Well I am one because that’s what you call someone who is not a theist, whatever you think that is. So I don’t believe in gods because I don’t see any need to. It seems that the only thing different between believing and not believing is that not believing means you get to do what you want on Sunday and you don’t have to do all the other stuff believers believe they should do. Like be bored to death in church and hate others because they don’t believe what you do.
Everything else is the same. The supposed god does not in any way affect what goes on. He does not answer prayers or intervene in floods and other disasters. He doesn’t reward good behavior. Same result as not praying or not believing.
Someone, Voltaire I think once said, “If there were no god it would have been necessary to invent him”, possibly so, if your goal was to control people. I don’t need that; I’m not a king or government. And since I don’t care for any more authority than is necessary, I don’t see the need to maintain the invention.
I discarded belief in god because it was worthless. The days when an espoused belief was an asset are fading. Politicians in this country still can’t get elected without it, but I’m not a politician. There are other human interactions where ‘having religion’ is still looked on as a plus, but I choose not to get involved with many of those and when I do, such as at funerals and weddings, I just keep quiet, or sit with my sister and laugh and make jokes.
Oh, and last but not least, believing in gods and all those made up stories about him just seems stupid. I mean, none of it holds up to scrutiny. It’s all silly nonsense.
Doubting Thomas
United States
Bakunin countered with “If God existed, it would be necessary to destroy him.”
You are correct. Politicians can’t get elected in this country unless they at least pretend to believe in the dead Jeebus, but that’s only because Idiot America is a backward country infested with Christian hicks.
In normal countries, for example Australia, normal people (AKA athests) have no problem being elected.
“It just seems stupid” – I’ll be having that embroidered on a pillow.
Good post DT. I would like to inject one opinion though. I don’t think all people who believe in a God are haters. My parents aren’t haters, and I’ve known them all my life. The people who don’t hate are really, really good at compartmentalizing, and cherry picking.
Good one, DT. I like these straightforward “well, duh” ones.
Well….
I think only Authoritarians would find it necessary to invent a God, a Big Kahuna, the Ultimate Authority. Authoritarians need the comfort of having some Being in charge.
Social organizations of like minded individuals will always spring up, so we’ll always have religious groups for the Authoritarians, as well as sports clubs, knitting circles and so on.
Religion is a creation of people. We create it because it serves an important function for a certain portion of society. I don’t mind that – people get their various psychological needs filled in a variety of ways.
Religion as a political entity, judicial entity or governmental entity – that I don’t agree with. The problem is that tribalism + religion => trouble. I pondered bumper stickers a few years ago and realized they serve as a form of tribal identification. “I am X!” where X is a sports fan, a political fan, a member of a church or some other ideology. It’s a shout out to other members of the tribe.
Tribalism is most basically defined as Us versus Them.
One of the central tenets of tribalism is: We will always defend Our own. Especially against the Them. So people who self identify as Us will prefer Us to Them, even if there isn’t any difference, or even if the Them is superior to the Us. (Tribal-ism is the root of all -isms. The Glass Ceiling => Tribalism. and so on..)
This knee jerk affinity for the Us causes religions to wield such power. Why do you think Bill O’s War Against Christmas was such an effective theme? “Help! We are under attack!” => instant defensive reaction.
Of course, atheists not immune to tribalism. I see examples here. But don’t worry, tribalism isn’t a flaw. It’s a feature. Every social animal demonstrates it. I do wish that we could figure out a way to emphasize the Social Coherence aspect and decrease the need to FIGHT! every time we feel threatened.
From one Doubting Thomas to another. Nice entry.
Why should I care about atheists? Ideas aren’t real, just the play of atoms and subatomic particles, which unfortunately for most atheists and reductionists, are also ideas. Illusions. No real love, no morals, no reason to give a shit about anything. You’ll just die, and all those ideas and particles will die with you. None of it matters. Meaning? Mind? Pfffttt. What the hell is that? Science has shown that nihilism is real. Anything can exist without you. Have a nice day.
I think this is about the right length for a typical “Why I am an Atheist” story.
Why should I care about atheists?
Uh, because they’re people, just like you and the people you do care about, if there are any such.
Ideas aren’t real, just the play of atoms and subatomic particles
How does something being the play of atoms and subatomic particles make it unreal?
which unfortunately for most atheists and reductionists, are also ideas.
You are deeply conceptually confused.
Illusions. No real love,
Please define “real love” in a way that distinguishes it from what I mean, as an atheist, when I say (truthfully) “I love my wife”.
no morals,
Well, no transcendent, god-given morals that aren’t a product of animal evolution and the advances of human culture.
no reason to give a shit about anything.
Speak for yourself. I’ve got a 9-year-old son. That’s more than enough reason for me to care about things.
You’ll just die,
Mhmm. And, what, you won’t?
and all those ideas and particles will die with you.
Just like Hamlet’s soliloquy and General Relativity died when Shakespeare and Einstein died?
None of it matters.
It matters to me.
Meaning? Mind? Pfffttt. What the hell is that?
Read some Anthroplogy, Linguistics and Cognitive Neuroscience. Meaning and mind are perfectly explicable features of the universe from a materialist view.
Science has shown that nihilism is real.
Your post is an exercise in category error.
Anything can exist without you.
So?
Have a nice day.
Get bent.
And your post was one sentence too long…
You are saying I should stop writing???? Why would you want to shut down this geyser that is doing nothing but erupting and re-erupting with more and more creativity into a world that has become very mundane lately? If I were you, I would just drown myself in this bottomless ocean of creativity.
According to you, those ideas aren’t real. You just contradicted yourself. And they won’t die if they are published somewhere especially on the internet. Nothing is ever lost from the net. The particles aren’t going anywhere either much less dying. Conservation of mass-energy.
Guess what. You will die too. Far as we can tell there is no afterlife.
Speak for yourself. We atheists have lives as rich, full, and meaningful as any and are in no hurry to leave it. Most of us have easily surpassed your meanings and mind which seem to be a confused, grade Z troll driving by to drop off mindless trash on the net.
The real Nihilists (in the pop meaning) are fundie xians. Their best idea is to sit around in a catatonic haze, hoping and praying that jesus the Sky Monster shows up Real Soon to kill 7 billion people and destroy the earth.
Normal people have far better ways to spend their lives and much loftier goals. And more realistic too, jesus is 2,000 years late and by now, it is obvious he isn’t going to show up.
The other central idea of xianity is to die and go to heaven. Salvation by faith and/or good works. Nothing else matters whatsoever. This might make some sense if there was a god or a heaven but there is zero evidence for either.
What’s the central idea of atheism? If atheism is all about logic and being rational — and I believe most atheists would say ‘yes’ to this– then why waste time confronting religious stupidity? Why not just ignore it and stay happy and prosperous in your little bubbles of logic and reason? Is this some kind of Darwinian impulse?
In the US, the religious stupidity is trying to take over the government which will prevent our being happy and prosperous. Give me a truly secular government and I won’t have to confront anyone.
Fair enough. But I guess you would have to see this whole thing from non-atheist viewpoint to analyse it from a different perspective. When atheists resort to tactics like provocation and incitement, they don’t look very logical and rational, especially to non-atheists. In fact, they look just the opposite. They claim they are confronting religious stupidity, which may be true. Maybe they are confronting stupidity… but they are confronting stupidity with more stupidity.
The gods don’t exist. That is it.
We would love to ignore the religious kooks. They really are boring at best.
The fact is they are a huge drag on our society. They hold us back a lot. The fundies are Dominionists who openly hate the USA and want to take it over and destroy it. They have their own party, the Tea Party/GOP and are close to doing exactly that. I don’t want to live in another Dark Age.
The fundies also attack science and scientists whenever they can. I’ve been getting death threats like a lot of scientists for over a decade now. PZ Myers can get up to a hundred death threats a day. The fundies have killed some of my colleagues and killed two of my friends, dead in Iraq.
We oppose religion and creationism as a matter of personal and national survival.
You are making false accusations here. Lying.
I think you have just sacrificed any right to courtesy with those accusations. No one is forcing you to post on FTB’s.
KD what is your story if I may ask? No personal details just generalities. You come across as a 12 year old from an isolated third world village with mental problems.
On the question of God’s existence, it’s good to see that you are in no doubt.
KD, each occasion that a person’s life is made worse because of someone’s religious belief is another incentive to speak out against the stupidity.
I am not lying. The more acceptable explanation is that you do not agree with me. Which is fine, because I wasn’t expecting, not in the least, that criticizing atheists and atheism would give me nods of approval on the world famous atheist’s blog.
It is true that no one is forcing me to post here. I never said I was being forced. This place is called ‘Free Thought Blogs’, and I am posting in the true spirit of FREE THINKING.
I have no story. Nothing worth mentioning. But I don’t mind people constructing storylines about me in their minds. After all, it is this very practice that is at the root of every major problem in the world. People are just too quick these days to construct stories in their heads about other people — without any evidence…:) The whole profession of journalism thrives on ‘stories’.
Speaking out against stupidity is not a problem. But stupidly speaking out against stupidity is a problem, because it just creates more and more stupidity, instead of eliminating it. For example, making jokes about holy and revered figures, and religious beliefs, is not going to make this world a better place, and doing so can’t be called being ‘logical and rational’.
If religions and religious beliefs are creating problems, how is atheism making peoples’ lives any better? From what I have seen so far, most atheists tend to consider themselves as privileged people. Demanding, in fact screaming like babies, to get things done their way…
Jokes are the quickest means of pointing out undeserved reverence, and we all know that ‘holy’ is the biggest euphemism ever.
Atheists are living refutations of the lie that religion is necessary. Sometimes that does more good than all the God Delusions in the world.
After saying:
which is not true. Sorry, but you are lying. Repeatedly
Undeserved reverence? You think you are in a position to decide and define what should be deserved and undeserved reverence for other people? The other people will also expect you to use their definitions, and will see your adherence to your beliefs as equally undeserved reverence of some kind, and then the circle of idiocy will complete itself.
It is true that people in atheism do not exactly use the word ‘holy’, but they do see the people they revere in the same kind of light. For example, try criticizing Charles Darwin and his ancient book in front of a Darwinian atheist like Dawkins.
If religions are a lie, then atheism is a lie too. Atheism cannot exist without religions. It is a very simple equation, sometimes very hard to understand.
I never said that “Science has shown that nihilism is real.”. I think you are quoting someone else, or maybe talking to someone else.
Sorry if you were talking to someone else.
kohldamunga #21
So speaking out against creationists’ attempts to get mythology taught in schools instead of science is stupid. Pointing out the hypocrisy of churches claiming tax exemption while simultaneously spending millions on political campaigns to prevent same-sex marriage is stupid. Commenting on the Teabaggers using religion to push a far-right political agenda is stupid. Raging about religous extremists pretending to be “pro-life” when they kill doctors is stupid.
It seems you have a warped idea of what constitutes stupidity.
Some of Darwin’s ideas, like inheritance, were flat out wrong. There, I criticized Darwin in public on an evolutionary biologist’s blog. Do you honestly think I’ll get any reaction to my criticism besides “so what?” from the commentariat?
Of course, speaking out against these things is not stupid. But if the whole purpose of speaking out against these things is to get the point across, methods like ‘provocation’ and ‘ridicule’ are never going to achieve that purpose. In fact, just the reverse will and does happen. You will be provoked and ridiculed by them, and they will do so even more vigorously. This is how the circle of idiocy completes itself…
No. Not this. Try telling people that Darwin may have been a plagiarizer. That he may have based his whole theory on plagiarized ideas and concepts. That he was an idiot disguised as a genius.
Nope, I’m saying you should take your idiotic and inane tripe elsewhere boring tool of fuckwittery. You have nothing cogent or pertinent to say to us.
We don’t do that. That type of idiocy reminds me of a very bad sophist philosopher on drugs who posts here every so often. The storyline of life was important to him. He just sounded incoherent to us, just like you do.
One less bit of stuporsticion holding back creativity and personal advancement. DUH.
Darwin got the overall idea right, but many of his ideas on the mechanisms are wrong. Some due to lack of knowledge at his time, like genes. But, with science, progress occurs every time a new issue of a journal is published. Darwin wasn’t and isn’t the last word. Religious folks like creationists pretend that is the case though.
kohldamunga, #14:
The lack of belief in gods. Baby-eating is just left of center, if I recall correctly.
Your belief is false. See above. That’s not what it is “all about,” though it is logical and rational. It’s a specific kind of belief, having content related to specific questions, as opposed to your comments which don’t contain any substantive content.
Because it is stupid. Why would you waste time defending religious stupidity? Because you’re stupid?
I don’t want to live in a bubble. Are you happy and prosperous when surrounded by stupidity?
Are you a creationist or something? What difference would that make?
#16:
Each of us has a different perspective, but that’s rather trivial. I could just as well say you can’t see “this whole thing” (whatever it is) from an atheist viewpoint. So what? No matter which perspective one has, there is no evidence for any kind god, so what’s you’re fucking point? Do you care about honesty and integrity, or do you want to aimlessly blather on about your incoherent perspective while hectoring us for not having it?
