Kliffoth: TheMysteriousStranger: Militant atheism or agnosticism is when you publicly mention that you are not a believer.

Militant theism is when you massacre people for religious reasons -- unless the people are those society wants to die.


Yeah, that's about right.

not really, but it's not surprising your self deception and rationalization make you believe that. Well that along with a lot of rhetoric by others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_totalitarian_reg im es (pops)

kerpal32: Kliffoth: TheMysteriousStranger: Militant atheism or agnosticism is when you publicly mention that you are not a believer.

Militant theism is when you massacre people for religious reasons -- unless the people are those society wants to die.


Yeah, that's about right.

not really, but it's not surprising your self deception and rationalization make you believe that. Well that along with a lot of rhetoric by others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_totalitarian_reg im es (pops)


*YAWN* I tire of you, find someone else to play with.

bunner: I wish he'd told me how to make that sandwich.

He didn't tell you? He told me how to make it last week. The secret can be yours for 3 easy payments of $199.95.

In other news, Hitler was a stamp collector. According to stamp collectors, if a stamp collector kills millions of people, he must not have been a true stamp collector.

The stupid, it burns.

kerpal32: your self deception and rationalization make you believe that

abb3w:



FTFY.

Klifforth - I tire of you and your old busted big-ass bag of hate too. Stop acting like some brainwashed anti-theist dweeb, or take it back to Dawkins.Net with the other brainwashed losers.

kerpal32: Kliffoth: TheMysteriousStranger: Militant atheism or agnosticism is when you publicly mention that you are not a believer.

Militant theism is when you massacre people for religious reasons -- unless the people are those society wants to die.


Yeah, that's about right.

not really, but it's not surprising your self deception and rationalization make you believe that. Well that along with a lot of rhetoric by others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_totalitarian_reg im es (pops)


You have never said anything that wasnt an attack on atheists.

God doesnt need your help.

kerpal32: Klifforth - I tire of you and your old busted big-ass bag of hate too. Stop acting like some brainwashed anti-theist dweeb, or take it back to Dawkins.Net with the other brainwashed losers.


I can say, with all honesty, that there is not one person I hate for being religious.

There are plenty of religious ideas I do find rediculous.

You have time and again shown your failure at grasping the difference between those two statements.

So far as I can tell, the greatest difference between the atheists and theists in this thread seems to be their opinions about human nature.

A few theists have insisted that humans are naturally cruel and savage, that we have no innate inclination towards altruism. (It is a scientific fact that human beings and our nearest evolutionary cousins have a natural predisposition towards altruistic behavior as demonstrated in comparative studies involving infants of both the human and chimpanzee species.)

More distressingly, genner could not comprehend why an atheist farker would care about the fate of humanity beyond their own lifetime.

It's tempting to conclude that these people have no inborn altruistic instinct, that they are sociopaths who would not be able to control themselves and behave ethically if not for their religious beliefs. Worst are those like genner who feel no loyalty for their own species, no desire to ensure its longterm survival in the absence of a personal reward.

I know this conclusion must be untrue. Perhaps they believe themselves to be selfish sociopaths, so they assume everyone else must be inwardly the same. That would explain why they are so confused by an atheist's eagerness to improve the human condition. They can't comprehend a sincere emotional investment in ones own species, an urgent desire to see others fed and sheltered which derives from natural empathy rather than scriptural teachings.

A Christian behaves for the same neurological reasons an atheist does. They just don't realize it, as they've been raised to credit their religious ruleset for everything in life that they do right.

Kliffoth: I can say, with all honesty, that there is not one person I hate for being religious.

I can say with all honesty that your snarky, sarcastic, mocking, ridiculing, narrow-minded, bigoted, indoctrinated, trolling comments on Fark make that really hard to believe about you.

A lot like Zamboro, who though he has a bigoted, narrow-minded, elitist mentality and is probably two pep rallies and a blog post shy of goose stepping his way toward demanding camps be opened to take care of anyone who disagrees with him. But I think you're able to see that about yourself, whereas he can't.

/my favorites are the elitist mentality and moral imperatives he applies to his rationalize the bigotries he has. It's almost as disturbing as some of the other aspects about his past and playing the victim when it is opportunistic for him.

guyinjeep16: You have never said anything that wasnt an attack on atheists.

