness of the world around you. You said
"Non physical does not mean anything golb. Either something is physical and therefore exists or it is not physical and does not exist"
An idea is non-physical. Does it therefore NOT EXIST. How about a thought, an emotion, a feeling. There are whole branches of science based on things not physical.
Just an FYI, because I care, and remember you are responsible for what you say.
Still waiting...
I didn't say you would agree poodles.
"That smack in the face that you feel from Richard's replies is called reality!"
BWAH HAH HAH HAAAA!!
YOU rule Johnny. Well done on your longer comment too.
I agree that the exact origin of life is still somewhat debatable. However, there are enough very plausible explanations and laboratory demonstrations to indicate there is no cause to doubt that life began naturally, here on Earth, through entirely reasonable chemical processes that initially were not living at all.
Those life-precursors were, however, subject to natural selection! Bubble1 with strengthening compound A outlasted other Bubbles. Bubble2 surrounding crude RNA that made the strengthening compound outlasted all Bubble1s. Bubble3 had enough RNA and nucleotides to make copies that if it split, the Bubble3 'offspring' would both last longer.
And so on.
Reg has voiced a wonderful and classic error made by religionists and many philosophers.
"An idea is non-physical. Does it therefore NOT EXIST. How about a thought, an emotion, a feeling. There are whole branches of science based on things not physical."
The notion is that ideas are somehow something more than the natural processes of nerve cells and life. It ties in with the religionists faulty belief that one's soul is some sort of supernatural spirit. Both are the kind of primitivism that believed Gods, spirits or ghosts were embodied by animals, plants, rivers, lakes and oceans.
An idea IS a part of physical reality, and has identity as an action, just as does the movement of one's arm, as opposed to the arm itself.
Ideas are a part of the brain's processing neurons and the field(s) they may generate that might be called one's "mind". The actions involved produce and constitute the ideas.
Magnetic fields and gravity are not physical matter, but they ARE physical phenomena. So are ideas.
Sign language would be another example. The idea is not transferred through space by light, but symbols the mind can interpret are. The mind then actively reconstructs the idea, just as occurs when reading this text.
Ideas are a part of the the mind's actions. Words are how the ideas are stored and manipulated.
Such actions are all a part of the Law of Causality (of cause and effect), which is really the Law of Identity put into action. They are a part of the physical world as surely as is the movement of an arm.
I think the above could be better formulated, but I am done for the night.
I am not really going to argue that God exists now, I would be happy to give tons of evidence at a later date. I don't have proof, I never claimed to have any proof.
I think we were discussing whether I reason or not. This is how I have considered the existance of a god. I am sure you will find it flawless, but in the rare event I forgot something I am sure you will point it out.
One of the following MUST be true. 1. There is not a god 2. there is a god.
IF 1 is true, then life is all there is. If 2 is true then there is the potential for something more.
As a rational person would do I considered both situations and came to the following conclusion, I HAVE TO DECIDE FOR MYSELF.
So for me to believe in options 1, I would do the following
1. seek proof that there is no God, evidence isn't enough for me because if I am wrong, I don't know what will happen and I am afraid of the unknown. Similar to "reasonable doubt", a jury shouldn't convict if they have reasonable doubt, neither will I.
You may seek evidence for this and be happy, that is your choice.
After I had proof, then I would enjoy my life because I would know that there was no more.
For me to believe in option 2 I would require evidence. I have discovered volumes of evidence that A god is real. From there my search began to find THE God.
reg golb said..." I will return later and tell you where you are mistaken again. Be patient, it will be rewarded with true enlightenment."
and also "I am sure you will find it flawless, but in the rare event I forgot something I am sure you will point it out."
The preceding examples of self-congratulatory comments are a good example of why people think of you as a fundy.
*sigh*
Oh and guess what else Reg? This bleeding heart liberal is actually pro death penalty, and not just for killers, for rapists, child abusers, elderly abusers, and animal abusers. OH THE HUMANITY!
Bitchy, maybe.
Duplicity, not so much.