Citation needed, if you’re speaking for anyone but yourself. Why do you associate “provocation” and “incitement” with not looking logical or rational? Is there something illogical or irrational about provoking or inciting people, or does it just look that way to some set of non-atheists for which you are the (inept and confused) spokesperson?
Citation needed.
A couple decades ago, provocative and ridiculous things said by many people (from atheists and theists alike) made me stop believing. It was a gradual process, but certainly that sort of thing got me thinking. Why would you find this hard to believe?
But if provocation doesn’t provoke people, then what do you think could “get the point across”?
Y’know, every now and then, someone here writes something so egregiously stupid, so utterly gormless, I have to do a few reality checks to be sure I’m not dreaming. This is one of those times.
Atheism, in the primary sense of disbelief in gods, is either correct (if there are no gods) or incorrect (if there is at least one god). The existence of gods, and so the (in)correctness of atheism, is entirely independent of the existence of religions. Of course there would be nothing in the way of an organised atheist movement if there were no religions*; but if that happy day comes to pass and the atheist movement vanishes into history, it will not be because “atheism is a lie”, but because everyone now accepts it.
*And assuming there are still people – obviously both religions and atheism would disappear if we all dropped dead tomorrow.
I am posting in the true spirit of FREE THINKING.
This clearly encapsulates what your thoughts are worth.
There’s an author who criticized Darwin’s views of inheritance as “grievously wrong”, and described some of his assumptions as racist. His name is Richard Dawkins.
I can look at an “object of reverence” and conclude that anyone revering this is supported only by pure personal opinion, as it has no qualities that any sensible, logical person would find admirable.
Provocation and ridicule are quite effective rhetorical tools. That’s why people use them. When these tools are used, the target of persuasion is not the person being provoked or ridiculed, but those who have yet to make up their mind. See what consciousness razor said.
This seems remedial.
Ok. Try it. And provide a citation, while you are at it. I think that Hutton first articulated a mechanism that is very near natural selection, and it is almost certain that Darwin read it.
But also, I’m not sure what your point is. That the theory of natural selection is somehow false because Darwin plagiarized it? Or just that atheists have elevated Darwin to a position that he doesn’t deserve?
KG: *erk*
That passage was too stupid to get in through my eye. I had to read it aloud.
“Try telling people that Darwin may have been a plagiarizer. That he may have based his whole theory on plagiarized ideas and concepts. That he was an idiot disguised as a genius.”
The ideas and concepts are only plagiarised if he does not acknowledge his sources. He clearly does, throughout the book.
And it’s one thing to have an idea – it’s another thing entirely to dig into it, to do the sheer hard work to demonstrate that it’s actually a sound idea.
We can argue whether or not Darwin was a genius. But only a damn fool would call him an idiot.
[citation needed]
This sort of claim is frequently made, but in my experience it is very seldom supported with evidence. Of course it is true that the potential of violence from religious fanatics sometimes means that the possible consequences for others of particular acts of irreverence makes them wrong, but in general, ridiculing stupidity can be a highly effective weapon against it. We have had numerous commenters on Pharyngula single out such ridicule as important in their own awakening from religious delusions.
So what exactly did I do that suddenly lit this blog up like a Xmas tree, approximately two months before the actual xmas?
Was it this:
Has anyone bothered to address that?
What the fuck is there to address? Your mother may have been a hamster and your father may have smelt of elderberries.
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson
You did nothing to light up the blog. Not even ten posts in one hour. Compare this to the recent Predators thread where I counted thirty posts in the hour in the middle of the posts. You are dumb and arrogant, a combination that will cause you trouble.
You obvious are dumb, arrogant, and non-scientifically trained. Not even academically trained. Probably a self taught bozo who read and dozen books and considers themselves well read.
Science expects to share ideas and information. Proper citations acknowledging other peoples work you mention is appropriate, and Darwin was meticulous about that. In fact, it is part of citing the work of many other disciplines that made Origin so compelling. Don’t just take what I say, here is the evidence to back up what I say. Since he cited other peoples works and ideas, he didn’t “plagiarize” ideas. Proper credit was given where credit was due. You need to go back to school and learn how academic and scientific work is done.
@kohldamunga:
#34 and #35.
That said, what the fuck’s the point? If Darwin did plagiarize his book and was really just parroting claims without any real knowledge of the fact (not an accurate assessment, but just going on with what you’re saying) then what does it matter?
Evolution stands on its own feet regardless of Darwin’s influence. He’s not some majesterial authority upon whom the entirety of biological science is built. Darwin could never have existed in the first place and it wouldn’t change jack shit. The theory of evolution would still be here, would still have every bit of data and evidence supporting it and creationist morons would still be ripping it apart.
Oh, and don’t flatter yourself. Only reason I have any interest in you is that I’m bored and there are no other people to engage right now.
Fook I was right the first time – magisterial.
“Was it this:
No. Not this. Try telling people that Darwin may have been a plagiarizer. That he may have based his whole theory on plagiarized ideas and concepts. That he was an idiot disguised as a genius.
Has anyone bothered to address that?”
Two of us already addressed it before your post.
In any case, what’s to address? As I said above, only a damn fool would describe Darwin as an idiot.
(I’m feeding the troll, aren’t I…)
Well if you tell anyone who happens to know something about the subject, you’ll be judged a fool, because only a fool speaks out of such ignorance: Darwin’s life, work and intellectual antecedents are extensively documented, and that documentation makes any such assessment absurd. Darwin was a respected scientist before he published on evolution, having made and published extensive discoveries in geology, biology and paleontology. Of course the idea of natural selection was not without precedents; Darwin’s genius was to formulate it clearly, to realise its vast implications, and to produce overwhelming evidence of the reality of evolution and natural selection. But, he was wrong on many things – such as the mechanisms of heredity, and specifically the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He did not transcend the racism and sexism of his society, although he was an assiduous opponent of slavery. I would say he showed some moral cowardice in delaying publication on evolution by natural selection until his hand was forced by the letter from Alfred Russel Wallace sketching the same idea; he seems to have been inhibited by fear both of upsetting his deeeply religious wife, and of the wider reaction but I’d say it was, in scientific terms, reprehensible.
So your belief that Darwin is protected by something like religious reverence is simply false. It’s an error which appears to be universal among creationists: they think that if they can undermine Darwin’s stature, evolutionary theory would collapse. As I’ve remarked before, if Darwin were proven to have been both a complete scientific fraud and a serial killer, it would make not the slightest difference to modern evolutionary biology.
The general idea of evolution I mean. It had already been discussed by a few philosophers. It wasn’t his original idea.
@kohldamunga:
And the theory of evolution is no longer his idea. It’s evolved (heh) over the past 150 years due to evidence, new data, new understanding, and new authorities on the subject. The theory of evolution today would be completely unlike Darwin’s ideas.
Again.
What is your point?
kohldamunga:
Instead of wondering what the reaction would be if someone said that, why not actually say it, and find out?
kohldamunga:
Well duh. The idea was so old that his grandfather worked on evolution for a while.
PLEASE FIND A POINT TO GET TO.
Great. That’s exactly what I am saying too. He wasn’t an original.
Check out these quotes. They are from 1800. But the concept of evolution in this context can be found in texts as old as 2500 years old.
“History as a whole is a progressive, gradually self-disclosing revelation of the Absolute.” (System of Transcendental Idealism, 1800)
“Now if the appearance of freedom is necessarily infinite, the total evolution of the Absolute is also an infinite process, and history itself a never wholly completed revelation of that Absolute which, for the sake of consciousness, and thus merely for the sake of appearance, separates itself into conscious and unconscious, the free and the intuitant; but which itself, however, in the inaccessible light wherein it dwells, is Eternal Identity and the everlasting ground of harmony between the two.” (System of Transcendental Idealism, 1800)
PLEASE FIND A POINT TO GET TO.
@kohldamunga:
So the fuck what?
Are you trying to make a point like “Darwin wasn’t original, therefore God?”
kohldamunga:
Going by your idiotic assertion, every single bit of modern science is plagiarized. Science almost always builds on previous science.
It’s kind of how it works.
There would be no Germ Theory of Disease as described by Pastuer without the previous work of Agostino Bassi or Friedrich Henle.
There would be no special theory of relativity as we know it without Galileo’s principle of relativity.
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson’s “discovery” of Cosmic background Radiation wouldn’t have come about the same way without the previous work of George Gamow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman among many others.
I don’t know what point I am trying to make here, Katherine. I’ll let the free thinkers decide that. What do you think?
Sure it does. But I quoted a mystic philosopher, not some scientist. How can the theory of evolution determine there is no God when a mystic philosopher is telling us about the evolution of the ‘Absolute’ (or God) long before Darwin proposed his theory?
I think you’re desperately flailing about, trying to find a way to insert “mystical” or “transcendent” or some other verbiage into the discussion.
Then if you’re not trying to make a point, or you don’t know what point you are trying to make – what on earth ARE you trying to do?
I was right. You’re just a troll.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make because you haven’t MADE a point.
No one here thinks that Darwin is some holy authority to evolution. We know he was flawed in his research and his ideology. I’ve said that it doesn’t matter one flipping bit what Darwin did because the ToE is not based solely on what Darwin said. Back in my first post on this topic I said as much.
I can’t begin to fathom your motives for bringing this up at all because all it does is show how ignorant you are of how science works. Science is not dogmatic or authoritarian. It’s not based off of the person giving the message, it’s based off the message itself. Evolutionary biology stands with or without its authorities.
There’s no connection, dude. Some mystic happens to use “evolution” in a sentence full of mystical bafflegab, so what? That has ZERO to do with science.
kohldamunga: “No. Not this. Try telling people that Darwin may have been a plagiarizer. That he may have based his whole theory on plagiarized ideas and concepts. That he was an idiot disguised as a genius.”
Ever occur to you that “plagiarizing ideas and concepts” isn’t quite unoriginal/”plagiarizing” if he is taking ideas/concepts from multiple sources and combining them in a unique way? Oh, but that doesn’t matter. You’re not talking about Lamarck or anything. Your example is System of Transcendental Idealism. Which talks about gradually revealing an Absolute truth, in your quotes given. Which isn’t how evolution works, you fucking dumbass. There is no Absolute that evolution is striving for. At least not to our knowledge, or according to Darwin’s conception. The only thing Darwin apparently “plagiarized” from the work is the word “evolution” (apparently, first used in 1615) and the idea of something gradually improving (which he could have easily have just “plagiarized” from individual human development). Very weak tea you are selling here.
*boggle*
Are you seriously contending that the ToE determines the lack of a deity?
The theory of evolution has nothing at all to do with deities and it has everything to do with biological and natural changes to creatures who live in the world. The fact it doesn’t gel with the beliefs of Creationist Christians is not a failing of the ToE, it’s a failing of Christianity.
And almost no one here would contend that there is no god. I contend that the Christian God cannot exist because he’s self-contradictory, but as far as a deity or higher intelligence, that’s impossible to know so I’m agnostic with that.
The theory of evolution in no way “determines there is no god”. It surely adds to that conclusion for any rational person but it in no way makes that claim.
Burning strawmen to try and make whatever idiotic point you think you are making is making a point, but not the one you want to make.
In fact this is the dumbest thing I’ve read today. No question.
Then why say anything unless you are deliberately trolling? Which is a banhammer offense.
OK. I will keep my fingers crossed. And don’t worry too much about my motives, since ‘your’ science stands on rock solid foundations. By the way, do tell Mr Dawkins about that German philosopher. Dawkins could have read him, and many others like him, before he wrote The God Delusion.
“How can the theory of evolution determine there is no God when a mystic philosopher is telling us about the evolution of the ‘Absolute’ (or God) long before Darwin proposed his theory?”
1. It can’t, but it can shatter the credibility of Genesis.
2. It doesn’t matter, because the philosophy in question is evidenceless bafflegab.
3. Even if it were talking about evolution before the theory of evolution, the theory of evolution is constrained by its predecessors.
4. The philosophical bafflegab posted isn’t a predecessor or contributor to the theory of evolution. If it is, we need more evidence than common use of the word “evolution” (which existed 200 years prior) and the idea of gradual development (which is such a laughably simple idea that I can’t believe that you believe it is sufficient evidence to make your idiotic assertions of “plagiarism”. It’s like saying I’ve plagiarized someone right now for using the idea of responding with a number for each separate response).
I suggest you stop now. You are a making a fool of yourself. You seem to barely grasp basic logic, let alone what the theory of evolution entails, the fact that Darwin is now irrelevant to the modern theory, or what counts as significant enough of a similarity to count as “plagiarism”. Step away, gather your thoughts, and only return when you have screwed on straight. And have removed from your own ass, of course.
Number 3 of my last comment should be “ISN’T constrained by its predecessors”.
You really aren’t as clever as you think you are.
The TOE says absolutely nothing about any imaginary deity, or lack thereof. Darwin was a deist or agnostic, and I suspect the former.
The gnu atheist requires conclusive physical evidence for a deity. There isn’t any.
