A penitent troll apologises for mocking atheism. On show here!

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

I don't associate with people who call me a liar (as I'm not) without proof (of course there isn't any) or who make things up about what I post (as you do). Apologize or avoid me (as I 'will' avoid you) in future (I'm still happy Frank, in case you need an update).

Avoid me if you must...and it is probably a wise thing to do, because I will not let you peddle that nonsense you peddle without challenging it.

I NEVER CALLED YOU A LIAR.

This is a lie Frank (below) and as I am saying I'm happy you are calling me a liar... by saying that. You can't know my state of mind, so it is impossible for you to make the assertion you have made. You should assume I'm telling the truth unless you have evidence to the contrary... which is impossible for you to gain. You are a joke Frank... continually rewriting your own history to make you look like your correct.

Frank Apisa wrote:

(igm does something like that with "happiness" and "contentment." He can be miserable and totally malcontent, but he will define it as happy and content in order to make his assertions of having attained that state through meditation seem real.)

What's also a joke is you always say that you don't guess about things which it is impossible to know e.g. such as the true nature of reality but you can't know my emotional state...

it is impossible... but you guess and make assertions about it even when I tell you that you are wrong... by calling me a liar effectively by saying I can't be happy when I say I am... that makes you a hypocrite as well Frank...

Update... I'm still happy because it doesn't depend on what I write or what you write... it is unconditional.... and that's true unless you can prove otherwise... which you can't.

Of course you are welcome to say (as you usually do),' I don't know...' but you went far beyond that Frank... in asserting that I wasn't telling the truth... when you can't know... as you would normally say... 'I simply don't have enough evidence to say or to even make a guess'.... now that would be true!

I'm not a liar Frank and you spread lies when you assert that I am.

Quote:

If you had any guts at all...you would be playing this silly game in a real philosophy forum...and my guess is that the other players there would making hash of you.

Don't be daft Frank. You already know (ho ho) that I belong to a real life group which rigorously discusses papers on contemporary developments. I see my presence here, rightly or wrongly, as "a service in the spirit of the expertise offered by A2K" . That service specifically includes exchange of references with those genuinely interested in those developments. Since you cleary have no genuine interest in discussing such developments and are prepared to wallow in your self generated "cloud of unknowing", you actually have nothing useful to say. Unfortunately for the rest of us, you keep on saying it.

but I am far from as shallow and uninterested as you seem to think me to be

Certain ideas from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields shape various theories of reality. One such belief is that there simply and literally is no reality beyond the perceptions or beliefs we each have about reality. Such attitudes are summarized in the popular statement, "Perception is reality" or "Life is how you perceive reality" or "reality is what you can get away with" (Robert Anton Wilson), and they indicate anti-realism – that is, the view that there is no objective reality, whether acknowledged explicitly or not.

Many of the concepts of science and philosophy are often defined culturally and socially. This idea was elaborated by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). The Social Construction of Reality, a book about the sociology of knowledge written by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, was published in 1966.

The only thing you can take issue with is that atheists don't care whether there is a god... if that irks you Frank then you are more a theist than you would care to admit.

Quote:

but I am far from as shallow and uninterested as you seem to think me to be

Then prove it by discussing references. The Wiki article, for example, is not particularly taxing and is in no way biased towards my constructivist stance on epistemology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

And further exploration, say of articles on "Reality" would yield embellishments of my constructivist stance such as these Wiki paragraphs.

Quote:

Certain ideas from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields shape various theories of reality. One such belief is that there simply and literally is no reality beyond the perceptions or beliefs we each have about reality. Such attitudes are summarized in the popular statement, "Perception is reality" or "Life is how you perceive reality" or "reality is what you can get away with" (Robert Anton Wilson), and they indicate anti-realism – that is, the view that there is no objective reality, whether acknowledged explicitly or not.

Many of the concepts of science and philosophy are often defined culturally and socially. This idea was elaborated by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). The Social Construction of Reality, a book about the sociology of knowledge written by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, was published in 1966.

What I have said is correct... you have used words that, 'paint the picture' of my lying about my emotional state i.e. happiness... which I am not and you have no way of knowing my emotional state... you cannot argue with that.

This all came about because I wanted to show you that your agnosticism is useless because we all don't disagree with you:

You say that we can't know there is a god and atheists agree with you.
You say that we can't know there isn't a god and theists agree with you and atheists don't disagree with you (they just don't care).

Everyone can be divided into theists or atheists and agnostics like you Frank add nothing to the mix as I have shown above. You are arguing with people who don't disagree with you!!!

The only thing you can take issue with is that atheists don't care whether there is a god... if that irks you Frank then you are more a theist than you would care to admit.

This thread is about trolling and so although I'm not a troll I have allowed my writing style to be more insulting than I would anywhere else... just to see what it feels like... no harm done as it was truth based.

Your other problem is that you say you won't guess about subjects where you can't know the answer but you snipe and accuse people of having character traits that it is impossible for you to know... so you are not consistent... you do say you know something that you cannot know.

I've finished my foray into the world inhabited by trolls... penitent or not.

I suggest you are the naive one Fil because if I am working from any "world view" at all is that there are no absolutes , and I am immune from the simplistic logic which might assert that itself is an absolutist statement.

You have my genuine sympathies Frank, I didn't think your hole was so deep you had no chance of escape.