America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 years ago by bgz. 531 replies replies.
11 Pages«<7891011
Biden hates God.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
RayR Offline
#501 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 11:28 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,903
victor809 wrote:
.... and he once again uses someone else's quote.

Weak.

But more amusingly... lacking a consensus in the origin of the universe is NOT support for some invisible magic deity. What religious people seem to fail to understand is just because smart people haven't figured out everything that happened billions of years ago, their crackpot text written by some uneducated, unwashed people 2000 years ago isn't any more valid.

The "what came before that?" question is a dumb question as well. It's holding science to a higher standard than your religion, which also cannot identify what came before your god. It shows poor reasoning skills.


Sorry Victor, I forgot that it's verboten to quote anyone who has ever had any credible thing to say. I'm weak, they're weak, everybody's weak except what you allow. It supposes that someone might be reading anti-progressive thought and it might encourage curiosity in other poor souls to do the same. And you know what that may lead too? Mass heresy against the Progressive cult.
You know what I really think? Your constant wearing of atheism on your sleeve and your constant claims of your superior reasoning skills has nothing to do with me or my religious beliefs. It's my repudiation of the secular religion of Progressivism that really bothers you.
bgz Offline
#502 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 11:36 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Stay in your bubble dude... those evil progressives are everywhere. You're better off just staying away from it... the cult might infect you... I hear that sh*t is contagious....

If they just flip you on one issue, you're a progressive for life.
victor809 Offline
#503 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 11:53 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
RayR wrote:
Sorry Victor, I forgot that it's verboten to quote anyone who has ever had any credible thing to say. I'm weak, they're weak, everybody's weak except what you allow. It supposes that someone might be reading anti-progressive thought and it might encourage curiosity in other poor souls to do the same. And you know what that may lead too? Mass heresy against the Progressive cult.
You know what I really think? Your constant wearing of atheism on your sleeve and your constant claims of your superior reasoning skills has nothing to do with me or my religious beliefs. It's my repudiation of the secular religion of Progressivism that really bothers you.


I already pointed out why just rehashing a bunch of quotes from other people is a useless argument. It has nothing to do with your imaginary persecution complex of people reading "anti-progressive" text (honestly... if you categorize 98.2% of everything you see as progressive, where are you even finding these anti-progressive texts?)

When you use someone else's quote as a part of your argument you separate your own ideas from the argument itself. This allows you "wiggle room" so when someone criticizes aspects of the quote you can just claim "oh, I don't mean that particular part, just the other part". This isn't a high school english class. Provide your own ideas. Feel free to simply rewrite their ideas in your own words. Be criticized for your own point of view, not just your regurgitation of quotes.

I'll let you in on a little secret. A random political commentator's opinion 50 or 100 years ago is just as useless as yours. Quoting some old dude's opinion doesn't support yours in any way shape or form.

Your second paragraph makes zero sense. You've not successfully repudiated the secular religion of Progressivism... you haven't even properly defined the "secular religion of progressivism" to a point where anyone else knows what you're talking about. As I've mocked you previously, you've made your definition so broad it's nonsense. I mock your religious beliefs not because I wear my atheism on my sleeve, but because you use your religion as a part of your argument... which is dumb.
bgz Offline
#504 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 12:15 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
That's why I've stopped trying to have a discussion with RayRay.
delta1 Offline
#505 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,803
still waiting for him to say what philosophical concept of social order he supports that is superior...it's been incoherent but the theme is "progressivism bad" but where's the comparison to a better framework?

I'd even give him props if he acknowledged that there isn't a superior one, all have weaknesses or inconsistencies... just that progressivism is the worst because...codswallop?
bgz Offline
#506 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 1:36 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Gl with that... either you think exactly like RayRay or you're a progressive.
victor809 Offline
#507 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 1:58 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
delta1 wrote:
still waiting for him to say what philosophical concept of social order he supports that is superior...it's been incoherent but the theme is "progressivism bad" but where's the comparison to a better framework?

I'd even give him props if he acknowledged that there isn't a superior one, all have weaknesses or inconsistencies... just that progressivism is the worst because...codswallop?


No, it's the other idiot that believes it's because of codswallop. This one believes everyone everywhere is a progressive.