I can’t continue this… kohl is just too ignorant. I feel like I’m losding brain cells. Xe made have just made the stupidest argument I’ve ever seen…
Of course it doesn’t. But there is a problem here. The theory of evolution does not agree with almost every major religion, and vice versa. If you are religious person turned into an atheist, you can easily come to the conclusion that you have to make a choice between God and science, since both can’t be right. BUT, and a very big BUT, spirituality and the theory of evolution, it turns out, agree with each other hand in glove. So, we have a problem here again. We still haven’t figured out what God is…
No. I’m wrong. Post #70 is the stupidest argument ever.
They do? Please explain and then please explain the criteria you are using here because spirituality can mean pretty much anything you want it to mean.
It’s a wiggle word so watered down and overused as an excuse that it really holds little meaning at all. Kind of like your above statement.
kohldamunga: You’re doing a great job of making yourself look like an idiot. The history of Darwin’s idea is well-known, and serious scholars have written whole books on the subject. You don’t seem to understand the most basic concepts of scientific knowledge, that of course it is all built on prior work — we tend to be suspicious of revelation. Darwin did the synthetic work and the empirical observations that put evolution on a firm footing; he also had the key insight that it was the effect of selection on variation in populations that was important.
He also fully acknowledged all of his predecessors. What you are whining about is something that anyone could discover by reading Darwin.
Oh, and finding some guy who used the word “evolution” before Darwin is no insight. Do you think Darwin coined the word or something?
No problem. Almost every religion is build on the lies of an imaginary deity and mythical/fictional holybook/oral tales. Nothing about reality there, unlike science. So, what is your problem?
Since all deities are imaginary, what is your problem???
Another null word like god. Meaningless drivel, non-existent, and bullshit. So, what is your cogent problem?
Part of Darwin’s genius in the Origin of Species (First edition – the best!) is that the word evolution never appears, other than as the VERY last word: “evolved”.
Read that last paragraph again – it is almost *orgasmic*.
Nihilists claim they have no values, but I have yet to meet one who doesn’t greatly value trying to make other people as miserable as them.
Kohld is really stupid and uneducated. This is a troll.
Science is a collective, collaborative enterprise. It builds on the results of others in an overexpanding tower of knowledge. The results of science belong to all humanity to its great benefit.
Darwin didn’t plagiarize anything. This is simply another lie by a dumb troll. There were many theories of evolution. They were wrong. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection of randomly varying replicators was his own. It was correct and is the basis of all modern biology.
Einstein did the same thing. The first principle of relativity was thought up by Galileo 400 years ago. Einstein merely greatly extended it.
Now that you bring it up, Ing:
” Ideas aren’t real, just the play of atoms and subatomic particles, which unfortunately for most atheists and reductionists, are also ideas. Illusions. No real love, no morals, no reason to give a shit about anything. ”
Thurin, this kind of crap is common and moronic. Just FYI. For a quick reason why: Look up “emergent properties”. For the longer explanation: The “well, everything is just atoms then!” whine is the standard cry of the anti-materialist, and it is far more “reductionist” than those who dismiss the possibility of supernatural agents could ever hope to be.
Molecules, composed of multiple atoms, have different properties than any of the component atoms. A large collection of atoms/molecules at the macro scale has properties that the individual atoms do not. Silver and iron atoms don’t have a color, yet large numbers of them, on the macro scale, do. At room temperature, mercury atoms aren’t liquid, and carbon atoms aren’t solid, but, in same conditions, elemental mercury is liquid and elemental carbon is often solid. Individual carbon atoms aren’t alive. Any given organic molecule isn’t alive. And yet, made out of a system of organic molecules, we have living organisms, from microbes, to mushrooms, to trees, to beetles, to dogs, to humans, to elephants. Thoughts, such as love and ideas in general, are the process of the brain, a complex organ made of complex cells made of complex combinations of organic matter that send along chemical/electrical signals in response to certain triggers. Understanding this, it is clear that thoughts are more similar to activities than objects. To say “thought” is an illusion because the brain is just atoms is similar to saying “running” is an illusion because the body is just atoms. It is dismissive and ignorant of the way that these “just atoms” can be used to make much more complicated things.
Thought/ideation is what your brain does, an emergent property of a complex physical system. Loving is based on thought/emotion connecting one person to another, linking the level of thought to our social context. Morals are the best way of behave, and are a set of general (sometimes nebulous, fluctuating) rules that are inferred based on social context. There isn’t a dichotomy between material objects and illusion. Nor does the existence of abstract principles or mental processes mean that one can jump to the conclusion that non-material objects (ghosts, souls, deities, Platonic ideals, etc.) must exist. Once you correct yourself of such misconceptions, you may not come up with such tired, cliched excuses for clinging onto religious worldviews.
This is incorrect. Another howling error by the troll.
Most religions have made their peace with science and Darwin one way or another. The real world isn’t going away and burning scientists at the stake like the Catholic church did just doesn’t work.
The majority of xian sects worldwide don’t have a problem with evolution. That is a US fundie xian death cult problem. Even some Evangelicals accept it.
Creationism is a lie and it forces people to lie and hate science. That is rather pointless. Without science we would be living in the Dark Ages and dying at 45 rather than 75.
Creationism will go the way of the Flat Earth and Geocentrism and for the same reason.
Hi Professor:
No, I don’t think Darwin coined the word evolution. The concept had already been discussed as far as I know. But, the main process that drives evolution in Darwin’s theory, Natural Selection, looks incredibly similar to how The Absolute (or God as the entire universe) evolves towards what is called higher and higher ‘perfection’ in spirituality. Interestingly, these concepts of God evolving as the entire universe had already been discussed in detail by various mystic philosophers and mystics themselves, long before Darwin came up with his idea of evolution by natural selection. It just makes me think if Darwin was secretly inspired by spirituality …
Of course, science builds itself on prior knowledge. There is no other way. But I am not talking about science here. I am talking about spirituality. Science borrows nothing from spirituality, at least not publicly.
This reminds me of Freud’s terms ID, EGO and SUPEREGO, which are also found in almost every spiritual text. Only they are usually called Soul, Ego, Mind in spirituality. Freud introduced these terms about a century ago. Spirituality introduced these terms more than thousands of years ago….
ah kohldamunga, the name was familiar. On this post, they already made a great effort of making themself look like an idiot by blabbering about near death experiences (NDEs) and extolling the works of Raymond Moody, and how future generations would make fun of us because
Citation needed, and you are WRONG. Welcome to science, where you are wrong until YOU prove yourself right…
Mental masturbation. Meaningless drivel, as it isn’t based on reality.
Nope, mind is bioware being manifested in reality. Spirituality is a null and meaningless word. Prove otherwise with scientific data.
Ah ha hah hah hah hah hah ha.
Oh, you are a fabulous comedian, kohldamunga. Is your standup routine in your real name or do you go by kohldamunga on stage ?
When will you be appearing live in my area ? I can hardly wait !
I have already quoted Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. There are many more references available. The point is, what Darwin called evolution by natural selection in his theory, mystics and mystic philosophers had already called it The Whole or The Absolute evolving towards more and more perfection … ad infinitum. Darwin’s theory is less than 200 years old. Mystic and mystic philosophers, all over the world, have been saying this for at least 2500 years.
Psychology, a branch of science, is concerned with only (or mostly) the non-physical side of the mind. True, the brain makes it all happen. But what happens, the end result, is non-physical — we experience dreams, thoughts, emotions, and feelings as something non-physical.
Jung’s psychology openly revolves around The Soul. Have you studied Jung?
Here is another quote:
Those who equate God with ‘supernatural’ or a ‘supernatural being’ should find the above quote very interesting.
What the “mystics and mystic philosophers had already called…The Whole or The Absolute” is what normal people call “bullshit.” Evolution is not about the Magic Sky Pixie becoming an even greater Magic Sky Pixie. Evolution is about how populations of living things change into different living things.
Bullshit is not very interesting. Only a confused wackaloon finds bullshit interesting.
You know what? Calling something “bullshit”, and then trying to claim a superior position just because you have called something “bullshit”, is very very childish. Maybe grown-up adults like you (assuming you ARE an adult)should leave such practices to kids.
What’s interesting is, you have provided no argument whatsoever here, but you are still seem to be trying to claim a superior position for some unknown and unfathomable reasons.
You know what? We don’t have to repeat ourselves ourselves every time you spew your spritualist Chropaism/Moodyism crap. People did respond to you on the first thread I posted earlier, so why don’t you go back there and respond to the points there instead of spreading your crap all over the place.
Then please hit me with some science. You are right. You and other people did respond to me, but all of you have responded only with your silly arguments so far. Don’t just keep hitting me with your silliness and childishness. I have seen enough of it already. If you have science, I am waiting for it…
You are a liar, kohldamunga. I even gave you a reference.
Not a citation to the peer reviewed scientific literature loser. Philosophy doesn’t trump science. Science has evidence. Philosophy without evidence is mental masturbation. Which is all you present.
Nope, all manifestations of physical chemistry. Nothing there without the chemistry. Prove otherwise with solid scientific evidence, not assertion.
Who cares what a non-scientist thinks? He has no evidence, just opinions. Which is all you have. Inane opinions.
Define “spirit” and “spirituality” so they are falsifiable, able to be proven true or false. I see nothing but presupposition on definitions from you.
Yes kid on the adult blog. You forgot the evidence, required for mature adults.
Nor have you, as evidence is required for an effective argument. And you have no evidence, just inane bullshit masquerading as opinion.
We have, you ignore the refutations. You are oblivious to your idiocy. What a loser, as shown by :
The only child here is you BOY. Learn how evidence works.
Ditto BOY…
Jung’s psychology openly revolves around The Soul.
no it didn’t.
It revolved around the concept of the collective unconscious.
In fact, Jung never believed in the concept of a Soul as Christians believe in it.
here’s what Uncle Carl had to say about death (from – “The Soul and Death”):
You insult Carl by suggesting his work revolved around the concept of a soul.
and you’re a fucking liar.
kohldamunga, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof. It is upon you making any claims. You must satisfy our need for solid and conclusive physical evidence. We don’t have to satisfy you that we are right. All we need to do is neutralize your idiocy with rationality and evidence. Which has been done to date. You are behind the eight ball…
Look, you inpenetrably stupid duffer, viewing evolution as driven by the forces of random variation and natural selection is the basis of the whole of modern biology and medicine. Viewing it as “higher and higher ‘perfection’ in spirituality” and suchlike tripe has led nowhere but to further gaseous effusions from lame-brained pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself and your favoured sources.
Thank you: such as Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Here’s an extract from Wikipedia on Schelling:
Jung was both an intellectual fraud and a pro-Nazi racist scumbag. His “theories” were simply pulled out of his arse – but I’m sure that to you, that’s a strong recommendation.
I notice, by the way, Kohldamunga, that having first thrown out (without having the guts to espouse it explicitly) an absurd characterisation of Darwin as an idiot and a plagiariser, you are now trying to co-opt him. Not very honest, and not very nice.
The Whole or The Absolute evolving towards more and more perfection … ad infinitum.
but this isn’t what evolutionary theory states, nor is it anywhere what Darwin himself states.
In fact, the very definition of evolution itself, as a word, is simply “change over time”.
it does not imply directionality, it does not imply purpose, it does not imply hierarchy.
this, indeed, is EXACTLY what separates it from the mythology and religious claptrap that has come before and since.
evolution is NOT marching “upwards” in a specific direction, like a ladder, but instead branching in rivulets, like a tidal flat, ebbing and surging back and forth, forming new patterns continuously.
there is no end goal.
things move back and forth, continuously.
what’s more, this is what we observe DIRECTLY, it’s not something we imagine to be happening, like with your idiotic religious myths.
Kohldamunga strongly reminds me of another idiot with a hard-on for that vile creature Jung, and similarly bottomless wells of stupid to draw on. Went by more than one name. Ah! Matthew Segal. That you, Matthew? If not, google him: you two could have a real pseudo-intellectual wankfest together.
I think woo-botting should be a bannable offence just like godbotting. I mean PZ opens up enough threads on wooism, why can’t they keep the crap to those threads..
I keep seeing new offences by this mendacious idiot, even in a bit of text I’ve already commented on. Of course he fucking wasn’t “secretly inspired by spirituality”. He kept extensive notes on what he read, he corresponded with both scientists and a broad range of other people across Britain and much of the world, and his life and work, including his progress from orthodox Christian belief to agnosticism have been extensively studied. If he had been “secretly inspired by spirituality”, don’t you think someone would have noticed, and published something on it? I understand, you think everyone is as lazy, ignorant and dishonest as you are yourself, so more than a century of biographers and historians of science could have missed or suppressed such a thing. Pah!
It just makes me think if Darwin was secretly inspired by spirituality
Actually, he WAS.
Darwin was a creationist when he left on his voyage on the Beagle, and expected his investigations would likely provide evidence in support of creationism.
what he found, instead, was undeniable evidence suggesting no need for a creator as an explanation for the diversity he saw.
It lead him AWAY from religious conclusions. So much so, that he fretted for years about how to present the evidence so that fuckwits like yourself wouldn’t clutch their pearls and look for the nearest fainting couch.
and yet, over 150 years later, here you clowns still are, clutching your pearls.
quite remarkable, really; in a sad, pathetic way.
Ichthyic says:
Have you actually studied Jung? Maybe you are just getting some tips and hints from your old friend Wikipedia… I strongly suspect the latter. Hint: Try The Red Book. Read up something about how it came about. Then do some actual reading, instead of just picking a quote from here and there.
