The tolerant atheist

Yes! That is what I am asking you to concur with me on. If you do not concur with me on that, then explain how it is that you came to believe that the cause of all-that-is happens to be a male being who happened to have a son.
Well, yes. I can speak naturally like that because the statement is self evident.

You think I was being . . . naughty?

Let's just cut to the chase here. You've decided that the cause of all-that-is happens to be a male being who also happens to have a son. And you also believe that this male being goes by the name of God. Now tell me, did you come to these "facts" by way the Bible?

I don't know. Do you have some rare film footage of the beginning of time? The hardest thing for the ego to say is, "I don't know." Do you find it hard to say you don't know? And if so, do you think that that is what caused you to make up names for beings and then assign male sex to them because you're partial to the masculine sex?

When you carry on a desperately futile argument like this it makes you look like you need to get a life.

You're a stupid troll who's still too stupid to know how to avoid what you say doesn't interest you. And true to nature, your response to my assessment of you is to stupidly return to what you say doesn't interest you, thereby proving my point that, in addition to be being a simple troll, you're also a stupid troll.

If you don't want to discuss the issue, then remove yourself from this thread and work on increasing your number of posts to 33,000 elsewhere in the life you've made for yourself here.

It's a bit rich being called stupid by someone too dim to accept global warming. That's usually par for the course though, those quick to resort to insults tend to lack wit and humour which is why they take themselves way too seriously.



This is an execrably bad sentence, try to work on basic English before you start throwing insults around.

We'll just forget about the fact that you believe the comma was appropriate in your sentence (I love irony). But we won't forget that it reflects your stupidity. My sentence was accurate. You are a stupid troll who's still too stupid to know how to avoid what you say doesn't interest you. The point being that after being told that you are a stupid troll, and more importantly, why you are a stupid troll, you went ahead and played the stupid troll again. Stupid.

Now we can move on to your off topic rant about my position on global warming. It would appear that you've developed a hard-on for me. And in yet another show of stupidity, you can't even see that you're already being fucked. If you wish to present some evidence that manmade Co2 is the cause of global warming, then go to the appropriate thread and make your case.

But again the bottom line is what you are doing in a thread that doesn't interest you. Is self control an issue for you? Do you think that more demonstrations of your lack of self control will change the perception that you are behaving stupidly?

I had a chat with FM, the thread may be a bit dull, but some of the side chats can be a bit of a laugh.

You're right about one thing though, self control is a bit of an issue. I can't walk past a police horse without punching the bastard on the nose.

How about you, is it compulsive bollocks you're spouting or is it something you've got under control?

[ DISCLOSURE: I am certain that God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning. ]
______________________________________

[ Postscript to Glennn, just read the text in bold from me, at the bottom, if you find this message too long to read, okay? ]


Dear Glennn, okay, you want me to concur with you on the reality of the thing(s) you are telling me about, namely [ I put your text in an enumerated list of the parts of your text ]:Then also I will now add what I said in my preceding post about when people talk they already make the announcement, namely: "I exist."

So I will add the clause, I exist, into your text in which you ask me to work with you as to concur on the existence of the thing(s) you mention in your text above, to which I will now add, the clause I exist at the top of the listing, see as follows:
Okay, I will now see whether you will concur with me to be thrifty in your request, just pick one of your allegations on the existence of one of the things you mention to exist, is that all right with you?

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath, to witness whether Glennn will accommodate to me, in my proposal to him to just pick one of the things he knows to exist, in his text above, instead of bringing in so many things, which is not any indication of a concisely and clearly thinking person with him.

Dear readers here, do you notice that I am always into presenting my thought in concise, simple, clear, and thrifty words to represent a one object, like the following that I am proposing to Glennn, that he concur with me on the fact that he exists and I exists, or that we both come froth from our mothers respectively.

You see, the way I observe Glennn, he is into the method of 'systematically' confusing things with so much thingish-ness in his utterances, definitely with the willful intention to make clear communication impossible from his part with fellow rational entities.

Okay, dear Glennn, cease and desist already with making communication with you from your part, that it is such a pain in the neck of people wanting to engage in clear simple step by step exchange of thoughts with you, like for example, tell me that you want me to concur with you that you and I exist, or that you and I we both have mothers respectively.

And keep in mind that we are talking about things which do exist, not conditionally existing things, get that?

You seem to be needing me to assure you that you and I exist, and that we therefore were born. I would think that such a thing would be so obvious that it need not be stated. So, now that I agree with you that we exist, what would you make of our agreement?

Now, I'm still trying to get you to answer my question concerning how it is that you came upon the knowledge that the god you speak of is male and has a son. Since you have thus far refused to answer that question, I will have to assume that you came upon this knowledge from a book called the Bible. Is that where you came across that idea?

Let me sum it up it for you. Because of your nasty disposition, which no doubt has to do with your home life (it always does), you decided that you don't approve of the discussion in this thread. And because of your lack of self control, you decided that turning into a stupid troll would be a good thing. Now you're showing that you can't stop yourself from continuing.

And so here you are stalking me. I've seen you do this with others. You should probably at least make an attempt to stop, though I understand that stalkers are not interested in stopping because they derive some weird satisfaction from such behavior.