"Non physical does not mean anything golb. Either something is physical and therefore exists or it is not physical and does not exist"
An idea is non-physical. Does it therefore NOT EXIST. How about a thought, an emotion, a feeling. There are whole branches of science based on things not physical.
Just an FYI, because I care, and remember you are responsible for what you say.
Bbbbbbut an idea is a thing *pout* wwwwwhat about emotions or a feeling *boo hoo* they exist don't they...... you simpering twit. Are you suggesting that a thought exists like you exist? Non physical things in a physical
world don't exist in the sense you mean.....what does a thought weigh? How long is an idea?
When was the last time an emotion took you out to dinner...and paid?
An idea is non-physical. Does it therefore NOT EXIST. How about a thought, an emotion, a feeling.
Surprisingly nice work for a dunce you just finished the discussion ALL YOUR GOD IS, IS AN IDEA, A THOUGHT, AN EMOTION NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS
FYI (FUCK YOU IDIOT) just cause I want you to look like the simple fool you are and that you
are not responsible for what comes out of your mouth because you are insane!!...Learn your lesson golb...
I totally shudder to think you might be filling the head of some poor child with your deluded crap!! When does the lesson about that charming idea hell come or is that one you pound into their heads from birth? Be afraid kiddies be very afraid for my god is wrathful and even if you committ the slightest sin of not believing then you will suffer agony for all eternity...charming and totally proportionate and consistent with the god of love!!
How long are we going to have to wait for the reams of evidence cock knuckle?
In defense of Reg and my own beliefs, the same way we have no proof of Gods existence, you lack proof that He doesn't exist.
I would like to know why everyone is calling names and appear so angry? This pseudo debate has turned into an opportunity to go on the attack.
After Fiery recalled her deep desire to believe, it all fell apart. It became a school yard game of "smear the queer" with Reg, not so much his views, being the queer.
Reg was accused of only visiting blogs that are like minded, it seems the same thing can be said here, and that's fine, it's Fiery's blog. But the blog has lost the debate.
The way people of faith are attacked here lately has become quite disheartening.
Some time ago Big Tex had some trouble with his wife who is a believer. Many of these same folks here were very compassionate towards Tex (and his wife) and offered advise. Then someone asked why his wife was any different from your run of the mill "fundy" and why she wasn't being called names and attacked. Why wasn't her faith being called a fairy tale? The comment was deleted along with Big Tex's entire blog. I found that very hypocritical. Was she immune because she was Tex's wife? Did Fiery's husband look at her as inferior or stupid when she still believed in the existance of God?
I stopped posting comments for fear of an attack because I believe. I have no desire to be called a fool or accused of being brainwashed.
After this I will delete the link from my favs. Lately I've not been enlighten or educated, only shown the angry intolerance of another extremist group.
And one more thing, Johnny, grab a dictionary, you constantly use "your" when you should use "you're," and "there" in place of "their" you look stupid, especially when you're calling someone else's intelligence into question.
To Janice, who will not return.
It is not possible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that there is not a lovely unicorn in my kitchen at this very moment. Even if I go check, maybe it just moved. Maybe it is even now in my daughter's bedroom blessing her with beautiful dreams.
It is you that would have to show me hair from its tail, a skeleton with the spiral intact, a baby foal with the sprout that will become unicorn, a male of the species, a female of the species. Lead me to the unicorn that I may stroke its sweet face.
Big Tex's wife did not get attacked for several reasons
1- she is the wife of a man we call friend
2- she did not come to my blog and attempt to ram her faith down our throats
3- she has made no effort to say that she has science and reason on her side.
From what I can tell she believes like my parents believe, because they WANT there to be a god. No reason to attack those who leaves others alone.
Reg isn't leaving us alone. Reg searches out my blog and starts these debates, he calls me a liar, yet offers no proof of it. Reg is a fundy, he attempts to argue with science and reason that there is a god. The supernatural is ABOVE nature, BEYOND nature, not a PART of nature. Therefore, it is not possible to use Natural Sciences to prove something that is not part of nature.
