…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
But if he were discussing in good faith, wouldn’t he at least try to provide actual evidence for the charge?
Instead we get Bible texts, or some blather about revelation. He claims to have knowledge through these, of course, but clearly he’s never shown this to be the case. Also, he can demand reasons for evidence over and over again without accepting the fact that this is what works in the world, but no court would allow him to get away with such horseshit. He’d have to back up whatever he says with actual evidence, be sent away from the witness stand, or would be cited for contempt of court. There’s no reason in principle to play his addled mind games.
Here he ends up being coddled in his smug idiocy–or ignored. It would be nice to just ignore him, but then he injects the same twaddle into every thread he gets into, and it seems wrong to let him off entirely. So it’s damned if you do and if you don’t, and I guess he feels like he wins, even if no one else thinks so (I don’t think any other theist exactly agrees, but enemy of my enemy and all that (they really do think we’re the enemy, not just the foe)).
I don’t think he’ll quit, since he is snug in circular blankets of smug. But he really doesn’t deal in good faith and continually claims that everyone else does not deal in good faith, which I guess gets by because the claim is general–even though it’s meant specifically against every last non-theist here.
I’m not saying what, if anything, should be done, just that he’s exploiting the system that is supposed to pretend that he treats others like they’re acting in good faith. I suppose he sincerely believes in his deep layers of mind sewage, but his effluent does nothing besides making him feel like his simple-minded tripe is somehow profound, and “confounding the wise.”
Glen Davidson
Mung,
Me too. If only there were some objective standard, though.
Can come one provide a link to Rumraket’s “what is truth” video I have misplaced it
thanks
What is Truth?
I suspect that unless Fifth is John Denver, he’s a loon.
He’s definitely a loon.
But is the lunacy inherent, or could it be ameliorated by breaking him out of his vicious God-bot circularity?
Well there is 21 minutes I’ll never get back.
You’d think that it would have at least took a stab at the question I asked.
but alas it was not to be
peace
As if Gregory weren’t already enough of an annoying ass, he’s chastising Sal for what he thinks is bad grammar.
[G’s “corrections” include his interpolations in his own parentheses inside Sal’s quote — but he also moved two words within Sal’s quote.]
“Correcting” incorrectly, oh irony, since Sal’s sentence is fine as written when read for comprehension:
Should I ignore Gregory’s overly-personal address-the-poster shit about gambling?
Umm, no, I’m gonna add that to my too-long list of Gregory posts that need to be Guano’d.
Damn, you’d think that man could make more than one or two comments without screwing up yet again.
Yes.
Umm, no.
Ignoring Gregory’s creepy stalkerish behavior is what allows a neighborhood to turn into a slum.
SInce this is our virtual neighborhood, and we’ve agreed we can’t/won’t close the gate, a decent neighbor (hello, that’s me!) doesn’t have any realistic choice except to help sweep up whatever trash blows in.
It’s not in his nature; Gregory can’t avoid making personal attacks any more than a leopard can change its spots. He thinks that atheism is spiritually harmful, and therefore dehumanizing and evil; hence all those who espouse atheism are doing immense and incalculable harm to themselves and to everyone else.
More specifically, he thinks that atheism is dehumanizing because he thinks, firstly, that atheism is metaphysical naturalism; secondly, that metaphysical naturalism entails a rejection of the view that human beings are metaphysically unique, a ‘sovereign species’ (a term he uses); thirdly, that a denial that human beings are metaphysically unique is therefore dehumanizing.
I understand perfectly well why one would hold the first two claims. I don’t understand why anyone would think that naturalism entails dehumanization. That claim is often asserted by the theists at TSZ — William J. Murray and Phoodoo also make it — but the reasoning seems to be (to be polite) deeply confused.
I’m sorry, but you’re completely wrong here, KN.
You’ve got gregory doing all this ‘thinking’ : that atheism is this, that metaphysical naturalism is that. I’m afraid you either don’t know what thinking is (in spite of using that word over and over) or don’t know who gregory is.
One thing that guy NEVER does is think. (You don’t have to trust me on this, just pick any of his posts or ‘papers’ at random.) Nothing to be found in any of them but insults, sour bile, sucking up to Erik, self-aggrandizement, and utter confusion. In a word, supreme nitwittery. He’s even recently earned his black belt in dumbfuckedness! (I think that makes him a grand master Dumb Fuck, for those who want to send him a congratulatory card.)