..I’d add that KG made it clearer that it was no secret that Darwin was religious. As mentioned, it was part of his motivation for taking the voyage on the Beagle to begin with.
Didn’t mean to even seem to agree with numbnuts that it was “secret”.
Have you actually studied Jung
Hint:
Try reading “Phenomenology of the Self”.
Jung did not believe in the concept of the soul.
If you can’t see this from the very book he WROTE ON THE SUBJECT, then you’re a daft moron, living in complete denial, and projecting onto everything you read.
True, though, that Jung is very easy to project onto, given how daft and nebulous he himself was a lot of the time.
Mandala symbolism in dreams…
LOL
and synchronicity?
ROFLMAO.
Then do some actual reading, instead of just picking a quote from here and there.
what was it about what Carl had to say about death that isn’t clear, idiot?
It’s quite clear that Carl believed the very concept of a soul was imagined to help counter common fears about death being the very finite end to life.
and yes, Carl most definitely believed death to be the end.
fuck, he says it about 6 different ways in the section of the book I quoted.
Yes I did provide an argument, asshole. I told you evolution was about change in living organisms, not change in your Magical Sky Pixie. You’ve yet to show what your Magical Sky Pixie is, let alone how it “evolves.”
Ichthyic says:
You are telling me Jung believed in the ‘collective unconsciousness’ but not in the soul? You can explain what Jung meant by the ‘collective unconsciousness’, in your own words.
I agree with this though:
I never said Jung’s concept of the soul had anything to do with Christianity, or any other religion. It’s you people who can’t seem to draw a line between religions and spirituality.
We really don’t care if your unscientific nonsense is Christian or woo-ist. Same difference.
I never said Jung’s concept of the soul had anything to do with Christianity, or any other religion.
show us a secular definition of a soul.
fuck me, you’re laughable.
the fact that you put the very essence of his entire work in scare quotes tells me all I need to know about how much YOU have studied Jung.
dis.
missed.
OK. but I am still waiting for you to define the ‘collective unconsciousness’. Had you even heard about this term before? I mean before you started doing ‘quote mining’ on Jung today?
By the way, I never said anything about any ‘secular definition’ of the soul as well. I will write that word in capitals this time, so you don’t miss it. It is called SPIRITUALITY. This is the context in which Jung talks about the soul. This is the context in which I have been talking about The Soul.
Wow. And here I was thinking it was the changing of physical characteristics of organisms over generations through natural selection. Or, as we more accurately describe it now that we know about the actual material of heredity, genes, the change in allele frequencies in organisms over generations through natural selection and genetic drift. Here I was thinking it was about actual observable changes in actual observable organisms that live and reproduce on Earth.
Does this mystical view of The Whole evolving towards more and more perfection* include wasp larva hatching out of eggs that have been laid on a spider, and then eating that spider? Does the mystical view of The Whole include mass extinctions and life diversifying from what’s left to fill vacant and emerging niches afterwards?
* And what is “more perfection” anyway? Perfect is perfect, however one wants to define it.
You cheapen science by associating it thus.
In the sense that I find the made-up words and fantasies of children interesting.
*Makes sign of crossed tentacles toward off abject sophistry*
You still haven’t defined spirituality in way that it can falsified, that is proven right or wrong. You avoid defining it so you can keep the definition fluid and irrefutable. That is your weakness, and we know it. Define your terms, or shut the fuck up loser…
I will write that word in capitals this time, so you don’t miss it. It is called SPIRITUALITY.
as nebulous and undefined a term as has ever been invented.
fuck off, dweeb.
Same bullshit, different gift-wrapping.
seriously, it’s like taking something ill-defined, and hiding it in a mist, and claiming you have an obvious point in there somewhere.
YOU ARE A DELUDED FUCKWIT.
…and not worth anyone’s time.
you don’t understand Jung’s work, and you don’t understand science.
you’re an utter waste of time.
Nah, these guys are more fun than the Hovind zombie patrol.
A null and meaningless word, talking about imaginary things. Just like a deity and inerrant holy book. So, either define spirituality so we can prove you wrong, or shut the fuck up as the abject loser and idjit you are…
That might be true, but kohldamunga has been derailing several nonsense with his spritualist nonsense now. Why can’t he just keep it on one?
that was one nonsense too many:
That might be true, but kohldamunga has been derailing several threads with his spritualist nonsense now. Why can’t he just keep it on one?
OK. All you of you can troll here until your heads fall off — assuming it hasn’t already happened, which seems like a very far off assumption now. In the meantime, let me know if any of you have anything reasonable to say. Anything at all. Let me know if the children have finally grown up…:)
You are the one trolling. Posting idiocies to get a rise out of the regulars. You present no evidence, no definitions, just make snide and illogical comments like any troll does.
No BOY, let us know when you grow up and understand the need for solid and conclusive physical evidence, like adult scientists and academicians…
Are you making the claim that PZ trolls his own blog?
Shit, it makes as much sense as everything else you have been spewing.
kohldamunga: You’ve probably already been asked this, but are you even remotely aware of the scientific method that we use to elicit truth? I have to say that based on your posts, it looks like you might be taking the opposite approach, as your balderdash (yes regulars, I’m trying to bring that word back) would never stand up to it. Please stop ruining these threads, or alternatively, insert a decaying hedgehog (going for variety) into your orifice of choice sideways.
Opps! Sorry. I thought it was implied that when I say ‘all of you’, I mean ‘all of you’ who are actually trolling. Those who are not giving proper answers and arguments, or not asking proper questions, but are just resorting to flooding this thread with mindless chatter. The professor has only posted one message, and I have answered it already.
kohldamunga,
do you realise that you’re the one trolling this thread?
You’ve completely derailed the discussion on what should’ve been the OP’s atheism story by bringing in your idiotic ideas about spiritualism. Just stick to the Chopra threads, will ya..
What do you consider a ‘proper question’? How about this:
Oh, great and fantabulous kohldamunga, can you please enlighten this poor, benighted, atheisted non-spiritual man by explaining how spirituality will link the teachings of the Great Buddha, Charles Darwin, and the Great Rubbed Sage?
Shit for brain, these people that you call trolls are the fucking regulars.
You are the one trolling with your baseless spirituality bullshit.
I hope I made that clear, troll.
Physician, heal thyself.
The only one trolling is you fuckwit, by spouting nonsense about spiritualism, which you can’t even define. What a loser.
You are describing your evidenceless posts about your idiocy and nonsense. Typical of trolls. You have not said anything cogent to date, and the most cogent thing you could say would be “sorry, I’ve been trolling, good-bye”, and stick the flounce.
Who cares, you haven’t even defined your concept of spirituality. Only abject childish losers can’t even define their basic terms. So, you either start answering our questions, or shut the fuck up as a troll.
Oh I am sorry. So, according to your logic, the regulars never troll? Is this how trolling is defined around here? Trloiing is something that comes only from someone who is not a regular, and which is then approved by someone as trolling who is a regular?
I am sorry, but a lot of regulars are trolling here. And I am sure I am not the only ‘non-regular- who is saying this.
kohldamunga: No, we define trolling by our standards and practices, which can be found under the “The Dungeon” tab.
I am not trolling, oh great and fantestical kohldamunga. I am seeking enlightenment from your incredible mind: can you please enlighten this poor, benighted, atheisted non-spiritual man by explaining how spirituality will link the teachings of the Great Buddha, Charles Darwin, and the Great Rubbed Sage?
Do you want me define spirituality?
Trolls accuse others of trolling because they have no reasonable argument or proof for their troll lies.
Offer some physical evidence or shut-up about your stupidity.
Um…Yes!
Oh sorry. That wasn’t for you.
Sure. Since you won’t answer my question, lets toss you a softball and let you answer your own question. And I’ll bet dollars to donuts that your answer will be excellent fertilizer for my tomatoes.
Open board, fuckface. Most of the people reading this want your term defined.
Based on what experience? That you have grown a lot of tomatoes by giving them your own answers as fertilizer? In that case, I am telling you that my answers will burn your tomatoes down to ashes. So you better seek the company of your gurus, those who have been helping you to make fertilizers for your tomatoes…
Fuck you, you’re dumb.
Where’s your evidence that anyone (regular or non-regular) thinks there is someone trolling in this thread besides you.
Evidence, dummy, evidence, that’s what you need to bring to be accepted. Your empty “surety” isn’t even worth the electrons you took to reply.
Since you can’t up your game, go someplace where your particular flavor of wooism will get you the stroking you feel you deserve. Sure as pasta, you’re not going to get it here.
Fine. Can you please explain to me, this poor, benighted, atheisted non-spiritual man, how spirituality will link the teachings of the Great Buddha, Charles Darwin, and the Great Rubbed Sage? or are you going to ignore someone seeking your pearls of wisdom about spirituality?
kohldamunga,
several people have asked you for your definition of spirituality. Now either answer, or STFU!
Sorry, was somebody going to define spirituality? Because I’ve been wondering about that one for a while.
If your answer is so fucking great, it should be able to change how most people view existence.
You’re answers are undiluted dog piss?
kohldamunga, you just fuck right off with that conceit. You’re a lazy asshole who has only been tolerated for your amusement value.
If you’re going to get above your worth, just fuck off out of here and stay gone.
So what is your undiluted dog piss definition of spirituality? And where is your evidence that it has anything to do with Darwin (Charles, not the city)?
Ogvorbis @145: That my friend was pure win.
Troll who’s ‘nym I’m too lazy to type or copy: Please give us the definition, or insert a decaying porcupine into your nether regions. Actually, do both,
OK. May I suggest a little break. I think all of you sound really pissed off at me right now for one reason or another. Just in case you didn’t notice, none of you have to ‘tolerate’ anything here. Just because you are the ‘regulars’ doesn’t mean you have to have a say in everything that is is posted here. But I still appreciate your magnanimity, despite the fact no one has forced any of you to come here and get involved in a self-created duel with me.
Go do something. Maybe buy some fresh organic tomatoes from the supermarket this time. Who knows what crap you have been eating for the last 40 years in the name of ‘home grown tomatoes’.
Obvious idiot is obvious, and idiotic.
kohldamunga,
either flounce and stay flounced, or give us your definition of spirituality (and preferrably flounce and stay flounced afterwards too).
If you’re basing your “argument” on spirituality, then it would be a nice gesture on your part to define what exactly you mean by that word. Either that or you can continue to whine, rant, and play silly troll games. Your choice.
But will he stick the flounce?
kohldamunga:
After threatening us with your overarching definition of spirituality, a definition which you promise will burn tomatoes to ashes, you are now going to run away with your tail between your legs? What, oh spiritual kangaguru, is your world-unifying definition of spirituality?
Fabulous! Before you leave, here’s a decaying porcupine with an organic tomato stuffed in it’s mouth (let it not be said we don’t cater to idiotic obsessions) for you. Take the decaying porcupine, and pound it, backwards and hard, Cupcake. Have fun and don’t come back now!
Fucking idiot.
I think I get it! Spiritual means smug!
Thank you!
Janine Is Still An Asshole, OM,
You know what? You really don’t have to waste so much of your time, energy and other resources to prove you are who you say you are. Which is, Janine Is Still An Asshole, I readily accept your assessment about you. You have done quite an excellent job.
kohldamunga,
you’re wasting your time by not revealing the great truth (TM) about spiritualism to us. So hurry and do tell…
Tell me something .. all of you who are trying so hard. Do you want me to leave? All you have to do is say YES.
kohldamunga:
After threatening us with your overarching definition of spirituality, a definition which you promise will burn tomatoes to ashes, you are now going to run away with your tail between your legs? What, oh spiritual kangaguru, is your world-unifying definition of spirituality? You gonna answer, or fail-to-stick-the-flounce again?
We have SIWOTI syndrome, and you are a prime example of someone wrong on the internet. You can’t even define spirituality, which shows how intellectually bankrupt you are. Definitions come first in any intelligent discussion. Which leaves you out.
kohldamunga:
You really don’t have to waste so much of your time, energy and other resources to avoid and evade providing your oh-so-great definition of spirituality, there by proving your dumbfuckery. Get to it or get the fuck out.
Did the universe not tell you?
Or maybe kohldamunga defines spirituality in the same way as his recent performance here showed: utterly nebulous stupidity, impossible to pin down on anything, and then disappears entirely after raising the expectation of finally getting an answer to something?
oooh, couldn’t stick it. That’s a 1 for technical merit, only 9 posts and it’s back? Perhaps a 2 for artistry.
More seriously, I want that definition.
NO! We want you to answer the fucking question that you asked yourself: What is The Definition of Spirituality?
Or you can leave. Just pick one.
, I am telling you that my answers will burn your tomatoes down to ashes
Well, I’m just looking for a real tomato, but no one understands my potato.
@ #160–164: 5-way jinx on replying to the latest asinine effusion – all timestamped within the same minute!
Waiting for your Spirituality definition, then some evidence that this definition is universal.
Maybe this is his definition of spirituality?
Fuckface, I do not need to work hard to prove that I am an asshole. My current moniker is a direct quote from an other person. Who, strangely enough, admitted he was wrong on a very key point in an ongoing argument.
