spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 06:30 am
@Wilso,
You're in lurve Wilso so it's no use talking to you about anything even slightly grown up.

Men in lurve are beyond redemption.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 06:30 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

You guys are starting to sound like teenage girls. It's what you get with water drinking and holding the little wifey's hand whilst shopping.


Pot calling the kettle black, seems. Name-calling and ad homs are the lowest resort and do nothing to elevate the level of discourse.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 06:36 am
@FBM,
Well FB-- you shouldn't talk like teenage girls do.

You resort to cliches reflexively. Which is to say biologically. As teenage girls do.
FBM
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 06:40 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Well FB-- you shouldn't talk like teenage girls do.

You resort to cliches reflexively. Which is to say biologically. As teenage girls do.


Please educate yourself. Nobody can do it for you: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm or if you prefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 06:43 am
@FBM,
It is only name-calling and ad homs when no evidence is offered and you and Wilso provide truck loads of it. As do others.
FBM
 
  2  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 06:53 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

It is only name-calling and ad homs when no evidence is offered and you and Wilso provide truck loads of it. As do others.


Please educate yourself. I guarantee you that your life experience will be the better for it. Anecdotes aren't by themselves credible evidence because they are so easily falsifiable, and guilt by association is illegal because it is illogical. If you want to start talking about evidence, then please allow me to ask you to present evidence for the Abrahamical god that so many theists live, die and kill for. Evidence. Not Bronze Age mythology. Please. I'm looking forward to you settling the debate that has raged on for so many centuries. If you ain't got no evidence, you ain't got no argument. Nothing but adolescent rhetoric. Cough up some evidence, spendi. The world is waiting with bated breath. (Not really)
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 07:07 am
@FBM,
I wasn't name calling FB. You and Wilso sound exactly like teenage girls do when got a bit indignant standing on their dignity. As a fact. I know a lot about teenage girls which females rarely stop being as can be seen in the Fox News presenters.

Dignity!!!!!! I ask you. A bunch of rats whose population density has become too large for peace can't have dignity.

What's so amusing is watching the silly fuckers pretending they have.

If you're going to put yourself up to represent atheism you really ought to get up to speed.

You seem to have spent all your lives fannying around with the Bible and you have completely missed the point.

We want you all snuggled up in your breeding hutches and fit for shifts at the coal face. Preferably whinging and whining and in a nervous state.

Evolution takes care to fill all the niches required to be filled.

In fact pressing children to tortured excellence in order to show the world the magnificence of your genetic material is contrary to every evolutionary principle. It is one of the reasons a genuine priesthood eschews procreation which unbalances the mind in most societies but not in all.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 07:17 am
@spendius,
I think it was C.S. Lewis who dropped one of his academic buddies from his visiting list after he saw the pram in the hall.

It is not all that long since Oxbridge Dons lost their position on marrying. Even now it is frowned upon at some tables.

spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 07:27 am
@spendius,
I think the idea Lewis had was that any further intellectual discussion was pointless with a man who has experienced a little fist grasping his finger, and the smile. Henry Fielding showed the power of that when the infant who became Tom Jones had held Mr Allworthy's finger so firmly in his tender hand. Much as peas do when first looking for something to hold on to.

The infant has to seduce the man because he holds out the best prospects.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 08:32 am
@FBM,
Your links are insulting FB.

Here's a link that doesn't insult you.

Quote:
This was the course things had taken in the Church of England during the last forty years. The set has been steadily in one direction.
A few men who knew what they wanted made cats' paws of the Christinas
and the Charlottes, and the Christinas and the Charlottes made cats'
paws of the Mrs Goodhews and the old Miss Wrights, and Mrs Goodhews
and old Miss Wrights told the Mr Goodhews and young Miss Wrights
what they should do, and when the Mr Goodhews and the young Miss
Wrights did it the little Goodhews and the rest of the spiritual
flock did as they did, and the Theobalds went for nothing; step by
step, day by day, year by year, parish by parish, diocese by diocese,
this was how it was done. And yet the Church of England looks with
no friendly eyes upon the theory of Evolution or Descent with
Modification.


Samuel Butler. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH. Chap 83.

Theobald is a beady-eyed Purtitan of the old school.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 11:03 am
@FBM,
Here's another link to wily, old Sam. (The "them" is the English clergy.)

