The Scope of Atheism

[Yfelsung]

Hey man, it's your prerogative to be a condescending prick all you want.

Anyone who picks up a book that tells you to stone disobedient children and decides that any part of it is a good manual for life is fucked in the head. There's no other way to look at it.

Now if you'd like to have a conversation, let me know, but if you're going to keep going on with that stick shoved firmly into your lower colon, then I have better things to do like drumming my fingers on my desk.

Cheers

 

[Prolescum]

Hey man, it's your prerogative to be a condescending prick all you want.

I enjoy pointing out ill-thought out bullshit, what can I say.

Anyone who picks up a book that tells you to stone disobedient children and decides that any part of it is a good manual for life is fucked in the head. There's no other way to look at it.

Now if you'd like to have a conversation, let me know, but if you're going to keep going on with that stick shoved firmly into your lower colon, then I have better things to do like drumming my fingers on my desk.

Cheers

Eh? This wasn't a conversation? Was there no to-and-fro, no questions nor answers?


There's no point getting narky, you gave me permission to be horrible. Or does it only apply when you're the one doing the nasty?

 

[Yfelsung]

Hey man, it's your prerogative to be a condescending prick all you want.

I enjoy pointing out ill-thought out bullshit, what can I say.

Anyone who picks up a book that tells you to stone disobedient children and decides that any part of it is a good manual for life is fucked in the head. There's no other way to look at it.

Now if you'd like to have a conversation, let me know, but if you're going to keep going on with that stick shoved firmly into your lower colon, then I have better things to do like drumming my fingers on my desk.

Cheers

Eh? This wasn't a conversation? Was there no to-and-fro, no questions nor answers?


There's no point getting narky, you gave me permission to be horrible.

I said you can mock me all you want, I didn't say I had to sit here and read the sack of flesh and piss attempt to buffer his own self-esteem by playing the "don't pick on all the poor religious people" card. You can't win a war by hugging the enemy just because a few of them aren't completely bonkers. They choose their side.

But go ahead, mock away. I'm going to get back to this intensive finger drumming.

 

[Prolescum]

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahand so on.

[centre]

[/centre]

 

[Squawk]

But go ahead, mock away. I'm going to get back to this intensive finger drumming.

I'm not. I'm going to point out that a series of one line taunts with no substance are effectively trolling. Prole, with one liners you can pick apart just about anything anyone ever says. It's a waste of time, we have a dude here with an extremely interesting position and all you're doing is trolling. No more please.

 

[Prolescum]

Yes, sorry. You know me, I forget that philosophical views expressly based upon generalisations are positions worthy of serious discussion. I'll go away and scrub my third eye.

 

[Squawk]

Yes, sorry. You know me, I forget that philosophical views expressly based upon generalisations are positions worthy of serious discussion. I'll go away and scrub my third eye.

No reason at all not to attack views, I'm hardly innocent when it comes to shredding another persons world view should the mood take me. The manner of said shredding, however, is important. Hubris can work, humour can work, intelligence can work. Trolling can't.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Hey man, it's your prerogative to be a condescending prick all you want.

:roll:
If it wasn't for the post count and familiar dueling history with you, I would have assumed you new to the forums.
Welcome to the League Of Reason.

I'm not going to fiddle you with one-liners, but there seems to be serious flaws in your core reasoning that I have a problem with here.

Anyone who picks up a book that tells you to stone disobedient children and decides that any part of it is a good manual for life is fucked in the head. There's no other way to look at it.

Yeah. Several billion people currently stone disobedient children - and, of course, they also sacrifice lambs to an ancient War God too sprinkled with complex and useless ritualistic tints to please a bloodthirsty warmonger that lives in my clothesbin that transports to Narnia if you dive in and say "wobble yobble yoo" to the all-powerful Goldfish.

Oh. I apologize. I thought we were talking about biases not based in reality.
:lol:

As hypocritical as it may sound, the same thing we roll our eyes at when they try to call something repulsive as the Bible the "Good Book" is also a plus in this situation - the fact that all humans are subject to nitpicking the good apples from the rotten pile. Last I checked, Europe isn't currently the host of any witch trials.
Also I missed the last public stoning. Maybe you can fill me in on the details? I had 20 bucks that the child would last 7 minutes this time around!
Brat better not disappoint to the end like he did by not washing the dishes!