Point to a tree- see there is proof of god. No that is an elm tree, it wears that belt to prevent the beetles from chewing into its bark and leaving behind a fungus called dutch elm disease.
Point to the rainbow- proof god won't flood the world. No that is light refracting through water droplets in a particularly beautiful and spectacular display.
Point to newborn- a mircale. No birth is an every day occurrence throughout the animal world. The emotions that can accompany child birth are spectacular in both extremes, but not miraculous.
You said awhile back that you read my blog for the nonatheist stuff that gets posted and just skip the religious stuff. Why did you read it this time? Were you hoping to find a religious debate that the christians would win?
They will never win a debate with knowledgeable atheists, for the debate was won before it began. Logic, reasoning, science, and rational thought are anathema to the concept of god, regardless of how hard the apologetics try.
Gentle christians do not get attacked on my blog, for not every christian is a fundy.
I wonder if I should feel guilty that you chose to step down from your moral high ground and sling a bit of mud yourself before departing.
I wonder what your comment would look like if you said....
Dear Johnny,
Blessings in Christ. I see that you have been incorrectly using "your" to stand for the contraction "you are". Traditionally it is contracted with the "a" removed and replaced by an apostrophe thus "you're". Also dear, you occassionally use "there" as a pronoun when you should be using "their". "There" is a place in particular usually at a distance from the speaker.
Peace be with you,
Janice
I am always amazed how, when fundies try and prove their fantasy crap, and we shoot it down with reason, logic and truth, WE are suddenly being the assholes. Reg wasn't invited here. He came, he got bitten with reason. That is not "picking on the fundie".
About time someone pulled me up on it Janice!!!
Fiery is very correct in everything she says.
It is he who starts with the snideness Janice and once I am going then I guess I have to finish.Further to Fiery's terrific post golb, as many loving Christians are, is a bigot because the bible tells him to be...By nature I am a very kind person but I despise Christians for there hypocritical bigotry and I am not afraid to express myself when I want to.
If you are the same as Golb Janice, and by complaining about the attacking and then doing so yourself in that snide Christian way (what's wrong with being upfront?) it seems as though you are, then good riddance...bye
I thank you all for your views.
But let me put forth this last question. If someone will answer me, great. Otherwise I will quit "crapping in your pool" on this topic
You say that it is impossible to prove the nonexistance of something.
You also say that atheist are the only rational thinkers.
My question.
If you can't disprove God, or a god, Why don't you at least say you will continue to look. Why must you force yourself into a corner that says "since I can't disprove it, I won't even try, and in the mean time I will be as bull headed about the topic as possible". Science is all about keeping on. It is all about saying "I don't have the answer right now, but I will continue to look, I may never find the cure to this disease, but I will try because it might be out there. I will continue to try to find better fuel, because it might be out there."
That view is rational and reasonable.
peace out
**FAIR WARNING** Richard, about half way down I get ticked off and drop the f-bomb once or twice and a few others. You may want to avert your eyes.
reg golb vomited forth…"Non physical does not mean anything golb. Either something is physical and therefore exists or it is not physical and does not exist" Johnny's exact words.
Richard, when you try to rephrase, you are basically leaving out the main stupidity of Johnny. I wasn't arguing what thought, etc are, just pointing out that fact that thought do exist.
You are being deliberately obtuse reg. Thoughts, ideas, emotions all are generated from beings that physically exist. They do not exist separately from the being that generated them. But unless an action is taken on a thought, it is irrelevant. For example, I am presently taking great delight in the thought of you sitting on the lever of a dunk tank and me throwing baseballs at a target to see if I can dunk you into a vat of ….let’s say it’s water. But until you are at the fair and I’ve got balls in my hand, it remains a thought.
There is just as much reality in my thoughts of the fair as there are of your god. Both generated by physical minds with non physical existence.
But until the thought becomes action, it does not exist in a meaningful state.
You people really stick up for each other and your efforts to divert attention away from the point are a bit sad and childish.
If you have a point you want addressed why don’t you restate it instead of whingeing away that no one is responding to you.
