Episode CCCXXX: People I’ve talked to »« Why I am an atheist – Sharon C

TZT

The current crop is certainly fitting the theme of The Zombie Thread: dull, dumb, mindless, and repetitive. You keep filling ‘em up, though, I’ll keep knocking ‘em down.

Comments

  1. jonmilne says

    Ahem, excuse me Raj, but I’d really appreciate it if you actually addressed my last post to you:

    There is no better method for ‘discerning truth’ than the scientific method. This is why I asked some people to read Gary Schwartz’s books. He is a scientist, and he is trying to prove the existence of God through following the scientific method, like a good old properly trained scientist. I know he’s got lots of critics, but he’s also got lots of supporters. Look at both sides when you make a judgement about his work.

    There’s just one big problem with all that, Raj. And it comes in the form of the bolded comment.

    On the one hand, you make the admission that nothing is more reliable than scientific testing, and yet the contradiction here is that Schwartz fails, at a minimum, at Stage 3, which as I pointed out was “submit for peer review”. Or, if he has done that, then there’s nothing to suggest he completed Stage 4, which was to “revise one’s claim”. He certainly didn’t pass Stage 5, which was “retesting it to submit it with a 10% chance of being published” – and I should add that means being published in a CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.

    And even if, EVEN IF, he managed to do all that, there is, quite simply, no fucking way he EVER passed Stage 6, wherein “other scientists become vultures, and they (hoping to disprove) analyze your results for years, seeing if they get inconsistent results”, cause I will tell you this Raj: even without him passing Stages 3 through to 5, people who are trained in the real sciences have been picking apart his work for ages.

    Also note, to understand this God concept, you have to do some background study on what this God Concept actually is. Remember, we are NOT talking about God as some BEING, as described in religions like Christianity and Islam. If you have read most of my comments here, then you should know this.

    Would be that it were were it not for the fact that most of your posts here haven’t actually given a fully blown definition of what characteristics and traits your version of “God” is supposed to have. I have observed numerous people here give you many of the most common descriptions of what God tends to entail not just to people of the Abrahamic faiths, but also across many other cultures as well. I recognise that English doesn’t appear to be your first language, but if you’re not actually providing a definite definition of your God and what practical impact it has on the world as well as justifiable reasons for worshipping it, not to mention how we can actually reliably test as per the scientific process for the existence of your God.

    Indeed, I will post the Scientific Process, and it would be very helpful if after each point you show how your God claim passes each of these stages (so eg: “My God claim passes Stage 1 of the scientific process because…” and then likewise for Stages 2 through 8.

    1) make an observation and create a hypothesis.
    2) experiment and repeat it constantly.
    3) submit for peer review.
    4) revise your claim.
    5) retest it to resubmit it with a 10% chance of being published.
    6) if published, other scientists become vultures, and they (hoping to disprove) analyze your results for years, seeing if they get inconsistent results.
    7) many years later, after many trials, the scientific community may accept it.
    8) finally, it becomes a theory.

    I would greatly appreciate a response.

    Much thanks,

    Jon

  2. Ichthyic says

    Having said this, well developed well-shaped female breasts hold some kind of divine power for people like me.

    yes, I’m sure if you ever actually put your hands on one, you’d have an immediate NDE!

    You’d increase your chances if you left your parents basement and got yourself an education though.

  3. Ichthyic says

    Respecting women as people and having lots of sex aren’t mutually exclusive, idiot.

    +1, from personal experience.

    ps: do remember that raj is a preteen who lives in his parent’s basement.

  4. says

    Sorry Jon. Here is your response:

    I have no clue whether or not Gary Schwartz has published any peer-reviewed literature in a scientific journal. As I said before, he has supposedly written the book, The Afterlife Experiments, for lay people — and lay people do not need to know these details. Maybe he has. Maybe he hasn’t. None of my concern. All I know is, the book helps a lot, but only if you have some prior knowledge about the concepts he discusses in the book.

    Yes. English is not my first language, and I am so proud of the fact that I don’t speak this dull and boring and dry language as my first language. I am sorry if you have trouble understanding me, but nothing can be done about it. This is the way I am… Poor me! However, I’ll try again, and if you have trouble understanding the following lines in ** **, let me know and I’ll see if I can have them translated by someone who speaks English as a first language:

    **God CANNOT be defined or conceptualized. Not Possible. Or, let’s put it this way: Human minds have limitations placed upon them. The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design. **

    Why? I have already told that MANY times.

    If you want more information on God, see Alan Watts’ many videos on Youtube. Or, read a few books by Ken Wilber. Or, visit his website.

  5. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Why? I have already told that MANY times.

    tl;dr = And yet I still don’t realize that repeating empty sentences does not give them content.

  6. opposablethumbs says

    Comment by rajkumar blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]

    Bored now.
    .
    .

    Just reduced the amount of stupid appearing in the thread by at least 90%. Hey! The air is fresher already!

    (mind you, I’d unkill if it ever tries to answer jonmilne’s question – that should be good for a laugh. Or possibly a lagomorph, as my fingers seem to want to type for some reason).

  7. Louis says

    LILAPWL alll the way back at #382,

    I forgot.

    I’ll start again.

    This might {hic} take a while. But I promise to be very very sorry.

    Louis

  8. Louis says

    Mr Fire, #386,

    Erm, that tattoo, yeah sorry about that. I can offer a solution from LouisCorp’s newly formed “Laser Tattoo Removal Service With Lasers (We use lasers. Lasers are cool)”.

    For a modest fee we can destroy that tattoo for you you…and several segments of your bank account…but don’t worry about that now.

    Louis

  9. Louis says

    Caine, #394,

    Don’t worry, I think those numbers are just my phone number. Unless my tattoo operative made an error after I had finished with Mr Fire.

    I don’t want to go through that business with what happened in Tunguska again. Wrong tattoo, moderate opening of hell portal, I spent hours sorting that out. It was totally the wrong time. Incidentally, what are you all doing December the 21st?

    No reason for asking, just curious.

    Louis

  10. opposablethumbs says

    It amuses me slightly that one of the questions that this year’s cohort taking the final module in GCSE Physics tomorrow have been told to expect as a possible topic in one subsection of the exam is
    .
    what is peer review and why is it important/how does it work/what is its purpose (or similar)
    .
    (GCSEs are typically taken around the age of 16, though many spawn could of course answer this question at an earlier age.)
    .
    And you can bet the vast majority of these teenagers grasp this simple concept perfectly well, unlike the late and unlamented troll recently infesting these parts.
    .
    So thanks to the threadizens who reminded us to chat about peer review during physics revision yesterday.

  11. jonmilne says

    I have no clue whether or not Gary Schwartz has published any peer-reviewed literature in a scientific journal. As I said before, he has supposedly written the book, The Afterlife Experiments, for lay people — and lay people do not need to know these details. Maybe he has. Maybe he hasn’t. None of my concern. All I know is, the book helps a lot, but only if you have some prior knowledge about the concepts he discusses in the book.

    Well I guess Google had to be my ally here. Here is the first page of results for “Gary Schwartz peer reviewed”: https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1DSGQ_ENUK482&=&q=gary+schwartz+peer+reviewed+&oq=gary+schwartz+peer+reviewed+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=igoogle.3…85.12905.0.13310.35.10.0.25.0.0.335.1191.0j7j0j1.8.0…0.0.MWwuj9VN8ZI , and guess what buddy? NONE of his spiritual stuff have been peer reviewed. To make Schwartz’s case worse, HE claims that “politics” is the reason why his work wouldn’t pass PR, and yet as the articles go on to demonstrate, it’s actually because his “spiritual science” is not science, but a big fat load of bollocks.

    Damn it Raj. I could have been the exception here. I really thought you could have seen sense when I gave what you asked for: someone who would be patient and not be levelling insults at you, even though right now they are entirely justifiable. Granted, I may not have been using the TZT threads as long as Nerd, Amphiox, Tis Himself etc have been using them, which means they would have been bound to lose patience with you quicker because this post here confirms your intellectual dishonesty. On the one hand, you don’t think there’s any better method for discerning truth than the scientific method, and yet you casually and callously dismiss the sheer importance of peer review.

    I don’t care if he wrote his book for people who aren’t experts. Some of the biggest names in atheism, secularism and science have wrote books for EXACTLY the same kind of audience, and their books STILL get received far more favourably than Gary Schwartz’s utter tripe.

    Yes. English is not my first language, and I am so proud of the fact that I don’t speak this dull and boring and dry language as my first language. I am sorry if you have trouble understanding me, but nothing can be done about it. This is the way I am… Poor me! However, I’ll try again, and if you have trouble understanding the following lines in ** **, let me know and I’ll see if I can have them translated by someone who speaks English as a first language:

    Pardon me, but is that offensive diatribe you labelled against English speakers classed as xenophobia or racism? In any case, you’re woefully misinformed. While many languages have a certain beauty to them when they pass through our ears, there is ultimately NO language that is as expressive as the English language. We have the largest dictionary of words to use, and many of the greatest works of literature have either come from English speaking places, or wind up being translated into English.

    Now onto your highlighted text:

    **God CANNOT be defined or conceptualized. Not Possible. Or, let’s put it this way: Human minds have limitations placed upon them. The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design. **

    Fallacy of contradiction, buddy. You’ve just defined God, right there, right after saying he couldn’t be defined. Jeez Louise, you really ought to have known better than to fall into one of the easiest-to-avoid traps there are. Furthermore, what precisely would be the point of having limitations placed on the human mind in order to understand God, what would be practical exactly about this element of God’s design, and of course the big question here is how on earth this God entity deserves any kind of worship after being so cruel as to supposedly limit people from “truly understanding” what God is?

    Why? I have already told that MANY times.

    Assume that as I was reading through the zombie threads, it got increasingly difficult to read your posts when you were deliberately being vague, obfuscating and intellectually dishonest when people were pressing you. Could you please “tell why” again?

