The tolerant atheist

@Olivier5,

Quote:

So... did you find a credible explanation for why two planes crashed in the twin towers on 9/11?

Let me explain what Olivier is talking about. In the same thread in which he tried to maintain his own integrity and credibility by shamelessly attempting to destroy the integrity and credibility of firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11, he also tried to put forth the idea that, since planes were flown into the buildings, that somehow means that the melting of steel girders and the lack of resistance offered by the core structure below the impact zone don't have to be addressed or explained. When I pointed out to him the ridicuousness of that kind of stupid logic, he said:

"i'm ready to bet you a beer that there was no melting of girders at all."

I then provided him with a quote from one of the lead investigators into the collapses who said:

"I saw melting of girders at WTC".

So, having been forced to confront his own bullshit, he admitted to having been corrected. But in a futile attempt to save whatever face he thought he had left, he was up and running again, this time offering up possible explanations for the melting of girders, foolishly believing that he had any credibility left.

Another cracked brick in the character of Olivier, and as anyone can now see, he's oblivious to his own stupidity.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

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

And here we have farmerman raising his stupid head to indicate that, due to his memory problems, he has already forgotten that I've just shown that his claim concerning the highest temperature recorded at the Centralia mine was a lie that he made up in order to bolster his poor position. Perhaps in the dimension where his mind lazily resides, his lack of knowledge makes sense, but due to his memory problems, he forgot which dimension he was in at the time he made the false claim.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

You have not defined the being you call God. All you will say is that he exists as the creator of everything with a beginning, and that he also has a son. You insist on personalizing this cause of all-that-is to the extent that you gave it a name (actually, you borrowed the name from others), and you also inexplicably determined that this male being also has a son (actually, this, too, is something you borrowed from others). And now you propose that we discuss the existence of the god you believe in, but you demand that we first accept your rules of engagement, which is to agree with your conjecture concerning origins.

But you would fist have to convince us that your conjecture is any more valid than ours. You deduce that, since no one knows the source of all-that-is, it must be what you say it is. And that's just pure conceit. And that conceit has its origin in your inability to say, "I don't know." You should work on that.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

So... can you explain those planes?

I guess not.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I assume you're back here to try to retrieve something you feel you've lost. You are correct that you've lost something, but you can't get it from me because I don't have it. On second thought, all indications point to the fact that you never had it. And in case you're too dense to figure out what I'm talking about, I'll loan you a clue: integrity and credibility and firefighters; and not your integrity and credibility.

But I'm not opposed to eating a troll for a midnight snack. So, you apply what little sense you possess and explain how planes hitting the Towers negates the fact that there were melted girders and that the core structures offered no existence. We already know that you'll bet a beer and lose it because of opening your mouth way before researching anything. So go ahead entertain me.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Well, that was kind of tasty. So now I'll sleep, and we can pick up this interesting conversation tomorrow because you're a troll, and trolls can't help themselves. And yeah, sure, I'll wait with bated breath because . . . that's the in-thing ya know.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

But I'm not opposed to eating a troll for a midnight snack.

The only think you swallow is horseshit, and then you spew it back up again.

Btw, I don't think you know what a troll actually is, you seem to think that a troll is anyone who is not a ******* idiot.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

And here we have the next dumb ass troll. This one believes that entering a thread simply to ridicule participants discussing the thread topic doesn't mean he's a stupid troll. I'll help him out by posting the definition of an internet troll, and we'll see how long it takes for him to see the connection.

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Quote:

The only think you swallow is horseshit, and then you spew it back up again.

This would be an example of a troll's counter argument. As anyone can see, it's actually an emotional outburst expressed through gritted teeth.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glenn, you're right. You're not worth my time. You're not worth engaging because you can't listen. Because you are full of hatred.

For the record, with all my moral inadequacies, I have quite a number of assets that you're sorely lacking. The most obvious ones are common sense and a basic understanding of physics.

Also, I was physically present that day in lower Manhattan. This is not a rhetorical issue for me, as it is for you. It's personal.

I also acknowledge and understand Islamism as an ideological and security threat.

Finally, what may seem trivial to you but in fact is very important: I have an hypothesis, a theory of what happened on 9/11. It may not explain every fact in you distorted point of view, or perhaps even not all the ascertained facts, but it exists. It can be tested, therefore.

In contrast, you have no consistant explanation for what happened that day. No narrative, no theory. You can't make sense of it. You have no clue what happened, literally.

This allows you to remain systematically outside of science, because science requires testable theories. You can keep asking questions forever, but they don't amount to any intelligeable science. Or make any common sense, for that matter.

