Atheism

But the trolls, as you call them, did leave - perhaps with a sigh or perhaps even browbeaten by the whining chorus of self-proclaimed victims.

When finally left to themselves, the victim crowd proved itself to be nothing serious at all - merely a parody of little girls compensating for their insecurities by berating others not in their clique.

Your suggestion that the earlier discussion (and even criticism) caused this transformation is frankly laughable and beneath contempt.

I'm neither snotty, resentful, nor even a "religionist" (whatever that means) , or even an habitual troll. You appear to be putting yourself in rather bad company as well.

The trolls are still here--they're all over the immediately preceding pages. Spurious and Anus are the worst of the lot.

I see you're still trotting out the puerile insults, while complaining about how you are characterized. I didn't say that you're a troll, nor a religionist. I was referring to the people who trashed this thread beyond recognition within a few posts of its inception. Then someone like you comes along to whine about how religionists are characterized. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy . . .

I believe my insults are well crafted and occasionally very effectively understated.

Perhaps there are distinctions among sub groups to be made on both sides here.

I'll agree there are some - on both sides who have merely cast stones and the like - and some who often rise above it.

However it is only the core group here who have persistently demanded an undisturbed sanctuary - but I have seen none of them decry the religion and "religionisty" bashing that has repeatedly occupied sequential pages of this thread. Their high standards appear to be one-sided and self-serving. Their pious hypocrisy was what stimulated my criticism.

It's simply a fact that Edgarblythe above accused me of purveying "vitriolic bile" on the thread and assaulting its noble purpose - so he at least would confine me to the lower depths.

I went back to the beginning of this thread and read through the first 15 pages. Although the Troll in Chief showed up at about page 12, the thread was remarkably free of theistic whining for as long as 15 pages. I'm glad i re-read those pages, i enjoyed them.

Set's next post,

Translation: I love my bubble!

It is a rule of nature, known to the ancients that opposita juxta se posita magis elucescunt (opposites, when confronted, shed greater light).

Opposites are crucial to meaning. Roget is set out in opposites.

Since the "shedding of greater light" is synonymous with Abling To Know those who each wish to retreat to their eachery (JTT's 'bubble'), and avoid confrontation, are trolling the whole bloody site.

And there is nothing they wish to do more than enlighten us. And they whinge and whine, larded with schoolyard insults, because some of us object to them trying to render enlightenment, being abled to know, moribund.

How come A2K allowed these guys to bully it for so long? Their quasi-scholarship is a trick of selection. They haven't a scholarly bone in their bodies.

And Setanta calls me Spurious. Sheesh!!!

Here is what I actually wrote. I did not name any specific persons, leaving it up to the trolls to know who they are. If George wants to include himself, that's his privelege.

"The thread was not conceived to argue it out, as any regular here knows. There are a dozen identical arguments going on in other threads. Why the endless bile and repetition is considered interesting enough to clog every thread that even mentions atheism is an excercise in either stupidity or spite."

I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt ed who are the trolls on a site called Able 2 Know. They should go to a site where they do nappy changing. Like Facebook.

Why is it anyone you dont like is a troll ? If it is someone you like who is out trolling, then you laugh...would you like quotes showing that ? Are you a troll ?

It was remarkably saturated with anti-theistic whining for as long as 15 pages .

Very well said . In fact, I will tell everyone I said it first .

You throw out old, completely debunked prescriptions, pretending that they came straight from the brain of big W writer. You lie like a Nixon in short pants. You make grand pronouncements about your long tradition of duty and honor.

What's a little plagiarizing for a guy like you?

Thank Goddess, only true religionists come on this site and the once a week churchy one's, just go to church.

You mean like anti-Vietnam War sayings ?

Do you have any idea when to use capitals ? Being taught English by North Korea is a bitch isnt it ...

You mean pronouncements like I was raised to believe in duty and honour...that sort of GRAND PRONOUNCEMENTS ?

The hardest thing to understand in the English language is humuor....as you are still working on the basics, of course you dont understand .

You are just another unwashed over fucked ancient hippy who remembers the glory days of the Anti-Vietnam War protests....your family emphasised he who runs away lives to run away another day....there is no duty so demanding that it cant be shirked....always criticise those better than you....and so on . Tell us about how your commune gave you 4 mums and 47 dads....now if you only knew which ones were responsible for your genetics you could sue them .

I have the pure shits on ignore, but it is aggravating to come here and see all these pages of user ignored spaces. I bet they are the kind farts at the dinner table and just thumps the bottom of the collection plate in church.

Skid Row debating there. Although it is revealing that atheists don't fart at the dinner table. They must hold them in or leak them out sneakily. I wonder where atheits learned such manners. I suppose they must leak them out sneakily, farts being stubborn for evolutionary reasons which I can't explain due to the irreducible complexity of the process, and when the stink pervades the room they roll their eyes as if to say "Don't look at me".

Science has taught us that men fart at the rate of 35 times a day, 32 for ladies although it is not considered in good taste to mention that. So if dinner lasts an hour or so there must, on average, be nearly two farts pressing the colon and sphincter to fulfill their evolved destiny. A 2-hour dinner and atheists will be seen saying goodbye to their hosts with their eyeballs popping, standing duck-footed with one knee bent and quite red in the face and having to wait until their hostess has finished her story about her operation before being able to let it go into the car seat. I say "it" because the farts in the queue have merged into one in the meantime. So if you see an atheist looking relaxed after a long dinner you can bet your last dollar, science backing you up, that s/he has farted at the table. So then it is merely whether sneaky is better than honesty.

But spendi has thought of a solution. Atheist dinners should have one of those fart tapes, which I believe can be downloaded off the Internet, playing, so that it not only provides them with a source of amusement but also makes it difficult to tell who has farted properly at the table. The way Nature intended. For health reasons--what else?

Frank Harris has a good scene involving farting at the dinner table. It scandalised London's glitterati at the time and tarnished his reputation for all time. Personally I think his plan was to make sure that his book never fell into the hands of any young ladies of that class. It isn't easy to write for your own sex without betraying too many secrets to the enemy. Those who write for both sexes are just wood pulp salespersons. You will hardly find a woman who has read Frank Harris or a man who has read Barbara Cartland except for professional reasons. His book certainly shocked that delightfully feminine and urbane intellectual Philippa Pullar. She knifed him in her biography of him. Which in plain English means that she tried to put people off reading him. A proper feminist. No fuss. Knife in the ribs.

And it's a bit silly coming on a thread that is aggravating. The good news is that it won't be long before a Domina salon will be on every high street under a government scheme to increase the range of sentences judges have an option to employ in minor cases. It doesn't seem right that such things are the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and aggravation has to be sought out in a place like this. We are so, so understated.

I found this interesting!

How Religious Were the Founding Fathers? - Gordon Wood


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eGDQ_J1ieA&feature=relmfu