Texas Shooter: "Church-goers are stupid"

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you could contribute such a well thought through contrary opinion

As is customary on discussion fora, I gave an opinion to which you responded. You decided to follow that up however by labeling me as a troll which kind of backed up my point. And not for the first time on this thread, the irony of that appears to be lost on you.

smacl wrote: »

rather than a patronising insult next time you deign to grace us with your presence. :rolleyes:

I didn't set out to patronise or insult any individual directly and don't believe I did. You appear to be taking my comments about the forum personally. They are directed at the forum in general. They are not a personal attack on you, nor are they about you..

There was a thread sometime ago discussing no go areas on boards and A&A got more mentions then most.

Here's a couple of random examples plucked from the first few pages..

cursai wrote: »

Atheism or 'other' Religious forums. Very bigoted people in both.

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

A&A.

I'm an atheist and I think half of the lads in there are as mental as religious nuts. Constantly looking for something to whinge about and something to oppress them. It's like some threw a load of third wave feminists, twitter activists and religious fundi's in a pot and that forum was the result.

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

The atheist forum. Real bang of self-satisfied overweight neckbeard about the place.

`

MadDog76 wrote: »

The Atheist Forum .......... that lot are best left to wallow in their own self-induced purgatory.

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

The agnostics and atheists forum is a good place to go if you want to lose faith in humanity. The irony is that some of them are as intolerant and narrow-minded as the religious people they despise.

Judging by the number of likes these got, i'm far from alone in my views but of course it's much easier to just brand me a troll and wish me away..

Thing is I wouldn't give a sh1t only it's a subject i'm really interested in and it's a shame there isn't a place where those of us with more moderate views could discuss agnosticism without having this arrogant and militant A&A Dogma rammed down our throats at every turn..

I find the Christianity forum a lot more tolerant but as i'm neither religious nor Christian it's not really the right place for these discussions and even if it was, the same militant atheists tend to take over, derail and attempt to ram their message down everyone's throats there too.

Is what it is I suppose and there's no point getting worked up about it so I tend to just stay away.. It's a shame though that the majority of us with more moderate and tolerant views don't have a place to discuss and debate them here on boards.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And in my experience at least the VAST (near totality) majority of people who identify with the term atheist would identify with simply being someone who does not have a belief in any gods.

Ok so that's your anecdotal position.. And we know that the A&A group think has also decided on an anecdotal definition.. You are all free to canvass the Cambridge, Webster and Oxford dictionaries to change theirs.

Until such time, as is the norm in any other forum on boards or in any other sphere of debate, the definition provided by the leading dictionaries is the one I accept as correct.

smacl wrote: »

Pherekyde's definition is largely consistent with the dictionary definition though. 'A lack of belief in a god or gods' as opposed to 'a lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods' it was in response to Pone1s statement that atheism is a blatant disbelief in gods which is less consistent with the dictionaries.

Posts such as yours above do more to label you as a troll than say anything about this forum

Except I never said it IS a blatant disbelief

I said it CAN be a blatant disbelief..... as much as it CAN be what the forum consensus appears to be...and im sure that IT differentiates among people and groups

Are we on the same page?

King Mob wrote: »

I'm also still waiting for him to substantiate the claim that possessed people can climb walls Spider-man style.

I can only assume that they've seen a verifiable, clear video and that they aren't just regurgitating a factoid they swallowed without actually trying to confirm it.

Oh, you think that it isnt possible? Interesting...I can show you a person who is anything but possessed, and climbing things is a "spider -man" esque way



No demon necessary...its not entirely hard to believe IF something supernatural was at play (Note the word IF), that a person MIGHT be capable of such things as claimed

pauldla wrote: »

Can they? Climb walls Spider-man style? That'd be pretty cool actually, especially with the Christmas coming and a house full of decorations to put up. Other religions should follow suit with such abilities, it'd get them no end of followers and would help counter all that 'burden-of-proof' nonsense as well.

See above

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet the only one failing to see the difference is you. I explained to you already what secularism means. It is a separation of church and state.

A state that is persecuting, prosecuting, or even murdering it's citizens based on their religious practices is violating that separation and is therefore not secular.

The failure to tell the difference between separation, and violation of that separation, is yours and not mine. North Korea is NOT secular by definition.