Fiery, said "he calls me a liar". Actually I said you were duplicitous and gave my evidence.
To lie is to tell a deliberate falsehood.
To be duplicitous is to be deliberately deceptive.
Those two words are synonymous for all intents and purposes so bitching about me using one instead of the other is being annoying just to get a rise out of people. Plus I’d like to direct you to this link where it appears you are indeed calling me flat out a liar….near the bottom. Maybe you weren’t talking to me, if so, then your amphibilous comment was too vague for regular readers.
I said your actions to your neighbor were deliberately deceptive, acting nice while ridiculing him here.
Fuck you reg, I already dealt with your “duplicitous” charge and you conceded the argument, your charge is vague innuendo much like your proof of god.
Have I ridiculed my neighbor or his beliefs? There are all sorts of things I could say about my neighbor to ridicule him as a person, none of them have been addressed here. I ridicule his beliefs because they are fucking RIDICULOUS!!!!! MOCK MOCK MOCK!!!! And I told him the same to his face. Not duplicitously. Directly. He chose to shun me. I rather understand that, though I laugh at the same time for it is him who has changed and not me.
As to the rest of your drivel….
Science has no evidence for god. Period.
Your discussion has degenerated into baseless name calling.
Kettle meet pot, pot meet kettle.
reg says Johnny is stupid, Fiery and Poodles are duplicitous,
We on the other hand call you a reg a fundy, an asshole, and an attention whore. All of which you have lived up to and proved repeatedly.
This is the comment that reg golb deleted before my comment.....
"Non physical does not mean anything golb. Either something is physical and therefore exists or it is not physical and does not exist" Johnny's exact words.
Richard, when you try to rephrase, you are basically leaving out the main stupidity of Johnny. I wasn't arguing what thought, etc are, just pointing out that fact that thought do exist.
You people really stick up for each other and your efforts to divert attention away from the point are a bit sad and childish.
Fiery, said "he calls me a liar". Actually I said you were duplicitous and gave my evidence.
I said your actions to your neighbor were deliberately deceptive, acting nice while ridiculing him here.
As far as proof goes,
Unless God shakes your hand, there is no proof. I only ever said evidence. I did say proof for the lack of a god because that is the only way to know you aren't making a mistake
If you can't see the truth of that you are sadly wrong again.
You claim to be scientifically minded. Fine. Science doesn't quit trying to find truth. Just because it didn't look in the right place at the right time doesn't mean it will quit. You all, on the other hand, have quit searching. You haven't found proof of god, so that it the end. It is a good thing science doesn't take that motto and apply it.
Science it still looking for evidence of lifes origins. It may look forever. Here is the duplicity of the atheist. You hide behind the statement "you can't prove a negative". I agree. Why don't you get on board with us scientist, then, and help find the origin of life, that will be as close as you can get. When you find that, then your argument might hold water.
I don't mind the name calling. It doesn't bother me. I am not afraid to throw out a name once in a while myself. I, at least can back it up with an example. Others just look silly trying to be the playground bully.
Apparently reg was NOT talking about me on the post I referenced in the above comment. I did not see his explanation before I posted.
It really did look like I was calling you a liar outright. In that post I was not referring to you. Sorry for the confusion. I thought you were bringing up the neighbor topic again.
reg asked, If you can't disprove God, or a god, Why don't you at least say you will continue to look.
Look for what? What tantalyzing clue should a scientist follow up on that indicates that there even MIGHT be a god?
When a scientist decides to dedicate his life to curing a disease, it is because he has some sort of personal experience with the disease. Something about the disease confronts him and he determines to dedicate his life to its irradication.
When an inventor decides to create something new, it is in response to a need that is not currently being met.
I have heard of only one invention that was done simply for the sake of inventing something and that was the man who was given a bit of wire and told to invent something on the spot. He came up with the paperclip an item used the world over. I do not have the slightest idea as to the truth of that tale or if it is an urban myth. What I do know, is that the process took minutes not a life time.