I think
delta1 Offline
#508 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 4:11 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,803
they must be twins...they look so much alike, it's confusing....and poppycock...
Dg west deptford Offline
#509 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 6:35 PM EST
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
victor809 wrote:
I just wanted to point out that this is nonsense. The idea of "irreducible complexity" as being a proof against evolution is nonsense, and the idea that a system is too irreducibly complex to have evolved is nonsense.


In The Origin of Species (1859), Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I guess Darwin was nonsense after all. You heard it from Vic.
Dg west deptford Offline
#510 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 6:39 PM EST
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
bgz wrote:
The problem with assuming the premise of a circular "logic system" is you end up having to come up with crazier and crazier arguments to rationalize the next node in the circle.

Then when you put those nodes to paper... they end up looking like bullet point soup.

That's where faith comes in... you have to believe in the premise first, then come up with arguments.

That's why many Christian peoples arguments start with "The Bible says...".

Because they believe the premise to be true (their religion is correct), it follows logically that the words in the official texts are true, therefore it's passages can be used as evidence to show that the premise is true (their religion is correct).

Bad logic.



Huh? I thought you didn't believe in logic?
Dg west deptford Offline
#511 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 6:46 PM EST
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
[quote=Dg west deptford

Faith is not without reason. Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason. In fact faith is demanded by reason. Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it. Professed unbelievers say that they use reason as their starting point and not faith. We must ask though, what is their reason for trusting reason? The thing is, they don’t have a reason for trusting reason, they have a ‘blind faith’ in reason.

Everyone starts from faith. The question is not whether we start from faith but whether we will place that faith in God or in man.

You stated I lost you on this one so I thought I'd top it up for you to use your logic and reason to think it through further.

Thanks for listening
bgz Offline
#512 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 7:29 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
If you don't get what I'm telling you, then there really is nothing more to say.

I get what you're trying to say, and I'm telling you, it's bad logic.

You're also confusing relativity and quantum mechanics as sytems that logic does not apply... thus you're repeatedly stating that I have no "belief" in logic. Which makes me logically conclude that you do not understand what a logical system is... and that really explains a lot.
Dg west deptford Offline
#513 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 7:46 PM EST
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
Ok you said you "didn't get it" so that's why I thought you didn't get it. My bad logic I guess.
Dg west deptford Offline
#514 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 7:59 PM EST
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
^ my bad. Having looked again you're exact words were:

Ok, ... you lost me...

So I thought maybe I could find you since I lost you.
But I can quote you where you were refusing to believe in logic. Then when you wanted me to continue without hearing your confession of faith in universal unchanging logic you said Isomething like - "ok just assume I believe in your logic"
So again my bad I guess it's bad logic on my part to think you don't believe in logic.
CelticBomber Offline
#515 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 9:00 PM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
Dg west deptford wrote:
In The Origin of Species (1859), Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I guess Darwin was nonsense after all. You heard it from Vic.



So, can you demonstrate one of these complex organs?
bgz Offline
#516 Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2020, 9:32 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Dg west deptford wrote:
^ my bad. Having looked again you're exact words were:

Ok, ... you lost me...

So I thought maybe I could find you since I lost you.
But I can quote you where you were refusing to believe in logic. Then when you wanted me to continue without hearing your confession of faith in universal unchanging logic you said Isomething like - "ok just assume I believe in your logic"
So again my bad I guess it's bad logic on my part to think you don't believe in logic.


Here, read this (lol)

Dg west deptford wrote:
In fact faith is demanded by reason. The thing is, they don’t have a reason for trusting reason, they have a ‘blind faith’ in reason. Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it. Faith is not without reason. Professed unbelievers say that they use reason as their starting point and not faith. We must ask though, what is their reason for trusting reason? Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason.


That was in response to that... THIS IS BULLET POINT SOUP THAT INCOHERENTLY MAKES BASELESS CLAIMS.

Here's what I mean by bullet point soup.

Dg west deptford wrote:
Faith is not without reason. Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason. In fact faith is demanded by reason. Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it. Professed unbelievers say that they use reason as their starting point and not faith. We must ask though, what is their reason for trusting reason? The thing is, they don’t have a reason for trusting reason, they have a ‘blind faith’ in reason.