That would be fine IF there was a Church of Juche....Except there isnt

Officialy NK is secular....and freedom of religion is the policy....the very fact that some nutcase refuses to abide by the policies.. does not a make it a religious state

Secularism is essentialy where the church stays out of public/political affairs...not the other way around...because the state still has some governance over churches...so again you are wrong

Do continue though

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then I can only urge you to keep up the studies. Because despite claiming over and over you understand the basics, you have not actually demonstrated that understanding at all yet.

But the above is a good example of how you do not understand the basics. Specifically the onus of proof and evidence. IF you want to claim some act in the video was in any way different to the 1000s of other people doing the same tricks, then the onus of evidence is on you.

By all means present that evidence. In the interim however all I see in a video of someone setting fire to paper with their hands, is a trick both I, an 1000s of other people, know well how to do.

But I have not claimed there is...rather it was you who likened it to a "trick " YOU can perform....the very fact that you assume "your trick" and that video are the same performance...then the onus of evidence actually falls on you to prove your assumption correct...Glad we cleared that up

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The only "limitations" you were able to offer was to list things not yet explained. That is not a limitation of science, that is the current status of it. As I explained to you then, there is a difference between what science has not YET explained and what it CAN NOT explain.

Yet here you are in this thread essentially saying the same thing again

But where did I state it would never explain it?? No no, i said it cannot currently explain it...not that it never could

allow me to re-quote myself

the above post shows that our current methods only allow us to try to form an understanding of 5% of the universe

if you think the scientific method totally based upon the physical context is going to explain the complete nature, origins and purpose of this universe, I dont see it happening

So I do think current methods have limitations....I do think I labelled the issues a few posts back as follows

it is rather insider the observation and gathering of data that I personally think the weaknesses lie...In that we cannot make the observations we need to explain at present to examine the phenomena, and as such, the data we need to gather cannot be gathered...hence the lack of an explanation

I hope this make it clear for you....if my explanations weren't clear before...I would hope they are now....and if you want to enter into a discussion about it...im happy too

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure what you think you are playing at here, but asking me to go into it, then claiming not to want to go into it, but then asking questions that were DIRECTLY answered in the stuff you just ignored...... is pretty insipid.

So rather than leading questions that were already addressed, perhaps you can stop playing games and simply go wherever you are going with this and come out with it.

I said lets skip the commonalities between religion and religion and go straight into the commonalities between creation stories and science....It was to save some time more than anything else...rather to bypass and get to the point

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am questioning their credentials in totality yes. NOTHING about what was shown in those videos showed a scientific methodology or approach or controls. NOTHING about what was shown in the video showed they brought to bear any of the actual tools of the methodologies of science. NOTHING about what was shown in that video, aside from listing credentials at the camera suggested they were in any way scientists.

There were egregious methodological failures, to the trained eye, leaping out of the video one after the other. I would, as someone ACTUALLY cognizant of the methodologies, have gone in with an entirely different approach to all of it. They are, from a scientific viewpoint, an embarrassment to themselves and the methodologies they claim to be trained in.

But this is You questioning their credentials...not me..you. It is you questioning their methods, what they experienced, seen and felt....Then I can only suggest that you may contact then via Linkedin to ask some questions to either confirm your assertions, or have them proven wronG

Im quite happy with the explanation that they cannot explain what happened...I also noticed nobody tried to explain the shocks people kept getting...although ill assume you put that down to something invisible or acting or something else that will allow you to think you have a rational explanation for it

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That you pretend I need to go and falsify your fantasies about that video.

There's no pretending here, because I am not making any claim..nor have I fabricated any fantasies...it is you who is...like I said.... need contact said people and attempt to prove YOUR assertions correct...I made no such assertions, therefore have no requirement to substantiate them

pone2012 wrote: »

Oh, you think that it isnt possible? Interesting...I can show you a person who is anything but possessed, and climbing things is a "spider -man" esque way

No demon necessary...its not entirely hard to believe IF something supernatural was at play (Note the word IF), that a person MIGHT be capable of such things as claimed




See above

Who said it wasn't possible to climb walls?

Just to be clear, in order to challenge critics of the 'demonically possessed can climb walls like Spider-man' school of thought (didn't think I'd be writing those words today), you post a video of people who are not demonically possessed, climbing walls like Jackie Chan or one of his stuntmen.

Did I get that right?

Due the sheer length of your post, and the mod requests about the thread, I will compress my response into relevant topic headings, but will still reply to everything you wrote.

pone2012 wrote: »

North Korea

You can not simply make up your own definitions of secularism to prove people wrong. There is no separation of church and state if the state is directly controlling (especially to the point of persecuting, prosecuting or even murdering) it's people based on their religious beliefs.