For a scientist to dedicate his life to proving god exists, he has to start with a reason for the pursuit, else why invest the time? Christian scientists want there to be a god, so that is there basis for the search, "I want proof of god, I will find it". The scientist looking for god searches to answer the question "Can I prove god exists?"
A scientist searching for any other piece of information is almost inevitably trying to answer the question "why?" Why does X happen? It is that X that draws them, something niggles at their mind demanding an answer.
There is nothing niggling about the idea of god except that wish that he was true.
There is no evidence of god, reg, there is only evidence that the world exists. If there were evidence, scientists would pursue it wholeheartedly. Imagine the fame and fortune garnered by the first scientist to definitively prove god's existence?
If faith healers were real, why are they not in the biggest hospitals healing everyone in sight? Would not any doctor who genuinely loves his patients wish a healthy life for them? Would they not willingly burn their stethoscopes knowing that the world was free from disease and suffering?
What scientist would not want his name attached to an idea that turned all of science on its very ear? But nothing in their research suggests anything other than what exists. There are no tantalyzing questions demanding answers. No inexplicable fluctuations that can only be explained by a supernatural being.
There is nothing reg. When there is something, it will be pursued.
Hey Reg
I didn't expect you to spend so long on answering my list of spiritual things you believe are real. It's would have been fine if you’d only done a few. I forgive you.
I am curious though... both you and Janice have mentioned “we” have no evidence that god doesn't exist. Other than the logical fallacy of the question, you both are correct. I am curious however what evidence you both have that the following list of deities don't exist confirming your belief in Yahweh. (Remember most of these deities had a similar "reward and punishment" system and the obligatory "hell" if you don't believe them)...
Allah, Amun, Borg, Aphrodite, Apollo, Demeter, Dionysos, Hades, Poseidon, Zeus, Celestial God Tnee Kong, Loko, Maahes, Tharapita, Pluto, Djanggawul... ahh that'll do... there's about 2500 :)
I must say I've been naughty and tried to trick you but feel bad now so I'll 'fess up, you probably would have realized after having looked into them anyway... Pluto and Hades were the same deity, Djanggawul is an Australian Aboriginal deity so probably not in your curriculum and of course Borg is off Star Trek... sorry.
If you don't have the time to do this list please don't worry about the other list of supernatural things you think are real... that's over with and I don't want to pressure you.
Have a good one...
Reg Glob wrote: "You claim to be scientifically minded. Fine. Science doesn't quit trying to find truth. Just because it didn't look in the right place at the right time doesn't mean it will quit."
Reg, remember that diamond at the bottom of Lake Ontario that I used as an example concerning The Fallacy of Proving a Negative? One of the two men in it had some rather shaky 'evidence' that did not hold up.
Reg, and I guess Janice, right now an adult dog with gills and a dolphin's tail is retrieving that diamond, while reading a waterproof copy of Dostoyevsky's War and Peace and listening to a waterproof ultrasonic high speed iPod with a Terabyte of tunes on it.
I have evidence too!
I have seen diamonds, gills, dogs, dolphins, waterproof books, terabyte hard drives, iPods, and I know ultrasound exists because I've seen a dog whistle work.
That is, I have better evidence for dogs and that diamond than you have for God.
Since there is such good evidence, I suggest you invest your money and your child(ren)'s life in getting both the diamond and the dog! Your above claim says it is rationally appropriate to pursue the Truth.
It is only rationally appropriate to pursue a possible truth when evidence properly points towards that truth. It is irrational to pursue the arbitrary. God, by every definition is arbitrary, and in contradiction to everything known.
***
Looking over the rest of Reg's arguments, one can see they are all repeats. They blatantly ignore the very detailed arguments we provided. By refusing to consider our arguments he insults us by demanding that we continue to treat his blind whims as reason.
Reg has fully and effectively rendered himself as impervious to reason as an animal.
Like a fledgling bird plucking its flight feathers from its wings --while demanding its mother teach it to fly as it could and should-- he defies his most powerful tool: his mind, as a Man's sole means of 'flying'.