So, kudos to the guy for those accomplishments, sure, but….He does not ‘think.’ Ever.
Thanks _hotshoe.
stcordova,
Kiss the atheist’s ass, Salvador T. Cordova. That’s your shockingly confused IDist/YECist wanna-be mainstream apologetics legacy.
Gregory,
As the author of this beautiful sentence…
…don’t you think it’s a bit, um, laughable for you to criticize other people’s writing?
Quite obviously, yet also sadly, Salvador T. Cordova has turned into an intentionally malicious theist.
I think that one can be, in an important, thinking even if one is not reflective about the contents of one’s thoughts. Even those of us firmly in the grip of ideology (as Gregory is) are still thinking, and are still responsible for what they say.
I’ve been observing Mung’s hypocrisy and attempts to manipulate/control all conversations for years now. One of his favorite tactics is to whine / play the poor victim while treating others exactly the way he complains about. You may choose to ignore the stench of his dishonesty and hypocrisy, I choose to point it out. To each his own.
The problem is Mung that you have been repeatedly trying to game the site rules while not posting in good faith. The problem is quite obvious, especially given all the shit you talk about TSZ and its members while posting at UD. It’s what the last three weeks of discussion over moderation have been about. Thanks again for showing everyone you’re not interested in honest discussion, just twisting words and trying to dishonestly manipulate everything you touch. That’s why you constantly whine more than any other three posters put together. It’s all about how much you can get away with.
Adapa finally discovers the Whine Cellar, where his posts truly belong. Whine all you like here Adapa, it’s why the thread exists!
Hi, my name is Adapa, and I love to Whine about Mung. My whining is about Mung’s whining about my whining … Well, you get the idea. But Mung is the bigger Whiner. BY FAR! I wouldn’t be whining at all if it were not for Mung’s whining.
(*whine*)
You poor puppy Adapa.
Don’t worry Butthurt King. I’ll keep pointing out your dishonesty and hypocrisy every chance I get. Call it a public service.
Now be a good little Mung and go post at UD how mean all the TSZ regulars treat you. You know you want to.
Adapa, your anti-gay bigoted comments don’t become not anti-gay bigoted comments just because you post them in Noyau.
Adapa, do you plan on providing the missing link, or not?
Mung, do you plan on providing the missing link where you lied and said you defined “real code” or not?
Maybe you shouldn’t have cheered on all those anti-gay bigoted comments over at UD. Then you wouldn’t come across as such a homophobic bigot.
Do you support full equal rights for gays, including marriage rights? Do you support no exemptions for anti-discrimination laws due to religious bigotry?
Put your cards on the table Mung.
What I said was that I had consistently claimed that the genetic code meets the mathematical definition of code. If you have evidence to the contrary you can present it. If you have evidence that I equivocated you can present it.
Less whining and more evidence please.
Adapa, you’re a fool if you think that you can lodge an accusation against me and then toss it at me as if I am then obligated to defend against it. Not here at TSZ, not anywhere.
You lied and said you didn’t bring up “real code”. I linked to where you did. You also refused to define “real code’ as part of your usual dishonest equivocation games.
Really Mung, people here aren’t as stupid as your usual chummy pals at UD.
Thanks for confirming I was right in my opinion. You do support homophobic bigotry and intolerance towards the LGBT community.
Liar. 🙂
Here’s a working link to your post.
I pointed out that your alleged link was broken and asked you to fix it. So stop lying about it. Or stop whining.
Want me to show you how to create a working link?
Yes, you are.
Sure. Create a working link to where you defined “real code”.
Poor Adapa. Reduced to whining. THE IRONY! It’s really not fair. Time to whine more.
LOL! Poor Mung, caught in his lies with nothing to provide but his regular childish snark. Isn’t this where you usually cry for a moderator to protect you?
Adapa, do you know how puerile you sound?
I defined what I meant by a code but you think I should have defined what I meant by “real code,” because defining what I meant by a code just wasn’t enough to suit you.
If that’s the best you have then by all means run with it.
