Originally posted by Stealth MooseI like to think I educate those silent masses, all wondering why you - a professed non-theist, is defending Abrahamic spam-masters.
I mean, at least be honest here with yourself, if not with us.
Show me where I've professed to be a non-theist.
I don't recall having said what I am one way or the other.
The problem is you don't want to actually consider any ideas other than your own.
You want to swiftly almost unthinkingly categorize a person and begin attacking.
I notice how you're thrown off anytime you're forced to pause and actually answer a question. Not used to actually having dialogue with real people, are you?
If you were nearly as intellectually honest as you try to present yourself, at the very least you'd have taken Shakyamunison to task for his beliefs,
there would have been at least one instance of it after all these years,
and you would have answered my questions in the "Care to Compare the Jesus You Know to the One I know?" thread of GreatestIAM.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=12
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
...If you were nearly as intellectually honest as you try to present yourself, at the [b]very least you'd have taken Shakyamunison to task for his beliefs,
there would have been at least one instance of it after all these years.[/B]
It seems like you want some kind of balance. Why?
I think there is a big difference between you and me. For example:
I believe in reincarnation. Stealth Moose could say to me that there is no evidence for reincarnation. I would reply that reincarnation is not a fact, but a system of belief. The end.
The problem arises when you try to say that your beliefs are fact.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Show me where I've professed to be a non-theist.
OMFG really?
You did this before when I said you were clearly a theist and you were like "HURR SHOW ME WHERE I SAID I WAS".
Now I have to conclusively prove your religious views based on three things:
1. The fact that you don't definitively own any stance whatsoever.
2. The fact that you white knight Abrahamic religions while belittling Buddhism.
3. That you are famous for hedging, lying, and flat out denying the obvious.
K.
I don't recall having said what I am one way or the other.
Which is amusing, because you keep more paperwork on your fellow KMC posters than the Nazis did the Jews.
Why would you hide your stance and then viciously defend two fundamentalist posters?
Why would you be surprised and upset to be considered part of their ilk? Derp much?
The problem is you don't want to actually consider any ideas other than your own.
Lol.
No, you're confusing me for JIA/eninn. Nice projection technique.
You want to swiftly almost unthinkingly categorize a person and begin attacking.
As opposed to doing what you do: slowly and agonizingly waste their time.
But it's all about me, brah. All of it. Keep it up.
I notice how you're thrown off anytime you're forced to pause and actually answer a question.
Like what? You're the person who omitted or ignores 90% of my posts because the truth hurts too much.
Not used to actually having dialogue with real people, are you?
Says the person who identified with spammers, block quotes without explaining context, and ignores entire parts of dialogue...
If you were nearly as intellectually honest as you try to present yourself, at the [b]very least you'd have taken Shakyamunison to task for his beliefs,[/b]
I've already answered this above. Shaky isn't guilty of the same mind-numbingly retarded preaching efforts as JIA and eninn, and doesn't draw anywhere near as much venom for his efforts as they do from me or anyone but you really. The "I'm not claiming I'm theist; just rigorously defending them" white knight.
there would have been at least one instance of it after all these years,
and you would have answered my questions in the "Care to Compare the Jesus You Know to the One I know?" thread of GreatestIAM.http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=12
You mean the stuff you spam-posted after I stopped feeding you in February? I should go back and answer that, despite the fact that I stopped talking to you specifically because you kept dancing around my posts and ignoring whole arguments which didn't suit whatever agenda you appear to have?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It seems like you want some kind of balance. Why?I think there is a big difference between you and me. For example:
I believe in reincarnation. Stealth Moose could say to me that there is no evidence for reincarnation. I would reply that reincarnation is not a fact, but a system of belief. The end.
The problem arises when you try to say that your beliefs are fact.
👆
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
No wonder you defend them.
You spam Youtube videos nearly as much as they do.
I've got a link to one video on a page of 20 responses.
You've got 5 images that presumably exist for no other purpose than to try to mock and deride me in what? 2 or 3 posts?
I wonder: if we tallied the amount of so-called "spam" I have versus the truck you produce,
who'd really be seen to be spamming?