That's why you can't respond to the simplest question, which is: what do you make of those planes, the crashing of which in the towers is an undeniable fact. Because all you have are questions. You provide none of the answers... Never!

And that's perhaps the most important reason why you're not worth engaging: you have nothing to say.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

You're posting a load of old bollocks that only the seriously demented would believe and then call other people trolls. That's what trolls do, post a load of inflammatory horseshit then accuse others of being trolls when they're told how it is.

If you want to be taken seriously try posting stuff that's a little less mental.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Glenn, you're right. You're not worth my time. You're not worth engaging because you can't listen. Because you are full of hatred.

For the record, with all my moral inadequacies, I have quite a number of assets that you're sorely lacking. The most obvious ones are common sense and a basic understanding of physics.

For the record, you were caught making up **** about the lack of integrity on the part of firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11. Nice! Also, instead of researching the issue of melted girders, you just decided that you were sure that there were none. And, just like your bullshit about the firefighters, you were shown to be an idiot bullshitter.

Now, if you care to continue being off topic, I will continue to show you that you came into this thread as a troll, and have only succeeded in making yourself more fat and more stupid.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You're posting a load of old bollocks that only the seriously demented would believe

If you wish to discuss anything seriously, then go to the appropriate thread and see how fast you'll be made to look stupid; or in your case more stupid. Or you can stay here and continue trolling.

Stupid troll.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

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

Dear Glennn, you are again into the mischief of evasiveness.

You tell me:
"You have not defined the being you call God. All you will say is that he exists as the creator of everything with a beginning, and that he also has a son.

Have I ever at all taken up anything about God having a son?

Will you just cease and desist from lying continuously on attributing things to me which I do not talk about at all!

That is all in your mind, that I have talked about God having a son.

Do you concur with me on the concept of God I have been telling all readers and posters here for nth times already, namely:
"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

Okay, you now want to talk with me about God having a son, but I am not into that thought at all.

I am talking about God, from truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, in brief, from a purely rational investigation on the concept and thus the existence of God.

You want to talk to me about God having a son?

Tell me first, where did you ever get that thought that God has a son?

Dear readers here, do you now know that Glennn and I concur that we are all parts of what he calls "all-that-is", which is what I call:
"The default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence."

And that I want that we now talk about where we come from, from our respectively mothers, yes, no?

But the man is now again pulling out another one of his many silly attempts at evasiveness, in order to not deal with the matter now of where do we come from, from our respective mothers, yes, no?

Dear Glennn, you want me now to concur with you that God has a son?

First, tell me where did you if ever get the thought that God has a son?

Will you just cease and desist from always going into one evasiveness to another?

That is no way to be an honest sincere truths and facts seeker, but a fraudulent, self-deceiving most disagreeable character.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

i was never "making up **** about the lack of integrity on the part of firefighters", I was quoting an otherwise well informed book, which had in fact (as I later discovered and mentioned) come to a hasty accusation on this particular issue. It was an honest error.

How many time did you recognised an error. None. Zero. No show. I guess you're always right then...

And I'm not off topic when I speak of the planes, mind you... You don't define the topic.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

i was never "making up **** about the lack of integrity on the part of firefighters", I was quoting an otherwise well informed book . . .

Bullshit! Here's what you said:

"The firemen on 9/11 fucked up big time. Some of them "heroes" even looted shops near ground zero."

And:

"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 recall asking you to produce the excerpt or quote from the book you mentioned, but I don't recall you producing it. So those are not quotes from the book; they were yours, and they represent your attempt to discredit real heroes in the interest of preserving your failing argument.

Quote:

And I'm not off topic when I speak of the planes, mind you... You don't define the topic.

More stupidity. In that thread, the title of the topic was The Physics of 9/11. What did throwing firefighters under your misguided bus have to do with the physics of 9/11? And if you're talking about this thread, are you really so lame-brained that you believe that a thread titled The Tolerant Atheist is the place to bring up 9/11 issues? You brought them up in this thread because you were being a stupid troll. Perhaps you should go back and review your entrance into this thread.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Dear Olivier5, you say:
"And I'm not off topic when I speak of the planes, mind you... You don't define the topic."

Glad that you take care to stick to the topic.

On the other hand: derailers, they know that they need not worry with willful derailing of a thread, for the FOOS (founders owners and operators) in a2k do not bother with infractions of straying from the thread.

When you are an author of a thread, you just have to bear with posters who from ill will even, will do nasty things to derail your thread, then you just have to keep on with your dialogue or colloquy among relevantly contributing posters to your thread.

That has happened to me, and when I reminded the derailers, I got called a dickhead, testimony to these derailers: they have feces in their mouth, prepuce for their lips, and glans penis for their tongue.