So sorry, though, that most of the regulars here want to have a definition of spirituality and prove that it exists. This is what makes them so mean, hateful and trollish.
OK. From the replies I have got, it ‘seems like’ that you people want me to define spirituality. I could be wrong because I didn’t get a straight answer, or a question, as usual. And, therefore, I had to kind of ‘decipher’ all the posts, and make up my own meaning. Am I right? If the answer is a YES, don’t say YES…:) Just let me make an answer. Be patient.
oooh, he has to invent an answer. This is going to be good.
Fuckface, you are the one who made assertions. You got called on them. Now you whine that you have too pressure to back up your claims.
And you wonder why some of use are a bit, ahem, testy.
Who? The regulars? The regulars are so mean, hateful and trollish? Are you actually trying to help here?
This better be the best damn definition of spirituality that I’ve ever seen. If this definition doesn’t literally make me piss my pants from awe then I’m going to be very disappointed.
I’d like the make-some-fucking-sense platter (hold the bullshit), with a side of STFU and a large coke. I think you’ll have to make it to-go.
What the fuck? You spend an evening being a blogass saying, effectively, “I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, and all you have to do to get it is ask,” and many of us ask for your definition of spirituality, and now you have to go and and make up an answer because you don’t have one to hand? I do not fucking believe it. You have flabbergasted me.
StarStuff: prepare to be dissapointed
Not really. I’m already bored to tears.
The only troll on this thread is you. You aren’t saying anything. Just blathering like an idjit.
@ A. R
I’m counting on it. I’d rather not have to wash these pants.
now you have to go and and make up an answer because you don’t have one to hand? I do not fucking believe it. You have flabbergasted me.
I called it.
waste.
of.
time.
Caine: Yeah, I’m still rooting for 42
That was weird.
cowabunga started with *Darwin was a fraud* and got to tomato-burning wisdom.
huh.
We already know 42 and about the Dolphins and Vogon poetry. Nothin’ new there.
If the answer is 42, we will need a planet sized super computer to come up with the question.
OK. Spirituality is all about finding our ‘true self’. According to spirituality, what we ordinarily call “I” is not our true self. It is our false self. The Ego. This is the core principle.
And my pants remain dry.
I am whelmed.
Chigau:
If this has any relation to goats on fire! I’m gonna have to adjust my Happy Monkey cards…
I too am whelmed
Y’know, I really wish there was a way, on a comment thread, to make that wonderful sound a needle makes as it skitters all the way accross a record. Because that is what just happened to my mind. Ego? One’s true self? We waited for that?
Hee.
Haha.
Heh.
Snorfle.
Hahahahahahah.
hehehehehehe!!!
Bwahahahahahahahahahah!
Caine: I don’t see anything, but I’m pretty new
BTW, Father O., how are your tomatoes doing?
Uh huh. ^This is also called bullshit, Cupcake. Also, any time you need to put something in scare quotes, you’re announcing how much of a brainless asshole you happen to be. Thanks for playing, you fail.
Also whelmed.
And beginning to feel pity.
Yes. The other core principle is, only The Ego, the false self, can sink to such stupid depths. I didn’t believe in the second principle before. But I do now.
bwwwahahahahaha
whew
like wow man
Well, if they hadn’t drowned in the two tropical storm floods, they’s still be fine if they hadn’t been killed by the snow.
What’s one’s “true self”? How do you find your “true self”? How do you know the difference between “true self” and “false self”?
Professor Fuckface! Professor Fuckface!
Like, how does any of this, like, relate to Darwin and his evolution thingy?
kohldamunga: Bullshit cannot be transformedeth by the application of more of thine own bullshit
OK, kohldamunga. Now please give us the evidence for this?
also this Ego thing, your true self thing, does it come from outside of you, from the Universe (TM)? Or is it all contained within your brain?
The kind of pity that contains an element of disgust.
It’s really picked up speed and momentum. It’s like I am having a ride on the TGV.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA HA! HA!
Oh god, that’s some priceless shit right there.
kohldamunga: You can leave now.
So how does Finding Ones Own Self relate to Charles Darwin being a fraud?
Heh. Finding one’s self. Heh.
kohldamunga, you’re the one sunken in the depths of stupidity. Yet another moron who has discovered philosophy and some psychology, mooshed it into a vomitous hairball and wants a prize for hacking it out on the good carpet. You’re a dime a dozen, boring and wrong. So very, very wrong.
Gonna tell us all about The Secret next? LOA?
On your nebulous definition of spirituality:
There’s nothing like a good joke – and that was nothing like a good joke.
How do you know that? What does one’s “self,” if it exists, have to do with spirits or being spiritual? How do you know that?
What does one ordinarily call “I”? How do you know what we call ourselves? How do you know that it is not our “true self”? You could invent more and more bogus principles to answer more and more questions, but that’s fucking pointless. Where’s the evidence?
Oh, come on, kohldamunga. Can’t you keep up with us? It’s really not that hard.
ahhhhhhhhh
wow
I’m blown away by how deep that was.
I’ve rarely seen bullshit that deep outside something Depak Chopra says.
Ok now that you’re defined spirituality, rather hilariously and impotently, please somehow try to tie this into evolution and Darwin.
And if you could, please make it as amusing as your spirituality definition.
Yep, you are showing it with your inane and insane definition of bullshit. Bwahahahahaha. Look in the mirror before you complain about us. You are still batting 0.000 with a cogent definition of spirituality. It appears it can’t be done.
I don’t understand. I really don’t. Does behaving like an idiot really help you people? Has it ever helped you before? Then you are the ones who start calling on P Z Myers for giving me a ‘banhammer’.
@ kohldamunga
How are we behaving like idiots? Please do tell!
kohldamunga: I really do not suppose any of us would like to see you banned, you are far too amusing.
Seriously, kohldamunga, I actually loled at your definition. I was laughing so hard that I scared a cat right off of the back of the couch.
I’d love to see proof of any of that. That “I” is not true, that there is a “false” self, that there is actually a “true self” to find. And what’s so bad about my so-called “false self”, anyway? Why shouldn’t I embrace it (if it does indeed exist)?
Where did you even come up with that bullshit?
Your definition of it doesn’t really help us understand your Darwin comments. Why would spirituality matter to him?
Or to science?
No really I wanted to try and take you seriously but
damn
that was too funny.
For someone who is trying to seek their true self, you are not very self reflective.
How are you behaving like idiots? I believe you think you can use your usual tactics of resorting to idiocy, as you must be doing this quite often with people, to get something out of me. All you are going to get out of me is, your idiocy returned to you. Then some of start calling on P Z Myers for help, and some of you ask me to go and never come back.
Rev. BDC:
Now Rev, give him time. He hasn’t gotten to the quantum part yet. I’m sure it’s comin’ up. Probably the proper manure for the organic tomato wisdom, ya dig?
We believe you.
Really. We do. We believe that you do not understand.
Well, I really have gotten a very good laugh. When you compared your definition of spirituality to undiluted dog piss (albeit unintentionally), a really did laugh out loud.
Hell, yeah. The idiots who come here single handedly bring us to god, or gods, or spirituality, or ego help us (well, me, anyway) work on my writing, thinking, reasoning, and humour skills.
Because you are a vacuous spiritualist who gives a definition of spirituality, one that you had to pause to create, that is so empty it achieves vacuum. That is, it sucks.
@ kohldamunga
Why do you repeat every question asked of you? You blockquoted it right above where you repeated it. You also didn’t actually answer how we’re idiots. But it’s really unfair of me to expect too much from you.
I am seriously tempted to write May the coming year be one of organic tomato wisdom on my Happy Monkey cards.
This person seems to be a high-school sophomore who has discovered some Eastern philosophy and some out-dated psychology, mooshed it into a vomitous hairball and wants a prize for hacking it out on the good carpet.
-plagiarised from Caine ;-)
kohldamunga: If you want us to have a rational conversation with you? Give us something rational to work with.
Nope, you don’t get it. We are rationalists and empiricists here. You come in with unevidenced drivel like spiritualism, which isn’t even definable in a cogent manner, and think you have something? All you have is our pity and laughter. Pity you are such woo soaked delusional fool, and laughter at your inane and insane ideas.
kohldamunga:
Okay, I’ll give you an easy one so you can feel like less of an idiot: How do you know that your “philosophy”* is true?
*For lack of a better term.
According to spirituality, what we ordinarily call “I” is not our true self. It is our false self. The Ego. This is the core principle.
so, spirituality is just a redefinition of early psychology?
I’ll go roust Freud’s ghost to tell him.
goddamn idiot.
This person seems to be a high-school sophomore who has discovered some Eastern philosophy and some out-dated psychology, mooshed it into a vomitous hairball and wants a prize for hacking it out on the good carpet.
*ding*
winner.
Damn, kohldamunga, you’re good. I mean, this shit is priceless. When you are asked for examples of how we are ‘acting like idiots’, you provide an answer that is also completely and totally lacking in substance. Is it easy for you to do this, or do you have to work at being this substanceless?
You people are anything but rationalists, and I can’t even imagine someone like you using this label on him. You are people full of stupidity. Nothing more, nothing less. This blog will always be a part of history to prove that.
For sure.
Spiritual is substanceless.
kohldamunga, you still haven’t said why we’re stupid idiots! I would like to know why you keep saying so.
Oh, I know how to blow the mind of our confused youngster here.
Oy, spiritboy!
Go read THIS book:
http://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Spiritual-Materialism-Shambhala-Editions/dp/0877730504
seriously.
I’m sure you will feel like you just had an epiphany afterwards.
—
Then come back to us in 10 years, when you realize what crap this all is.
At least when we call someone an idiot we explain exactly why they’re an idiot.
kohldamunga: Insults now? You keep going down the logical ladder. I suppose it’s time for an African crested porcupine offer now?
kohl,
Awe, you hurt my feelings. :( :( :(
I’ll ask again: How do you know that your philosophy is true?
Wrong fuckwit. You aren’t rational. Spiritualism isn’t rational. You are a woo soaked delusional fool. Twice the fool for thinking you have been rational. Bwahahahahahaha. Nothing but woowoowoo from youyouyou.
Citation to back up your delusional claim. Any rationalist would be able to support their claims with third party evidence. Why can’t you?
If you think us accepting your hilariously ridiculous definition of spirituality and by rote accepting that it has something to do with Darwin or evolution would make us rational, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
You explain? Why are using ‘we’? Are all you are in the same room? or am I talking to one person who is using many aliases?
Kohldamunga, c’mon, get over Freud already. Explain The Cosmic Teapot and the great canine anus which orbits it and their relevance to spirituality as it applies to the axis and rotation of the earth. C’mon, I know you can do it. Sorry there aren’t any tomatoes, man.
kohldamunga,
you still haven’t explained how your concept of spirituality, even if one accepted it as given, would have mattered to Darwin, or to science in general. All you’ve given so far is some shit about finding oneself.
but your earlier goings-on about spirituality suggested that there was something more in the universe, “out there”. Now acc to your definition, it’s all inside? That doesn’t make sense now, does it?
We’re not the ones going on and on and on about something that even you, a devoted spiritualist, cannot even define in a coherent and rational manner.
Okay, you got me there. Anyone know what the fuck this means?
I have this feeling from time to time … you people are no where near as honest as you claim you are. Many of you are using more than one alias here, right?
Are all you are in the same room? or am I talking to one person who is using many aliases?
yes.
kohldamunga:
Yes, yes we are. It’s thanks to magic and quantum tomatoes. It’s deep, man, deep.
Laughed so hard I think I woke the neighbors.
kohldamunga: Add one for a request for a relation to Darwin.
quantum tomatoes
those are fo shizzle real tomatoes, but still I say no one understands my potato.
kohldamunga:
Please, in the spirit you’ve explained things so far, tell me how you’ve defined spirituality would have anything to do with Darwin and how he ultimately described Evolution?
And please, back it up with something more than whatever you used to define spirituality.
We are all in the same spiritual room and are all false selves of the one true self.
“we” as in, the regulars here. I’m sorry if that was too confusing to you. Maybe I should have said “Our egos will explain why your ego is an idiot.”
Now, I’ll ask the question again: Why do you think we’re idiots?
Quantum tomatoes: they cease to exist when dogs aren’t metaphysically pissing on them
And let me guess? You love Richard Dawkins and hate Deepak Chopra?
come on people, we’re trying to have a serious discussion here about the universe —- *breaks out laughing, rolling on the floor*
But still,how does your definition of spirituality relate to Darwin, and the universe at large? Your answer didn’t really illuminate that…
No. None of us are sockpuppets.
So, what do Charles Darwin, evolution, plagiarism, and spirituality have to do with each other?
Here’s one more.
Hell, I’ll settle for how your dumbass definition of “spirituality” relates to science at all. Whether or not I know my *ahem* “true self” has fuck all to do with the theory of evolution. Or gravity. Or whatever.
Unless… quantum! Are you advanced enough spiritually to throw down some quantum for us?
kohldamunga: We don’t all love Dawkins (we respect his ideas, other than the whole elevatorgate thing). We do universally detest Chopra though.