    If you want more information on God, see Alan Watts’ many videos on Youtube. Or, read a few books by Ken Wilber. Or, visit his website.

    I’ve got a better idea. Google shall be my ally again. I bet if I type each of their names into that search engine along with the term “peer review” I will find bugger all of credibility. It’s a real shame, Raj, but you’ve failed. Completely and utterly.

    I think people need to further Amphiox’s example when dealing with Raj, only it should be taken to another level by replacing any quotes by Raj to just read something like:

    Fap fap fappity fappity fap fap bullshit bullshit bollocks fappy fap

    Because the guy is nothing more than a troll now. Give him this treatment, he’ll go away.

  12. vaiyt says

    I do appreciate the presence of a shapely pair of mammaries on a woman, but of course what qualifies as “shapely” depends on the person. Some people look good with DDs, for example, but I doubt that would work for my ex-girlfriend. (she was short and, let’s say, “greek-goddess-shaped”).

    @SallyStrange
    I was butt-blocked by Youtube. ): What? I find men shaking their butts amusing.

  13. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    @jonmilne #11

    Good on you for trying. This was tried before, as many commenters offered raj a chance to follow up on links (he said he doesn’t read that stuff) or clarify what he has said. Instead, he drools on about boobs and how because he gets a stiffie, well hey! there must be a god. (I note he hasn’t said he ever gets a girl, just the wood.)

    You came along, offered yet another chance, and what do we see? “Oh gee I don’t know.” Uh huh. More like, “Well after I finally was taught what peer review really is, I realized my hero has no peer reviewed research and is a total loser, but hey, I can’t say that! People might think I’m really really stupid.”

    Rock on jonmilne and more power to you.

  14. says

    Fallacy of contradiction, buddy. You’ve just defined God, right there, right after saying he couldn’t be defined. Jeez Louise, you really ought to have known better than to fall into one of the easiest-to-avoid traps there are. Furthermore, what precisely would be the point of having limitations placed on the human mind in order to understand God, what would be practical exactly about this element of God’s design, and of course the big question here is how on earth this God entity deserves any kind of worship after being so cruel as to supposedly limit people from “truly understanding” what God is?

    Where have I defined God? I have already said why and in which context I use the word God. Can’t repeat what I have already repeated 20 times.

    And, what do you mean by:

    “what precisely would be the point of having limitations placed on the human mind in order to understand God“.

    Here is what I said:

    “God CANNOT be defined or conceptualized. Not Possible. Or, let’s put it this way: Human minds have limitations placed upon them. The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design. **”

    The mind has limitations placed on it, and because of these limitations, the mind CANNOT understand God. No matter how hard you try. Now when I say the cannot ‘understand’ God, it means the mind cannot comprehend what God is, how God operates, and why God does what God does. Which means, your questions, which are questions originating from your mind, cannot be answered.

    Here is one example which I have given many times before. Can you use to mind to visualize something that you haven’t experienced with your sense before? For example, can you visualize the colour ultra-violet in its true form (not false colour)? Or, could you visualize or imagine existence without space and time? Can you imagine ‘what’ was ‘before’ the big bang?

    And please, do some trimming and pruning on your future comments if it is possible.

  15. says

    And please, no primary school science on the science behind colour perception, and the colour spectrum, would be highly appreciated.

  16. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    Give him this treatment, he’ll go away.

    But some of us, er well, I for one, enjoy Raj’s fapwittery. I normally don’t like comedy that relies on laughing at the misfortune of others but ‘Ol Raj here is just so blithely unaware about his transparency and idiocy that one cannot help but to laugh at him.

    I mean seriously, how can one not at least giggle at a person so dense as to assert a position, then imply that it was a joke, only to subsequently reassert it like nothing had happened. The LOLs are even therapeutic in a way. I’ve suffered from depression off and on my whole life and at my lowest points I hated myself and everything I did to the point of being delusional, and still I somehow managed to be more compassionate, intelligent and aware than Raj. So hang in there mate, your humorous faux-intellectual jigs are doing wonders for my self esteem.

  17. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Just to tell people that I am a troll…

    No, rajweefapster, you are doing that yourself.

  18. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Where have I defined God?

    When you said god can’t be defined, in delicious irony. You made a definition…Fuckwitted idjits like you need to learn how to shut the fuck up, lest your foot enters your mouth..

    use your mind

    Look in the mirror fuckwit…

  19. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Just to tell people that I am a troll…

    We don’t have to tell people anything. You do that for us with your fuckwittery, stupidity, insipidity, and unintelligent posts. We don’t need to gild the lily.

  20. says

    When you said god can’t be defined, in delicious irony. You made a definition…Fuckwitted idjits like you need to learn how to shut the fuck up, lest your foot enters your mouth..

    I have to use some word, Nerdy. God is the word I use. Can also use the Universe.

  21. says

    And one more thing. I only read those comment which I reply. The rest, I just quickly ignore/skim over. Would that be considered a trollish behaviour?

  22. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I have to use some word, Nerdy. God is the word I use. Can also use the Universe.

    And you are WRONG each and every time. What a loser…

  23. says

    And Jon, as for the language English, just look at the country where this language was originated. Stern faces with zombie-like expressions, and accent like a one-cylinder 5 horsepower Triumph engine coughing in cold weather.

  24. says

    And you are WRONG each and every time. What a loser…

    Explain. Saying alone that I am WRONG is not enough. I can say the same about you. Here: Nerd, “you are WRONG each and every time. What a loser…”. Didn’t take much of an effort, did it?

  25. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Rajkumar, you are now running circular fuckwittery, back where you started. You convinced nobody of your fuckwittery then, what the fuck makes you think our minds has changed in a couple of months? They haven’t. You still have nothing but unevidenced stupidity and insipid OPINION to offer to real scientists, who demand real evidence. You haven’t even learned what evidence is…

  26. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Explain.

    YOU DEFINED GOD IN TRYING TO PROVE GOD WAS INDEFINABLE….

  27. says

    Rajkumar, you are now running circular fuckwittery, back where you started. You convinced nobody of your fuckwittery then, what the fuck makes you think our minds has changed in a couple of months? They haven’t. You still have nothing but unevidenced stupidity and insipid OPINION to offer to real scientists, who demand real evidence. You haven’t even learned what evidence is…

    Why didn’t you watch the Alan Watts video then? You ask for links, and when I give links, you inform me you didn’t bother to have a look. What is your problem? Are you angry because … I don’t know. What’s wrong? Who stole your lone nut?

  28. says

    YOU DEFINED GOD IN TRYING TO PROVE GOD WAS INDEFINABLE….

    No. I didn’t. Replace the word ‘god’ with the word ‘universe’. When you say, the universe is indefinable, do you define the universe?

  29. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    And one more thing. I only read those comment which I reply. The rest, I just quickly ignore/skim over. Would that be considered a trollish behaviour?

    So that explains why he never figures anything out. He doesn’t read. Oh, and he’s a fapster.

  30. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    I only read those comment which I reply

    Ah, now I haz sad. :..( Oh well, if he read everything he might begin to realise just how amusing his dancing is and deprive me of the healing LOLs.

  31. jonmilne says

    Where have I defined God? I have already said why and in which context I use the word God. Can’t repeat what I have already repeated 20 times.

    You defined him as something that couldn’t be defined, and where as a result minds trying to define him are limited in how they can do so. But that’s STILL A DEFINITION. If you TRULY couldn’t define God for us, you’d simply say “I don’t know” and admit you’re either ignorant or being simply disingenuous on the subject. Either way, you’ve self-contradicted yourself.

    And, what do you mean by:

    “what precisely would be the point of having limitations placed on the human mind in order to understand God“.

    Here is what I said:

    “God CANNOT be defined or conceptualized. Not Possible. Or, let’s put it this way: Human minds have limitations placed upon them. The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design. **”

    The bolded parts answer your question by what I mean. What purpose does it serve for “God” to make it so that it’s creation can’t understand exactly what it is? When crafting a supposedly “intelligently designed” world, what benefit exactly would it serve to God to have its created people not comprehend it, and what benefit would it serve to the people to be ignorant of the meaning of the supposedly existent God to which you posit?

    The mind has limitations placed on it, and because of these limitations, the mind CANNOT understand God. No matter how hard you try. Now when I say the cannot ‘understand’ God, it means the mind cannot comprehend what God is, how God operates, and why God does what God does. Which means, your questions, which are questions originating from your mind, cannot be answered.

    My question was: What is the practicality of “limiting our minds” so that we “cannot understand God”? Nonetheless, even if one buys into the notion that your paragraph just there – rather than amounting to more obfuscation – is even remotely considerable as an actual answer to my question, we still have the problem that you’ve just self-contradicted yourself AGAIN.

    On the one hand, you claim our minds are so limited that we can’t comprehend God, and yet nonetheless this is a God that you claim to worship. Which means that if that’s truly the case, then despite the fact you have a human mind and therefore have all the “limitations” you talked about, you regardless still seem to UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND your God of choice enough to WORSHIP it. But by your own logic, that’s simply not possible. There’s close to zero sense in worshipping any of the Gods that have been given certain definitions of characteristics by some of the more main-stream religious cults. There’s ABSOLUTE ZERO sense in worshipping something that you yourself claim that you as a human absolutely do not understand.

    Here is one example which I have given many times before. Can you use to mind to visualize something that you haven’t experienced with your sense before? For example, can you visualize the colour ultra-violet in its true form (not false colour)? Or, could you visualize or imagine existence without space and time? Can you imagine ‘what’ was ‘before’ the big bang?

    You later say the following on colour, namely about I how apparently I should not present you with any stuff on the science behind colour perception and the colour spectrum. What you’re pulling here is similar to something Ray Comfort did in his interview on the Atheist Experience, wherein Ray asked the AE hosts to give him evidence on evolution. I will display the link later on in my post, but what was particularly revealing about the exchange was that the hosts gave Ray some damn good evidence (namely to do with how the development of vaccines are aided, the great deal of transitional fossils, the DNA evidence, the observation of speciation in the lab including flies and bacteria) and Ray rejects all the evidence the hosts present based on his presuppositions despite it being perfectly valid.

