January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    I can certainly see how Greece lost their ability to do anything useful with their platonic ideals that you espouse so vehemently (and to such retarded effect).

  2. #3 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    “If I knew I stood a chance of winning protesting such an Alabama Board, I would join the fray big-time.”

    http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp

  3. #4 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #2, yes. The Foucault you mentioned amid the woo on last page is one of my favourites. Another is Coriolis.

    Alright, presumably at the time the Helios deity was in use (or whatever to call that), all these experimental verifications did not exist and/or unknown or not understood (I may be wrong on this, but then let us presume, like the priests and their following did).
    In other words, those people did not possess the tooling to prove that deity non-existent with. Suppose two of them, Remko-Ra and Wow-Ra, did this debate then. How would it run?
    Could we disprove (I’ll resort to your wording) the deity then?
    Or will Helios remain a deity _until_ proven not to exist (or not being a deity)?
    The simile is relevant, as it has its pendant in the evolution of logical/mathematical tools, and even the timing of this is roughly, give or take a century or two, the same.

  4. #5 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #3, so that caused the El Niño of 1998 to run mayhem then?

    Aw, kidding. Thanks for that info.
    Actually I did no research into that ‘Alabama Bored Pi Thing’ because I worked with the principle that such things can happen and do happen, cf creationism and certain aspects of Soviet ‘education’.

    I should mention there is one situation in which I would vow ‘over my dead body’ and fight. When there is nowhere to run, because the World Bored adopted Pi = 3, or when I were trapped with no way out in that Alabama place or such a country. I might pretend to comply and fight from underground, I might take it in the open, whichever I think would be te most effective way.

  5. #6 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #5, ps, that is to a high degree the case with AGW. Therefore I stand up to you Betty.

  6. #7 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    “that is to a high degree the case with AGW”

    What is to a high degree the case with AGW?

    You’re imagining yourself fighting a ghost…

  7. #8 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    “so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable.
    It is argued that a statement like that could be falsifiable if and only if by direct observation (actually intersubjective direct observation is necessary), ”
    I said somewhere. It has to be realized I meant: ‘… iaoi by _and during_ direct observation’. /erratum; 2/3 done;

  8. #9 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #7, AGW hits everyone, striking some e.g. you with insanity even, it is global, there is nowhere to run, so I pick some against it.

    Define ghost.

  9. #10 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    8-#44, can I have try with it? Nice in the hand. Recoil translates into rotation, gravitational powered auto cocking mechanism. Should fire. Safe direction of course.

  10. #11 BBD
    January 23, 2014

    Recoil translates into rotation, gravitational powered auto cocking mechanism

    It’s a single-action revolver, cRR. Thumb-cocked. Not the M1911A1. That’s a different Colt .45 ;-)

  11. #12 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    You were imagining yourself fighting an Alabama that has adopted PI=3, which has happened, except in the confines of your mind…

    It is an immaterial illusion that has startled you. A ghost.

  12. #13 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    “hasn’t happened”

  13. #14 Stu
    January 24, 2014

    Yes Betty, it was Indiana and it ALMOST, but not quite passed. Good thing you’re here to set the record straight.

  14. #15 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2014

    Define ‘deity’ and I will show you how to kill it.

    No argument of the form “You define ‘X’ and I will show you f(X) = ‘a'” constitutes a valid proof that “f(X) = ‘a’ for all ‘X'”, unless and until one can demonstrate a set of techniques that cover the set of “all possible definitions of ‘X'”.

    You do not appear to have done that for ‘X’ = “deity”.

    Over to you mate.

    Nope.

    You really are impressively crap at the fundamentals, apparently STILL without realising it.

    YOU made the claim, so you have to define what you’re claiming. If you refuse to do so, then I can only assume – as I have been – that the definition of “deity” you’re using covers the common usages of the term. And since you’re claiming something about “all deities”, then it has to cover all definitions of deities that match any of the common usages.