Untrue. All I do is point out your ignorance, fallacies and biases. You just don't like it when I'm a dick to people being dicks. Including you.

You set atheism back 30 years.

/still insist science has to provide some immediate value or must be empirically testable?

kerpal32: "You just don't like it when I'm a dick to people being dicks. Including you."

How can not realize that this is just your rationalization for being a vicious, predatory douchebag? You're an awful human being but you escape that realization by blaming your behavior on the very atheists you antagonize.

Do you think anyone takes you seriously here? Do you think they listen to you, like you, and think your contributions are valuable? Do you imagine that most Farkers stand behind you and your opinions while the atheists you revile are in the minority? Exactly how many people do you consider to be in this "cabal" you often talk about?

You're like Samsaran and Czarangelus combined, yet you seem to think that you're a Farker in good standing. I don't understand this.

Zamboro: You're like Samsaran and Czarangelus combined, yet you seem to think that you're a Farker in good standing. I don't understand this.

Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms

* Is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention

* Interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior

* Displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions

* Consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self

* Has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail

* Shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion

* Is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances

* Considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are

I do have something to point out that you might appreciate, kerpal. Some time ago, a curious Farker did a WHOIS on Bevets' website. Alarmingly, it revealed all of his personal information. Real name, street address, the whole nine yards.

Bevets, most despised fundie-bot on Fark, made completely vulnerable to real-life harrassment. Given your cartoonish perception of me, wouldn't you assume I'd be the first to jump on that opportunity? Yet I haven't. I've no interest in it and to the best of my knowledge nobody else has done anything with the info.

Given full access to your personal information, the same thing would happen. Although you see many Fark atheists as cruel monsters and they perceive you the same way, the proof is in the pudding.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: You have never said anything that wasnt an attack on atheists.

Untrue. All I do is point out your ignorance, fallacies and biases. You just don't like it when I'm a dick to people being dicks. Including you.

You set atheism back 30 years.

/still insist science has to provide some immediate value or must be empirically testable?

How does god feel about you being a liar?

Never said anything of the sort.

I see rational arguments being made, and I see you name calling.

Kliffoth: I can say, with all honesty, that there is not one person I hate for being religious.

I hate you for the religious fervor you possess in not hating people for being religious.

guyinjeep16: Never said anything of the sort.

bullshiat. abb3w even corrected you on it.

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Never said anything of the sort.

bullshiat. abb3w even corrected you on it.

Of course not everything is testable you dolt.

I said the goal when studying science is to get to the point where it is testable.

You must have been cursing, name calling, and missed it.

What a shock.

Zamboro: How can not realize that this is just your rationalization for being a vicious, predatory douchebag?

project much? that is when you're not playing the victim?

kerpal32: "project much?"

...Says the guy who accuses me of being an aspiring brownshirt.....

kerpal32: "that is when you're not playing the victim?"

....while stirring up hate against a 'conspiratorial cabal' he believes is stalking him across Fark?

Zamboro: Given full access to your personal information, the same thing would happen.

btw - you're projecting again. or do you forget....

Zamboro: ....while stirring up hate against a 'conspiratorial cabal' he believes is stalking him across Fark?

How can you stalk him across Fark? I only stalk him to the grocery store.

Zamboro: Do you think anyone takes you seriously here? Do you think they listen to you, like you, and think your contributions are valuable? Do you imagine that most Farkers stand behind you and your opinions while the atheists you revile are in the minority? Exactly how many people do you consider to be in this "cabal" you often talk about?

You're like Samsaran and Czarangelus combined, yet you seem to think that you're a Farker in good standing. I don't understand this.

I use the term "clique" in the pejorative sense of the word. You should research it. You and your pals seem to have delusions about being a "cabal".

There's a lot you obviously don't understand or consider. Including how you're viewed on Fark.

cthellis: How can you stalk him across Fark? I only stalk him to the grocery store.

Huh, I thought I saw you at Safeway...

Zamboro: "btw - you're projecting again. or do you forget...."

It's precisely my point. Consider what you did when that opportunity presented itself. For all your moral posturing, you chose vengeance.

Do you think I'd do the same to you, given the chance? That's your justification for your behavior, right? "I'm a dick to people being dicks." Are we, in fact, dicks? Are we as bad as you, or even worse? Would you care to find out?

