Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

No, that is not all I can do, and you also have those two things backwards. I share my personal experience, and then I quote the book mostly just to be sure other people can know where to check things out for themselves, if they wish.


I well understand why things appear that way here in this kind of forum, but yes, I most definitely am an expert on the matter of permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism.


I can do all of that, but to do so will not ever prove truly useful to any still-suffering alcoholic ...

... and there is the difficult here in PPR where "carrying the message" is far from being its own purpose. So, I just try to do the best I can, and with all things at least kept in mind as best I am able.


Some people need to hear things even thousands of times before they finally begin catching on!


A little of both, actually.


Understood ... and please just let me know if/when anything I ever do might ever in any way stop you and/or others from doing anything else you either normally or typically do.

I commend your bravery there! The best way for me to kill a thread is to simply start one!

Either show me where I have lied or else shut the f**k up on that particular allegation, please!

Man, do I know that one!. Just this evening my wife was marvelling I keep my nose in here. But i think there is a point.

Teaching helps. About every three years comes a live student, and it is glorious. YTou learn to wait for it.

One og my best memories, a learning disabilittied Aspie guy, hopeless in language but a good historian and serious poet, and alive.

It's explicitly everywhere. In fact, every poster whose commented on your posts so far has seemingly done so on the grounds of claiming you said something that you now try to say you didn't. The issue is that their interpretation of you seems a lot better than your own interpretation of you, apparently.

I used to have an "AllExperts" account where I fielded questions related to what I do best, and then once on a new-to-me "AA" forum I found people who had already been "citing the expert" before I had even arrived!

As to here at home, my own wife knows to just send me back here whenever I might seem to need a bit more "therapy" ...

Once again: Either please show me or else please just shut the f**k up in relation to your false allegation.

I'm not sure that analogy actually works, I mean, what someone claims has to be reasonable to be accounted as probable, what if I claim that I found a shop that is run by Bugs Bunny and that he says hello?



The issue is that if God did something, such as rescuing someone from cronic alcoholism, he must exist in order for him to do something, you implicitly state that being cured of your chronic alcoholism means that God exists.


Your analogy doesn't work here.


Liar!! I didn't said that

Last edited by blunnet on 09 May 2011, 11:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

And what is this supposed to prove? That your own choir vouches for you and you simply chose the right crowd to preach to?

It's not a false allegation. You've been ranting and raving on your experience. Period. That's not disputable. I'm not the only poster to make this claim. Get over yourself and recognize that by doing this and claiming you haven't, you made a false claim.

Politics and philosophy are already pretty much "stuck" wherever they might be, but religion is always quite lively!

While my point was really more directed at what appeared to be an apology (in "Apology of Socrates" sense) of leejosepho (as he was playing this "I'm not arguing, even if I'm replying to your points for counterpoints/statements that contradict what you just said"), it is quite clear that you regularly leave comments during theist/anti-theist debates that you have no intention of backing up or carrying through. It's sort of an attempt on your part to have the best of both worlds (deliver monologue's denouncing the philosophical naivete of anti-theists while claiming you're not in a debate).



We're not talking about yesterday or two months ago or four blue moons ago. We're talking about right now, really mostly about leejosepho's attempt to stand in a netherland between debate and non-debate ("I can denounce you with unsupported assertions, but I'm not going to respond to any reason or evidence or even aim to be persuasive at all") and you're attempt at justifying this through a very tangential post.



Do you really write like this when you're publishing peer-reviewed lit papers? I mean, I know that standards on the Internet are a trillion times lower for everything, but you're posts frequently point out an irony that is either anachronistic, very obscure and really tangential to the conversation or debate at hand, or related to some obscure linguistic theory that's not being discussed. Not that I'm not tangential or obscure from time to time, but I try to stay on point or at least make comprehensible points when I'm arguing on a topic on these forums.



You aren't a data entry clerk (hell, even data entry clerks don't type out raw data just for the hell of it). These are forums for conversations, discussions, or debate - there should be some coherence to each poster. For instance, this isn't a good topic generally:





Generally speaking, that's what I try to do whenever I start a new topic or connect relevant experiences/knowledge to an already in progress topic.



You really haven't provided any "data" for any of your beliefs, and while I agree with some of your Canadian political positions, the fact of the matter is that you just state them out of the blue without any connection to anything. It's "data" in terms that it's your beliefs, I guess, so if I was a survey conductor measuring beliefs I might find what you say somewhat interesting. But in terms of discussion, where one expects statements to be part of a meaningful framework, no - you're beliefs are not interesting.



It's obscurantist to go into a debate, make a bunch of really irrelavant remarks about how bad Chomsky is, and then seemingly making counter-points to one debator only to feign "I'm not debating".



I really was talking about leejosepho's post, although you do seem to embody the mindset that it's okay to make statements contradicting someone throughout a thread without actually having to put them in any sort of meaningful framework or argue.



Two can play at the "completely random datum" game:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBpXt8_6xs[/youtube]

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 10 May 2011, 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Agreed.

I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I never understand what the hell he's saying. Even after you pointed it out, I still dunno what it is about his posts that make me go "wtf?". It's more than just him going off on tangents. There's just something wacked out about the way he words things and such.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 10 May 2011, 12:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

I understand.


I could go with something "implicit 'suggest'" there, but no, my recovery only actually proves I have recovered.


My point there is simply this:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - (author's name misplaced)


I was being lazy there and simply truncated your statement in order to agree with you in principle and not have to debate your own thoughts behind said agree-upon conclusion.

Yeah, right ...

Will every please stand and turn to page 449?!

My wife simply knows I belong on WP.