    You have TO, because I might only come up with obviously killable definitions…

    No, that is a terrible fallacy about a very simple issue. By this stage I hold little hope for more complex ones.

    I really absolutely and completely don’t have to.

    It’s not my claim.

    Of course it would be quite valid for you to define your terms in a way that does not cover common usage – such as “only obviously killable definitions” and restrict your argument to that. But you haven’t done so.

    And if you do decide to exclude deities whose definitions come under the common usage of the word “deity”, then your argument would no longer mean “I disprove all deities” to the average person in the street because it simply excluded some of them by fiat. In which case my work here would be done – Q.E.D.!

    Do you see your problem with asserting that “you have to” yet?

    Sure. Like I defined ‘atheist’ and you guys can decree ‘wrong wrong wrong!’ or something again.

    I seem to recall that you initially didn’t define “atheist”, and you further insisted that all definitions except yours were wrong which is not only stupid, but suggests that you might very well be doing the same with “deity”.

  15. #16 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #11 BBD, I know, the gravitational pull as the barrel goes down with the thumb on the cock (I know, it doesn’t work that well).

    #12, you have no imagination.

    #15, “I seem to recall that you initially didn’t define “atheist”” – of course. I laboured under the impression people like you knew what an atheist is. Bad mistake.

    “one can demonstrate a set of techniques” – sure, you can make a wrap-up now. Begin with: deity is either part of reality, or IS reality, or is outside of the realm of reality. You need two sets of techniques. I concentrated on the tools needed for the ‘supernatural’ deities as you guys never even heard of them (apparently).
    Anyway, for supernatural you should be finished quickly: that’s just another word for ‘doesn’t exist’. Perhaps it takes a little time to realize you ARE finished with that.

    ” all definitions except yours were wrong which is not only stupid” – really. Actually is was just handy. If there are so many definitions of ‘atheism’ then yes, I choose one: the simplest and most modern variant. Live with it or supply something better.

    “… you might very well be doing the same with “deity”.”

    Therefore: define ‘deity’.

  16. #17 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2014

    I laboured under the impression people like you knew what an atheist is.

    False.

    You laboured under the false impression that you knew what other people meant by “atheist” when the term is used without further qualification. Despite extensive correction, you still haven’t changed your mind.

    I concentrated on the tools needed for the ‘supernatural’ deities as you guys never even heard of them (apparently).

    Are you stupid, suffering from comprehension problems or merely being mendacious? I provided definitions of supernatural deities waaaaaaaay back as counter-examples to your proof.

    Anyway, for supernatural you should be finished quickly: that’s just another word for ‘doesn’t exist’.

    As I’ve indicated several different ways and you have been too pigheaded to take on board, you can’t redefine someone else’s definition if you want your “proof” to address their definition.

    I think there’s enough evidence now that your proof relies on redefining other people’s definitions, so it doesn’t disprove all deities, just the ones you’ve defined to be in scope.

    Therefore: define ‘deity’.

    More evidence suggesting “stupid” or “comprehension problem”.

  17. #18 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #17,
    ” Despite extensive correction, you still haven’t changed your mind.” – Of course I have changed my mind. When I discovered the meaning of ‘atheist’ was not clear I dictated that meaning to you. Now I have changed my mind again because this time I will no longer invite you to supply something better. You have nothing. So we agree on the definition of atheist as being someone who knows deities do not and can not exist. Live with it.

    “supernatural deities” don’t exist by definition (that’s what ‘supernatural’ means, but you may supply a different idea on that), but I recall having killed your deities in a somewhat more protracted way.
    Got some more?

    “you can’t redefine someone else’s definition” – which definition ”atheist’ do you mean? I just picked one. Live with it.

    “… it doesn’t disprove all deities, just the ones you’ve defined to be in scope.”

    Therefore: define ‘deity’. Can’t you do it, or do you believe in the undefinable deity that will send you to hell if you try to define it?
    (cRR: yes, of course. It’s a kind of chronic paranioa).