    That’s what you’re doing here by rejecting the scientific explanations of how colour spectrums and perceptions actually work. They don’t fit with your world-view, so you disregard them, despite having nothing remotely decent resembling evidence to offer as an alternative explanation.

    As for what you say about the Big Bang, again I have to invoke the Ray Comfort/AE interview, namely the part where Ray asks the AE hosts “tell me what was in the beginning without saying I don’t know”. As RationalWiki points out: (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Feredir28/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort)

    Matt asks why can’t he say that? Ray proclaims that is ignorance and an atheist cannot have that. Matt corrects Ray and says yes you can because atheists are not proclaiming absolute certainty. Ray says Christians DO, and they know there is a creation an a creator. Matt repeats himself by telling Ray that he is just asserting that it is a creation, which is different from demonstrating that this knowledge is true.

    What Ray does here is basically saying I can label it as I wish because no one else can explain it to me. Ray is still simply asserting that everything is a creation without providing a shred of proof that it is the result of divine creation, and failure to explain it in a natural process does not mean his position wins by default. Ray claims to “know” that it is a creation, but if he cannot demonstrate it, then he does not know it.

    Without evidence, and proper application of the Scientific Process, you cannot just claim that your version of events is the truth. I’m sure I’m not the first person to say this to you, and I almost certainly won’t be the last, but the burden of proof is on YOU.

    And please, do some trimming and pruning on your future comments if it is possible.

    Sorry buddy, but to paraphrase a great mind, Richard Lenski when he was confronting Conservapedians on their similar level of ignorance and obfuscating and intellectual dishonesty that you’re displaying (especially since you disregarded the entire first half of my last post where I rip Scwartz to shreds):

    “I offer this lengthy reply because we are educators as well as scientists. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not.”

  32. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    When you say, the universe is indefinable, do you define the universe?

    Category error fuckwit. The universe is real. Your deity is imaginary existing only between your ears in your delusional and faultily operating mind. And your deity only exists there until you provide conclusive physical evidence otherwise, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin.

    This has be explained to you before, and you are back to where you were when you arrived with such fuckwittery as above. Nothing has changed, and you should fade into the bandwidth.

  33. says

    Jon, I am very sorry, but I guess the first language/ not first language issue is creating some difficult problems here. Plus, I can’t keep up with your super long and overly detailed posts. Plus, I think you are someone’s alter ego. No point wasting time with you. I have only got one ego at the moment.

  34. jonmilne says

    Damn blockquote system. Fuck. Try again…

    Where have I defined God? I have already said why and in which context I use the word God. Can’t repeat what I have already repeated 20 times.

    You defined him as something that couldn’t be defined, and where as a result minds trying to define him are limited in how they can do so. But that’s STILL A DEFINITION. If you TRULY couldn’t define God for us, you’d simply say “I don’t know” and admit you’re either ignorant or being simply disingenuous on the subject. Either way, you’ve self-contradicted yourself.

    >And, what do you mean by:

    “what precisely would be the point of having limitations placed on the human mind in order to understand God“.

    Here is what I said:

    “God CANNOT be defined or conceptualized. Not Possible. Or, let’s put it this way: Human minds have limitations placed upon them. The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design. **”

    The bolded parts answer your question by what I mean. What purpose does it serve for “God” to make it so that it’s creation can’t understand exactly what it is? When crafting a supposedly “intelligently designed” world, what benefit exactly would it serve to God to have its created people not comprehend it, and what benefit would it serve to the people to be ignorant of the meaning of the supposedly existent God to which you posit?

    The mind has limitations placed on it, and because of these limitations, the mind CANNOT understand God. No matter how hard you try. Now when I say the cannot ‘understand’ God, it means the mind cannot comprehend what God is, how God operates, and why God does what God does. Which means, your questions, which are questions originating from your mind, cannot be answered.

    My question was: What is the practicality of “limiting our minds” so that we “cannot understand God”? Nonetheless, even if one buys into the notion that your paragraph just there – rather than amounting to more obfuscation – is even remotely considerable as an actual answer to my question, we still have the problem that you’ve just self-contradicted yourself AGAIN.

    On the one hand, you claim our minds are so limited that we can’t comprehend God, and yet nonetheless this is a God that you claim to worship. Which means that if that’s truly the case, then despite the fact you have a human mind and therefore have all the “limitations” you talked about, you regardless still seem to UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND your God of choice enough to WORSHIP it. But by your own logic, that’s simply not possible. There’s close to zero sense in worshipping any of the Gods that have been given certain definitions of characteristics by some of the more main-stream religious cults. There’s ABSOLUTE ZERO sense in worshipping something that you yourself claim that you as a human absolutely do not understand.

    Here is one example which I have given many times before. Can you use to mind to visualize something that you haven’t experienced with your sense before? For example, can you visualize the colour ultra-violet in its true form (not false colour)? Or, could you visualize or imagine existence without space and time? Can you imagine ‘what’ was ‘before’ the big bang?

    You add an addendum to your point on colour, namely about I how apparently I should not present you with any stuff on the science behind colour perception and the colour spectrum.

    What you’re pulling here is similar to something Ray Comfort did in his interview on the Atheist Experience, wherein Ray asked the AE hosts to give him evidence on evolution. I will display the link later on in my post, but what was particularly revealing about the exchange was that the hosts gave Ray some damn good evidence (namely to do with how the development of vaccines are aided, the great deal of transitional fossils, the DNA evidence, the observation of speciation in the lab including flies and bacteria) and Ray rejects all the evidence the hosts present based on his presuppositions despite it being perfectly valid.

    That’s what you’re doing here by rejecting the scientific explanations of how colour spectrums and perceptions actually work. They don’t fit with your world-view, so you disregard them, despite having nothing remotely decent resembling evidence to offer as an alternative explanation.

    As for what you say about the Big Bang, again I have to invoke the Ray Comfort/AE interview, namely the part where Ray asks the AE hosts “tell me what was in the beginning without saying I don’t know”. As RationalWiki points out: (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Feredir28/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort)

    Matt asks why can’t he say that? Ray proclaims that is ignorance and an atheist cannot have that. Matt corrects Ray and says yes you can because atheists are not proclaiming absolute certainty. Ray says Christians DO, and they know there is a creation an a creator. Matt repeats himself by telling Ray that he is just asserting that it is a creation, which is different from demonstrating that this knowledge is true.

    What Ray does here is basically saying I can label it as I wish because no one else can explain it to me. Ray is still simply asserting that everything is a creation without providing a shred of proof that it is the result of divine creation, and failure to explain it in a natural process does not mean his position wins by default. Ray claims to “know” that it is a creation, but if he cannot demonstrate it, then he does not know it.

    Without evidence, and proper application of the Scientific Process, you cannot just claim that your version of events is the truth. I’m sure I’m not the first person to say this to you, and I almost certainly won’t be the last, but the burden of proof is on YOU.

    And please, do some trimming and pruning on your future comments if it is possible.

    Sorry buddy, but to paraphrase a great mind, Richard Lenski when he was confronting Conservapedians on their similar level of ignorance and obfuscating and intellectual dishonesty that you’re displaying (especially since you disregarded the entire first half of my last post where I rip Scwartz to shreds):

    “I offer this lengthy reply because we are educators as well as scientists. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not.”

  35. says

    Nerd, talk to me when you get your nut back. At the moment, you are acting like an old gramophone that is playing the same old record over and over again. Plus, your needle tends to get stuck more often that it should.

    And it’s late. You know. Old habits. So, I must go.

    See ya

  36. jonmilne says

    Oh, and Raj? As for your further post on the English, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop stereotyping my country. Not everyone has the so called “stern” expressions you label us with, with many having perfectly happy expressions on their faces. And the accents vary across the entire United Kingdom, not to mention of course the entire United States.

    There are plenty Indian stereotypes that I could sink so low as to use on you, but unlike you I do not to resort to any kind of xenophobia or racism. This is my first and last request for you to quit the xenophobia, otherwise I will pursue this as a complaint to Mr Myers with a view to getting you banned from the site. I know others enjoy the inane fapping you’ve engaged in, but rest assured if you don’t stop the negative stereotyping of the English, I will not take it at all well.

    Much thanks,

    Jon Milne

  37. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    At the moment, you are acting like an old gramophone that is playing the same old record over and over again. Plus, your needle tends to get stuck more often that it should.

    And you aren’t stuck on stupidity, lies, bullshit, fuckwittery, idiocy, and proving to the world you are unemployable and not one you want in a hundred yards of their daughters?

    You get off your broken record and stop trolling. Say something intelligent, like “I’m sorry I trolled, I’ll fade into the bandwidth”.

  38. jonmilne says

    Plus, I can’t keep up with your super long and overly detailed posts. Plus, I think you are someone’s alter ego. No point wasting time with you. I have only got one ego at the moment.

    I’ve fixed my last post, and it’s only long because I’m making an honest effort to try and engage with you. As for “being someone’s alter-ergo”, as much as I wish I was the star of “The Dark Knight”, I can assure you I am my own person, and a check by Mr Myers on our respective IP addresses will confirm I am different in identity from other Pharyngulites.

  39. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Annnnnnd off he goes! for as long as it takes for him to think everyone has forgotten his latest spew of fap.

    He has asked for information before, and when someone puts together a beautiful reply, he wanders off.

    “Gee, you talka talka too much!” he says, “And you make sense, and I cannot reply because you are right.”

    Got him again jonmilne.

  40. John Morales says

    [meta]

    jonmilne:

    Either way, you’ve self-contradicted yourself.

    Ahem.

    (Rhetorical flourishes are most efficacious when not redundant)

  41. vaiyt says

    @raj

    Your veiled accusations are transparent.

