Atheism

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't care what you've mentioned. You started this bold-face BS because you were being (justifiably) ignored, and you can't stand. You really must think everyone here is stupid. Phoenix said she was doing it so that older people could read her posts more easily. Frankly, the green text just made it more difficult for me. No, i'm not going to play your stupid games, Frank. Go stroke off in the corner, that's essentially all you do when you come here.

Stop shouting, Frank, control your temper, calm down. You don't have anything to say that's worth the shouting.

Going apeshit again, Setanta. That is one thing you are good at.

I am not shouting...and damn near everything I have to say is worthwhile.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

In English, "relatively new" means something different from "new". It means "newer than some other thing". In the case of that article you posted, it meant "newer than atheism, Homo neanderthalis and some ancient vedic text"... But we've been through that already. You're just pretending to be dense.

The title of your article said: NOT NEW. That's a fact that everyone here can see, except you...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

In English, "relatively new" means something different from "new". It means "newer than some other thing". In the case of that article you posted, it meant "newer than atheism, Homo neanderthalis and some ancient vedic text"... But we've been through that already. You're just pretending to be dense.

The title of your article said: NOT NEW. That's a fact that everyone here can see, except you...

He's not pretending!

He just has trouble acknowledging he is wrong...so he tries to stonewall.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

In English, "relatively new" means something different from "new". It means "newer than some other thing". In the case of that article you posted, it meant "newer than atheism, Homo neanderthalis and some ancient vedic text"... But we've been through that already. You're just pretending to be dense.

The title of your article said: NOT NEW. That's a fact that everyone here can see, except you...

He's not pretending!

He just has trouble acknowledging he is wrong...so he tries to stonewall.

Kid's stuff. Pedanta needs to grow up.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That's not half a dozen, and it's an entirely different matter to accept you're factually wrong, missed something out, as opposed to admitting you were actually wrong about something, but it's a good start.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

That's not half a dozen, and it's an entirely different matter to accept you're factually wrong, missed something out, as opposed to admitting you were actually wrong about something, but it's a good start.

One at a time, Izzy.

How the hell do you figure that me saying "I am wrong"...does not meet the requirement of showing "You never admit you are wrong"...IS ITSELF WRONG?

How about you show one posting of yours where YOU acknowledged being wrong about something...so that we can see how things stack up.

Anyway...here's anther one:

http://able2know.org/topic/256564-17#post-5796633

Quote:

Oops...just re-read this...and I am wrong here. I added a word that made my comment totally incorrect...and you are correct that it is a contradiction, Blue.

I acknowledge my error.

I thought I had written "I do not believe in gods" is simply a statement that the speaker is not among the people who do believe there are gods."

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

He said that "anti-theism" dates to the 18th century--you denied this in an earlier post, and then quoted it in your previous post addressed to me. As i've pointed out, i've shown evidence of it from long before, centuries before the 18th century.

Basically, what we have going on here is your usual idiot measure of comprehension. If someone doesn't agree with your point of view, then they don't understand. That's arrogant and hubristic. I understand the article, and you silly arguments. I don't agree. That i don't agree is not evidence that i don't understand

Don't lecture me on what words and phrases mean in English. Your paltry abilities in English don't warrant it.

Once again, i understand what he wrote, i just don't agree with him.

Look at the end of the article, and it provides the real understanding of that sad little screed he produced. He's the knight in shining armor, coming to the defense of poor, beleaguered religions. But what he is really doing, is touting his latest book, which, unsurprisingly, he hopes will sell well.

He suckered one of us here, Olive Tree.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Nah, you're just behaving as a child now because you were caught lying... That article you posted is evidently flying way above your head... But trust me on one thing: it says anti-theism is NOT new. That's even mentioned in the TITLE, as well as 3 or 4 times in the main text. How you managed to miss it, I wonder... Rolling Eyes

A generally contrarian, know-it-all attitude would be my guess.

You're welcome to misunderstand as many things as you want, Pedanta, but I will take you to account for it when I see you do it. Because you just do it a bit too often, and you enjoy it a bit too much. Consider it's for your own good.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I told no lies. It's a measure of your character, though, that you make the allegation. Basically, your position, as it always is, is that anyone who doesn't agree with you is intellectually deficient--they don't understand. That's horseshit. The irony is killer when you write of a "contrarian, know-it-all attitude." I am reminded of that hilarious thread in which you alleged that homo sapiens exterminated all other hominids, and maintained that position for pages, despite a complete lack of evidence for your position. Then there was your claim about viruses needing DNA to reproduce--totally ignoring (through sheer ignorance) influenza and ebola. That ignorance never stands in your way, though.