  18. #19 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #17, o, btw, I will decree what I labour under, mate. Is undebatable.

  19. #20 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    ” Good thing you’re here to set the record straight.”

    Though it was set straight about five pages ago, with links.

    Meanwhile, isn’t it odd that Betty should be so worried about getting facts straight and not repeating a false report merely because it’s been said a lot?

  20. #21 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “I will decree what I labour under, mate. Is undebatable.”

    Word. Things. Meaning. What. Stuff. Incomprehensible. Shatner. Reeling. Forever. Mistaken.

  21. #22 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#2, yes. The Foucault you mentioned amid the woo on last page is one of my favourites. ”

    So when you claimed to request experimental evidence that it’s the earth turning, you were wasting time?

    Or is it that you’re now backpedalling to hide your shame?

    The latter, isn’t it, dear. It’s the latter.

  22. #23 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2014

    or do you believe in the undefinable deity that will send you to hell if you try to define it?

    Do you seriously think that someone who has declared themselves to be an atheist lives in paranoia of an undefinable deity and some conception of hell? Or just short of a decent red herring?

    So we agree on the definition of atheist as being someone who knows deities do not and can not exist.

    What kind of person tries to tell someone they didn’t mean what they said, right after they were called out for trying to dictate what someone else means?

    “Mendacious”, I’d say. And not that bright either.

    Cince it’s now clear that your “proof” relies on this tactic it’s obvious that it doesn’t disprove all deities – just as I initially pointed out.

    I reckon I’m done!

  23. #24 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2014

    Cince -> Since.

  24. #25 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “You laboured under the false impression that you knew what other people meant by “atheist” when the term is used without further qualification.”

    It’s simpler than that. Kampie laboured under the false impression that he knew what atheist means and that everyone else was using the same mistaken definition.

    Indeed Kampie’s diatribes have been littered with Humpty Dumpty meanings of words.

    But apparently this is a problem for us, since we have to define for him the meanings of words he’s using otherwise he feels free to use whatever H-D meaning he wishes.

  25. #26 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #21, it may be normal for you believers to fill in what others think. Well you are busted. I dictate to you what I think, period.

    #22, why are you wasting so much time? Do you really think there is an afterlife?

    #23, “Do you seriously think that someone who has declared themselves to be an atheist lives in paranoia of an undefinable deity and some conception of hell?”
    – If the self-so-called ‘atheist’ is actually an agnost with a mission to plant his ignorance on others, then that symptom is indeed quite clear. Fear. I do not have this problem because I AM an atheist.

    “I reckon I’m done!” – but we know you are not (see how it feels if I fill in for you what to think, what you are labouring under, when you are done, et cetera. Ain’t it nice?).
    What deities? Define them!

  26. #27 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #25, “But apparently this is a problem for us, since we have to define for him the meanings of words he’s using otherwise he feels free to use whatever H-D meaning he wishes.”

    Correct!

  27. #28 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #4 was way over Wow’s head, of course :)

  28. #29 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#21, it may be normal for you believers to fill in what others think. ”

    You think you know the meaning of “believers” now?

  29. #30 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    re #27: then define the meaning of define for us.

  30. #31 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    However, I think it is now 10,000% clear that Kampie is just plain old trolling. See “I dictate to you what I think, period.”

    What a fucking moron…

  31. #32 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #31, sigh. Very well. You dictate what I think, then :)

  32. #33 Olaus Petri
    January 24, 2014

    ““#21, it may be normal for you believers to fill in what others think. ”

    Climates cientology modus Deltoid in a nutshell. :-) Jeff’s right wing demon’s makes him very skilled in that department. He always know what evil thoughts others have and to prove it he invents reality over and over again. :-)

  33. #34 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    ” Very well. You dictate what I think, then”

    Ah, so now you swing manically over to the other extreme as if everyone else were as psychotic as you, Kampie?