And no, the state should have no more (or less) "governance" over churches in a truly secular state than they do over the local fishing club. In a secular state religion should be treated as (as it pretty much actually is) no more than peoples hobby, and churches their club houses.

So you are wrong even BEFORE we point out the religious nature of worship of it's leaders and more than also break the wall of separation that an actually secular state would require.

pone2012 wrote: »

Tricks in videos

So then we are agreed. You have done nothing more on this thread than post a video of some tricks many other people can do. So nothing interesting, nothing special, nothing different, and nothing requiring any explanation.

So what you think the utility or use of the video actually is is not clear any more. You posted it, so you have some purpose for doing so. But do not appear willing to explain what that purpose is.

The moment the video is claimed to be anything more than a mundane trick performed that many other people can also perform however, the onus of evidence appears and falls on the person making that claim.

The questioning of the credentials of the people in that video however I am more than capable of doing. And it is still up to them at this point, not me, to proceed further. They tried some pretty poor tests and came up with nothing. No surprise there. They need to learn better tests and try new ones.

As I said, even on my FIRST watching I came up with a string of tests that could, and should, have been performed. They did NONE of them.

Rather they had a "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" brain fail. They went in with the mindset / instruments to test what narrative told them to test for, rather than stepping back and taking a general "What is/could be going on here".

They are, methodologically speaking, simply very poor scientists based on that video.

pone2012 wrote: »

Limitations in science

Again you appear not to understand the difference between limitations in science and the limits of what we have yet done with science. There are indeed things we have not yet explained. That is OUR limitation. Whether science can, or will, ever explain them we simply do not know yet.

If I have not yet gotten around to hammering in the last nail on a job yet, then that is MY limitation on using the hammer. It is not indicative of limitations of the hammer. That is the difference.

If you want to go into the "commonalities between creation stories and science...." then by all means proceed though. Bring some of them up, rather than waiting for me to do so. I am not aware of many (any?) so you need to explain what you mean.

What I DO see however is a one way conversation between science and religion. In that there are things that were ONCE explained using religion, but we now have scientific explanations for. There is nothing I can think of where we ONCE had a science based explanation and religion has stepped in with a better one.

So the conversation is going one direction only between science and religion, and it is a direct erosion of the playground of ignorance of the latter by the former.

Erm my post was not off topic, in fact it contrived heavily to re-include you in the conversation by bringing it round to being back on topic. But offering an olive branch does not compel another to take it I guess.

The topic of the thread was pretty much set by the OPs line in the post "The media generally has no issue in linking Muslim terrorists to radical Islam however there appears to be a reticence to link this attack to radical atheism."

Understanding what atheism means and is, and what most people mean when they identify with the term is the first step to understanding why linking such an attack to atheism is a nonsense. It is not possible to come up with a coherent causal link between the two. The "best" attempt we have had so far was to point out that nothing about atheism STOPS such a person committing a murder.

But nothing about the contents of a guacamole recipe likely would either, but I do not see anyone linking the murder to that.

But further it is not the "media" making such links so much as the terrorists themselves when it comes to Islam. In the article "Why we hate you & why we fight you" they were abundantly clear about what their own links are between Islam and their terrorism is. Not just mere assertion of a link, but a well thought out and pretty well written (especially as English may have been the second language of the author(s)) explanation of their thinking on the matter.

MrPudding wrote: »

Then why don't you reply here

Because it's still in A&A and having received a warning for something as innocuous as my post above, i fear that any more posts from me will just result in further warnings and bans..

Like this post for example which in itself is off topic.

In short, i don't know what I can say or not say. I've had 4 warnings in 10 years on boards and i don't wish to make it 5 so i'll stick to other fora where i don't tend to receive yellow cards for posting my views.

It all kinda proves the point i was making tbh but there ya go..

pauldla wrote: »

So A&A is a no-go area? People say bad things about us on other threads?

I think I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight. Well, I usually cry myself to sleep, but this time it'll be for something important.

Do you cry yourself to sleep because there is a god shaped hole in your blood pumping organ?

MrP

Have you considered dating the truffles, and eating the lingerie models?

It may not solve your sleeping problems, but if you document your efforts on film you'll have the rough footage for a very successful cult movie.

smacl wrote: »

Do they have a category of Darwin award for serious injury?

Only if the nominee is rendered incapable of having kids, and doesn't have any yet.