tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1502859588151244767..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: How could they have thought that? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger243125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47069660537851974122013-10-31T15:09:26.888-07:002013-10-31T15:09:26.888-07:00God: "Quis est iste involvens sententias serm...God: "Quis est iste involvens sententias sermonibus inperitis?"<br /><br />Linton: "It was me Jesus-god and believe me I'm no puppet pushover like Job, the man who's family you wantonly and depravedly slaughtered to satisfy your own reprehensible blood-lust. Or are you gonna come down and slaughter my family as well now that I pissed you off?"<br /><br />[Oops! See how facile it was of me to start having a conversation Jesus- god. It just goes to show how easy it is to fall into the trap of supernatural superstition, to revert back to the alluring and seductive innate primitive predisposition we all possess to imagine and project ghosts, gods, leprechauns, zombies and all manner of things that go bump in the night. It demonstrates how so very easy we revert to primeval type if we mindlessly override all our learning and education and what we now know about the world, about us, about the cosmos and do not discipline ourselves to engage in facts and evidence as the principal source of knowledge and understanding. In theology, fantasy and reality go hand in hand. Indeed fantasy is indistinguishable from reality. Through science, reality is cleaved decisively from fantasy.]<br /><br />Sheesh!Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23777672567450129682013-10-31T14:51:56.073-07:002013-10-31T14:51:56.073-07:00Wait for it... here it comes...Wait for it... here it comes...B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60570054261926432252013-10-31T07:58:10.884-07:002013-10-31T07:58:10.884-07:00"Quis est iste involvens sententias sermonibu..."Quis est iste involvens sententias sermonibus inperitis?"<br /><br />That would be crude.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21121223097471742562013-10-31T07:10:04.457-07:002013-10-31T07:10:04.457-07:00Quis est iste involvens sententias sermonibus inpe...Quis est iste involvens sententias sermonibus inperitis?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42017491966421972752013-10-31T05:48:23.985-07:002013-10-31T05:48:23.985-07:00You forgot the obligatory Amen at the end of your ...You forgot the obligatory Amen at the end of your little burial prayer, crude. Oops! I forgot. It's me who should follow your call with the response, Amen.<br /><br />It's been a few years since I mindlessly intoned this sort of primitive palaver. Oh Well! We can't all live our lives within a 1stC mindset, can we? You are so much better and more practiced at it than I. As Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) English Romantic poet, critic and philosopher, noted:<br /><br /><i>"Not one man in ten thousand has either the strength of mind or goodness of heart to be an atheist."</i><br /><br />The quintessential Enlightenment anthem.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63675887102125770532013-10-31T04:00:51.293-07:002013-10-31T04:00:51.293-07:00Give it over crude. You've lucked out.
What I...<i>Give it over crude. You've lucked out.</i><br /><br />What I have, Linton, is schooled both of you pathetic gents so hard you have no response to me anymore.<br /><br />'Dinosaurs'? The both of you are dinosaurs by your own worldview. Clinging to ways that the future shall repudiate - you know not when, you know not what.<br /><br />'Progress'? It doesn't exist for you. There is naught but undirected evolution, going nowhere but to, eventually, an ash pit. You pretend to hope that, someday, the by-then multiple times wormshit that used to be your putrescent corpse may be, for a moment, an inconsequential part of a radioactive fireball. We all know better.<br /><br />About the only thing you have that I don't is hatred. Hate is about the only thing that keeps you going anymore - and really, you don't even hate with style, much less accuracy. You are, in your declining years, one thing first and foremost around here: the intellectual whipping boy for an anonymous theist on a small online blog - who exposed you not only as a plagiarist and a liar, not only as an intellectual lightweight with nary a bit of evidence or arguments at his disposal - but a sad, lonely old man, who comes here not out of a commitment to atheism, but to fill an emptiness in his life.<br /><br />An emptiness that will not be filled, because your worldview demands it not be filled. So you tell yourself that if you parrot Sagan - a man who is on record as having little regard for you, the convinced atheists - maybe that hole will be filled. But, it won't be.<br /><br />So thank you, Linton, for handing me yet another victory. The difference is, this means nothing to me. Proving you wrong, pointing out your flaws, is nothing to brag about. But at least you serve as a living lesson to onlookers. You are what young non-believers dread they may become. You have become a scarecrow for the Cult of Gnu.<br /><br />Anima ejus, et ánimæ ómnium fidélium defunctórum, per misericórdiam Dei requiéscant in pace.