Hi, I'm Mick

[Seth]

There is a lot of unthinking circle jerks and groupthink in RS. I poke and prod, challenging the herd, not for the enjoyment of seeing the upheaval, but for the sake of truth and reflection.

so you get booted from the nanny state and wander into the wild west and manage to come across as a sanctimonious prick "challenging the herd" and at the same time insulting the numerous members who are on both forums....

...who entirely deserve to be insulted AND trolled because they are witless children...

Like you, you sanctimonious prick.

[pErvinalia]

A single person can have well-developed knowledge and skills in one area, and yet still be underdeveloped in others. Einstein's personal life left quite a bit to be desired wrt his romantic relationships, for example. Wrt religion, many people get stuck at the magical thinking stage because they're raised in an environment in which others encourage it.

A single person can have well-developed knowledge and skills in one area, and yet still be underdeveloped in others. Einstein's personal life left quite a bit to be desired wrt his romantic relationships, for example. Wrt secularism or atheism, many people get stuck at the magical thinking stage because they're raised in an environment in which others encourage it.

All I did was change the referent. It is the same, content free, question begging blather.

It's not, though, as his is backed up by reasoning and evidence. Your statement is clearly ridiculous.

Oh? Where is the reasoning and evidence? It hasn't been presented here.

Atheism/agnosticism is a minority position in most of our societies. And the older the individuals get (i.e. parents and grandparents) the more minority it becomes. So to say that people are raised in an environment of atheism is idiotic. You also state "magical thinking". What's "magical" about not believing in something that has no evidence? Religion is clearly magical thinking as there isn't a shred of evidence to back it up. And there isn't a shred of reasoning to back it up either, as there are fucking thousands of Gods inhabiting the "minds" of people all over the world. You can't all be right. The more likely answer is that you are all wrong, given the total lack of evidence.

[Seth]

As a biblical theist, Mick was a pretty frequent thread-starter at RS.
For a predominantly/notionally atheist board, I can see how that might eventually come to be seen as deliberate baiting/trolling.

On boards like that, I practically never instigate threads.

Yeah, why rile up the pinheads and idiots?

[Seth]

Skirting-around within the letter of the law whilst pissing all-over the spirit of the law is trolling.

You're a troll Mick; and also an utter cunt.

Fuck off.

Holding up a mirror is "trolling" to those who don't like the reflection.

Hang on there Gallstones, the "Rhetorical Mirror" is my device, remember? I invented it way back in RDF days. Haven't used it in a while. Thanks for reminding me of it.

[pErvinalia]

So is non-sequitur'ing...

Tell me: Just what would falsify your position? I can point to stellar, Catholic minds, but you will just shrug that off with your earlier post. So, what exactly do you want from me here?

Evidence.

Give me an example. I could point to a hundred, stellar Catholic minds, but you'd shrug and say that they were compartmentalizing or whatever. So, what will do it? Be specific.

I want evidence for the existence of God(s). Without that, all you've got is a bunch of arguably intelligent people who believe in a God of some sort (there's plenty of "stellar minds" in other religious spheres too, you know?).

[Seth]

There is a lot of [...] groupthink in RS.

oh, do tell:

is there anything more "groupthink" than (defending) religious dogma?

if not, methinks this reeks of hypocrisy

But the point is that everyone knows that Catholicism is groupthink, whereas Atheists try to maintain the fiction that they are independent, rational thinkers, which they are not...mostly.

THAT is hypocrisy.

[pErvinalia]

Skirting-around within the letter of the law whilst pissing all-over the spirit of the law is trolling.

You're a troll Mick; and also an utter cunt.

Fuck off.

No, YOU fuck off, you troll.

I thought you liked trolls. Especially since you proudly proclaim to being one..

[Seth]

Skirting-around within the letter of the law whilst pissing all-over the spirit of the law is trolling.

You're a troll Mick; and also an utter cunt.

Fuck off.

No, YOU fuck off, you troll.

I thought you liked trolls. Especially since you proudly proclaim to being one..

I love trolls, that doesn't mean I don't like to troll them.

[Mick]

So is non-sequitur'ing...

Tell me: Just what would falsify your position? I can point to stellar, Catholic minds, but you will just shrug that off with your earlier post. So, what exactly do you want from me here?

Evidence.

Give me an example. I could point to a hundred, stellar Catholic minds, but you'd shrug and say that they were compartmentalizing or whatever. So, what will do it? Be specific.

I want evidence for the existence of God(s). Without that, all you've got is a bunch of arguably intelligent people who believe in a God of some sort (there's plenty of "stellar minds" in other religious spheres too, you know?).

There are plenty of arguments for God--it is a perennial issue in philosophy. Dummett offered an original contribution in this regard, too. You might not appreciate these arguments, you might think that they are unsound, but I bet that I'd be equally unimpressed with your rejection of them. Where does that put us? I could make the charges of compartmentalization or whatever else, but I rather not. I'd rather just say that it is an issue where reasonable people can disagree.

[pErvinalia]

I said "evidence", not arguments.

[Mr.Samsa]

I said "evidence", not arguments.

To be fair, arguments are evidence. It's just logical evidence rather than empirical evidence.

[JimC]

Seth has been suspended for 48 hours for a variety of personal attacks on members, in this thread and others, coming after a recent 24 hour suspension.

[pErvinalia]

I said "evidence", not arguments.

To be fair, arguments are evidence. It's just logical evidence rather than empirical evidence.

"Arguments" aren't necessarily evidence. Logical reasoning can be evidence. I'd really prefer empirical evidence, mostly because I don't want to wade into the shit pile of idiocy that is religionist logic. It's all been answered before by people who actually care about religious philosophical arguments. If he's got some new logical reasoning, then I suppose I'll listen to it (as much as I'd prefer to spend my time doing something more productive).

[pErvinalia]

Seth has been suspended for 48 hours for a variety of personal attacks on members, in this thread and others, coming after a recent 24 hour suspension.

I don't care about the one's he did on me. And I suspect most of his were just in response to other personal attacks. Seems a bit unfair to target him and not others too. Unless someone specifically reported him and not others.

[Gallstones]

Mick, seriously, you are lying about your posts over there.

Not the first whiner who got their ass booted out of Ratskep to come over here and bitch about it, and you won't be the last.

Seen it before, old news, no one cares.

Who are you talking about?

He's neglecting to reveal that he did his share of whining and then flounced.
Kinda funny he'd call someone else a bitcher and a whiner like that makes him specialer or something.

For someone who allegedly doesn't care, what are you doing monitoring this thread 914?
One of your playmates tattle to you that your name was mentioned?
Try practicing that lack of caring.

Seriously, I have no time for you. Go back to your rural hovel in BFE where they have just discovered indoor plumbing. Maybe it will be dime-a-beer night at the Horse Piss Bar and you can get drunk again behind the nickel slot machine and get desperate enough to fondle a local inbred redneck and then go home and feel marginally worthy because you managed to get him semi-hard.

Gotcha'.