-------------------------------------------------

By anti-abrahamic, I mean I would be very happy to see Christianity, Judaism and Islam wiped off the face of the planet. The Hindus and Buddhists don't bug me as much.

As far as I'm concerned, Yfelsung should be destroyed along with his entire family because it is obvious that he wishes the demise of almost 3/8ths the global population. Can't you see? His beliefs are clearly violent (of course I'm ignoring the context of the statement or his actual personal ideology regarding the situation, but who needs that rubbish clogging up our reasoning?!)

 

[Prolescum]

No reason at all not to attack views, I'm hardly innocent when it comes to shredding another persons world view should the mood take me. The manner of said shredding, however, is important. Hubris can work, humour can work, intelligence can work. Trolling can't.

While I can recognise that picking at the obvious holes his Slaine-esque self-image presented on top of his weakly constructed worldview was perhaps a derailment too far, I find it somewhat of an overreaction to characterise it as trolling; all but the last couple of my posts (prompted by the attitude of Yfelsung - one we should note he's taken previously to his posts being deconstructed) refer directly to the topics noted in this paragraph, and while I am clearly laughing at his stance, that alone doesn't constitute trolling in my view. Are the salient points negated by making clear my contempt for his lazy philosophical outlook or the risibly revisionist view of his lineage? Am I only attempting to elicit an emotional reaction by being contrary or am I doing what I pretty much always do i.e. point out exactly where a position's flaws are?

Can we please come to a bloody consensus on what constitutes trolling on this forum? Will you talk amongst yourselves (mods) and give us a bullet-point guideline, as going by this thread, merely showing how ridiculous something is and laughing at it contravenes the seemingly convoluted version of trolling you're using to define my actions. But do correct me if I'm wrong.

As we're discussing "the manner of shredding", you did say my "one-liners" (presumably you mean breaking down his posts point by point) had no substance. I cannot agree with this assessment either, although it's probably worth noting that this isn't the first time it's been mentioned that you have a personal distaste for this (for want of a better term) technique - Borrofburi mentioned it during UltimateBlasphemer's recent lolfest if I recall correctly. Does asking the above or pointing out possible reasoning for your description of my posts constitute further rule-breaking? If so I'm happy to discuss it at another venue and you may delete this.

As much as I appreciate being a member of this forum, my membership is contingent upon it being a place where honesty is the only truly sacrosanct principle, at least among its core representatives and long-term participants. If this is no longer the case you only have to say and I'm outta here.

 

[Bearcules]

By anti-abrahamic, I mean I would be very happy to see Christianity, Judaism and Islam wiped off the face of the planet. The Hindus and Buddhists don't bug me as much.

As far as I'm concerned, Yfelsung should be destroyed along with his entire family because it is obvious that he wishes the demise of almost 3/8ths the global population. Can't you see? His beliefs are clearly violent (of course I'm ignoring the context of the statement or his actual personal ideology regarding the situation, but who needs that rubbish clogging up our reasoning?!)

I realize you were being facetious, but I believe he was referring to the religions, not the religious.

 

[Squawk]

I realize you were being facetious, but I believe he was referring to the religions, not the religious.

Quite

 

[Welshidiot]

I realize you were being facetious, but I believe he was referring to the religions, not the religious.

Quite

Quite wrong actually.

Anyone who picks up a book that tells you to stone disobedient children and decides that any part of it is a good manual for life is fucked in the head. There's no other way to look at it.

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=117288#p117288

Yfelsung is making sweeping generalisations, and he's making them about people not about concepts or institutions.

 

[Bearcules]

Quite wrong actually.

Anyone who picks up a book that tells you to stone disobedient children and decides that any part of it is a good manual for life is fucked in the head. There's no other way to look at it.

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=117288#p117288

Yfelsung is making sweeping generalisations, and he's making them about people not about concepts or institutions.

I was referring specifically to the differentiation between wiping out the religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and wiping out their adherents. Which was the subject of contention in the post to which was replying.