There, that is a good repartee to these sick derailers of threads.

And I must end with an apology to us all decent civil and productive posters, hehehehehehehe, for indulging a bit in my righteous anger, with some vivid figures of speech.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Dear Glennn, I was thinking that you were into reacting to my penultimate last post addressed to you, on your inveterate evasiveness, please attend to it, see below, that post reproduced for your convenience.

Quote:

• Post: # 6,492,389 • Susmariosep | Sun 27 Aug, 2017 12:35 pm

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

Dear Glennn, you are again into the mischief of evasiveness.

You tell me:
"You have not defined the being you call God. All you will say is that he exists as the creator of everything with a beginning, and that he also has a son.

Have I ever at all taken up anything about God having a son?

Will you just cease and desist from lying continuously on attributing things to me which I do not talk about at all!

That is all in your mind, that I have talked about God having a son.

Do you concur with me on the concept of God I have been telling all readers and posters here for nth times already, namely:
"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

Okay, you now want to talk with me about God having a son, but I am not into that thought at all.

I am talking about God, from truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, in brief, from a purely rational investigation on the concept and thus the existence of God.

You want to talk to me about God having a son?

Tell me first, where did you ever get that thought that God has a son?

Dear readers here, do you now know that Glennn and I concur that we are all parts of what he calls "all-that-is", which is what I call:
"The default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence."

And that I want that we now talk about where we come from, from our respectively mothers, yes, no?

But the man is now again pulling out another one of his many silly attempts at evasiveness, in order to not deal with the matter now of where do we come from, from our respective mothers, yes, no?

Dear Glennn, you want me now to concur with you that God has a son?

First, tell me where did you if ever get the thought that God has a son?

Will you just cease and desist from always going into one evasiveness to another?

That is no way to be an honest sincere truths and facts seeker, but a fraudulent, self-deceiving most disagreeable character.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Am I mistaken in my recollection that somewhere in these forums you claimed that you are a Christian?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Why are you reluctant to answer the question concerning how you came to the conclusion that the god of your beliefs is a male? If you don't want to answer that question, then just say so and I will stop asking you to answer it. However, I will always wonder why you fear answering.

I don't think you understand that, when it comes to how all-that-is came to be, your guess is only as good as anyone else's. And so I will put it to you again:

You first have to convince me that your conjecture is any more valid than mine. You declare that, since no one knows the source of all-that-is, it must be what you say it is. And that's just pure conceit. And that conceit has its origin in your inability to say, "I don't know." You should work on that.

0 Replies

@All posters and readers here, I will no longer talk with Glennn, he is obviously into useless waste of the bandwidth generously purveyed to us by the good FOOS [ founders and owners and operators ] of this most commendable a2k forum.

He is conspicuously perversely running in wicked circles around me, though I gave him until now the good faith assumption that he truly cares to engage in rational and productive exchange with me.

Now, I will just give you and him something of another direction to dwell on, to the enhancement of us all in our knowledge of reality, in particular contrary to the trend of physicists today of verging on the edge of mythology, for not keeping to the reality of the default status of things which is the existing objective world outside and independent of our mind, for example, the nose in our face.

See Annex below.

Quote:

• Post: # 6,492,607 | Susmariosep | Sun 27 Aug, 2017 08:59 pm
Thread: Who is your favorite physicist?

@All readers and posters.

Dear colleagues here, enthusiasts of physics and sporting your favorite physicist, dropping names and dropping technical terms, and waxing eloquent with empty aka in-decryptable verbiage:

Here is a bonus to the anchoring of your thinking into the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence, see Annex below.
Quote:
Annex
Quote:
For more than a century physicists have hoped that they were closing in on the Holy Grail of modern science: a unified theory that would make sense of the entire physical world, from the subnuclear realm of quarks and gluons to the very moment of creation of the universe.

[…] the attempts to find such a “theory of everything”; a forceful argument it will never be found; and a warning that the compromises necessary to produce a final theory may well undermine the rules of good science.

At the heart […] is the rise of the particle physicists and their attempts to reach far out into the cosmos for a unifying theory.

Working beyond the grasp of the largest telescopes or the most powerful particle accelerators, and unable to subject their findings and theories to experimental scrutiny, they have moved into a world governed entirely by mathematical and highly speculative theorizing, none of which can be empirically verified.

[…] a theory of everything derived from particle physics will be full of untested—and untestable— assumptions.

And if physicists yield to such speculation, the field will retreat from the high ground of science, becoming instead a modern mythology.

This would mean the end of physics as we know it.

Click here. [ If this does not work, send me a pm. ]

1 Reply

The tolerant atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know