I quoted his article where he says that anti-theism is relatively new, and i disagreed, citing sources in contradiction of that position. As i've said, i understand what the self-promoting hack was saying, i just don't agree with him. It is a measure of the paucity of your position that you have sunk to name-calling.

Bring it on, tough buy. Arguing with you is like kicking a drunk, though--no challenge.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The facts are there for everyone to see. Keep misunderstanding people as often as you got a chance, and I'll keep correcting you.

And I never said that sapiens "exterminated all other hominids". That's hogwash: Homo sapiens was not even around when australopithecus sp disappeared... So it's another lie of yours, or misunderstanding, one never knows, but as I said already, you seem to like misunderstanding people a little too much so the distinction is irrelevant: you misunderstand people on purpose. It's called bad faith.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You said half a dozen, and you said gladly.

You don't seem very glad.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You said half a dozen, and you said gladly.

You don't seem very glad.

I'm smiling from ear to ear, Izzy. I'm almost always smiling.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQytnrD350JR9X1AQNEB8MmUUtdaRfd-06Apl85vwQY1X7GBScHQ

Why not link to a post of yours where you acknowledge you are wrong. We can keep a list of the ones I post...and the ones you and Setanta post!!!

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdVttiE5Q8F4T0-1jtpJ-VoCSGvikA5-e7seX_jkxdvBCLNzIn

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You're the one making claims about half a dozen and being glad, (which I'm not convinced is the case, no matter how jaundiced the grin.) I made no such claims.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You're the one making claims about half a dozen and being glad, (which I'm not convinced is the case, no matter how jaundiced the grin.) I made no such claims.

You butted into a conversation where Setanta made an assertion that I am "completely incapable of admitting to being wrong."

I've already shown that to be nonsense...and I can show many, many more instances. I do not have to do it at a pace you dictate.

Butt out...or deal with what was being said.

I'm still waiting for you or Setanta to produce a few links showing you acknowledging being wrong.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No I just answered the question as to what it was you believed. I can't help it if Setanta ran with it.

And I must admit, I don't think your demeanour seems very glad at all actually, one might even call it truculent.

Which isn't a synonym for glad, Truculent tidings of comfort and joy, doesn't quite have the same ring.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

No I just answered the question as to what it was you believed. I can't help it if Setanta ran with it.

And I must admit, I don't think your demeanour seems very glad at all actually, one might even call it truculent.

Which isn't a synonym for glad, Truculent tidings of comfort and joy, doesn't quite have the same ring.

Ahhh...you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think!

I see.

Izzy...I am laughing my butt off over all this. You are hilarious.

Here's another one for ya:

http://able2know.org/topic/245592-3#post-5673345

Quote:

Thank you, Lash.

You are correct that I challenged.

My apologies. I was wrong to do so in this thread.

I remain an agnostic who has pretty much discontinued the use of "agnostic" as a describer because of the baggage describers carry.

What's that make now....four???

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No it's 3, and on a gladness scale it's about -5. Saying you're laughing doesn't counteract the snide, and doesn't even come close to being glad.

This is glad. You need to spend a least the next half hour doing this in order to get back in the black.

http://images.rapgenius.com/a32a5c1b0598737ed6d1b061a13e6727.300x350x1.jpg

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes, and the fact is that i objected to what he had written, and stated why.

You did indeed state that h.s.s. had exterminated h.n. and all other hominids then existing. Dance and lie to your heart's convent, it was just one more example of how often you shoot your mouth off without good reason.

What about the reproduction of viruses, Mr. Scientific Culture?

1 Reply

In your post #5371529, dated 30 June, 2013 . . .

You wrote:

The reason yeti, sasquatch and other man-ape creatures are no longer extant is our distant Homo sapiens ancestors killed all neanderthal and other human species other than sapiens.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

As I already said in a previous post, sapiens is only responsible for the extinction of those species with which it competed in pre-history and history. Lucy was offed by somebody else... The chimp, however, is the next one on our list.

I only claim that sapiens caused the extinction of neanderthal and erectus/ heidelbergensis species, species which existed in Eurasia before sapiens went there, and disappeared after sapiens got there... I wonder what happened. Maybe attempts at inter-species dialogue were unsuccessful... Maybe one species was simply better than the others at war, hunting and otherwise surviving... You know, survival of the fittest? It doesn't need to be extermination, but competition (including armed competition) for resources, evidently.

What do you think happened?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know