Make yourself vulnerable to me. Email me all of the personal information I would need to make your life miserable. If you're right about me, you know exactly what will happen. But what if nothing happens?

ninjakirby: Huh, I thought I saw you at Safeway...

As if you'd ever go somewhere so high-class as Safeway.

Whups, that should read kerpal32 for the quoted bit.

kerpal32: "I use the term "clique" in the pejorative sense of the word. You should research it. You and your pals seem to have delusions about being a "cabal"."

That's what's so boring about you. When it's suggested that you're furiously obsessed, you recoil and pretend at patronizing apathy. "What? I've spent my entire Fark career spitting venom at atheists? Oh please, as if I care about such a pathetic bunch...."

It's posturing, and I've never seen you stop for a moment or even slow the pace.

kerpal32: "There's a lot you obviously don't understand or consider. Including how you're viewed on Fark."

Quite well in fact. It's only those marked red that I don't get along with, and there's just a few of those. Everyone in green (they number well over 1,400) I've had no issue with, and in fact I've received much appreciated fan mail and TotalFark sponsorships from a number of them.

But then you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion, aren't you. Do you think you're well regarded on Fark? Do you think most take you seriously and approve of your demeanor?

Zamboro: Whups, that should read kerpal32 for the quoted bit.

kerpal32: "I use the term "clique" in the pejorative sense of the word. You should research it. You and your pals seem to have delusions about being a "cabal"."

That's what's so boring about you. When it's suggested that you're furiously obsessed, you recoil and pretend at patronizing apathy. "What? I've spent my entire Fark career spitting venom at atheists? Oh please, as if I care about such a pathetic bunch...."

It's posturing, and I've never seen you stop for a moment or even slow the pace.

kerpal32: "There's a lot you obviously don't understand or consider. Including how you're viewed on Fark."

Quite well in fact. It's only those marked red that I don't get along with, and there's just a few of those. Everyone in green (they number well over 1,400) I've had no issue with, and in fact I've received much appreciated fan mail and TotalFark sponsorships from a number of them.

But then you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion, aren't you. Do you think you're well regarded on Fark? Do you think most take you seriously and approve of your demeanor?

He simply cannot stop himself from name calling. He has a deep seated hatred for atheists. AND he is a liar about having atheist friends. Plus the fact that he doesnt read well enough to understand what the poster is saying.
He has misquoted other farkers more than anyone I have ever seen on FARK.

kerpal32: I can say with all honesty that your snarky, sarcastic, mocking, ridiculing, narrow-minded, bigoted, indoctrinated, trolling comments on Fark make that really hard to believe about you.


More adjectives please!

You really think you're getting a rise out of me? I have a personal rule: I don't let things anonymous jackasses say on the net get to me, ever.

Your description of my comments are false. Please provide quotes backing up your claims. Otherwise you're obviously a troll (as if we didn't know that anyway).

You fail yet again sir.


cthellis: I hate you for the religious fervor you possess in not hating people for being religious.


Fair enough.

kerpal32: All I do is point out your ignorance, fallacies and biases.



Zamboro: How can not realize that this is just your rationalization for concrete manifestion of your impulses toward being a vicious, predatory douchebag?

FTFY.

ninjakirby: * Consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self

Kinda hard to do that on the internet. Could that be expressed alternately by using lots of pictures, bold text, and large text?

ninjakirby: * Considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are

Such as the relationship of "involvement in the atheist clique/cabal"?

guyinjeep16: Never said anything of the sort.
kerpal32: bullshiat. abb3w even corrected you on it.

I corrected him on something of the sort, although Google isn't coughing up the link readily. (I don't think it was that exact point, but one close enough for work in the nuclear navy.) While kerpal32 is a bit of an ass, he's correct in noting that guyinjeep16 is a little fuzzy about inherent limitations in reasoning, and thus in the limits of science.

Zamboro: Do you think you're well regarded on Fark? Do you think most take you seriously and approve of your demeanor?

If you break him, you will be the one with the moral obligation to pick up the pieces.

abb3w: Kinda hard to do that on the internet. Could that be expressed alternately by using lots of pictures, bold text, and large text?

Rule 32, biatch.

abb3w: Such as the relationship of "involvement in the atheist clique/cabal"?