    I’ve even explicitly said you’re allowed to think what you think.

    Or are you so brain dead that you think that the only two options are

    a) You tell everyone else what to think
    b) Everyone else tells you what to think

    ?

    Fallacy of the excluded middle. Which middle is a fucking panolpy of unlimited vistas. But you don’t like to see beyond your own psychosis, do you dear?

  34. #35 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    PS note the passive-agressive smilies, a favourite of Olap. Who apparently has a new email address…

  35. #36 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #33, distinguishing between knowing and believing… You really want to go into that? You’re welcome!

  36. #37 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #35, never look at substance, the foil is everything :)

  37. #38 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #34, ” But you don’t like to see beyond your own psychosis, do you dear?”

    It took some time, but you are getting on the right track. If you have questions about my thinking, you ask. You don’t fill in and go on like a steamroller, no: you ask. Well done!

    Answer: the question is void, no psychosis involved. You shouldn’t be so paranoid about a little extension of insight.

  38. #39 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#33, distinguishing between knowing and believing”

    ROFLMAO!

    YOU were the one mixing up agnostic and atheist, dear!

    You.

    But, as with the slug horde, every failure you’ve evidenced is transferred onto everyone else. Because otherwise you may be wrong, and that’s unpossible!

  39. #40 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #39, you are now telling us that I coined the insane expression ‘gnostic atheist’, which is the mix-up of mix-ups (elsewhere we and some other mates who simply know what I’m talking about found the thing even worse than ‘postmodernism’).

    Do you know who you are?

  40. #41 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #39, I like your leveling with Petri though. Maybe peace is possible after all.

  41. #42 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    Checked something and found. A sign of total ignorance again. None of you ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism .
    Proof: “In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are used derogatorily. A sophism is a false argument intended to mislead. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.”

    If one of you knew this would’ve popped up. Btw I’m not asking fees for my teachings.

  42. #43 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#39, you are now telling us that I coined the insane expression ‘gnostic atheist’,”

    No.

    However, as you’ve done over the past ~6 pages, you’re now pretending a different reality from the one that is here in order to “win” an argument. One that exists solely in your diseased imagination.

    English comprehension: you fail it.

  43. #44 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #43, aha, another missive from the city on the hill (tx bro), where everything is defined, including Britain and the British language.

    If you find a contradiction, check your hypotheses. You will invariably find some of them to be wrong (tx, Rand).

    Or you could just ask.

    As to winning, there is no contest*. Void again.

    (* – read the doublespeak)

  44. #45 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “, where everything is defined, ”

    dictionary
    ˈdɪkʃ(ə)n(ə)ri/
    noun
    noun: dictionary; plural noun: dictionaries

    1.
    a book that lists the words of a language in alphabetical order and gives their meaning, or that gives the equivalent words in a different language.
    synonyms: lexicon, wordbook, glossary, vocabulary list, vocabulary, word list, wordfinder

    I realise that education isn’t your thing, but it seems astounding that you don’t think words have to be defined.

  45. #46 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    But I guess all you’re left with is histrionics, dear.

    Sad.

  46. #47 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #45, define deity.

  47. #48 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    Meanwhile, in New Zealand: “An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science” by Jim Sallinger
    -> http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science/

    Progress.

  48. #49 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#45, define deity.”

    deity
    ˈdeɪɪti,ˈdiːɪ-/
    noun
    noun: deity; plural noun: deities

    1.
    a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).

  49. #50 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/01/02/january-2014-open-thread/comment-page-6/#comment-173896

    ““There is at least one deity definition in the world whose existence is unfalsifiable.”
    It appears you and some others find it quite easy to come up with an actual definition of such a deity.
    But I haven’t seen one.”

    But now you’ve segued into “define deity”.