    If you’re going to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet, do so directly, and say WHOM they are supposed to be a sockpuppet of.

  42. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    Jonmilne:[detailed and cogent commemt]
    Raj:[excuses and accusations]

    And another laugh out loud moment, wheeee! Any bets on how long it takes the Rajfapster to claim his attempt at explaining his beliefs was a joke? Keep dancing Raj!

  43. John Morales says

    Ing:

    I’m not even sure Raj is actually indian despite the handle. I after all am not really a space parasite in real life…really. Honestly I’m not, why would you think that it’s just a nyme damnit!

    Of course you’re not even sure; you have no reliable data at all.

    (That you apparently imagine it odd that someone who might be ethnically Indian would comment here is contrary to my model of your competence; not like ethnic Indians are a tiny minority in the Commonwealth, is it?)

  44. mikmik says

    So, Raj, you can understand the incomprehensible enough to explain it’s beyond our (atheist’s) understanding, but not direct, point by point, replies.

    I have only got one ego at the moment.

    Then why are you only using your id?*

    *Id, ego and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud’s structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the ego is the organized, realistic part; and the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role.

    Anyways, you haven’t refuted my point: The super-ego and the ego are the product of two key factors: the state of helplessness of the child and the Oedipus complex.[21] Its formation takes place during the dissolution of the Oedipus complex and is formed by an identification with and internalisation of the father figure after the little boy cannot successfully hold the mother as a love-object out of fear of castration.

    From, Id, ego and super-ego, a novelette by Dr. W. Pedia

  45. John Morales says

    [meta]

    jonmilne,

    As for “being someone’s alter-ergo”, as much as I wish I was the star of “The Dark Knight”, I can assure you I am my own person, and a check by Mr Myers on our respective IP addresses will confirm I am different in identity from other Pharyngulites.

    It’s beneath you to feel any need to justify yourself to a troll; to the Horde, you don’t need to do so at all: it is your comments by which you are judged.

    (Just sayin’)

  46. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    Oh, it was only fifteen after ten pm in Melbourne at the time of his frightened flounce. I guess Raj is an early to bed early to rise sort. I guess it puts paid to the aphorism of health, wealthy and wise fame, ’cause he sure isn’t wise.

  47. says

    (That you apparently imagine it odd that someone who might be ethnically Indian would comment here is contrary to my model of your competence; not like ethnic Indians are a tiny minority in the Commonwealth, is it?)

    Um I didn’t say it was odd someone Indian would comment. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t lurkers and/or commentators. I said that his nyme wasn’t any indication he was Indian and missed any previous references to him being so. This level of reading comprehension fail is contrary to my model of your competence.

  48. says

    Oh, and Raj? As for your further post on the English, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop stereotyping my country. Not everyone has the so called “stern” expressions you label us with, with many having perfectly happy expressions on their faces. And the accents vary across the entire United Kingdom, not to mention of course the entire United States.

    There are plenty Indian stereotypes that I could sink so low as to use on you, but unlike you I do not to resort to any kind of xenophobia or racism. This is my first and last request for you to quit the xenophobia, otherwise I will pursue this as a complaint to Mr Myers with a view to getting you banned from the site. I know others enjoy the inane fapping you’ve engaged in, but rest assured if you don’t stop the negative stereotyping of the English, I will not take it at all well.

    Thought I would reply this …

    I am sorry for this trouble. You see, being a native English speaker, when you are talking to someone who does not speak English as a first language, please allow room for errors and misunderstandings. If I showed any signs of ‘racism’, I can assure you it was all unintentional. Blame the first language/ not first language problem. Plus, leave Indians out of it. I am not Indian. Just using the name Rajkumar, because I like it. Ing is right, for once and maybe for never to be right again.

    And Nerd, I would say girls feel quite OK around me. I maybe a pervert, but I am not a dirty old scoundrel…. If girls want anyone to stare at their breasts, dirty old scoundrels are right down the bottom on their lists….

  49. John Morales says

    Ing,

    Ing is right, for once and maybe for never to be right again.

    Fair enough.

    Ing is right.

  50. jonmilne says

    @Ing:

    Wait a second, what about that time you cut my hand off while I was perched on top of a narrow ledge and you revealed that you were my father?

    No wait a second, I really need to stop smoking weed and watching Empire Strikes Back at the same time. Would have been an awesome development, especially if I’d ended up getting the robot hand Luke Skywalker got at the end of that movie, not to mention if it turned out you speak like James Earl Jones.

    So hivemind huh? So as a facehugger created by you, who did I end up doing the “John Hurt Moment” from Alien on before becoming a fully grown member of the Hive?

    Also meta question guys: who would you rather be? Alien vs Predator vs Colonial Marine? To me, sorry guys, but it has to be Predator. The temptations of being able to scale walls and potentially carry miniguns is tempting, but I think Predator’s gadgetry alone has to make being the Predator win out.

  51. says

    @Jon

    I have to hold back on giving a final judgement till I see Promethius. If one theory is correct we may actually see a perfectly formed mature form of the Xenomorph.

    ((One fan speculation is that the monster is going to be a perfect form of the Alien, with the others we see corrupted or incomplete due to mutation or non-ideal hosts))

  52. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I would say girls feel quite OK around me.

    Rajkumar, I said nothing about how the girls felt? I mentioned how their fathers wouldn’t approve of an unemployable loser (or whatever the local venacular is) dating their daughters. You just can’t read, can you??? Why do you like showing the world how stupid you are?

  53. John Morales says

    specimen:

    And Nerd, I would say girls feel quite OK around me. I maybe a pervert, but I am not a dirty old scoundrel….

    This, too, I believe.

    (Ironic (if predictable) how he imagines he’s praising himself)

  54. says

    Rajkumar, I said nothing about how the girls felt? I mentioned how their fathers wouldn’t approve of an unemployable loser (or whatever the local venacular is) dating their daughters. You just can’t read, can you??? Why do you like showing the world how stupid you are?

    OK. Sorry. Looks like you are in full armour and full combat mode tonight….Looking good.

    By the way, you still live in the time when fathers used to approve how and who their daughters should date? Those times and trends are passé my friend.

    “Dole Bludger” is the local vernacular. Dole means social security benefits. So it means, someone who doesn’t work but lives entirely on social security benefits.

  55. FossilFishy (Lobed-finned Killer of Threads) says

    Alien vs Predator vs Navi vs Marine vs Spacejocky

    vs Reavers vs Browncoats vs Slayer…

  56. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    And off he goes AGAIN.

    Never seen that one before. Well, in the last 30 minutes.

  57. jonmilne says

    Apology accepted Raj… on the condition that you display SOME degree of intellectual honesty and address in full Post #541 that I directed towards you.

  58. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Those times and trends are passé my friend.

    Just as passe as your imaginary deity.

  59. says

    Ing

    Also technically you are all sock puppets as you’re all just figments of my imagination. That’s my belief and I challenge anyone to disprove it

    There is no porn of me on the Internet.
    Therefore, per Rule 34, You did not imagine me.
    QED

    Also, I thought it was obvious the xenomorphs ARE Naavi who have been deprived of their Spice.

  60. Brownian says

    Where have I defined God?

    In at least one stream of stupid by rajkumar, God had the quality of being the universe, as well as intelligent, self-aware, that planned and guided evolution.

    The fucking dolt seems to think that as long as he doesn’t describe God as a white guy with a beard, he’s undefined.

    “duh, I’m rajkumar, and I think flakey pantheism is novel and original.”

  61. jonmilne says

    Wow, thanks Brownian. I mean, that was actually something I meant to address at some point, but that painted a picture perfect way of demonstrating just how seriously messed up Raj’s thinking has been throughout the entire exchange.

    Wasn’t he also the one who said that God could only be experienced if you took a definitive quantity of a particular type of LSD? So there’s another definition. Course, what Raj missed was the obvious, even IF we have those specific variables that he mentioned, exactly how can he then prove that his experiences, or indeed any experience of anyone who takes those drugs, aren’t simply just as much of a hallucination as the experiences of those who take more or less quantities of any other mind altering substances?

  62. Louis says

    Raj has yet to grasp “puff puff pass”.

    It’s tough, but don’t bogart the joint, dude.

    Awwww man, he’s bummed it as well.

    Louis

  63. vaiyt says

    And now Rajkumar, tired of trying the Argument From Drug Trip, the Argument From Guru and the Argument From Boobs, tries the classic Troll Defense.

    I repeat, raj: from our point of view, there’s no functional difference between you being an idiot, and you acting just like an idiot to give you attention. Idiot is as idiot does.

  64. Brownian says

    Course, what Raj missed was the obvious

    And you say I painted a perfect picture. Thanks yourself!

    ;)

  65. Amphiox says

    You ask for links, and when I give links, you inform me you didn’t bother to have a look.

    Links to PRIMARY LITERATURE, fapwit.

    I would say girls feel quite OK around me.

    Fapwit can say it, but that doesn’t make it true.

    By the way, you still live in the time when fathers used to approve how and who their daughters should date?

    Shush, child.

    The grown-ups are talking here.

  66. Amphiox says

    Where have I defined God?

    Poor fapwit can’t remember?

    Short term memory worse than a goldfish, (An Adam Savage goldfish).

    Maybe this is another “prank”.

  67. Amphiox says

    You speak English damn well enough that this “zanny foreigner” shtick doesn’t fly.

    Fapwit’s just “pranking” on the “doesn’t understand english words” meme.

    Fapfapfap.

  68. says

    Raj, to ‘define’ something is to assign it properties.

    ‘Cannot be defined’ is, perhaps paradoxically, a property.

    So saying something cannot be defined is self-defeating, as it still defines what you are talking about.

    But apart from that, you have at various times associated other properties with the word ‘god’.

    The property of having intelligence and
    the property of being the universe are two in recent memory.

    I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that a language barrier might be inhibiting you here, but I and others are pointing out that previously in this thread you have said that god is indefinable, then proceeded to define it.