In short, he has repeatedly demonstrated a deliberate intellectual dishonesty*. He has trained his mind to do so, while hiding his dishonesty from his conscious thoughts. Nonetheless that dishonesty continues to operate at a level that is not completely outside of his mind's awareness (that is, he could easily be conscious of it but refuses to look. He has automatized this blindness to protect his special little whim: his belief in a God. He has more than demonstrated that he will continue to do so, and by example will train his child(ren) in that same dishonesty.
*Honesty is not simply a matter of not lying, it is recognizing that the unreal IS unreal.
I just have to defend Poodles now.
Reg wrote:
""Poodles is for the most part a "bleeding heart liberal".
Bleeding heart liberals don't pretend to be smart and say things like this
"However, we live in America where racists are still free to believe their douchy thoughts."
Unless I miss my guess about Poodles, she is well aware of one of the wonderful things about America... the racists will not hire the brilliant black minds, and will lose because of it. The non-racists will hire them, and the non-racists will profit and grow because of it, as occurred in the North. The poor progress of the South was well deserved. America, by its original design (not the cr_p it engages in now) enables natural justice. Today's cr_p, that Reg seems to be advocating (well, echoing) has literally reversed Black progress.
Or how about this, you said
"I believe in equal rights for all."
When earlier you said
"I go to Vegas so much! The non drinking mormon douches who don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about and shouldn't have any say in alcohol related ANYTHING"
She is exactly right by the same principle named above. She is free to have a drink, but the Mormons (on this and other issues) seek to impose their morality on her when she is imposing nothing on them. When it comes to enslaving citizens to their ideals they and every serious religionist -Reg- are the weak equivalent of the Mid-East Muslims.
They can go to Hell, whatever the Hell that is.
Is that enough?
Yep! Fundy types have no idea what the American political experiment was, any more than any of the candidates in every Presidential election in at least 100 yrs.
Heck, most Americans don't even know America was NOT founded on Plymouth Rock via the Mayflower... that was a failure. Only Capt. John Smith et al. in Jamestown,Virginia prospered and grew enough to get a foothold on the east coast of America. They were funded by men whose purpose was trade, not religion. America really began with capitalism (sort of).
Richard,
You never cease to amaze. You, once again, have tried to defend someone without truly analyzing the argument. Poodles clearly said that the mormons "shouldn't have any say in alcohol related ANYTHING" Mormons can SAY anything they want. HELLO
Thanks for summing up the founding of America in 50 words or less.
Great blog Fiery! Now if I may,
I'd like to jump into the fray on this:
"However, we live in America where racists are still free to believe their douchy thoughts."
Uh, Reg why not post the whole thing?
"Now, I agree that the 3 white kids were racist assholes. I agree that racism is wrong and I would love to live in a world where it doesn't exist any longer. However, we live in America where racists are still free to believe their douchy thoughts. They are even still free to state these thoughts. I don't have to agree with them, and I am free to call them the assholes that they are."
Even in it's condensed version that you used,(or tried to use out of context) there isn't a shred of duplicity!
This is a really poor example of duplicity by anyone's standards...
Thanks AS.
And Reg, you have also taken the whole mormon-alcohol statement out of context here too.
It relates to the fact that while, yes mormons do have a right to their opinions and views on alcohol, and yes, they do have the right to voice those opinions and concerns I don't think the state government alcohol board that makes the alcohol related decisions for ALL Utahns should be made up of MOSTLY mormons who don't drink or have any experience with alcohol whatsoever. There is only one drinker on the board.
Just as I don't think a state education board should be made up of MOSTLY construction workers.
American Scot- Welcome, welcome!
:-)
And a great first comment as well! Excellent point, noting that even though context was dropped, Poodles was still spot on with her assessment.
Poodles this is American Scot, a Utah Atheist! (I think she is collecting them.) ;-)
golb
Having "no say" in something does not mean never being allowed to speak about the subject. It means not being allowed to be in on the decision making. In this instance, Mormons not being allowed to vote their religious morals into laws that everyone must follow.
Don't worry Fiery, I have already collected the American Scot! :D
Sorry Scot, I couldn't resist, take it as funny not creepy.