See, I re-ordered the sentences in an arbitrary fashion, and the whole paragraph basically reads the same. There is absolutely no logic there, none, zilch, zero.

When I say you lost me... it was not a compliment... definitely not a compliment... I should have said "LMFAO, WTF WAS THAT SH*T". That would have been more accurate.

* Faith is not without reason ... false Definition of faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

* Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason... false (see last bullet)

* In fact faith is demanded by reason... false (see last 2 bullets)

* Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it... false, most start with: ooops... I have something to tell you.

* they don’t have a reason for trusting reason false... this one doesn't even merit a response... it's just stupid

* they have a ‘blind faith’ in reason... Fail again, go back to the first bullet and re-read the definition of faith.
Speyside Offline
#517 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 6:38 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Would you please explain spiritual apprehension. I am not familiar with the term and am not finding an explanation of it.
tonygraz Offline
#518 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 6:51 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,273
Sounds to me like the feeling one gets when of the religious freaks speaks or writes something. I call it Dwd syndrome.
bgz Offline
#519 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 9:19 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Speyside wrote:
Would you please explain spiritual apprehension. I am not familiar with the term and am not finding an explanation of it.


Sure, that wasn't my definition of faith... but I'll bite...

Spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things
or: relating to religion or religious belief.

Apprehension: anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen.

So in the context of the original definition from the same source (first result of google):

It means you make decisions based on anxiety or fear of the teachings of the religion rather than using logic, reason, proof... and generally implies you have sh*tty problem solving skills.

There yo go... Spiritual Apprehension defined.


Edit:

I see RayRay lurking... that usually means a big wall of gibberish is about to fly through the Internets.
RayR Offline
#520 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 9:24 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,903
victor809 wrote:
I already pointed out why just rehashing a bunch of quotes from other people is a useless argument. It has nothing to do with your imaginary persecution complex of people reading "anti-progressive" text (honestly... if you categorize 98.2% of everything you see as progressive, where are you even finding these anti-progressive texts?)

When you use someone else's quote as a part of your argument you separate your own ideas from the argument itself. This allows you "wiggle room" so when someone criticizes aspects of the quote you can just claim "oh, I don't mean that particular part, just the other part". This isn't a high school english class. Provide your own ideas. Feel free to simply rewrite their ideas in your own words. Be criticized for your own point of view, not just your regurgitation of quotes.

I'll let you in on a little secret. A random political commentator's opinion 50 or 100 years ago is just as useless as yours. Quoting some old dude's opinion doesn't support yours in any way shape or form.

Your second paragraph makes zero sense. You've not successfully repudiated the secular religion of Progressivism... you haven't even properly defined the "secular religion of progressivism" to a point where anyone else knows what you're talking about. As I've mocked you previously, you've made your definition so broad it's nonsense. I mock your religious beliefs not because I wear my atheism on my sleeve, but because you use your religion as a part of your argument... which is dumb.


Well, there you go, you've defined a large part of the progressive doctrine by your own words. The progressive doesn't believe that history is instructive, that "some old dude's opinion" is not gong to be supportive of analysing current events. If a progressive ever mentions history, its usually an distortion of past events, they steer away from even mentioning progressive thinkers of a bygone era, after all it might prove embarrassing to invoke some of those old crackpots.

The self important modern progressive believes that history begins with them and their opinion is the only thing that matters. It's pretty convenient when you want to regurgitate old failed ideas and present them as something new and shiny to those soft indoctrinated minds that are easily seduced. How else could so many progressive minded people be so seduced by failed socialistic policies? How else could these same people not be repulsed by the stated authoritarian bans and mandate policies of the Biden/Harris ticket? Shall I go on? Maybe straight down to the lowest rung of progressive hell these days? The rioting, destroying, burning, assaulting and killing Marxist Orcs perhaps? (I'm sorry to inform you, but you won't find a traditional conservative, libertarian or even a Christian among them, but you already realize that deep inside don't you?)

It's real convenient to claim that no one has repudiated the secular religion of Progressivism or even properly defined it when you pooh-pooh anybody in the past or present that has ever done so. It's progressive magic, ignore them, don't read or listen to what they've ever said and it's as if they never existed!
victor809 Offline
#521 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 9:28 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Dg west deptford wrote:
In The Origin of Species (1859), Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I guess Darwin was nonsense after all. You heard it from Vic.