Nasty disposition? I stuck up for you when Spermguy gave you a hard time. You're the nasty bastard with a personality right out of the sewer.

Ive got that guy on ignore and its made it a llittle less crazy here on A2K. (Now with camlok/JTT gone). He was an extreme example of Pommers LAw and Nichols thesis on "The Death of Expertise"

I have my own law: the amount of truly useful information to be found on discussion boards is in inverse proportion to the number of @ssholes posting there.

Glennn believes all sorts of funny-fuzzy theories about 9/11. He's pretty extreme, as truthers go. E.g. at some point he hinted that there could have been a nuclear reactor hidden under ground zero...

He seems to have found a soulmate in Sus. I say leave those two lovebirds alone.

I may well do that too, if nothing else it saves a lot of space. With some verbose posters the first one or two sentences are all you need to read.

I didn't notice Camlok had gone to be honest, not that I paid him much attention after his first week here.

You take care.

[ Disclosure: I am certain that God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning. ]
_____________________________________________________

Dear Glennn, thanks for your concurrence that I and you exist, and we were both born by our respectively mothers.
Now, please think and see whether you can continue on and on and on with no end in sight in your mind, tracing children born from their parents and the parents in turn born from their parents, and on and on and on, in your mind?

Or you will concur with me that there is God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, and therefore of both parents and children.

And wherefore no need to ask yourself and tell yourself repeatedly that children came from their parents and parents in turn came from their parents, and on and on and on in your mind until you die.

That means that when you use your brain, it is obvious that God exists as the creator cause of everything with a beginning, like children and their parents.

Wow. You're way off topic. But if you really want to go there, I'm up for it.

In response to the testimony provided by firefighters which happened to go against Olivier's version of reality, he said: "The firemen on 9/11 fucked up big time. Some of them "heroes" even looted shops near ground zero."

When asked to provide the source for such accusations, he mentioned a book, and then continued on with his assault on the character of the firefighters who died in the line of duty that day.

He said: "NY firefighters are not a credible source of information on 9/11. They have too much ****-up to hide, and too much undeserved glory to protect."

I then asked Olivier to provide the excerpt from the book he says contains the details of the thievery he attributed to the firefighters on 9/11. He couldn't find it. And when pressed further, he came clean and said: ". . . I checked it out and it turns out that the account was second-hand and that there is a plausible alternative explanation. . . . My apologies. I didn't know about the rebuttal."

Later in the discussion, Olivier called me a coward. I then reminded him that a coward is someone who accepts degrading, secondhand hearsay directed against firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty on 9/11. And I reminded him that he did it because he needed to damage their integrity and destroy their credibility in order to maintain his own integrity and credibility, and that in the process, he lost both.

And now he's went and lied again by saying that I hinted at the idea that there were nuclear reactors involved on 9/11. I'll now challenge him to show how he arrived at such a determination. And when he fails to meet that challenge, we can chalk it up to just another cracked brick in the character of Olivier.

And then we have one of the other troll here--farmerman. In the same thread in which Olivier's lack of character was clearly demonstrated, farmerman made the claim that, at its hottest, a coal mine fire in Centralia Pennsylvania reached a recorded temperature of over 2500F. He was attempting to compare a fifty-year old underground coal fire to the burning office materials in the WTC. So I showed him this:

According to a report by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), over the years there have been numerous borehole temperature readings in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. The highest temperature ever recorded at the Centralia PA mine fire was 1350 degrees Fahrenheit.

In order to save face, he decided to try to pull rank by stating: I KNOW the monitoring personnel for the DEP, (They are a consulting company that is on contract to monitor the safety nd environmenta at Centralia to Ashland Pa).

So here we see that when confronted with his own bullshit, his go-to response was, "I know a guy . . .

Setanta is just here to be a part of the troll group hug.

We differ in our ideas concerning origins. Whatever you believe is the cause of all-that-is, I happen to believe that I am part of that which makes up all-that-is. I don't feel as if I am separate from the cause of all-that-is. I'm just this part of it.

Also, I don't believe that, from my position in this time in this reality, I can grasp the magnitude of the implications of existence. That is why I shy away from absolute terms like HIM and his SON. There is no basis for such a determination. You cannot comprehend the infinite nature of existence from a finite perspective. Your body is the ghost.

So... did you find a credible explanation for why two planes crashed in the twin towers on 9/11? Were they piloted by suicidal CIA agents or something?

He lives in a dimension that is free of burdensome things like facts and evidence.

[ Disclosure: I am certain that God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning. ]
____________________________________________


Dear Glennn, you tell me:
"We differ in our ideas concerning origins. Whatever you believe is the cause of all-that-is, I happen to believe that I am part of that which makes up all-that-is. I don't feel as if I am separate from the cause of all-that-is. I'm just this part of it."

Are you telling me that I don't hold to my being a part of all-that-is?

I am wondering whatever from me gives you the thought that I hold that I am not a part of all-that-is?

Your purpose in holding wrongly [though actually dishonestly] that I do not hold to being a part of all-that-is, is due to your psychology that of evasiveness by your abuse of words, by which you intend to not take up the issue God exists or not, in concept first and foremost as the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Do you notice that you keep on and on and on avoiding thinking with me on the question where do we come from?