Ichthyic:
That’s ’cause your potato has gone all multiverse string theory.
Well I don’t hate Chopra but I think he’s a fraud and a self important gasbag.
Now how about telling us about Spirituality re: Darwin and evolution
Ah, you’re paranoid. Yes, it’s really just me, one person, out to get you. I’ve gone through all the trouble of creating multiple aliases and type at super human speeds just to make you look like a fool (not that you need help).
Not just that. The person who owns this blog is a friend of Richard Dawkins.
But I have to give you a point for getting something right.
Not only that kohldamunga,
we areI amallout to get you..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
boo!
kohldamunga
Did you take any psychoactive drugs recently ? Are you feverish ? Are you having a psychotic break ? When you feel like you’re having a ride on the rail – and you’re not, really – you need to get help.
I’m worried about you. Are there any friends you could call now, in case it gets worse and you can’t get yourself to the hospital ?
OK. I really must go now. Sorry if I am unable to feed the trolls anymore. But don’t think I won’t be reading. I will be. So, none of you should really stop. Let’s hit the 1000+ mark on this thread. Happy trolling!
Everybody’s got something to hide except me and my monkey
Dawkins is a rational scientist, and Chopra is a professional and incoherent woomeister, liar, bullshitter, and con man. Which one do you think we would hold in higher esteem.
Will he stick the second flounce?
Basically, we’re asking too many hard questions for him.
Hey, kohldamunga, I don’t think you know what trolling means. See, you’re the troll here, not us.
You love Richard Dawkins and hate Deepak Chopra?
How’d you guess?
I’ve hired 3 hitmen to take out Chopra and all have failed.
Meanwhile, I’ve been pushing for Richard to leave his wife for the last 6 months so we can go to Aruba together, but he keeps telling me he has to wait until he finishes touring for his new book.
I don’t know, Daddy Og. I’m pretty sure I have a doppelgänger on the Disc in the multiverse, and I’d swear I see the shadow of a quantum sockpuppet at night.
Alright, kohldamunga, just listen. Everything is going to be fine. You’re very high right now. You will probably be that way for about five more hours. Try taking some vitamin B complex, vitamin C complex.. if you have a beer, go ahead and drink it..
Wait! Don’t go. You still need to explain how Charles Darwin’s search for his true self led to him plagiarizing his theory of the evolution of tomatoes!
Fuckwit, you are the troll feed us laughs. You are the one making obscene noises with your woo, not us. You don’t define what is and isn’t a troll, we do. And you fit the bill to a tee. You make a large noise, say nothing cogent, and can’t stick a flounce. That describes both you and a troll to a tee.
I’m not putting a single tomato on his second flounce
Kohldamunga, just remember you’re a living organism on this planet, and you’re very safe. You’ve just taken a heavy drug. Relax, stay inside and listen to some music, Okay? Do you have any Allman Brothers?
Shhh! Damnit. Don’t mention that here. Besides, that only happens when one combines undiluted dog piss, tomatoes and porkypines.
Will xe stick the second flounce?
kohldamunga:
Well, fuck. Now what am I going to do while I wait for my bread dough to rise?
Get it right, jackass. I’m not a troll, I’m StartStuff’s sockpuppet. Duh.
kohldamunga:
That supposed to be a threat, punkin’? We’re not worried, read all you like. I’m sure you won’t be able to contain the quantum stupid inside “you”.
There was a mention of LSD…
Baby please don’t go!
Baby please don’t go!
Baby please don’t go down to Now Orleans.
You know I love you so, please don’t go.
No. None of us are sockpuppets.
I’m your huckleberry.
There was a mention of LSD…
call me when there’s pie.
Ogvorbis:
:falls over laughing:
which is far better than LDS.
That’s ’cause your potato has gone all multiverse string theory.
my potato rocks.
Ichthyic: Maybe it’s actually a quantum apple from a parallel universe.
Can I go to Then Orleans?
That was my true self fucking with my false self. It seems that my true self is an even bigger asshole then I am.
Maybe our spiritualist will return and explain that we can find our True Selves through Est? Or Amway?
No. None of us are sockpuppets. Wait, I thought we were all PZ’s sockpuppets?
I’m not even whelmed. Although I do have a bit of a hankering to plant some tomatoes now, but I need to wait until the bees are taken away.
Your baiting/trolling/attention-mongering is transparent, kookamunga. Do better.
I’m pretty sure that was actually kookaburra’s false self. His true self is totally into EST.
Wait! I think I got it! Darwin didn’t know his “true self”, so he was driven to plagiarize the ToE, which invalidates it (obvs) and has lead to a poor tomato crop this year.
Do I get a prize?
So hir false self does Amway?
Looks like it has slowed down a little. So where were we before someone opened the floodgates?
I’d been wondering what remarkable process of inquiry had beaten Darwin, Freud and modern neuroscientists to the punch, and it turned out to be
Kohldamunga, you are truly an alchemist, turning your leaden rants into comedy gold!
Kookamunga
Also Kookamunga
Does not fempute.
Kookamunga again
Yes.
kohldamunga, have you come back to answer my questions?
So.
Does anyone want to talk about why Thomas is an atheist?
kohldamunga,
I thought you were flouncing?
There’s only so many tomato/”true self” jokes that we can make, you know. Care to answer any of our questions?
My song of love and longing brought our spiritualist back.
kohldamunga:
Please explain how Charles Darwin’s search for his true self led to him plagiarizing his theory of the evolution of tomatoes. Really. I want to know how this all fits together.
troll: please connect your definition to Darwin
chigau: We can do that when the troll finally commits to his flounce.
kohldamunga:
How does your definition of spiritualism relate to Charles Darwing and evolution?
Bye bye troll. It’s been fun.
Damn, xe didn’t stick the flounce twice.
To your false self be true.
Yes, Kohldcomfort, please explain how your definition of spirituality relates Charles Durning to Evangelion.
So where were we before someone opened the floodgates?
you were about to tell us where the super-ego and the id fit into your mockery of psychology you define as spirituality, and which one of these actually was the True(tm) motivator for Darwin.
Or, you were just about to fuck off and go read a book.
I can’t tell which.
have you seen my potato?
Hey, kohldamunga, get back to how all your bullshit relates to Darwin and I don’t mean how your crap fertilizes his tomatoes.
@ Ichthyic
Based on previous comments of his, I’m going to guess that it wasn’t going to be the second one.
Ichthyic: Check in the teacart over at TET.
Does anyone want to talk about why Thomas is an atheist?
I’m sure Thomas would, if he hadn’t already explained himself:
Nothing to disagree with I can see.
Whatever spirituality is, it apparently doesn’t make one humble.
I literally laughed out loud at this one. Wow dude. True self. False self. Ego. That’s so fucking deep. You’ve been reading Jung, haven’t you? Wait, let me get more stoned so I can properly appreciate this.
*fffffffft* ahhhhhh
Yah man. Like wow.
AIIIEEEEEE my tomatoes are burning!
Ichthyic, I think your potato is on my tea cart over in TET.
Be careful, there’s also a heap of mountain oysters.
I loved the explanation that spirituality is a misinterpretation of Freud. Obviously!
I don’t think kohldamunga will talk much until he thinks no one is left to ask him hard questions.
Esteleth: This time tea actually did squirt out of my nose!
*hands A.R. a burn kit, a towel, and a refill of tea*
Sally: I assume you read Father O’s comment on undiluted dog piss? :)
That mountain oyster sure is slippery, it is sliding into all of the threads.
Are mountain oysters slippery and have a true self?
Esteleth: Thanks, I’m going to have to plug in my USB hub to get all of that stuff out!
Yeah, kohldamunga, several people asked you how your oh so great spirituality definition relates to Darwin, science, and the universe.
The universe, that was only me, probably. But I did notice that your definitions were all about the self, whereas earlier in your trolling you had hinted at some wider universe-wide connection…
Ichthyic
True.
And since we’re all sock puppets, there would be no disagreement.
Mountain oysters are extremely slippery. Their true self is very bullish.
Janine: There may be some quantum tunneling involved.
Rey Fox:
Or wise.
kohldamunga!
What does your
misinterpretation of early psychologymisinterpretation of philosophymisinterpretation of Eastern religionsspirituality have to do with Darwin and the theory of evolution? How does knowing my “true self” invalidate ToE?The mountain oysters teamed up with the quantum tomatoes in the ketchup and tunneled over here.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Janine:
Only when they are still attached and the bull is eating quantum tomatoes. Can ya dig it?
Cain: What happens if said tomatoes and bull are in a field with goats on fire and porcupines?
But without the undiluted dog uring you are just deluding yourselves.
kohlmadunga:
What is the link between your definition of spirituality and Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution?
I haz a sad. The great guru hasn’t explained yet what spirituality has to do with Darwin or science, or the universe…
he’s still working on making up an answer.
that much make up would take an entire tractor-trailer of Mary Kay.
And since we’re all sock puppets, there would be no disagreement.
That’s exactly what I said.
You being just a sockpuppet of me and all.
or is it the other way round?
will the real puppeteer please stand up?
OK. I think we are all a little tired now. Do you want some more adrenalin? I have still got nine more core principles…
that much make up would take an entire tractor-trailer of Mary Kay.
you’ve elevated my id into my superego.
Oh, please, do tell. I could use a good laugh.
You have no idea where we all live. Saying “we’re all a little tired” is just stupid at its base.
Oh, wait. Did your mommy just tell you that it’s bed time?
Dude, I couldn’t give any fewer fucks about your poorly cobbled together “spirituality”. What I want to know is how it invalidates the theory of evolution.
But you can’t answer that, can you?
What about Darwin?
kohldamanure:
Speak for yourself, abruti petit gâteau. We’re not tired, we are waiting for you to cut your bullshit and answer questions – how is your bullshit connected to Darwin? C’mon, little fuckwit, get cookin’, make something up now, hurry, hurry!
I have still got nine more core principles…
let me guess, they look something like this:
An emphasis on the centrality of intrapsychic and unconscious conflicts, and their relation to spirituality.
Seeing defenses as developing in internal spiritual structures in order to avoid unpleasant consequences of conflict.
A belief that spirituality develops especially from early childhood experiences.
A view that internal representations of spirituality are organized around interpersonal relations.
A conviction that life issues and dynamics will re-emerge in the context of the client-spiritualist relationship as transference and counter-transference.
Use of free association as a major method for exploration of spirituality.
Focusing on interpretations of transference, defense mechanisms, and current spirituality and the working through of these present problems.
Trust in insight as critically important for success in spirituality.
like that?
kohldamunga
I’m not at all tired.
And we get an extra hour tonight.
Go for it, before PZ gets here.
kohldamunga:
You could answer the fucking question at hand: How in the name of purple pluperfect hell do Charles Darwin and evolution relate in any way to your pseudo-definition of spirituality?
“Spirituality” refers to the spirit, which is just another way of saying the mind, except it is an explicitly dualist concept. And we now know, thanks to research into cognitive neurobiology, that dualism is nonsense.
Kolhbunga is just stomping all over psychology and calling his disrespectful incoherent arglebargle “spirituality” which is par for the course.
I’m sure the other nine core principles are equally as vague and useless.
kohldamanure:
Sweetpea, you have a core in the way a head of cabbage has a core, and about the same amount of thinking ability and principles. Shoulda stuck with the quantum tomatoes.
I ‘m so tired, I’m feeling so upset.
You’re such a stupid get.
You guys scared him off again with all of your confusing questions!
FTFY
Caine: he’s getting into goats on fire! territory now…
And we have nine more quilled porcupines. Bring it.
Caine, perhaps the head has been cored, leaving a head like a whole.
Is Hardy-Weinberg one of those principles?
Come on, kohldamunga! It’s about time you star farted.
Star fart!
Star fart!
Star fart!
Josh:
:snortle, snuffaw:
Rey Fox: I doubt it.
Janine:
Oooooooh, nice one! Nailed it.
An other typo. Time to quit.
And for every quilled porcupine, I offer a putrid quantum tunneling mountain oyster.
The last of my tomatoes are still on the plants.
Frozen solid, easy to insert.
and I bet they’re totally quantum.
chigau: Perhaps they can tunnel their way into his rectum?
I mean, we are talking about evolution as a guiding principle of science with highly worked-out details from dozens of years of studious empirical observations and experiments and not a vauge truthy-sounding notion from navel-gazing, right?
oh, in case anyone hasn’t already guessed where I ripped my “core principles of spirituality” from…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodynamic_psychotherapy#Core_Principles_and_Characteristics
Rey: Nope. This involves dog urine, quantum tomatoes, spirituality, and mountain oysters.
vs
What’s the difference, really? Reality is an illusion! Truth is relative! All is one! ALL-ONE!
And false and true selves and trolls and stupid idiots. But not horseradish, for some reason.
Nature=Visible Spirit
Spirit=Invisible Nature
Nature=Visible Invisible Nature
Invisible= -visible
Nature= Visible -visible Nature
Nature=Nature
Thanks…that helped a lot.
Okay, my bread dough has finished rising and been baked, and now it’s almost cool enough to wrap up for dinner tomorrow*, but kohleyeliner hasn’t bothered to answer any of us or present the 9 core spiritual principals or whateverthefuck.
