|
Oh thats right. Too bad really, earth will be more of a frog in a pot instead of a real good sudden cataclysm E: hey a page snipe Okay Kyrie riddle me this: Out of the two possible explanations for the multiplicity of dogmatically mutually exclusive religions (that is either one is correct and the rest must be fabricated, or they're all fabricated), which do you feel is truly more probable? After you've given that a think, how do you address the euthyphro dilemma? The Protagonist fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Dec 5, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Here's a pretty good forum for D&D posters... has some epic memes. http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism You seem checked out bro. Jesus would be sad at your weak-willed evangelism. Be strong bro. You're being persecuted for your beliefs! Do you realize how lucky you are?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I thought in seven or eight hundred million years, the sun's slowly increasing emission of light and heat will start boiling the oceans? That one's easily solved by throwing up a buncha dust in the atmosphere, or orbital reflecting surfaces if you want to get fancy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Turn into a red giant. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Oh thats right. Too bad really, earth will be more of a frog in a pot instead of a real good sudden cataclysm The sun will shrink for about 200 million years, and then expand over a few million years till it engulfs the inner solar system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Here's a pretty good forum for D&D posters... has some epic memes. http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism You're actually William Donahue, aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Realtalk this thread stayed very far away from reddit style atheism until it jumped the shark and is now a kyrie mock vehicle. its also a decent example of why young, immature people get seduced into reddit atheism when they have people like kyrie in their daily lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Realtalk this thread stayed very far away from reddit style atheism until it jumped the shark and is now a kyrie mock vehicle. its also a decent example of why young, immature people get seduced into reddit atheism when they have people like kyrie in their daily lives. Well mainly because Kyrie brashly confided in us that he is simply putting everyone he finds disagreeable in his ignore list
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Realtalk this thread stayed very far away from reddit style atheism until it jumped the shark and is now a kyrie mock vehicle. its also a decent example of why young, immature people get seduced into reddit atheism when they have people like kyrie in their daily lives. And what would you attribute the cause of the shift being?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:And what would you attribute the cause of the shift being? CommieGIR posted:Well mainly because Kyrie brashly confided in us that he is simply putting everyone he finds disagreeable in his ignore list
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:And what would you attribute the cause of the shift being? I dunno, ace; might be that point where you snidely declared that anyone who didn't agree with you was irrevocably hellbound and you wouldn't even bother talking to any of us anymore. Could've had something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Kyrie my boss is literally going to cause you torment and suffering for eternity and this is a reasoned and polite stance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Ahh, so this is the payoff. I was wondering why you bothered to create this thread, but now I see. Act stubbornly, refuse to engage honestly, and then claim the moral high ground when your opponents get frustrated. Yes kyrie, clearly you're the better party here, replies like this:Kyrie eleison posted:Allow me to cut through the confusion once again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:And what would you attribute the cause of the shift being? Cause you are a dickhole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:And what would you attribute the cause of the shift being? You typing until we got a good picture of just how much of a head case you still are
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
once it becomes apparent that a conversation isn't going to be constructive anymore, I say ride it into the rocks whooping and hollering all the while
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well mainly because Kyrie brashly confided in us that he is simply putting everyone he finds disagreeable in his ignore list Frankly I don't know how you can convert someone without having a conversation with them and listening to them. It's almost like Kyrie isn't arguing in good faith!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Frankly I don't know how you can convert someone without having a conversation with them and listening to them. I want you to consider how many people are arguing against Kyrie, compared to the three or four people that can even possibly be argued to be arguing alongside him (arguing). So in that sense, a back-and-forth is impossible, and given that people are obviously not going to be convinced and many are unwilling to even consider it, why not say repulsive things to get moralistic tut-tutting aimed at you?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
welcome to billings montana, a city with ~100,000 people and a .8% african american demographic makeup. wedge politix . png
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:once it becomes apparent that a conversation isn't going to be constructive anymore, I say ride it into the rocks whooping and hollering all the while Welcome to the thread 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Ahh, so this is the payoff. I was wondering why you bothered to create this thread, but now I see. Act stubbornly, refuse to engage honestly, and then claim the moral high ground when your opponents get frustrated. Yes kyrie, clearly you're the better party here, replies like this: It's not a call for anti-intellectualism, it's explaining to you the proper conception of the deity. I understand it might not be a view you are familiar with, or comfortable with, but there's nothing I can do about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I want you to consider how many people are arguing against Kyrie, compared to the three or four people that can even possibly be argued to be arguing alongside him (arguing). So in that sense, a back-and-forth is impossible, and given that people are obviously not going to be convinced and many are unwilling to even consider it, why not say repulsive things to get moralistic tut-tutting aimed at you? A joyful, committed evangelist takes all comers. For example, see my posts in any gun thread 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:it's explaining to you the proper conception of the deity. You are a headcase. I'm still curious though The Protagonist posted:Okay Kyrie riddle me this:
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You typing until we got a good picture of just how much of a head case you still are Yeah, but we already had a good picture before this thread from the last time Kyrie had a meltdown in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I want you to consider how many people are arguing against Kyrie, compared to the three or four people that can even possibly be argued to be arguing alongside him (arguing). So in that sense, a back-and-forth is impossible, and given that people are obviously not going to be convinced and many are unwilling to even consider it, why not say repulsive things to get moralistic tut-tutting aimed at you? The problem is that is how he started the thread. He never hid the smug pretense that he was here to shove his holier than thou attitude in everyone's face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:It's not a call for anti-intellectualism, it's explaining to you the proper conception of the deity. I understand it might not be a view you are familiar with, or comfortable with, but there's nothing I can do about that. I mean, if you deny debate or discussion on the topic of god as valid (blasphemous, even), then what's the point of a DnD thread? What is there to debate or discuss?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Seriously arguing that 'the proper conception of a diety' is immune to critical examination or intellectual debate is literal anti-intellectualism. It's hand-waving away objections because you know you can't reason against them on their own terms. Absolutely nothing, there is only accepting Jesus as your personal Lord & Savior or burning in the fires of hell forever more. This thread wasn't started with honest intentions and everyone who has devoted any amount of time arguing with a literal crazy person has wasted that time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Seriously arguing that 'the proper conception of a diety' is immune to critical examination or intellectual debate is literal anti-intellectualism. It's hand-waving away objections because you know you can't reason against them on their own terms. I didn't argue either of those things? I said you can't prove His existence through reason or empiricism, and that all attempts were futile and missing the point. I am still very much interested in discussing the nature of the deity, particularly w/r/t traditional Christian teaching. I don't think anything I have said would suggest otherwise, rather, it's very clear I am interested in discussing it intellectually from my posts in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Seriously arguing that 'the proper conception of a diety' is immune to critical examination or intellectual debate is literal anti-intellectualism. It's hand-waving away objections because you know you can't reason against them on their own terms. I would also point out it's close to heretical within Catholicism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I would also point out it's close to heretical within Catholicism. Explain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Absolutely nothing, there is only accepting Jesus as your personal Lord & Savior or burning in the fires of hell forever more. This thread wasn't started with honest intentions and everyone who has devoted any amount of time arguing with a literal crazy person has wasted that time. We post on SA. We've all wasted that time regardless of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I didn't argue either of those things? I said you can't prove His existence through reason or empiricism, and that all attempts were futile and missing the point. I am still very much interested in discussing the nature of the deity, particularly w/r/t traditional Christian teaching. I don't think anything I have said would suggest otherwise, rather, it's very clear I am interested in discussing it intellectually from my posts in this thread. I'm posting from a phone so quoting is awkward, but I could have sworn you said (paraphrasing) that you deliberately shut your mind off from critical thinking because belief is good for your mental health. So doesn't that mean you are refusing to engage with anything that would contradict your beliefs? You sure have been posting like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We post on SA. We've all wasted that time regardless of the thread. It's all relative I guess. I rank having a conversation exceeding a yelling match through the aperture to a padded cell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Explain. The Catholic Church has a thousands of year old tradition of qualified individuals discussing and continuing to discuss the proper conception of God. Saying it's settled now is basically saying that the Church will be wrong in the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The Catholic Church has a thousands of year old tradition of qualified individuals discussing and continuing to discuss the proper conception of God. Saying it's settled now is basically saying that the Church will be wrong in the future. But that's not what I said!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:It's all relative I guess. I rank having a conversation exceeding a yelling match through the aperture to a padded cell. True. Got me there. Now stop yelling into my padded cell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I didn't argue either of those things? I said you can't prove His existence through reason or empiricism, and that all attempts were futile and missing the point. I am still very much interested in discussing the nature of the deity, particularly w/r/t traditional Christian teaching. I don't think anything I have said would suggest otherwise, rather, it's very clear I am interested in discussing it intellectually from my posts in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But that's what anti-intellectualism is! If your own belief on something that exists outside of your head is, by your own admission, based on nothing but how you feel about it, then you're denying reason entirely. What is there to intellectually argue or discuss? You're contradicting even your own stated goal here: if god is 'discovered' through how you feel, then what is the point of discussions about nature? Either you 'feel' it's nature or you don't! After all, one interacts only spiritually, right? Oh, so your gambit is to define all spiritualism as "anti-intellectualism." Yeah... very intellectual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Oh, so your gambit is to define all spiritualism as "anti-intellectualism." Yeah... very intellectual. There was that part where you said everyone is really a sociopath and only the church could allow us a moral life. That too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Oh, so your gambit is to define all spiritualism as "anti-intellectualism." Yeah... very intellectual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:28
|
|