EDIT: Fixed grammatical mistake.

 

[Welshidiot]

@ Bearcules

There has been a back-and-forth between Yfelsung and Prolescum through the course of a number of posts. Singling out one post in isolation is nonsensical.

 

[Bearcules]

@ Bearcules

There has been a back-and-forth between Yfelsung and Prolescum through the course of a number of posts. Singling out one post in isolation is nonsensical.

Forgive me, but I was not singling out one post. I was correcting a misconception about one post.

I agree that Yfelsung has been making blatant over-generalizations, but I fail to see where throughout this thread he advocated genocide.

 

[Welshidiot]

@ Bearcules

There has been a back-and-forth between Yfelsung and Prolescum through the course of a number of posts. Singling out one post in isolation is nonsensical.

Forgive me, but I was not singling out one post. I was correcting a misconception about one post.

I agree that Yfelsung has been making blatant over-generalizations, but I fail to see where throughout this thread he advocated genocide.

That's funny.....I thought you realised that Prole was being facetious:

I realize you were being facetious,

Yep, that's what you said.

So is it a) you realise that Prole was being facetious when he accused Yfelsung of promoting genocide, or b) you think Prole was accusing Yfelsung unfairly? You really can't have it both ways as I'm sure you realise.

Further to that, a persons position on any given topic isn't usually established in one post, so why concentrate on the content of one post?
Yfelsung's "extremely interesting position" (as Squawk would have it) has been established through the course of a number of posts, it is literally nonsensical to try to boil it all down to one of those posts.

Which brings me to another point which is aimed at anyone who thinks Yfelsung isn't generalising, or that he's "attacking the religion, not the religious":

I said you can mock me all you want, I didn't say I had to sit here and read the sack of flesh and piss attempt to buffer his own self-esteem by playing the "don't pick on all the poor religious people" card. You can't win a war by hugging the enemy just because a few of them aren't completely bonkers. They choose their side.

There you have it, it's unequivocal. Yfelsung is attacking the religious, and is justifying doing so.

 

[Bearcules]

That's funny.....I thought you realised that Prole was being facetious:

I realize you were being facetious,

Yep, that's what you said.

So is it a) you realise that Prole was being facetious when he accused Yfelsung of promoting genocide, or b) you think Prole was accusing Yfelsung unfairly? You really can't have it both ways as I'm sure you realise.

I was responding to )O( Hytegia )O(, not Prolescum. And his response was facetious, but his misunderstanding was not (at least as far as I could tell).

Further to that, a persons position on any given topic isn't usually established in one post, so why concentrate on the content of one post?
Yfelsung's "extremely interesting position" (as Squawk would have it) has been established through the course of a number of posts, it is literally nonsensical to try to boil it all down to one of those posts.

If Yfelsung is advocating genocide in other threads then you may have a point about his position. However, if the evidence used against his position is a misconception, then that deserves to be corrected.

There you have it, it's unequivocal. Yfelsung is attacking the religious, and is justifying doing so.

Yfelsung uses sweeping generalizations and inflammatory language. That does not mean he advocates genocide.

 

[Welshidiot]

@ ALL

I just realised that I misattributed some of what Hytegia said to Prolescum. This was remiss of me, and I apologise, all I can say is that the back-and-forth temporarily confused me.

However, having read back all you need to do is swap the name Hytegia for the name Prole in what I said and it still makes sense, and is applicable.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

@ ALL

I just realised that I misattributed some of what Hytegia said to Prolescum. This was remiss of me, and I apologise, all I can say is that the back-and-forth temporarily confused me.

However, having read back all you need to do is swap the name Hytegia for the name Prole in what I said and it still makes sense, and is applicable.

It happens.

And, yes, Yef has a nasty ranting history regarding all people being evil simply because they are religious - regardless of their own personal views of their beliefs.
It doesn't matter what I say to him, anyhow - I'm the enemy, remember? :lol:

 

[Welshidiot]

@ Hytegia

As this has come up just above, would you please enlighten us as to whether you thought Yfelsung was advocating genocide or not? Please?