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29034750380669118172013-10-30T23:41:49.533-07:002013-10-30T23:41:49.533-07:00Have a read OF THISHave a read <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/christianity-is-dying-spirituality-is-thriving_b_1950804.html" rel="nofollow">OF THIS </a>Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89760312707965511492013-10-30T23:38:45.427-07:002013-10-30T23:38:45.427-07:00Give it over crude. You've lucked out. Religi...Give it over crude. You've lucked out. Religion has lost the battle for the high moral ground. Religion has lost the culture wars, with the number of 'nones' increasing every time the religiose open their mouths and pontificate from their Book in the feeble attempt to convince the skeptical young that adherence to a primitive mindset and its correlative supernatural superstition is the best explanation. Religion has lost the mantle as the principal explanatory tool with the greatest of explanatory power. Have a read <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/christianity-is-dying-spirituality-is-thriving_b_1950804.html>OF THIS</a><br /><br />We might argue over the finer points of cosmic science but that in no way will deliver a resurrection of Catlick-ism to its halcyon days of Aquinas. Christian theology and scientifically-uninformed philosophy of the Feser variety are dead in the water weighed down by the very same rock on which it was built. Because like a rock christian theism cannot move to higher ground as the tide of reason, logic and evidence flows in. The article above demonstrates clearly why it is that Christianity is dead in the water if it persists on clinging onto the foundational claims listed that it makes for itself.<br /><br />You gotta give it over. History is littered with dead religions and forgotten gods. Gods don't die. They get forgotten. The power of the Jesus-god of today will inevitably be forgotten just as the mighty power and influence over life and death once wielded by Osiris, Mithra and Jupiter are now forgotten. The article cited points that out in no uncertain manner even though the author, a Christian, tries to put a comforting spin on it.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77188290780625804702013-10-30T22:17:47.791-07:002013-10-30T22:17:47.791-07:00He affirmed what I said, then went on to say that ...<i>He affirmed what I said, then went on to say that the chance of our matter becoming part of a star (which is certainly greater than zero, contrary to Bob's assertion, regardless of how small it might be) is far greater than the chance that we were created by a god.</i><br /><br />Sure Skep. You go from 'Crude was wrong, Linton didn't say that!' to 'Okay Linton did say that, but he was right!' to this.<br /><br />Sagan would be so disappointed in you. But you've already made it clear you couldn't give a shit about him. You chose Dawkins over Sagan - I hope that serves you well. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49773079642611735112013-10-30T21:45:01.415-07:002013-10-30T21:45:01.415-07:00"Oh no, Skep! You tried to assist Linton, and..."Oh no, Skep! You tried to assist Linton, and he ditched you. He's banking on becoming an inconsequential part of a radioactive ball of fire after all!"<br /><br />You really should learn to read. He affirmed what I said, then went on to say that the chance of our matter becoming part of a star (which is certainly greater than zero, contrary to Bob's assertion, regardless of how small it might be) is far greater than the chance that we were created by a god. This was expressed in plain English, and you still have no idea what he's talking about Sheesh!im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61481728359373910002013-10-30T20:31:45.978-07:002013-10-30T20:31:45.978-07:00Oh no, Skep! You tried to assist Linton, and he di...Oh no, Skep! You tried to assist Linton, and he ditched you. He's banking on becoming an inconsequential part of a radioactive ball of fire after all!<br /><br />Until then, well. Wormshit, I believe it was said? On the other hand, he clearly won't mind that - won't it be grand, Skep, when Linton's putrescent corpse is made of the same stuff that Cult of Gnu "reasoning" and "arguments" are? ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53812755385015585832013-10-30T19:17:01.629-07:002013-10-30T19:17:01.629-07:00""We once more become the stuff of stars...<i>""We once more become the stuff of stars", cretin, implies that we will become part of stars again. If the claim is merely that we are made of 'star-stuff', that is not a future state: we are that, now."</i><br /><br />This is utter crapola, of course, the best of pseudo-science that god-botherers can rake up. Any idiot knows that a planet like Earth could just as easily be reabsorbed in a stellar ball like the sun. All it would take is something reasonable to knock it out of orbit and the rest is history. There are countless examples of this happening when planets, asteroids, even other stars, come too close to other stars and galaxies. Jesus H Christ, read up about it. And if a planet like earth got sucked up into the sun, all the star stuff that made the planet in the first instance would simply be subsumed back to the elemental furnace. As I say, there is more likelihood that the carbon that once constituted me could just as easily become different star stuff with a heavier or lighter atomic weight as a result, than imagining that a Jesus-god 'created' me. So whatever Bob imagines is immutable because it happened in an exploding star billions of years ago and is not going to happen again is simply pseudo-science crapola with a Christian flavour. <br /><br />Get real boys. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29154840179684356842013-10-30T18:59:09.236-07:002013-10-30T18:59:09.236-07:00Oh! Boy. Belief in god means they believe in anyt...Oh! Boy. Belief in god means they believe in anything, even their own fantasy.<br /><br />Bob<br /><i>"No, Skep. Linton started this whole thing by writing (in the 200th comment to this thread) "when we die, we once more become the stuff of stars."<br /><br />Very poetic, perhaps, but as I pointed out, absolutely false. Yes, we once were "the stuff of stars" (billions of years ago), but due to the mass of our sun being what it is, we will never be so again."</i><br /><br />Yes Bob, i did say that we would <i>once again</i> become the stuff of stars. The statement still stand the test of credibility. But I do agree with you. It could read in the minutely nit-picky way that you jumped on, a-contextually. I should have proof-read more diligently. Sloppy writing. But I would have thought that the context of my overall comment would have made it clear that we are and always will be made of star stuff, and that on death we simply become the unbinded constituents of star stuff.<br /><br />But you are so completely wrong when you say 'we were once the 'stuff of stars' (billions of years ago) ... and we will never be so again', past tense. No we weren't. I certainly didn't live billions of years ago, we are as we live right now, present tense, a veritable composite of star stuff. I say there is a good chance that when the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies collide in a few years from now [astronomically speaking that is] there is a pretty good bet that planets, stars etc etc will be subsumed into another star formation and whatever carbon that might have constituted my once organic body could quite possibly be rearranged into a heavier element in the stellar conflagration. I would say with almost sublime certainty that the probability of this happening is almost infinite orders of magnitude greater than the rather low-brow, terrestrial and unsophisticated idea that a Christian Jesus-god, let alone any number of other gods extant, 'created' me. You rendition is sooooo ........ faith-based.<br /><br /><br />And this is the point at which faith claims fail so miserably. The self-set trap that Christian god-botherers persistently fall into is to make the claim that Jesus-god made us. They simply do not understand or even realize that when they make a faith claim like this they are making a knowledge claim. And such a claim is a knowledge claim. Epistemically, faith claims are statements of fact about the world. But faith as utilized by god-botherers is a fundamentally unreliable epistemology. Because when put under the methodological scrutiny of reason and evidence it simply becomes shapeless. This is so eruditely observed in:<br /><br /><i>"Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or live. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient Greece, medieval Japan or 21st-century Saudi Arabia do not lead to belief in Christianity. it seems therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning".</i> Gary Gutting, "The Stone", <i>New York Times</i>, September 14, 2011.<br /><br />Amen to that.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19346300715084178682013-10-30T17:58:45.602-07:002013-10-30T17:58:45.602-07:00Bob, nobody is arguing with you. Linton said "...<i>Bob, nobody is arguing with you. Linton said "we once more become the stuff of stars, absorbed back into the universe ..." He's saying we go back to what we started from. </i><br /><br />"We once more become the stuff of stars", cretin, implies that we will become part of stars again. If the claim is merely that we are made of 'star-stuff', that is not a future state: we are that, now.<br /><br />Hence, my replying to Linton and laughing at his 'but we'll become star stuff again!' horseshit. When Bob made his correction, I immediately deferred to him about it.<br /><br />Does the social worker know you're on the internet again, Skep? You know you're not allowed your hour of web browsing until you can tie your shoes five days in a row without peeing your pants.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62534320611736329382013-10-30T16:56:45.053-07:002013-10-30T16:56:45.053-07:00Bob, nobody is arguing with you. Linton said &qu...Bob, nobody is arguing with you. Linton said "we once more become the stuff of stars, absorbed back into the universe ..." He's saying we go back to what we started from. crude is talking about becoming "an inconsequential part of a radioactive fireball." HE's the only one talking about becoming a star. So make your argument with him, if you have the stomach for it.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2724613907464168822013-10-30T16:02:35.893-07:002013-10-30T16:02:35.893-07:00No, Skep. Linton started this whole thing by writi...No, Skep. Linton started this whole thing by writing (in the 200th comment to this thread) "when we die, we once more become the stuff of stars."<br /><br />Very poetic, perhaps, but as I pointed out, absolutely false. Yes, we once were "the stuff of stars" (billions of years ago), but due to the mass of our sun being what it is, we will never be so again. What I wrote yesterday at 2:41 PM is the unanimous consensus of astronomers as to what will happen to the Earth (and everything on it, including what were once our bodies) in the future... No stars in our future.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51343728853917491522013-10-30T15:22:13.492-07:002013-10-30T15:22:13.492-07:00Sagan said (quite correctly), "We are made of...Sagan said (quite correctly), "We are made of star stuff." Only crude (confused that he is about anything scientific) said anything about 'becoming' star stuff.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70920334134096571952013-10-30T14:27:46.870-07:002013-10-30T14:27:46.870-07:00oozielionel,