"Mormons not being allowed to vote their religious morals into laws that everyone must follow."
So now people that disagree with you can't vote?
Reg...
Thanks for reading, have a great day!
Dear Deliberately Obtuse, formerly known as reg golb (attention whore).
It is NOT that the Morons are disagreeing with me that has anything to do with their right to vote. It is that they are trying to force their own religious morals into political FACT by VOTING on these issues that is the problem.
No, Deliberately Obtuse, people should NOT be voting religious morals into law. Morally wrong does not necessarily mean LEGALLY wrong.
I'm guessing it's all fine for you about religious morals being laws when it's your religion.
What happens if the muslims gain the majority? Will you stand by and watch your wife forced to wear a burqa? Will you help stone her if she flashes a bit of ankle flesh at a male other than you? Will you make your daughter wear a head scarf to school?
I imagine that if you live in a state run by Mormons, not only should alcohol be legal, it is likely a necessity!
OT, Fiery I have a new post up that I think you will get a kick out of. It is in a similar spirit to my Virgin Mary April Fools post you enjoyed.
No, Deliberately Obtuse, people should NOT be voting religious morals into law. Morally wrong does not necessarily mean LEGALLY wrong.
So what you are suggesting is that the 8% of American who don't believe in a god should be the lawmakers.
What happens if the muslims gain the majority? Will you stand by and watch your wife forced to wear a burqa? Will you help stone her if she flashes a bit of ankle flesh at a male other than you? Will you make your daughter wear a head scarf to school?
Fiery, are you really equating the use of a known cause of breast cancer, liver disease, and countless deaths form dui with a burka?
"No, Deliberately Obtuse, people should NOT be voting religious morals into law. Morally wrong does not necessarily mean LEGALLY wrong."
So who decides what is morally wrong Reg?
Fundimentalist do! And they make LAWS like these:
Dry counties all over the American Southeast. (Southern Baptist)
Laws that ban the sale of ADULT sex toys. (again S.B.)
Nude dancing banned in Boise Idaho.(Girls wear bikinis) (Mormon, Christians)
Gambling of any sort forbidden in Utah. (Mormons)
As Poodles pointed out, the UDABC is run by a predominantly Mormon panel. Not to mention any time there is a proposal to liberalize the liquor laws, the LDS church calls on the faithful to reject it. And you know who the faithful are? 80% of the Utah legistalture! Most of whom represent areas that are outside the greater SLC area, which is now predominately non mormon, and has the bulk of the population for the entire state!
Sure, Mormons should have a say in how alcohol is handled. But not the majority!
Why is it that when I read a number of Reg posts that I can actually feel some of my brain cells pop?
So what you are suggesting is that the 8% of American who don't believe in a god should be the lawmakers.
So what you are suggesting is that the 92% of Americans who think a higher being gives a shit about them can pass laws making the Sabbath sacred? That make it a crime to take the lord's name in vain? That make it a crime to work on a Sunday? That make it a crime to own graven images?
Religious morals are not LEGAL morals.
Reg is now arguing for the tyranny of the majority... religious tyranny all over again.
What on Earth do Americans get taught in school these days?? (See my square bracket comment below.]
Aren't you taught that you have a Republic that was designed to respect the Rights of *individuals*, so that no one person and no group of people can force any one individual to do, take, or give up anything he doesn't want to?
Obviously not.
The Founding Father's believed in God, but they were not as stupid as to adopt democracy. They could see it would repeat the medieval religious tyranny they knew --and that the Mayflower Pilgrims imposed on their stagnant colony--, and that our history books more than adequately explain.
[I just have to point out that Bush's desire to bring democracy to Iraq IS that stupid. And he really is 'well educated', by Yale and Harvard standards.]
As for Reg? Does he need to see his wife burned at the stake for arguing that a woman can be a priest, before it hits him: "Oh, damn, I didn't think they would do that!"
Oh, there's that 'think' word again. And Reg is homeschooling his kid(s)?!?!
GIGO.
(garbage in, garbage out)
Post a Comment