    Your words are in contradiction to themselves.

    Now that any misunderstanding of the English usage of ‘define’ is cleared up, I hope that no further confusion will occur.

    Otherwise, well, have you heard this explanation for the difference between ignorance and stupidity? Ignorance is falling in a hole you did not know was there. Stupidity is falling in one you were well aware of.

  69. theophontes 777 says

    {enter theophontes stage right}

    *whistles*

    {notices louis all of a sardine}

    Oh GAWD ™ !!!

    *cough*

    {faint twinge of superciliousness} Hi Louis! Nice cap you have there…

    {thinks:”mmmh, time to bring out the long bus”}

  70. theophontes 777 says

    You speak English damn well enough that this “zanny foreigner” shtick doesn’t fly.

    An old trick on TZT. DH666 used to use the “I are kant spake anglaise” bullshit.

  71. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    Raj

    God outer space gremlins CANNOT be defined or conceptualized. Not Possible. Or, let’s put it this way: Human minds have limitations placed upon them. The mind cannot understand God outer space gremlins, and this is by God’s the outer space gremlins’ own designs. **”

    Do you believe in outer space gremlins Raj? If not, why not? Your case for god should work equally well for them.

    Here is one example which I have given many times before. Can you use to mind to visualize something that you haven’t experienced with your sense before? For example, can you visualize the colour ultra-violet in its true form (not false colour)?

    No, but it doesn’t matter. I don’t have to experience it directly in order to measure it, and rationalize it as a form of electromagnetic radiation similar to light in all but wavelength. We’ve been through this with the electron example. Its good to see that you haven’t learned a damn thing since then. How do you manange it? Do you like being ignorant and self deluded?

    Or, could you visualize or imagine existence without space and time? Can you imagine ‘what’ was ‘before’ the big bang?

    Existence without space and time is a contradiction. Existence is a state of affairs defined by being within space and time.

    Because space and time began at the big bang, it is probably meaningless to talk about a “before”. If the big bang truly is the beginning of space and time and the observable universe is not part of a larger system, then talking about a “before” is really just denying that the big bang was the beginning*. Our knowledge of mathematics tempts us to think that we can extrapolate time infinitely in both directions, but that may not be physically reasonable.

    If the universe is part of a larger system, then it is very difficult to imagine how we could test any hypotheses we might make about what that system is, or what is true of it.

    Why do you bother repeating yourself? We’ve already been down this line of reasoning with you, and you’ve been answered. You apparently didn’t bother to look into the replies you got AT ALL.

    If you are content being ignorant and self deluded, then kindly fuck off and stop wasting our time.


    *I’ve heard of physical theories in which the big bang is not actually the beginning. As I understand it, however, these pertain to the state of spacetime as it may have existed before the big bang, and not some sort of precondition to spacetime.

  72. Brownian says

    The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design.

    Oh, Jesus fuck, what a fucking half-wit.

    For those of us whose parents aren’t the sibling children of sibling parents, this is yet another quality rajkumar has assigned, based on no fucking evidence whatsofucking ever, to his ‘undefined’ god.

  73. Brownian says

    Ugh. I apologise for my ableist comment, and specifically to any descendents of a recently incestuous lineage.

  74. Ogvorbis says

    Raj doesn’t seem to realize that the universe is definable, so if gods is the universe, gods is definable.

    Dumber than a poke full a hammers.

  75. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    Louis

    Raj has yet to grasp “puff puff pass”.

    It’s tough, but don’t bogart the joint, dude.

    If he ever gives that thing up, I’d be careful with it. For all we know he’s growing his pot in vats of wastewater from a thermometer factory.

  76. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    The mind cannot understand God, and this is by God’s own design.

    Funny how convenient these types of “arguments” are. Especially when you have nothing else.

  77. The Laughing Coyote (Canis Sativa) says

    Also meta question guys: who would you rather be? Alien vs Predator vs Colonial Marine? To me, sorry guys, but it has to be Predator. The temptations of being able to scale walls and potentially carry miniguns is tempting, but I think Predator’s gadgetry alone has to make being the Predator win out.

    Xenomorph, hands-down. Xenomorphs are hella sexy. And I’ve always wanted to have a second pair of extendable jaws for a tongue (who the fuck wouldn’t, seriously?)

    So yeah, sexy Xenomorph, for sure.

  78. says

    Raj,

    Can you imagine ‘what’ was ‘before’ the big bang?

    *headdesk*

    It’s nice to know that you completely ignored the link I posted on the last page. There are scientists working on this question as we fucking speak. One of the thoughts is that our universe is contained within a black hole (which helps explain where pesky things like matter and time came from), which would mean that before the big bang, there was a parent universe that had a star collapse.

    See? It’s not impossible to imagine such things. Maybe for you, but we all know that you’re a moron.

  79. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    For example, can you visualize the colour ultra-violet in its true form (not false colour)?

    From what we know of how a brain – and especially a visual cortex – works, this makes no sense.

    The brain is an organ that processes electrical signals. Where they come from has no importance whatoever in how it does it.

    For instance someone’s auditory cortex can receive a signal from a functional ear or from an electronic prosthesis. Technology is a bit less advanced for visual prostheses, but rudimentary ones have been tried with success.

    More importantly, the visual cortex has been shown to be highly programmable. Echolocation, despite its use of sound rather than light, makes use of the visual cortex. Some animals which have organs capable of detecting electrical fields, also make use of the same visual cortex.

    Neither sounds nor electrical fields have “colors” as we can define them. But if humans used them for spacial detection via the visual cortex, “colors” would designate a whole other thing than specific wavelenghts in a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic waves.

    Why does that mean your question makes no sense ?

    Because the way we see colors has nothing whatsoever to do with the “true nature” of anything.

    It’s an electrical signal that comes from a light detector (eyes) that is processed by the visual cortex.

  80. Ichthyic says

    Can you imagine ‘what’ was ‘before’ the big bang?

    yes.

    what I’m having real trouble imagining is just how much stupid you will show us before this thread finally is put down.

    your stupid already burns hotter than the sun.

    will it be a supernova of stupid?

    a gamma ray burst of stupid?

    a galactic core black hole of stupid?

    I really can’t imagine.

  81. Ichthyic says

    I would say girls feel quite OK around me

    sorry, but your mom doesn’t count.

  82. Ichthyic says

    I have to use some word, Nerdy. God is the word I use. Can also use the Universe.

    the universe??

    explaining something as “all” is the exact equivalent of explaining nothing.

    …the stupid burns a notch brighter.

    *puts on 55 sunblock*

  83. opposablethumbs says

    Xenomorphs are hella sexy. And I’ve always wanted to have a second pair of extendable jaws for a tongue

    eeuw, TLC!

  84. says

    kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith

    The Short answer is: we cannot visualize ultra-violet, because we don’t know what it looks like. Our eyes can’t see it.

    Similarly, someone who is red-green colour-blind cannot visualize green, because he/she cannot see this colour. Now, try ‘defining’ the colour green to a red/green colour blind person. Not the science of colour perception, but describe to him/her the ‘greenness’ of the colour green. Can you do that? Of course, you can’t. That colour blind MUST experience that colour subjectively in order to know what the ‘greenness’ of the colour green is. Same principle at work when we talk about God. The theory is, by going subjective experiences that fall in the category of NDEs, and spiritual experiences, a person can get to ‘know’ God. But these experiences cannot be later defined or described to other people. Hence, God cannot be defined or described or conceptualized, but MUST be experienced subjectively. Don’t ask me why. I didn’t design the whole process. Just trying to understand what the process is.

    But the important point is, those gods that you guys reject, those little thingies in your minds, I reject them too. All of them.

  85. says

    It’s nice to know that you completely ignored the link I posted on the last page. There are scientists working on this question as we fucking speak. One of the thoughts is that our universe is contained within a black hole (which helps explain where pesky things like matter and time came from), which would mean that before the big bang, there was a parent universe that had a star collapse.

    See? It’s not impossible to imagine such things. Maybe for you, but we all know that you’re a moron.

    Really? I said, try to imagine existence without ‘space and time’. As far as I can see, you are still imagining ‘things’ in ‘space and time’. Try to imagine ‘no things’ in ‘no space and no time’. Come on. Let the scientists do their job. From your reply, it is obvious you have no affiliations with science whatsoever.

  86. Brownian says

    For example, can you visualize the colour ultra-violet in its true form (not false colour)?

    Aww, rajkumar thinks he’s novel in making the nonsensical claim “qualia, therefore god is whatever I want it to be.”

    His naïvité would almost be cute were he not so aggressive in his obliviousness. For someone who’s so convinced that his god concept is mind-blowingly non-Western he sure doesn’t seem to mind retreading PHIL 101 ground.

    Just to shake things up, rajkumar, try invoking more Zen in your non sequiturs.

    Here’s one that I’m sure you’ll find pleasing in its misogyny and ties directly into your “boobies therefore god” argument:

    “A beautiful woman who is pleasing to men is good only for frightening fish when she falls into the water.”

  87. Brownian says

    But the important point is, those gods that you guys reject, those little thingies in your minds, I reject them too. All of them.

    No, you don’t. You continue to claim that you haven’t defined god, and yet you have, multiple times.

    A universe which is self-aware, intelligent, does things, and does them with purpose?

    I, and a great many others here, reject that god.

  88. says

    Brownian

    Sorry, if you don’t get a reply from me from this point on. You are acting extremely stupid. Can’t keep up with you, not matter how hard I try. But then, since the circus always wins, you can have me banned if you like… poor me.

  89. says

    Before it was your bogus mind-blowingly nonsensical ravings and boastings about you and your drugs, now it is your extremely poor comprehension. But hang me, maybe it is the same old first language / not first language problem at work… In that case, you better stick with those who speak English as a first language, I would say.

  90. Brownian says

    You are acting extremely stupid.