And, as I wrote above, it's not ...oozielionel,<br /><br />And, as I wrote above, it's not even true! <br /><br />Yes, our material selves were once (several billion years ago) "star stuff", but never again - ever. Read my post from the 29th at 2:41 PM. <i><b>That's</b></i> what's gonna happen.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62760702098613181482013-10-30T14:10:33.654-07:002013-10-30T14:10:33.654-07:00"A far more beautiful and poignant end-to-lif..."A far more beautiful and poignant end-to-life narrative than the unreal and unnatural crapola of a Christian resurrection, is that when we die, we once more become the stuff of stars, absorbed back into the universe out of which the accident of evolutionary biology resulted in our fleeting moment."<br /><br />Really, "stuff". How touching. And not unreal?oozzielionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326968846352428451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6907964231880217672013-10-30T10:49:27.731-07:002013-10-30T10:49:27.731-07:00"here's the future of Mr Wormshit-to-be&q..."here's the future of Mr Wormshit-to-be"<br /><br />Can you say strawman? Oh, sorry. You'd have to know something about making a logical argument.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12235199830932356142013-10-30T09:49:33.359-07:002013-10-30T09:49:33.359-07:00here's the future of Mr Wormshit-to-be<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtVzj9y-bo" rel="nofollow">here's the future of Mr Wormshit-to-be</a>Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10051029142336017992013-10-30T09:43:52.247-07:002013-10-30T09:43:52.247-07:00Ape: "... Some people are made of more bulldu...<b>Ape:</b> "<i>... Some people are made of more bulldust than stardust.</i>"<br /><br />Especially the sort who get all <i>Woo-Woo!</i> imagining they are "stardust".<br /><br />After seeing all these comments in my inbox about "stardust", I decided to see where that little subthread originates -- not at all to my surprise, it was with the Mad Dingo.<br /><br /><b>Once-And-Future-Worrmshit:</b> "<i>A far more beautiful and poignant end-to-life narrative than the unreal and unnatural crapola of a Christian resurrection, is that when we die, we once more become the stuff of [wormshit], absorbed back into the [humus] out of which the accident of evolutionary biology resulted in our fleeting moment. We were grown naturally, through the evolutionary process from [wormshit] ..., There is far greater transcendence moment and import in the natural reality of this narrative than the utter superstitious nonsense about some ethereal putatively live non-human entity created us. I [jumped onboard] the [atheistic/materialistic] mytheme because it is only a mytheme [... and it promises that, ultimately, there is no one to condemn me for treating others as means-to-ends]. The [atheistic/materialistic] origin story is a facade; all front, no back or sides, an unsubstantiated unidimensional viewpoint that takes no account of the reality of science [much less reason] because the origin story promulgated was born out of and is product of pitiful ignorance, primitive superstition, ancient fable and antediluvian oral history [and I wouldn't have it any other way].</i>"<br /><br />What more need be said?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63589327347850164862013-10-30T07:18:08.141-07:002013-10-30T07:18:08.141-07:00"Carl Sagan was just as much an intellectuall..."Carl Sagan was just as much an intellectually dishonest fool, and just as much a 'Science!' fetishist, as Dawkins or any other Gnu Atheist."<br /><br />My point exactly, except for the part about being a fool. Sagan based his belief on scientific evidence. He certainly was not fool enough to buy crude's logic that because of a lack of hard evidence that there is no Ganesha, that somehow leaves open a strong possibility that Ganesha exists. That's the kind of stuff made from bulldust.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18360429112464935482013-10-30T06:30:04.179-07:002013-10-30T06:30:04.179-07:00... Some people are made of more bulldust than sta...... Some people are made of more bulldust than stardust.<br /><br />Ape.Ape in a Capehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13775256107063669868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3373909414027703592013-10-30T05:04:55.743-07:002013-10-30T05:04:55.743-07:00Carl Sagan was just as much an intellectually dish...Carl Sagan was just as much an intellectually dishonest fool, and just as much a '<i>Science!</i>' fetishist, as Dawkins or any other Gnu Atheist. The difference between Sagan and, say, Linton, is only <i>perceived</i> tone -- the "difference" is in <i>your mind</i>, not in mutual reality.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com