I’ll just chip in and say I’d be more that happy to see ‘butthurt’ disappear. Along with all the non-funny insults (I’ll be the judge of those, ta very much! But they are mostly to be found among the ones that appear just the once). Read the works of Joe G, and consider your ways, O Mortal.
Not near as childish and cowardly as you. You made a big stink that people didn’t think DNA was a “real code”. Then you pulled a Mung and ran off every time you were asked what “real code” meant.
That’s OK though. If you didn’t equivocate and cowardly run all the time people wouldn’t recognize you.
Adapa, please don’t give mung and phoodoo ammunition by attributing motives to others, if when you are right.
The comments in the The Varieties of Religious Language thread starting on December 10, 2015 at 5:52 pm through at least December 10, 2015 at 7:25 pm demonstrate beyond any doubt that Erik is not participating here in good faith. Rather than answer direct questions to clarify his claim about a supposedly historical event, Erik squirms and evades until he is finally left with this plaintive, pathetic whimper:
Erik is too much of a coward to put his claim at risk of disconfirmation. That cowardice has caused him to behave grossly dishonestly for several weeks.
Erik, you are without honor. You should be ashamed of your behavior here. If you’re not willing to participate in good faith, or simply lack the minimal intestinal fortitude to do so, you should find a venue where your lack of honesty and integrity are not opposed to the site goals.
In that case Elizabeth would have to leave too.
Mung,
I provided evidence for my position. Do you have any for yours?
Care to substantiate any of this? For example, in what way would you plan to disconfirm my statement? Which post of mine displays cowardice? Etc.
Other than your utter self-admitted ignorance, there’s no basis for what you are saying here.
Erik,
I pointed out the comments in the The Varieties of Religious Language thread starting on December 10, 2015 at 5:52 pm through at least December 10, 2015 at 7:25 pm. Anyone reading those can easily see that you are so terrified of answering a few simple questions directly that you’d rather behave dishonestly.
The only thing I’m ignorant about in this context is what you mean by your claim that the biblical flood actually occurred. That ignorance is solely because you lack the integrity to either answer questions about your claim or retract it.
As already noted, you are without honor.
This being so, you have no basis for your claim that I am afraid that you would disconfirm it. You cannot disconfirm it when you don’t understand it.
As to my integrity and courage, take your time to understand the answers to your questions, so you can start disproving them or whatever you wanted to do with them http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-varieties-of-religious-language/comment-page-30/#comment-94200 Pull yourself together and stop being ignorant. Accusing me of your ignorance will not help you one bit.
No, Patrick. When Elizabeth believed she had given an answer and I did not accept that she had given an answer I did not act like you did toward Erik.
So I have no evidence that I repeated the same questions ad nauseam. I did not continue to hound her. I let it go.
Erik,
This is Noyau, where we don’t have to pretend that demonstrably dishonest people like you are posting in good faith. Your cowardice is clear to anyone who reads the thread I referenced. If you weren’t afraid of having your claim analyzed, you would have answered questions about it when they were first asked.
You have demonstrated none.
This is where you confirm that you are a liar. It has been pointed out repeatedly that in this very comment you reference, you explicitly refuse to answer the questions about your claim. You refuse to answer but claim to have answered. You are without honor.
If you’re not willing to engage in good faith, this isn’t the place for you. UD has a lot of scumbags — you’ll probably enjoy it there.
Mung,
As I just pointed out to Erik, this is Noyau where we don’t have to pretend that people deserve the assumption of good faith.
If you don’t have evidence of Elizabeth failing to support one of her claims, then you’re just shit stirring like you usually do.
And if you don’t like my response to Erik, I urge you most sincerely to print out my comments, roll them up tightly, and insert them in whatever orifice will make you most uncomfortable.
Your ignorance is clear to anyone who reads the thread you referenced. You have not shaped up to acknowledge and comprehend the answers that you have been given. Perhaps because you are afraid that you cannot disconfirm them? Nah, you are just being ignorant. And you say so yourself, so you have no reason to whine.
Erik,
You have not answered the questions asked about your claim. Continuing to claim otherwise is dishonest.
Man up and answer, retract, or go elsewhere.
Lizzie must be so proud. 🙂
Gregory had this to say from:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wine-cellar/comment-page-20/#comment-99461
Greg, you need to be a little more insulting, that was a bit too polite, hence boring for entertainment purposes.