    I’ll file that next to “The god that designed us to not be able to detect it.”

    But tell me more about me. I’m my favourite subject.

    Can’t keep up with you, not matter how hard I try.

    That’s the most sensible and true thing you’ve ever said.

    you can have me banned if you like

    Can I? Boy, you’re just apportioning out godlike powers left, right, and centre.

  91. cm's changeable moniker says

    One of the thoughts is that our universe is contained within a black hole (which helps explain where pesky things like matter and time came from), which would mean that before the big bang, there was a parent universe that had a star collapse.

    Dr AudleyZD, any chance you could repost the link? (I went through both pages of this thread and both pages of the last one and didn’t spot it.)

    The reason I ask is that having read that idea in a John Gribbin book, I’m wondering if it holds up WRT black hole evaporation.

    (Aside, while researching that, I found out that apparently

    volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information “inscribed” on the surface of its boundary

    … at which point my brain exploded slightly. Physics hurts.)

  92. Lyn M, Purveyor of Fine Aphorisms of Death says

    Come on. Let the scientists do their job. From your reply, it is obvious you have no affiliations with science whatsoever.

    Having raj insult your scientific knowledge is like having Jeffrey Skilling insult your ethics.

  93. Brownian says

    But hang me, maybe it is the same old first language / not first language problem at work

    Or perhaps the universe designed you to be too stupid to know how stupid you are.

    Can you imagine not being stupid, rajkumar? Can you even describe it?

  94. Ichthyic says

    The Short answer is: we cannot visualize ultra-violet, because we don’t know what it looks like. Our eyes can’t see it.

    but devices and other organisms can, and we understand how these things react to that range of visual frequencies, so your analogy fails, yet again.

    for the same reason your colorblind analogy fails.

    are you still pranking?

    lying?

    just being a complete fuckwit that lives in his parent’s basement?

    I can’t imagine which.

  95. Ichthyic says

    Can’t keep up with you, not matter how hard I try.

    I’m betting you’d have problems keeping up with various species of small rodents.

  96. 'Tis Himself says

    Brownian #114

    Can you imagine not being stupid, rajkumar? Can you even describe it?

    Somehow I suspect women’s breasts will not be involved in Raj not being stupid.

  97. Brownian says

    I’m betting you’d have problems keeping up with various species of small rodents.

    Not necessarily so.

    A cat in a harness on a leash doesn’t understand that it is tethered, only that is is restrained from behind. So the cat, using the same old tactics as it always has to escape, runs through and around as many obstacles as it can, tangling itself even more in the process, and restraining itself even more. If the cat were to dutifully follow the cord back to the beginning, it could roam as free as the limits of its tether would allow.

    I’d bet rajkumar would make an excellent mouser, were he able to understand just how he’d knotted his cat’s cradle.

  98. cm's changeable moniker says

    rajkumar:

    maybe it is the same old first language / not first language problem

    You know what, if English is not your first language, try posting in your actual first language.

    You might be surprised by the response.

    Challenge made.

    Challenge accepted?

  99. says

    To Life is like…

    Links to video game violence argument/discussions/articles/whatever, please? *Whatever the most polite way to phrase this is*

  100. Amphiox says

    The Short answer is: we cannot visualize ultra-violet, because we don’t know what it looks like.

    Of course we can visualize what ultra-violet looks like. It looks like air (to a human), as do all other invisible things.

    Our eyes can’t see it.

    Irrelevant.

    Similarly, someone who is red-green colour-blind cannot visualize green, because he/she cannot see this colour.

    Silly fapwit seems to think that red-green colour-blind people see a great pit of NOTHING wherever the colour green is. OF COURSE a red-green colour-blind person can visualize green, as well as red. His (usually his) visualizations each of red and green just happen to look the same, while other people’s visualizations of red and green happen to look different.

    We’ve already explained this to the fapwit, so the fapwit is once again intellectually dishonesty recycling and old, already debunked argument.

    Fapwit probably thinks it is “pranking” again.

    Don’t ask me why.

    More intellectual dishonesty from the fapwit.

    I said, try to imagine existence without ‘space and time’.

    Space and time IS existence, by definition, or a quality thereof. Dishonest fapwit is basically saying “try to imagine water without wetness”.

    But this too has already been explained to it, in virtually these same words, many times before, so the fapwit is again just dishonestly repeating itself, and admitting to ignoring all replies it doesn’t like.

    Fapwit probably thinks this, too, is “pranking”.

    Sorry

    Fapwit lying again.

    those gods that you guys reject, those little thingies in your minds, I reject them too. All of them.

    Another lie. Some of them perhaps. All of them? No. Because that indefinable god that can only be subjectively experienced but never described to anyone else that the fapwit clearly DOESN’T reject? We reject that one too.

    Having raj insult your scientific knowledge is like having Jeffrey Skilling insult your ethics.

    Jeffrey Skilling? Wrong Jeffrey – not strong enough an analogy to match the magnitude of the gap between the raj and normal mean.

    Dahmer is closer. But still at least a magnitude off.

  101. Amphiox says

    Before it was your bogus mind-blowingly nonsensical ravings and boastings about you and your drugs

    Whose?

    It was the fapwit who brought up the subject of drugs in the first place.

  102. says

    cm:

    Dr AudleyZD, any chance you could repost the link? (I went through both pages of this thread and both pages of the last one and didn’t spot it.)

    That is my bad. I linked to it somewhere on Pharyngula, but apparently it was aimed at another godbot in a different thread and not our current idiot (this is what I get for posting on my phone while at work while having a crappy day). But I will certainly link to the story for you!
    Every black hole contains a new universe

    It’s not a link to the research, but it’s an intriguing idea, nonetheless. And my point is that just because our lovely friend Raj can’t imagine what came before the universe, doesn’t mean that no one can or that it’s an question that we can’t solve.

  103. Amphiox says

    Sorry, if you don’t get a reply from me from this point on.

    Fapwit has no response, so fapwit runs away.

    Pathetic coward.

    Fapfap.

  104. Amphiox says

    Just trying to understand what the process is.

    Another lie by the fapwit.

    Fapwit’s not trying to understanding ANYTHING. People who are honestly trying to understand things don’t behave the way the fapwit behaves.

    They don’t “prank”, for one thing.

  105. Ogvorbis says

    Fapwit has no response, so fapwit runs away.

    Pathetic coward.

    Raj will be back. He’s like the bad guy in a shitty horror movie. Even if he died, he’d resurrect hirself for the next sequal.

  106. Amphiox says

    But these experiences cannot be later defined or described to other people.

    That which cannot be defined or described to another person cannot be distinguished from a lie.

    Indistinguishability from a lie is functionally the same as nonexistence.

    If you have a subjective experience that you cannot define and cannot describe to me, that’s all well and good for you, but it begs the question, why are you bothering to try and tell me about it, and why should I care?

  107. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    It was the fapwit who brought up the subject of drugs in the first place.

    And the got his ass handed to him.

  108. Amphiox says

    maybe it is the same old first language / not first language problem at work…

    Quiet, kiddo.

    The grown-ups are talking.

    That’s a nuanced topic not mental-age appropriate for minds as immature as yours.

  109. Amphiox says

    And the got his ass handed to him.

    And then mistook the paired, rounded forms for breasts.

  110. Amphiox says

    Raj will be back.

    But when it comes back, it will pretend that latter conversation never happened, which is another form of running away.

  111. Ogvorbis says

    maybe it is the same old first language / not first language problem at work…

    I seem to remember, rather early on in the infestation, Rajkumar was asked about that and insisted that English was his first language and got a bit miffed at the idea. Not that we actually expect honesty from Raj.

  112. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    The Short answer is: we cannot visualize ultra-violet, because we don’t know what it looks like. Our eyes can’t see it.

    In other words, you don’t get it.

    All these things about how others see things that are blue or red might seem like deep philosophical questions but are essentially senseless if you understand that a brain processes electrical signals and not light.

    For all intent and purposes, if your brain was standing in a dark jar receiving electrical stimuli by wires, “red” and “blue” would seem just as real to you as they would as signals originating from your retinas.

    Also, were your eyes replaced by a light sensor with a window of detection shifted towards UV and generating electrical signals that your visual cortex can make sense of, “blue” and “red” would have a completely different meaning as per their wavelenghts.

  113. consciousness razor says

    Every black hole contains a new universe
    It’s not a link to the research, but it’s an intriguing idea, nonetheless.

    Sounds pretty bullshitty to me, but I don’t know.

    And my point is that just because our lovely friend Raj can’t imagine what came before the universe, doesn’t mean that no one can or that it’s an question that we can’t solve.

    No, raj isn’t my lovely friend. But I agree with the rest. :)

    From the article…

    The motion of matter through the black hole’s boundary, called an “event horizon,” would only happen in one direction, providing a direction of time that we perceive as moving forward. The arrow of time in our universe would therefore be inherited, through torsion, from the parent universe.

    I do not grok this. The arrow of time is usually identified with increasing entropy. The existence of only one direction for motion would probably have some strange effects (like torsion, maybe, whatever it is), but I don’t get how that’s supposed to explain the arrow of time.

    Finally, torsion could be the source of “dark energy,” a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space and increases the rate of expansion of the universe. Geometry with torsion naturally produces a “cosmological constant,” a sort of added-on outward force which is the simplest way to explain dark energy. Thus, the observed accelerating expansion of the universe may end up being the strongest evidence for torsion.

    ????

  114. says

    I seem to remember, rather early on in the infestation, Rajkumar was asked about that and insisted that English was his first language and got a bit miffed at the idea. Not that we actually expect honesty from Raj.

    No, I don’t remember saying that, since I have no warm feelings toward this language. I am using this language only because it is the only language most of you speak or understand, I suppose.

    But what is my first language, as some of you curiously ask? I have no first language I think. I grew up in a house where mom and dad spoke different languages, so it kind of got all mixed up. So, every language that I speak, is not my first language. It can’t be, because it will be always a mix of two or more languages. Kind of messy, isn’t it?