How long can it possibly take to pull shit out of your ass, kohlie? I’ve got some high fiber cereal if that’ll help.
*I’m now measuring time based on bread making.
Audley: The timing thing happens to all breadbakers eventually. Anyway, still waiting for Kowabunga to give us his principles. There is a funny tomato link over at TET if anyone is interested.
I mean, we are talking about evolution as a guiding principle of science with highly worked-out details from dozens of years of studious empirical observations and experiments and not a vauge truthy-sounding notion from navel-gazing, right?
You tell me.
I’m just your sockpuppet.
Nature is visible spirit…
Spirit is invisible Nature.
see?
makes perfect sense.
pass the bong?
Stopped already? What happened people?
Stopped already? What happened people?
you stopped your act.
you have to keep entertaining us if you want to see responses.
DANCE MONKEY! DANCE!
You still didn’t explain the link between Darwin and spirituality.
*flush*
Well, looks like you people — which could very well be just one or two of you — have lost the interest. Why? Free entertainment is so rare these days.
What now? Someone is going to cry for help. Come on PZ give him a ‘banhammer’. Or, the professor is going to intervene himself. Sort of like some ‘divine intervention’?
Alright, you spiritual sack of shit, you have moved into my hate list. And here is why.
You made assertions that you could not back up.
You whined when you were called on them.
You whined that we were being mean and were picking on you.
You whined that too many people (Or just one person, depending on the complaint.) were putting to much pressere.
You flounced a couple of times.
You made the claim that the collective we is calling on PZ to ban you, suggesting that you have somehow scored points.
Now you are crowing that you are still here when this is usually a quiet time on this blog.
You are a fuck stupid and smug sack of shit.
But you are not be banned anytime soon. PZ has tolerated much more noxious troll then you. You are merely an annoying yappy little dog.
Got back into the spiritual void that spawned you vacuous little brain.
Fine.
You’ve admitted to be a troll and are literally asking to be banned.
Most other places would ban you but rules are laxer here.
kohldamunga is visible stupidity. Stupidity is invisible kohldamunga
Oh wait…no one here has to wait for you to be banned
Killfile
Ahhhhhhhhhh. Like passing a long built up fart
Opps. I thought you were all exhausted. But I was wrong. What is this called? The after glow? Or the residual effects?
By the way, I do like the way all of you suck up to your overweight Guru, and speak happily on his behalf. How is this for getting banned, Janine Asshole?
Sack of shit, reading is not your strong suit. I have not and will not ask for you to be banned.
Thanks for showing the reason why you popped in.
Bored now.
Free entertainment is so rare these days.
Free entertainment is good.
you aren’t offering any entertainment though.
not even for free.
Uh oh. He done blasphemed the Poopyhead. Now he’s In real trouble…..
Or not.
You honestly think calling Our Tentacled Overlord over weight will upset him? Honestly?
At the rate you are going DK, you are going to owe me a new package of panti-liners. You’ve inspired my sisters and brothers, I will give you that. I’ve never had to change my liner five times in one thread before (I’m a kinda old lady and stress incontinence can be a real problem in situations like this).
I do like the way all of you suck up to your overweight Guru
naww, I stopped listening to Oprah years ago.
Janine Asshole, you are now showing your magnanimity so graciously. But you do suck up to your overweight Guru, don’t you? Even in your dreams and thoughts, when you can’t do that physically?
And how do you know this? Can you see it spirtually
It is almost poetic, the spiritual sack of shit that wants to find it’s true nature as a human.
While you are pining away, try to be honest and answer what spirituality has to do with Darwin.
But somehow, I think that you do not give a fuck about any of this. You were never here for honest inquiry. You are just as misguided as any creationist that has barfed on the floor here.
J Asshole, you are right. I do not give a fuck about this anymore. I never did. Do you think I’ll be seeking approvals from a bunch of primitive clowns like you? The primitive clowns who believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection so much, that they have literally fallen in some kind of orgasmic love with their ape cousins? So much that they have even started to behave and act like their ape cousins? What’s next? Are you going to grow long hairs all over your body and then lose your clothes for good?
Wait, LOL, Kowabunga is too stupid to know about timezones? Figures.
Ah, Kohldamunga is giving us an ostensive definition of spirituality. Spirituality, I deduce, is resorting to personal abuse based on someone’s weight, when one is unable to explain how spirituality relates to Charles Darwin’s work.
Kohldamunga, claiming that PZ is treated as a guru is both dreadfully hackneyed, and completely false. Most of the regulars have at one time or another had serious differences with PZ – in my own case, over his approval of some anti-Muslim European politicians and commentators. Less seriously, when he said video games could not be art, all hell broke loose. I’ll find some relevant threads for you if you wish.
Spoken like a true creationist! Are you going to ask us why, if humans evolved from monkeys, there are still monkeys? Or tell us Darwin repented on his death bed?
KG:
You sound terribly like you have been ‘indoctrinated’ by RDFRS. Do you spend a lot of time there? You are literally speaking the RDFRS lingo. You even sound like one of them moderators there.
By the way, I am still waiting for that ‘divine intervention’ in the form of the famous ‘banhammer’, provided your overweight Guru is done with his breakfast no. 3 of the day.
I guess this is a spiritual hoggler.
kohldamunga,
I had to look up the acronym RDFRS. Nothing to do with me at all, and I’m not an uncritical admirer of Dawkins, who shares some of the general prejudices of his age and class, and is overly credulous with regard to “Evolutionary Psychology”.
Do you really think it will get you banned if you call PZ overweight? You’ll have to try a lot harder than that, lackwit. You’re one of the most amusing chew-toys we’ve had since the move to freethoughtblogs – you demonstrate such ignorance and stupidity combined with such self-assurance of superiority.
You are indeed spiritual, Mr Damunga – your true self has emerged, and it’s taken the reins.
Calling a spade a F’ing spade. Which means calling you all primitive clowns and your Guru an overweight person. What’s wrong with this? Do you think PZ wears size 32 jeans, and you are all really at a more advanced level than your pre-historic primate brothers?
kohldamunga,
So insulting someone for their personal appearance is OK, but writing “fucking” is too much for your delicate sensibilities? We don’t generally object to insults here, provided they are not racist, sexist or homophobic, although picking on someone’s weight is contemptible in much the same way – it has, after all, absolutely nothing to do with their qualities as a person or the cogency of their arguments. But in any case we want substance, with or without the insults, and it’s abundantly clear that you’ve resorted to abuse because you have no answer for the substantive questions you have been asked, notably what “spirituality” has to do with Darwin.
It’s morons like you who think that evolutionary change is toward “a more advanced level”.
Do I have this right: PZ could shed a few pounds, therefore God?
I’m no good at this sophisticated theology stuff…
No you are wrong. Two things:
1- PZ could easily shed half of his weight — not just a ‘few pounds’
2- Because he could shed half of his weight, therefore he needs to do that. Especially when you consider he a biologist, and should well know how all this extra fat in him could harm his health and lifestyle.
@402
1. I’m pretty sure I scored higher on my MCATs than a primate could.
2. I’m pretty sure you couldn’t.
3. I think cousins is a little bit more accurate than brothers but I could be wrong about that.
Yes!
As well as being unable to frame a coherent argument for his ludicrous fantasies, kohldamunga evidently suffers from some odd perceptual distortions.
I am thinking you are one of those who do not screw their cousins, thinking cousins=brothers or sisters. So, cousin or brother should mean the same thing for you, unless of course, you have already had sex with one of your cousins. In which case, I change it to ‘cousins’ from ‘brothers’.
Is kohldamunga working up to a full-scale starfart?
You have got it. Here is the next one:
You all must be familiar with this…
PHARYNGULA: Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.
This should be changed to:
PHARYNGULA: Evolution, development, and frequent premature ejaculations from a godless liberal.
kohldamunga@411,
That’s just feeble. I can do better without even trying:
Don’t get me wrong KG. I love PZ, and you, and everyone else on his blog, including that J Asshole. I just wanted to give a small demo of what a typical stereotypical ‘spiritual’ person looks like. I just needed a guinea pig for my demo. Have I disappointed?
This from a primitive clown who doesn’t understand the need for evidence. Before you insult us, look in the mirror first. Primitive is for folks who bullshit each other. And all you have is bullshit.
Have you said anything intelligent? No. So you are entertainment of stupid type. Very, very, stupid.
Yes you have. You’ve moved from mildly amusing to rather boring.
Selachee, you were already banned. Sock-puppeting will get you banned again.
Kohldamunga or selachee, as he first called himself, does get boring rather quickly. He has been banned five times from Dawkins’ forum, and once by PZ on the old scienceblogs. I suspect he is trying to get banned. His primary sin seems to be an almost complete lack of creativity, coupled with a lack of independence in his opinions.
Are you another ‘original’ from RDFRS? You sure seem like one.
And by the way, disregard completely whether I have been ‘sock puppeting’ here or not, because I have been asking for the famous ‘banhammer’ for the last 2 or 3 hours. I haven’t got it yet. What are you waiting for? The Divine Intervention? Yes, I am waiting for it too.
Only pathetic loser trolls need the banhammer. Those who aren’t pathetic loser trolls can actually delete the bookmarks to this site and just stop posting. And Selachee, you still haven’t said anything intelligent after all your idiotic posts. Bafflegabble all. No wonder you need the banhammer, you are too befuddled to be able to delete bookmarks from your browser.
No Nerd. Only pathetic losers ban people, because this is now the only option left for them. And even more pathetic people try to encourage the ban.
kohldamunga: I’m quite afraid to say that you are rather unlikely to be banned unless you do something so offensive and stupid that PZ decides that he is tired of you. Or we all killfile you. Like I just did.
Not long ago, some of you even tried to direct PZ Myers towards me from a newly opened thread. Of course, the intention was to have me banned. I am so glad to see a change of vote here. I am curious, what caused this complete reversal of mind?
PZ has posting rules; you have violated them. The posters here see you as an object of ridicule, but being ignorant and attempting to be offensive are not, I think bannable. But why are you working so hard at being banned?
This poor creature was banned on the other blog because it just sat on the thread and said nothing. Just bafflegabbled like it has done here. After a couple of hundred posts, PZ did lower the banhammer there. Ignorance is not banworthy, especially if the poster is learning. No learning going on here. Being deliberately offensive in order to disrupt threads is trolling, the classic definition, and definitely that is the case here. PZ also doesn’t like sockpuppeting.
So Selachee, why is adding the bedraggled feather of being banned here to your cap so important to you? Why can’t you be a mature adult, and leave on your own?
Awe, kohldamunga’s back!
So, sweetheart, have you figured out how your oh-so deeeeeeep definition of “spirituality” conflicts with Darwin’s works yet? Have you figured out the 9 other *snerk!* “principals” yet?
And mocking someone’s weight? What, is this high school or something? How very immature.
Dude, if you want to get banned so badly, you can’t be so obvious about it. Then you’re likely not ro just out of spite. And insulting PZ has never been cause for ban, so stop pretending it is.
I think I scared kohldamunga away with my tricksy questions.
Brave, brave kohldamunga.
Kohldamunga, Francis E. Dec is the standard for sophisticated philosophy. You have a long way to go to match his genius.
Had to go to bed. I have a job and needed to be awake in the morning. You know, real life.
And I dislike how you make unsupported assertions and then, when you fail to back up your assertions with reality, or even answer questions, it is the other commenters who are being unreasonable or unfair.
You do know that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has, well, how shall I put it, evolved? as new information, techniques, technologies and evidence have come to light or been found? Or are you of the club that believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the first person to develop a scientific theory becomes a demigod and any change to that theory anathema?
Advanced, when speaking in evolutionary terms, is a synonym for derived. Yes, humans have some derived characteristics (larger brain, less body hair, changes in the hips and pelvis) which the primates from which we evolved did not have. By the same token, Chimpanzees have some derived characteristics (an opposable big toe, for instance) that we as humans to not have. Are you claiming that you refuse to recognize that there are derived characteristics within a separate species?
Why do you keep singling out Janine, and why do you refuse to answer the substantive questions regarding spirituality and Darwin?
Seriously, kohldamnunga, please enlighten us and tell us how Charles Darwin, his Theory of Evolution and spirituality have anything to do with each other. And more important, please explain the bit about Darwin’s plagiarism and how it invalidates the theory.
If you are going to claim that Charles Darwin was influenced by a book about spirituality, one which used the word ‘evolution,’ you need to show that:
1. Charles Darwin read the book or, failing that, you need to show the mechanism by which the idea was transmitted to him;
2. there is a clear link between the ideas in Darwin’s works and the ideas in that spirituality book; and
3. Darwin did plagiarize ideas without giving credit.
You need to do all three. People (and yes, we are people, despite your delusions) here have been asking for this information since your second or third comment. We have asked politely, sarcastically, and mockingly, and still, all we have, is a fuzzy Jungian definition of spirituality which can’t even fight its way out of a shredded paper bag.
I prefer kowabunga when he’s stoned.
literally.
Doubting Thomas, it sounds as if you approach religion, or don’t bother to, as someone who views it from the outside as the mythological nonsense it is. That’s the pure approach, I guess. Congratulations on your common sense.