Amusing. And poor logic on your part.
Unlike religion, science is not held to 200+ year old texts. Darwin can be right on large parts of his theory, and wrong on others.

More importantly, an inability to see how an organ can be formed by numerous successive modifications is NOT evidence that it cannot be. We get smarter every day as we (as a species) examine the world. Things we may have previously thought were irreducibly complex, we find ways that they are not.
victor809 Offline
#522 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 9:31 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
bgz wrote:

I see RayRay lurking... that usually means a big wall of gibberish is about to fly through the Internets.

I hate it when you're right
bgz Offline
#523 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 9:37 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Ya... I know what you mean.
RayR Offline
#524 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,903
I know I've hit the nail on the head when all bgz and Victor squeak out in reply is that I've put up a "big wall of gibberish".Frying pan


bgz Offline
#525 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 10:06 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
It was prophesized.
victor809 Offline
#526 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 10:09 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
RayR wrote:
Well, there you go, you've defined a large part of the progressive doctrine by your own words. The progressive doesn't believe that history is instructive, that "some old dude's opinion" is not gong to be supportive of analysing current events. If a progressive ever mentions history, its usually an distortion of past events, they steer away from even mentioning progressive thinkers of a bygone era, after all it might prove embarrassing to invoke some of those old crackpots.

The self important modern progressive believes that history begins with them and their opinion is the only thing that matters. It's pretty convenient when you want to regurgitate old failed ideas and present them as something new and shiny to those soft indoctrinated minds that are easily seduced. How else could so many progressive minded people be so seduced by failed socialistic policies? How else could these same people not be repulsed by the stated authoritarian bans and mandate policies of the Biden/Harris ticket? Shall I go on? Maybe straight down to the lowest rung of progressive hell these days? The rioting, destroying, burning, assaulting and killing Marxist Orcs perhaps? (I'm sorry to inform you, but you won't find a traditional conservative, libertarian or even a Christian among them, but you already realize that deep inside don't you?)

It's real convenient to claim that no one has repudiated the secular religion of Progressivism or even properly defined it when you pooh-pooh anybody in the past or present that has ever done so. It's progressive magic, ignore them, don't read or listen to what they've ever said and it's as if they never existed!


Sigh. More nonsense.
History is instructive. Quotes of the opinions of past political commentators/journalists are not. They are no more insightful than the political commentators/journalists we have now. And I wouldn't accept a quote from one of them as evidence of anything.
History is dates, numbers, locations, facts. It is not someone's opinion. Let's look at who you've quoted so far:
Michael Crichton - an author
Frederic Bastiat - an 1800s economist
Walter Williams - an economist
Paul Gottfried - an author
H.L. Menken - an early 1900's journalist
Jim Ostrowski - some random modern day author who appears to be an idiot

You've used opinion quotes from these people... not listed facts. You are trying to support your opinions by saying "look at other people who believe the same thing I do!"

That's simple nonsense. consensus of opinion does not equal right. It just means more than one person might be wrong. There is just about any dumb idea you can think of that you can find some person who's got a quote that supports it.

I'll be impressed if you quote scientists, when they are saying something scientific. For instance, if you had quotes like "It has been found experimentally, that the ratio of the amounts of adenine to thymine, and the ratio of guanine to cytosine, are always very close to unity for deoxyribose nucleic acid." -Watson&Crick
victor809 Offline
#527 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 10:11 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
And again... you haven't defined what you consider to be "progressivism". Give us a definition. 2 sentences. in your own words, of what progressivism is.

I can do the same thing with communism, capitalism, catholicism, judaeism, islamism, buddhism.... why can't you do this with progressivism? Likely because you're using it as a catch-all for all the ills you believe exist in the world and it isn't actually a clearly defined system.
frankj1 Offline
#528 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 10:20 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
isn't it a brand of soup?
victor809 Offline
#529 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 10:22 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Well that's about the most coherent definition we've gotten so far.
frankj1 Offline
#530 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 10:24 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
cuz I'm gud wif wirds
bgz Offline
#531 Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2020, 10:29 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
frankj1 wrote:
cuz I'm gud wif wirds


You misspelled I'm.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
11 Pages«<7891011
Back to Top