Quote:
Also, now that he has seen them more closely, he knows better the
nature of those wolves in sheep's clothing, who are thirsting for
the blood of their victim, and exulting so clamorously over its
anticipated early fall into their clutches. The spirit behind the
Church is true, though her letter--true once--is now true no longer.
The spirit behind the High Priests of Science is as lying as its
letter. The Theobalds, who do what they do because it seems to be
the correct thing, but who in their hearts neither like it nor
believe in it, are in reality the least dangerous of all classes to
the peace and liberties of mankind. The man to fear is he who goes
at things with the cocksureness of pushing vulgarity and self-
conceit. These are not vices which can be justly laid to the charge
of the English clergy.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 01:26 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Please educate yourself. I guarantee you that your life experience will be the better for it.


I've never said anything like that to anybody in 10 years on A2k. I'm at a loss to even understand where shite of that nature comes from. The sheer ******* arrogance and self-assured bigotry in back of such a remark is astounding. Even Princess Anne doesn't talk that.

Don't people in the US laugh when somebody says something as silly and as solipsistic. I bet you went to college FB. And graduated.

You can barely read and write mate by my standards and I'm not all that good.
giujohn
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 03:51 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Now you're talking out of your @ss. The Roman Empire did not fall until 1453, learn some history


From its early days as a monarchy, through the Republic and the Roman Empire, Rome lasted a millennium ... or two. Those who opt for two millennia date the Fall of Rome to 1453 when the Ottoman Turks took Byzantium (Constantinople). Those who opt for one millennium, agree with Roman historian Edward Gibbon. Edward Gibbon dated the Fall to September 4, A.D. 476 when a so-called barbarian named Odoacer (a Germanic leader in the Roman army), deposed the last western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, who was probably partly of Germanic ancestry. Odoacer considered Romulus so paltry a threat he didn't even bother to assassinate him, but sent him into retirement.

At the time of the coup and for the two preceding centuries, there had been two emperors of Rome. One lived in the east, usually in Constantinople (Byzantium). The other lived in the west, usually somewhere in Italy, although not necessarily the city of Rome. The emperor whom Odoacer deposed had lived in Ravenna, Italy. Afterwards, there was still one Roman emperor, Zeno, who lived in Constantinople. Odoacer became the first barbarian king of the western empire.

While this bloodless coup in 476 is a frequently accepted date for the Fall of Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages, it was not, at the time, a major turning point. Many events and tendencies led up to it and there were many people who continued to think of themselves and who continue to be thought of as Romans.

Heres to my ass.
FBM
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 05:18 pm
@spendius,
Yada yada yada. So, anyway, got any evidence for this god? If not, it's irrational and fallacious to claim with certainty that it exists.
giujohn
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2014 05:22 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Don't people in the US laugh when somebody says something as silly and as solipsistic


Ok...let me get this straight. A brit. is commenting on an americans humor???
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 29 Jun, 2014 03:23 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:
While this bloodless coup in 476 is a frequently accepted date for the Fall of Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages, it was not, at the time, a major turning point. Many events and tendencies led up to it and there were many people who continued to think of themselves and who continue to be thought of as Romans.


Your own purloined source contradicts your claim, but you, apparently, can't see that.

Gibbon, an Englishman, of course was not a Roman historian, he was an historian writing of the Roman Empire, and he concludes his narrative in 1453. Whatever source you copied and pasted here (i'll not waste my time hunting it down) is dodgy at best. As i said earlier, the reports of the fall of the Roman Empire are greatly exaggerated. You were, and you continue to, talk out of your ass.
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 29 Jun, 2014 03:44 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Yada yada yada. So, anyway, got any evidence for this god? If not, it's irrational and fallacious to claim with certainty that it exists.


That's evidence you don't read my posts. Which is probably a good idea.
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 29 Jun, 2014 05:44 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Gibbon, an Englishman, of course was not a Roman historian, he was an historian writing of the Roman Empire,


It is not possible that anybody who has read Gibbon could think and write as Setanta does.
0 Replies
 
Germlat
 
  1  
Sun 29 Jun, 2014 07:59 am
@cicerone imposter,
I think we adopt and develop rituals even for fun, to apply importance to a situation, etc .....even in non-religious matters. I think of imperial coronations, military ceremonies, political office appointments, school graduations and even funerals.
FBM
 
  1  
Sun 29 Jun, 2014 08:35 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Yada yada yada. So, anyway, got any evidence for this god? If not, it's irrational and fallacious to claim with certainty that it exists.


That's evidence you don't read my posts. Which is probably a good idea.


That was a bit sloppy of me, wasn't it? Mea culpa.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 521
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 07:51:50