I still think kohldamunga is in bannable territory for derailing threads by inane repetition, stupidity and possibly sockpuppetry. But that’s not my call..
I the very rapid descent into offensive behavior, particularly the somewhat pathetic attempt to insult PZ, shows that banning is part of his desire. I suspect it vindicates his erroneous impression of his position.
Remember: this is a person who’s knowledge is based on such deep reading as “Spirituality for Dummies.”. Reading the first thread selachee appeared in is instructive. He appears to have a smattering of poorly-understood terminology gleaned from Wikipedia or the equivalent with which he is attempting to discuss “spirituality.”
Unfortunately, his poor understanding of the topic makes discussion almost impossible, so he flames out into anger and insult quite quickly. But even there he displays his lack of creativity and imagination. It’s rather sad, actually.
This doesn’t make a single lick of sense. We’ve had plenty of stereotypical spiritual people come through this blog, and while they’re all certainly as obtuse as you, they usually at least get to their sorta point in a somewhat timely fashion. Also, your posts are too grammatical and not “wall-of-text” enough to be a really spiritual person. And anyway, what would be the damn point? To see how we’d react? Come in, make vague assertions, show ignorance of science, and people will get annoyed. Is it really that surprising or enlightening?
(Yes, I know, here’s the part where you claim to have learned so much about how supposed “freethinkers” are so mean because they don’t fall all over themselves to swap bafflegab with you and might even use naughty words and experience human emotions of annoyance. So deep, so trite.)
(Tip #2: Stereotypically spiritual people wouldn’t resort to fat insults, at least, not until seriously provoked. That’s more of a garden variety troll tactic.)
You must have the emptiest life of anyone on the planet.
They all do. Caine is also a popular target. There’s something about being a strong-willed non-heterosexual female that really deranges them. A desire to set the social order right, a desire to pick on a supposedly weak and underprivileged target.
myeck waters #428
Francis E. Dec Esquire is easily .98 TimeCube. I particularly liked how he ended his screed by asking for the donation of a typewriter.
‘Tis, for added comedy, that same website has some recordings of an OTT radio DJ reading Dec’s rants. Just the ability to shout out stuff like “worldwide gangster computer god parroting puppet slaves” like they were actual sentences is impressive. Good stuff.
His actual life was pretty tragic though.
Based on sleep patterns, I would guess Selachee/kohldamnunga lives somewhere between Australia and India. The vaporhead may reappear later this afternoon.
@ Nerd
Or maybe he lives in the US and just likes sleeping during the day. You never know.
Oh Great Tentacled One, please be prepared to bringeth down thine great and mighty banhammer on this troll, thine enemy if it shouldst be stupid and annoying again.
When you take heavy drugs, sleep patterns and time-zones aren’t relevant.
Man.
*pops head in*
Did we chase kohldamunga away forever and ever? Awe shucks, I was really looking forward to learning all about the 9 core principals bullshit.
*back to New Vegas*
Aaw gee, looks like kohldamanure is just your garden variety troll. Tsk.
We may have the opportunity to engage him again tonight, considering the sleeping habits that he would seem to have displayed.
OY!
I AM THE CHIMPY CHILD!
all shall love me and despair!
I am curious, what caused this complete reversal of mind?
not by any means complete.
I’m all for seeing your head popped like a zit, myself.
See, I never would have guessed about that ‘non-heterosexual female’ part. I still do not know anything about her sexuality. I just thought by using such an eye-catching screen name, Janine Is Still An Asshole, and then by spending every bit of her resources to demonstrate that she is what she says she is, J Asshole actually wanted to be a popular target.
kowabunga: You are presently displaying, with much faculty, the defining characteristics of a common troll. You have made evident no behavior incommensurable with that of a selection of the most egregious trolls this blog has seen. Please leave.
Looks like this thread should be renamed to
Why I am an idiot – kohldamunga
So spiritual, this one is.
Being deliberately offensive? YES x 10,000,000,000. No, actually YES X Infinity. Why? Were you expecting spiritual sage-like qualities from me?
Selachee? OK. if you insist…
To answer your question: I don’t know. Perhaps because you and your friends have been trying to use it as some kind of leverage, it has become sort of like a ‘forbidden fruit’ for me, which I am now dying to taste!
kohldamunga, you’re back again (again)!
So, answers please:
Why are we idiots?
What does your “spirituality” have to do with Darwin and ToE?
Well, we in the US did elect George W., and he looks an awful lot like a chimp.
========
Kohldamunga:
What is the relationship between Charles Darwin’s search for his true self (spiritualism), the Theory of Evolution, and plagiarism?
How do primitive clowns fit in with hominid evolution anyway?
I really don’t know. This is going to need detail in-person assessments, which would include analyzing your lives as kids, analyzing your relationship with your parents (assuming you were not biologically produced in a lab), and things like that. I can’t tell you ‘why’. I can only tell you ‘what’. That is, I can tell you what you are, but I can’t tell you why you are what you are…
Absolutely nothing. Darwin just wanted to demonstrate his deep love for his ape brothers and sisters, much like most of you do. During his famous voyage, he must have had many opportunities to try out various sexual positions with both male and female apes. I guess he tried birds and small animals like rabbits as well. But maybe he killed them. So, the only succussful mating he could have achieved would have been with his primate ape brothers and sisters. This is how TOE came about…
I have to give kohldamunga credit for originality.
Of all the idiotic “explanations” for why evolution isn’t true, “Darwin was into bestiality” is a new one for me!
TL;DR: kohldamunga just says whatever he wants without any evidence or reasoning behind it.
How about this question: Why have you called us idiots?
Esteleth:
Meh, I give it a 3 at most. Kohldamanure is starting to give off the stench of a hoggler, given the obsession with baboons that one has going.
See here kohldamunga,
You could offer ironclad proof that Darwin was a serial murderer who diddled children on the side, and evolution would still be true.
‘Cause that’s how SCIENCE FUCKING WORKS.
Argument from authority is bogus in science – the proof is what matters.
No. No one expected anything cogent from you. You made a claim and people tried to hold you to your word. In order to try to get out of that, you delve into perverse sexual fantasies and lies. You are just as bad and just as closed minded as the creationist, David, who is infesting the ZOMBIE INVASION thread.
Back into the fetid pit you crawled out of.
kohlie:
You were much funnier when you were trying to be serious. This is just sad, frankly.
So, after all of this, you’re claiming that your version of “spirituality” has nothing to do with the ToE (took you long enough to finally spit that out), but Darwin was still wrong ‘cos you dig ape porn? Did I get that about right?
Like I said earlier, a spiritual hoggler.
One teeny, tiny point from a semi-lurker. Exactly where on the voyage did he have the opportunity for these acts? And which species of ape exactly?
Here’s a map of the extremely well documented route of HMS Beagle, perhaps you could point out the location?
http://www.darwinday.org/images/beagle/beaglemap-t.gif
Yes, but only ‘about’ right.
1- I was NEVER trying to be serious. This becomes quite obvious when you consider the fact that I have been engaging myself on this thread with royal jugglers and circus clowns.
2- I don’t dig ape porn, because I see live shows. They are free. Every time a Hardcore Darwinian atheist ‘scientist’ visits places like zoos for the advancement of biological sciences, I just follow him/her right down to that very cage where they have all those apes. That’s it! They are clever though. They always have those CCTV cameras switched off before they engage themselves in their acts. They usually give a solid scientific evidence-based reason for turning those cameras off.
J Ass is back!
Yep. Hoggler.
Baboon sex combined with hatred of PZ, hatred of women.
Interesting – for some values of “interesting” – if Franc Hoggle is now trying out new identities to spread his memes …
Oh snap, SteveV!
It looks like our little kohlie has gone from trying to outsmart us (heh), to trying to insult us (hee), to trying to shock us (HA!). It’s not working out very well, is it, kohlie?
How about you just admit that you’re a complete and utter toolbag and fuck right off? You’re no longer amusing.
Hey, Hoggle, show us your meat. We know you’re dying to !
You’ve got one of the computer-camera thingies, right ? Do it ! Do it ! Do it !
kohlie,
*yawn*
Admitted trolls are so boring.
You do realize, kohl, that the things that pop into your mind to try to shock us with tell us an awful lot more about the way your brain works than you probably want to let on, right?
This hoggler’s comedy styling has me longing for the subtleties of Adam Sandler.
Yawn, just as boring as on the other blog, and even less content. Since it said nothing of content there, its saying less than nothing now, it is obviously deteriorating to total evil spirituality…
Does anyone have more questions? J Hole-of-an-Ass?
Awe, you hear that, Janine? That makes you sound like JLo or something.
Kohlie’s just mad that xe can’t back any of the “spiritual” bullshit up and is lashing out like a little kid. How sad. D:
I have a question, kohldamunga.
What the fuck?
I have a question for J Hole-of-an-Ass.
That ‘ass’ in your screen name Janine Is Still An Asshole, what sort of an ‘ass’ is this? The ‘ass’ that means the bottom of a person, or the ‘ass’ that means a donkey-like animal, or something else?
and thus the circle jerk of idiocy completes itself.
Audley:
Nah, just a garden variety troll, thick with the stench of a hoggler. Definitely a Janine fanboi though. She’s so damn popular, I think we all ought to start whining Janine, Janine, Janine! a la Jan. ;p
KohldaHoggle:
yeah, I’ve got one, Hoggle. How are you going to know when you’ve won ? Going for max score by square centimeters of splooge on your keyboard ?
Just declare victory and leave to take a shower. Cheaper that way, you won’t have to replace your computer equipment so often.
Spleenweasel, I do not need to explain jack shit to you.
Yep, not even trying to have a genuine discussion.
Coward.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
Oh my stars that’s good!
Caine, I think that more trolls are obsessed with you than with me. But I have had some special trolls. There was dendy. And that sadistic scum who got banned after one statement directed at me.
Shall we compare trolls?
Acting like an asshole and declaring yourself victorious when people treat you as such isn’t a valid strategy.
Btw kohldamunga, I had the opportunity to attend one of those primate fuckery shows you mention we love so much…I believe I saw your mum there. She was the donkey right?
Janine:
Oh, I don’t think so. Whenever you’re active on threads, they simply flock to you. Janine, Janine, Janine! :D
I have a question for you, kohldamunga:
Two cars start moving from the same point. One travels south at 60 mi/h and the other travels west at 25 mi/h. At what rate is the distance between the cars increasing two hours later?
(You didn’t say what kind of question.)
Caine:
I know! It’s kind of creepy.
Sorry Janine.
Josh, I borrowed that from personalfailure who has a blog called Forever In Hell. How could I resist that?
The obsession is definitely with outspoken kick-ass women who aren’t Platonic White Hetero. It enrages them (this is one of the ugly lessons I’ve awoken to in the past two years as I’ve discovered how blind I was to pervasive misogyny). What I continue to find shocking is that you non-wilting-hetero or non-simperingly-‘feminine’ women are even more upsetting to them than fags like me. That I was not expecting. You get far more abuse by orders of magnitude around these parts than I ever have.
Why do you lie when all we have to do is look up at #80 where you wrote:
Seriously. Do you think your shit disappears after someone reads it?
Please answer the fucking question — you made the assertion, now it is time for you to back it up.
But of course you have nothing.
Audley, I have had some true creeps get obsessed with me. So far, I have been lucky, though. No one tried to meet me. So far.
Oh, SNAP!
Janine:
Ooh, another blog added to my reading list. Thank you!
Josh:
Well, you still have a penis, you see, while we don’t. We be the original bitches.
Look: J Ass didn’t answer. So I have to assume now.
Considering the level of IQ she has displayed so far, I think the ASS in her screen name refers to a donkey-like creature. Now, the question is, where is that hole located on that donkey-like creature? Ass + where is that hole?
Oggie:
Kohlie can’t compete, so he’s backtracking.
I’d love an answer to the ToE question, too, but I doubt it’ll happen.
So sad, and so true. And so dumb I felt when that lightbulb turned on for me during recent years (thanks largely to Pharyngula, and people like you, Jadehawk, Janine, etc.). What a boatload of privilege I still have, relatively speaking, just for having a dick. Gack. I hate the world sometimes.
kohldamanure:
Do your hoggling in private, Cupcake. We don’t find you that amusing.
Spiritual sack of shit, that is just as on target as your claim about biologists.
Keep trying. But right now, you are not even a broken clock.
I hate these kind of let-downs.
They always happen when someone is about to illuminate for me and the great unwashed key clues to the search for true knowledge. Like when I dream that I’m just about to have sex . . . and wake up.
Shit.
Kohlmumble, you were showing promise there for a while. I was nearly (nearly!) convinced that you were on the very cusp of imparting a valuable if infrequently comprehended deep truth that would spread like a wildfire among those of us who labor under our burdens of being less aware of the mystery of life.
And then you BAILED, MAN!!!! You fucking bailed on me!!! And on everyone else here!!! Have you no humanity!? No compassion!? Are you devoid of all higher qualities that manifest in those who truly want to know!?
Shit.
There you have it lady’s and gents. He literally can not find his asshole
Err… correction. I can’t find that hole on J’ Ass, where Ass refers to a donkey-like creature.