  115. says

    In other words, you don’t get it.

    All these things about how others see things that are blue or red might seem like deep philosophical questions but are essentially senseless if you understand that a brain processes electrical signals and not light.

    For all intent and purposes, if your brain was standing in a dark jar receiving electrical stimuli by wires, “red” and “blue” would seem just as real to you as they would as signals originating from your retinas.

    Also, were your eyes replaced by a light sensor with a window of detection shifted towards UV and generating electrical signals that your visual cortex can make sense of, “blue” and “red” would have a completely different meaning as per their wavelenghts.

    Please spare me the high school science…. I have already read enough of it here on this blog. Maybe it is you who didn’t understand the example. Try again.

  116. consciousness razor says

    Mantis shrimp have 16 different photoreceptors (compared to 3 for most humans). That is how we know they can distinguish frequencies we can’t, as well as polarized light. We do not interview them. We don’t ask them to describe their experiences or define the colors for us. Only stupid trolls like raj would do that. We just look at their eyes and the rest of their visual systems. And we already knew those frequencies exist, without any help from the shrimp, because we can detect those frequencies with other instruments and because their existence is consistent with the rest of physics.

  117. cm's changeable moniker says

    But what is my first language, as some of you curiously ask?

    Comment by rajkumar blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]

    You’re hopeless.

  118. Brownian says

    But what is my first language, as some of you curiously ask? I have no first language I think. I grew up in a house where mom and dad spoke different languages, so it kind of got all mixed up. So, every language that I speak, is not my first language. It can’t be, because it will be always a mix of two or more languages. Kind of messy, isn’t it?

    If you learned multiple languages at a young age, typically before the age of five, they may all constitute first languages. Multiliguality intue home is not uncommon.

  119. Brownian says

    Maybe it is you who didn’t understand the example.

    Maybe the universe designed you to be too stupid to comprehend how stupid you are.

    Try again.

  120. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Similarly, someone who is red-green colour-blind cannot visualize green, because he/she cannot see this colour. Now, try ‘defining’ the colour green to a red/green colour blind person. Not the science of colour perception, but describe to him/her the ‘greenness’ of the colour green. Can you do that? Of course, you can’t. That colour blind MUST experience that colour subjectively in order to know what the ‘greenness’ of the colour green is.

    You really didn’t understand a single word of what I wrote.

    If you want to understand what colors are, of course you have to work with the science of color perception. Colors as we experience them via our hardware (eyes) are specific wavelenghts in the visible spectrum. “Greenness” is just that particular electrical signal associated with what a green cone generates when it is hit with a photon of a certain wavelenght.

    “Vizualizing” means interpreting that electrical signal into space. That part doesn’t involve light in any way. “Greenness” doesn’t mean anything absolute in this context – it means any electrical input similar to that generated by a green cone. The stimuli does not matter.

  121. says

    If you learned multiple languages at a young age, typically before the age of five, they may all constitute first languages. Multiliguality intue home is not uncommon.

    Oh Brownian. In an ideal environment, maybe yes. But you don’t know how messy it can get when both your parents are trying to shove their values and principles down your throat, insisting only one of them is right. But, as you can see, English can’t be called my first language precisely because those who speak it as a first language can eventually sense the difference. See, you get some points here.

  122. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Please spare me the high school science…. I have already read enough of it here on this blog. Maybe it is you who didn’t understand the example. Try again.

    Meh.

    Dunning-Krugger it is.

  123. cm's changeable moniker says

    Unkilling for one comment:

    I grew up in a house where mom and dad spoke different languages, so it kind of got all mixed up. So, every language that I speak, is not my first language. It can’t be, because it will be always a mix of two or more languages. Kind of messy, isn’t it?

    A girlfriend grew up in a quadri-lingual household.

    Thai, Malay, Hokkien, and English.

    And she always made more sense than you.

    Sheesh.

    You’re posting bullshit in Esperanto.

  124. says

    You really didn’t understand a single word of what I wrote.

    If you want to understand what colors are, of course you have to work with the science of color perception. Colors as we experience them via our hardware (eyes) are specific wavelenghts in the visible spectrum. “Greenness” is just that particular electrical signal associated with what a green cone generates when it is hit with a photon of a certain wavelenght.

    “Vizualizing” means interpreting that electrical signal into space. That part doesn’t involve light in any way. “Greenness” doesn’t mean anything absolute in this context – it means any electrical input similar to that generated by a green cone. The stimuli does not matter.

    What you are saying is right, but this is a different topic all together. What I am saying is ‘completely’ different. COMPLETELY different. This is precisely what happened the last time I gave this example. All of you bombarded me with your Wikipedian arsenal. I don’t want to go through all of that again. Please. If you think you are right and I am wrong, consider yourself a victor!

  125. Amphiox says

    How does one describe the “greenness” of green to someone who has never seen green before.

    It’s easy. Parents do it ALL THE TIME.

    You show something that is green to your subject and tell him “this is green”.

    How do you demonstrate the factual existence of a subjective qualia as something with relevance beyond your own personal imagination? You create a situation in objective reality wherein someone else can have their own subjective experience of it.

    And yes, this works with color-blind people too, as has already been explained.

    And what is required for green is required for god. You want to demonstrate that your subjective god that can only be experienced and not described in words to me? Show me. Give me the subjective experience of it.

    All subjective qualia that are real and not imaginary can be shared.

    (Do not reply to this, fapwit. You must accumulate several decades-equivalent more of intellectual maturity before you are qualified to comment on this.)

  126. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    ryanwilkinson,

    Links to video game violence argument/discussions/articles/whatever, please?

    Basically, he acts like this article is a catch-all answer to any evidence that video games cause aggression.

    And maybe it was, when it was written in 1998. I don’t know, I haven’t looked into that.

    There’s better evidence these days, though, like this study from 2010. If you want to read that, and it’s not accessible to you, I’ll put up a PDF you can download.

  127. Amphiox says

    What you are saying is right, but this is a different topic all together. What I am saying is ‘completely’ different. COMPLETELY different.

    No it is not. Fapwit twists itself into knots trying to pretend they are different, and fails.

    Fapwit lies again.

    Please spare me the high school science…. I have already read enough of it here on this blog.

    Fapwit exposes its intellectual dishonesty yet again. If it cannot answer the criticism, it runs away.

    And admits it’s too ignorant to even understand high school level science.

    No, I don’t remember saying that

    And lies again.

    This is precisely what happened the last time I gave this example. All of you bombarded me with your Wikipedian arsenal. I don’t want to go through all of that again.

    Then stop using the discredited example over and over again, fapwit.

  128. consciousness razor says

    raj, which languages did you grow up using, other than English? You don’t need to call any of them your “first” language, but you haven’t answered the question.

  129. Amphiox says

    Please. If you think you are right and I am wrong, consider yourself a victor!

    Not until you show some intellectual honesty, fapwit, and acknowledge defeat by stopping the repeated use of the same defeated argument over and over again.

    We DON’T CARE about ourselves being “victorious”. If we wanted that, we could have declared victory after your first useless post and killfiled you right then and there.

    We want YOU to stop being intellectually dishonest with us and yourself, and actually grow a little as a human being. Failing that, we want others to observe the ridiculous example you have made of yourself and learn not to follow into the unethical pit you have dug or yourself.

    We do this so that other people may derive benefit from it.

    So until then, bombs away.

  130. Hurinomyces bruxellensis says

    Raj

    Please spare me the high school science…. I have already read enough of it here on this blog. Maybe it is you who didn’t understand the example. Try again.

    Everyone here gets it. You are trying to illustrate this idiotic notion that we wouldn’t be able to detect or measure god without having some sort of specific definition of god beforehand.

    We keep bringing up science because if your argument was anything more than self indulgent masturbation, most of it wouldn’t exist.

  131. Amphiox says

    In an ideal environment, maybe yes. But you don’t know how messy it can get when both your parents are trying to shove their values and principles down your throat, insisting only one of them is right. But, as you can see, English can’t be called my first language precisely because those who speak it as a first language can eventually sense the difference.

    So the fapwit basically admits that it is not literate in ANY language, and is blaming its parents for this.

    Real classy.

    Pitiful.

  132. says

    raj, which languages did you grow up using, other than English? You don’t need to call any of them your “first” language, but you haven’t answered the question.

    I don’t have to. But since you insist, one of those languages was Punjabi, spoken widely in India/Pakistan/Canada.

  133. Amphiox says

    because if your argument was anything more than self indulgent masturbation

    This is, of course, the point. And why the fapwit lacks the self-control to stop lingering here.

    Even before the segue into boobies, it was obvious.

  134. Ichthyic says

    Several species of small furry animals gathered together in a cave and grooving with a pict

    Aye, an’ a bit of Mackeral settler rack and ruin ran it doon by the haim!

  135. Ichthyic says

    So the fapwit basically admits that it is not literate in ANY language, and is blaming its parents for this.

    …all while living in parent’s basement.

  136. chigau (違う) says

    [meta]
    John Morales
    re Pink Floyd
    Sometimes it frightens me how much I think like you.
    :-)

  137. Ichthyic says

    Please spare me the high school science…. I have already read enough of it here on this blog

    but it’s obviously not sinking in, so clearly we need to adjust our presentations downward.

    right, primary school level science it is then.

    er, anyone here teach elementary science?

  138. says

    I’ve always been quite strongly of the opinion that violence in video games doesn’t cause people to be violent, anymore than magic in video games causes people to be magic.

    We all have tendencies to think about doing extremely violent things to people I’m sure, and video games are just a nice fantasy outlet.

    That someone puts some louder noise through a headphone after playing a video game doesn’t really affect my standing on this.

  139. says

    but it’s obviously not sinking in, so clearly we need to adjust our presentations downward.

    right, primary school level science it is then.

    er, anyone here teach elementary science?