That's not what you said at our last meeting-slash-picnic-lunch.

abb3w: ninjakirby: * Consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self

Kinda hard to do that on the internet. Could that be expressed alternately by using lots of pictures, bold text, and large text?

ninjakirby: * Considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are

Such as the relationship of "involvement in the atheist clique/cabal"?

Oh, I'm fairly certain a number of the others apply, but the internet merely limits their applicability. Especially the intimate one, given his history of looking peoples personal information up, or calling them by their first names, etc.

I'm sure glad he doesn't know my name is Bufort McKokkenbahlz.

abb3w: While kerpal32 is a bit of an ass, he's correct in noting that guyinjeep16 is a little fuzzy about inherent limitations in reasoning, and thus in the limits of science.

I remember what I said , and it was along the lines of this: I believe that all things can eventually be tested scientifically. I may have also said UNDER A CERTAN CONTEXT, that something would needed to be testable to come to a conclusion. NOT EVEYTHING.

Of course not everything can be tested empirically, why would you have a discussion with someone who said otherwise?

Kerpal32 has continuously misquoted me and missread what I have said, over and over again. This isnt the first time you have jumped in on his bad information.

The reason you cant find it, is because I didnt say it.

/The ultimate goal IS to make things testable.

abb3w: While kerpal32 is a bit of an ass, he's correct in noting that guyinjeep16 is a little fuzzy about inherent limitations in reasoning, and thus in the limits of science.

It looks like you are trying to make a philosophical assertion. On what basis would you like to make it?

guyinjeep16: I believe that all things can eventually be tested scientifically.

How, praytell, do you test that?

guyinjeep16: Kerpal32 has continuously misquoted me and missread what I have said, over and over again.

Welcome to the club.

guyinjeep16: This isnt the first time you have jumped in on his bad information.

I will give even Lucifer Mekratrig his due... albeit only what, where, and sofaras earned. While kerpal32 may be the wrong end of the horse, he's not an idiot. On the other hand, while I feel he frequently overstates some of the limits of science, I feel you fail to recognize them; and worse, fail to significantly and counterproductive degree.

guyinjeep16: The reason you cant find it, is because I didnt say it.

Mmmm... no, I'm fairly certain he's used the word "scientism" in discussing your position despite null return, and even more certain Google's search (gasp!) frequently returns incomplete results despite web pages out there (even excluding deliberate darkweb). I expect I could find the relevant thread by checking through my Farkery bookmarks, but am too drunk and lazy at present.

guyinjeep16: /The ultimate goal IS to make things testable.

Close; "establish in community some means of testing" might be closer. "Retain what withstands testing", closer yet... perhaps even to within theological limits.

guyinjeep16: It looks like you are trying to make a philosophical assertion. On what basis would you like to make it?

Exhibited heuristic behavior!

As an inference, taken as conclusion by reliance on more fundamental propositions.

The first of these fundamentals is the proposition of Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction; which is to say, that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to to (Q OR P) such that either may be inferred from the other. Do you care to object to this?

abb3w: guyinjeep16: I believe that all things can eventually be tested scientifically.

How, praytell, do you test that?

You dont test it, its just a personal belief and doesnt have any bearing.

abb3w: guyinjeep16: This isnt the first time you have jumped in on his bad information.

I will give even Lucifer Mekratrig his due... albeit only what, where, and sofaras earned. While kerpal32 may be the wrong end of the horse, he's not an idiot. On the other hand, while I feel he frequently overstates some of the limits of science, I feel you fail to recognize them; and worse, fail to significantly and counterproductive degree.

Again, listening to Kerpals incorrect missunderstandings of me?

guyinjeep16: You dont test it, its just a personal belief and doesnt have any bearing.

YOU were the one foolhardy enough to assert "all things can eventually be tested scientifically".

Either all "personal beliefs" can be tested scientifically (in which case, you ought to indicate the testing mode) or some personal beliefs can NOT be tested scientifically (in which case, you should revise your statement of position)... or you are using quantifiers and/or logic so deeply alien as to leave your audience barely less limited than for a mime show at the Perkins School for the Blind.

guyinjeep16: Again, listening to Kerpals incorrect missunderstandings of me?

Science involves testing ALL hypotheses for ability to describe the evidence. (Religion merely gets kicked out pretty easily in time trials.) And again, YOU were the one foolhardy enough to assert "all things can eventually be tested scientifically".