By the way, I have my account set so that any images appear not as images but as hypertext links.
Which I've known better for weeks now than to bother clicking on when they're from you.
Last one I can recall ever seeing or clicking on from you was "JesusCat" walking on water, saying he had no interest in physics.
Which wasn't too bad compared to some of the other memes I'd seen from you.
You're honestly wasting your time if you're trying to anger me with your image posting at this point, though.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've got a link to one video on a page of 20 responses.You've got 5 images that presumably exist for no other purpose than to try to mock and deride me in what? 2 or 3 posts?
I wonder: if we tallied the amount of so-called "spam" I have versus the truck you produce,
be seen to be spamming?
who'd [b]reallyBy the way, I have my account set so that any images appear not as images but as hypertext links.
Which I've known better for weeks now than to bother clicking on when they're from you.Last one I can recall ever seeing or clicking on from you was "JesusCat" walking on water, saying he had no interest in physics.
Which wasn't too bad compared to some of the other memes I'd seen from you.You're honestly wasting your time if you're trying to anger me with your image posting at this point, though. [/B]
You are missing out dude! Stealth Moose is the pic master. I love the images he finds. One man's garbage is another man's treasure.
And I'm big enough and grownup enough to laugh even at images that make fun of my religion. I'm sure Shakyamuni had a great sense of humor.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are missing out dude! Stealth Moose is the pic master. I love the images he finds. One man's garbage is another man's treasure.And I'm big enough and grownup enough to laugh even at images that make fun of my religion. I'm sure Shakyamuni had a great sense of humor.
You should discover YouTube videos next.
Some of them are absolutely awesome.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've got a link to one video on a page of 20 responses.You've got 5 images that presumably exist for no other purpose than to try to mock and deride me in what? 2 or 3 posts?
I wonder: if we tallied the amount of so-called "spam" I have versus the truck you produce,
be seen to be spamming?
who'd [b]reallyBy the way, I have my account set so that any images appear not as images but as hypertext links.
Which I've known better for weeks now than to bother clicking on when they're from you.Last one I can recall ever seeing or clicking on from you was "JesusCat" walking on water, saying he had no interest in physics.
Which wasn't too bad compared to some of the other memes I'd seen from you.You're honestly wasting your time if you're trying to anger me with your image posting at this point, though. [/B]
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This does not make any sense to me. What do you mean by "believes scientists and average people treat science dogmatically".As of now, based on face value, "believes scientists and average people treat science dogmatically" is not something I would ever say. Perhaps you have misunderstood me.
...and to be honest, I do have a of weird notions. It come with being human.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well of course you've never put it in these terms, but I recall a thread on global warming where you equated the concept of scientific consensus with dogma and suggested that people accept scientific claims on blind faith.
Ah yes, this thread.
Looks like, from rereading it, Shaky called the thread creator's ideas on global warming 'dogmatic'. It looked like it derailed into name-calling and silliness before being forgotten by all parties. I didn't watch the video because I'm at work, and I don't dispute climate change, so I'm not out to disprove the OP.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well of course you've never put it in these terms, but I recall a thread on global warming where you equated the concept of scientific consensus with dogma and suggested that people accept scientific claims on blind faith.
When people tell me that something is a fact because 80% of all scientist agree, that is dogma and not science. It ignores the possibility that 80% of the scientists could be wrong.
Science is not consensus. From time to time there have been people like Galileo who go against consensus of the time because observations of nature disagreed with consensus.
If consensus was science then we could change reality by simply having enough scientist agree to something.
How many scientists does it take to make the Earth flat?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When people tell me that something is a fact because 80% of all scientist agree, that is dogma and not science. It ignores the possibility that 80% of the scientists could be wrong.Science is not consensus. From time to time there have been people like Galileo who go against consensus of the time because observations of nature disagreed with consensus.
If consensus was science then we could change reality by simply having enough scientist agree to something.
How many scientists does it take to make the Earth flat?
So an argument against consensus being the sole determinating factor of scientific validity makes sense. I don't recall if the OP was specifically citing only that, but I admit I got bored quickly and stopped reading.