    What you need to do is, relax a little and call back all of you alter egos to your primary ego.

  140. Ichthyic says

    What you need to do is, relax a little and call back all of you alter egos to your primary ego.

    what you need to do is smoke less pot and read less Jung.

  141. says

    what you need to do is smoke less pot and read less Jung.

    For $20 a gram? No, mate. Have you been to India or Pakistan? The Pakistani capital Islamabad is literally situated in a jungle of cannabis. It grows EVERYWHERE. Even in police stations. Go to any shrine on Thursday. Drinks made from kilos of fresh cannabis are offered to tourists for FREE.

    As for Jung, I don’t read him any more.

  142. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    I’ve always been quite strongly of the opinion that violence in video games doesn’t cause people to be violent, anymore than magic in video games causes people to be magic.

    You are either aware that it is possible to be violent but not possible to be magical, in which case you know you’re making a bad analogy,

    or you believe in magic, in which case, hmmm, I guess that’s kind of cute.

    That someone puts some louder noise through a headphone after playing a video game doesn’t really affect my standing on this.

    Painfully loud noise. It’s a variation on the old Milgram technique.

    Anyway, that one was a measure of aggression, obviously not physical violence. But it’s interesting, in that it would also be interesting if it didn’t cause any difference in aggression — if the experiment had shown no effect, you’d probably consider that to support your assumption.

    Interesting questions include just how much aggression do violent video games cause, how long does the effect last, and what mediates the effect.

  143. says

    I know it’s a bad analogy haha, it was tongue in cheek, fear not.

    I don’t think there’s a link between someone playing video games; and someone committing crimes. Maybe they raise aggression, this article seems to be firmly of the opinion that they do; but is aggression a bad thing?

    There are hundreds of studies, some saying they do, some saying they don’t. It’s quite hard to judge based on that, but just based on personal experience (bad I know), violent video games are fine.

    It’s difficult video games that cause aggression.

    Besides, violence in media and art is ubiquitous, it’s almost essential as a primary conflict, and very rarely is it ‘hey, war’s great!’ or ‘hey, kicking people in the street is great!’ It tends to be demonised. Less so in video-games, but, excluding the odd war-game, most of the violence is pretty fantastical.

  144. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    I don’t think there’s a link between someone playing video games; and someone committing crimes.

    I didn’t claim otherwise, although such a link would be hard to demonstrate even if it existed.

    Maybe they raise aggression, this article seems to be firmly of the opinion that they do; but is aggression a bad thing?

    This aggression manifested as an attempt to cause pain to other people.

    Yes that is a bad thing.

    There are hundreds of studies, some saying they do, some saying they don’t. It’s quite hard to judge based on that, but just based on personal experience (bad I know), violent video games are fine.

    Sure, in my experience, I’m not aware of violent video games ever causing me to hurt someone. But even considering that as a datum, introspection is unreliable.

    It’s difficult video games that cause aggression.

    XD

    True.

    Besides, violence in media and art is ubiquitous, it’s almost essential as a primary conflict, and very rarely is it ‘hey, war’s great!’ or ‘hey, kicking people in the street is great!’ It tends to be demonised. Less so in video-games, but, excluding the odd war-game, most of the violence is pretty fantastical.

    Less so in video games, yes. “Additionally, there are theoretical reasons to believe that videogame effects should be stronger than movie or television violence effects.”

    We know that human behavior can be influenced by disembodied pictures of eyes, so I wouldn’t place much importance on the fantastic nature of video game violence.

    +++++
    This paper finds that endorsement of traditional masculinity ideologies mediate the relationship, but unfortunately I can’t download it:

    http://mensstudies.metapress.com/content/d81v83320t11112u/

  145. consciousness razor says

    I’ve always been quite strongly of the opinion that violence in video games doesn’t cause people to be violent, anymore than magic in video games causes people to be magic.

    Oh fucking please. I have ryan killfiled, and this is the kind of shit I’m missing?

  146. says

    I’ve always been quite strongly of the opinion that violence in video games doesn’t cause people to be violent, anymore than magic in video games causes people to be magic.

    *blink*

    I can’t tell whether you think magic is real or violence is make-believe

  147. Brownian says

    But you don’t know how messy it can get when both your parents are trying to shove their values and principles down your throat, insisting only one of them is right.

    I do understand that, to some degree. Uniligual as I am, i am also the product of two cultures, though perhaps not as dissimilar as yours may have been.

    But I apologise if I over-simplified your childhood. It sounds like you had a tough time. I’m sorry for that.

  148. says

    I do understand that, to some degree. Uniligual as I am, i am also the product of two cultures, though perhaps not as dissimilar as yours may have been.

    But I apologise if I over-simplified your childhood. It sounds like you had a tough time. I’m sorry for that.

    Oh No need to apologise, Brownian, Yes. I did have a tough time as a child. But then, which child did not? Having said this, I may have experienced tough times as a child, but I am quite sure I was much more of a nuisance to my parents than they were to me! Wouldn’t you agree…? So, who is right? The child or the parent?

  149. John Morales says

    rajkumar: I am quite sure I was much more of a nuisance to my parents than they were to me! Wouldn’t you agree…? So, who is right? The child or the parent?

    Stupid and false dichotomy.

    (Try asking which is better informed and more comptetent, for your answer)

  150. says

    rajkumar: I am quite sure I was much more of a nuisance to my parents than they were to me! Wouldn’t you agree…? So, who is right? The child or the parent?

    Stupid and false dichotomy.

    (Try asking which is better informed and more comptetent, for your answer)

    Sorry, Johnnie, I don’t do cryptic crosswords. But give me some more clues, and I’ll try to solve your latest puzzle.

  151. John Morales says

    [Crypsis is cryptic, to some]

    (and suggestions are suggestive, to most)

  152. says

    (and suggestions are suggestive, to most)

    More mumbo jumbo?

    By the way, how would you know how ‘most’ see your comments?

  153. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I see rajkumar is as stupid, illogical, and incomprehensible as ever. Can’t understand that it has no point, can’t explain its point if it had one, and sounds like it has taken too many hits from its bong. It should just sit in the corner instead of trying to communicate, which it can’t. It is repeating itself, and going in circles.

  154. says

    I see rajkumar is as stupid, illogical, and incomprehensible as ever. Can’t understand that it has no point, can’t explain its point if it had one, and sounds like it has taken too many hits from its bong. It should just sit in the corner instead of trying to communicate, which it can’t. It is repeating itself, and going in circles.

    Not my fault if see your own reflection in me. Forget everything I said about you in the past. I now see you as wise, intelligent, creative, with excellent communication skills — someone who should never stop talking. Plus, girls find you extremely sexy and sexually irresistible — sizzling, and smoking hot, if you will.

  155. Ichthyic says

    Plus, girls find you extremely sexy and sexually irresistible — sizzling, and smoking hot, if you will.

    and Raj knows!

    he watches porn in his parent’s basement.

  156. Ichthyic says

    I am quite sure I was AM much more of a nuisance to my parents than they [ever] were to me!

    ftfy.

    you are still living in your parent’s basement, after all.

  157. says

    and Raj knows!

    he watches porn in his parent’s basement.

    I think Americans are the only people in the world who would categorize and classify ‘porn’ as sexy.

  158. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Not my fault if see your own reflection in me.

    I see nothing a stupid circular thinking fuckwit like yourself. Our refutations are circular, following your circular stupidity. You have nothing cogent to say, just bong headed irrelevancies. Not even a good stoner movie.

    Say something new, or shut the fuck up. You allegedly came here to teach, but have nothing to teach but fuckwittery and stupidity, which we rightly mock. Your choice cricket, but you shutting the fuck up sounds like your only intelligent option.

  159. says

    Nerd, if only you knew that you mock no one but yourself. Everything you say reflects your own personality, your own self. So, I don’t really mind this so-called ‘mocking’. Keep doing this.

  160. says

    And I allegedly came here to teach? No, I came here to learn. I learned how to take extreme stupidity without reacting to it.

  161. Louis says

    I am sat here making “bdrrr bdrrr” noises with my fingers and lips.

    I just thought everyone needed to know that.

    Louis

  162. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Everything you say reflects your own personality, your own self

    Nope, it mocks your personality, and doesn’t reflect mine. You are WRONG as usual. Not being right even once should make you think about not posting any more. What a loser.

    No, I came here to learn {spew fuckwittery}. I learned how to take {give} extreme stupidity without reacting to it.

    Fixed that for you loser. In order to learn, you must shut the fuck up and listen. You can’t shut the fuck up. The only stupidity here is you and your fuckwittery. The regulars are intelligent and rational. And that leaves you out. Try silence, the only hope of the incompetent, and those trying to learn…or you acknowledge lying and bullshitting to us…

  163. says

    Fixed that for you loser. In order to learn, you must shut the fuck up and listen. You can’t shut the fuck up. The only stupidity here is you and your fuckwittery. The regulars are intelligent and rational. And that leaves you out. Try silence, the only hope of the incompetent, and those trying to learn…or you acknowledge lying and bullshitting to us…

    No, I won’t acknowledge that, because I wasn’t doing anything like that. I also won’t agree with your statement about ‘the regulars’. Not saying the regulars are not intelligent and rational…. but they have probably locked their intelligence and rationality in secure lockers … lest they might lose it forever. And this, of course, includes you.

    But I think this place is losing its charm for me. So, maybe, your wish will have finally come true in a short period of time.

  164. says

    But I think this place is losing its charm for me. So, maybe, your wish will have finally come true in a short period of time.

    But Raj, you misunderstand. You see:

    (start eighties synthesizer music)
    I’m a one track lover… down a two way laaane.
    Drivin’ fast down the highway… Must’ve been insaaane.
    ‘Cos the temperature’s too high, traveling waaay too fast!
    And I knew our lovin’… was too hot to last! (/eighties synthesizer music)

  165. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Still can’t shut the fuck up rajkumar. Trolling, not learning…