  50. #51 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “By ‘atheist’ I mean someone who knows there are no gods”

    Defintion:

    atheist
    ˈeɪθɪɪst/
    noun
    noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

    1.
    a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

    “For this reason ‘gnostic atheism’ is a tautology. ”

    Definition:
    agnostic
    agˈnɒstɪk/
    noun
    noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

    1.
    a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

    Definition:

    tautology
    tɔːˈtɒlədʒi/
    noun
    noun: tautology

    1.
    the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession ).

    If the words are different in meaning, then they cannot be tautological.

  51. #52 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #49, define god, goddess and gods; and God.
    Nah, not necessary, take ‘m synonyms for starters.

    Be inspired by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity .
    Stumble for a moment over your and other agnosts’ affliction:
    [wiki:] “Some faiths and traditions consider it blasphemous to imagine or depict the deity as having any concrete form.” and remove that sore remnant of religious upbringing.

    Aside: socio-psychologically a very interesting phenomenon, this ‘Thou shall not define’. Brutal authoritanianism that. ‘Thou shalt remain ignorant!’ et c.

  52. #53 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #51, then a new noun will have to be coined to denote the position ‘I know there is/are no God/deities/gods’. Remark the absence of the word ‘believe’ in this definition.

    I have no trouble with being called a logician, implying among others the above position, instead of atheist. Deal?

  53. #54 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    Looking up ‘gnostic atheist’, ‘gnostic atheism’.
    Nothing gave.
    What a sick world this is.
    “Thou shalt remain ignorant!”
    Damn do I have some guts.

  54. #55 Betula
    January 24, 2014

    Stu @14….

    “Yes Betty, it was Indiana and it ALMOST, but not quite passed. Good thing you’re here to set the record straight”

    No Stu, I was referring.to Kampens comments about fighting the Alabama board….read the comments. Good thing you’re here to make a jackass out of yourself.

    As far as Indiana…another ghost. Spending time Imagining fighting something that “ALMOST” happened over 100 years ago, but of course didn’t happen.

  55. #56 Betula
    January 24, 2014

    “Meanwhile, isn’t it odd that Betty should be so worried about getting facts straight and not repeating a false report merely because it’s been said a lot?”

    The only thing odd about it is that you think it’s odd.

  56. #57 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #55, LOL you have some imagination…

  57. #58 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    To cut another quarter century of work, remember Wittgenstein’s attempts at defining the word ‘game’. It could not be done, at least not exhaustively. Fortunately we do NOT need an exhaustive definition of ‘deity’. We only need some some attributes. ‘Sacred’ is not one of them, but apparently something like ‘supernatural’ is.

  58. #59 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    “We only need some some attributes” -> some necessary (or perceived to be necessary) attributes /erratum

  59. #60 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#49, define god, goddess and gods; and God.”

    Why?

    Already defined deity for you.

    All that got was another whine and demand.

  60. #61 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “Looking up ‘gnostic atheist’, ‘gnostic atheism’.”

    Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic – The Freethinker
    freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/‎
    25 Sep 2009 – An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, …
    Agnostic atheism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism‎
    Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic …

    Really.

  61. #62 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “The only thing odd about it is that you think it’s odd.”

    Nope, that’s not it, dear.

  62. #63 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #61, I wasn’t looking for ‘Agnostic atheism’ though was confronted with that like an epidemy when I googled ‘gnostic atheism’ (fucking GNOSTIC. Not agnostic!!). We are acquainted with that taste.
    For the find at Freethinker you have my thanks.

    #60, to rid yourself of your astonishment expressed in your #45.
    Aw, just kidding.
    No – because we have to, against all the indoctrination that dictates we’re not allowed it (authoritanianism: believing = knowing, not allowed = not possible, …).

  63. #64 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#61, I wasn’t looking for ‘Agnostic atheism’ ”

    You weren’t looking for anything, dear. You were burying your head in the sand and claiming “I see no ships!”.

    Sorry, not buying it, dear.

  64. #65 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#60, to rid yourself of your astonishment expressed in your #45.”

    Nope, you divested yourself temporarily of your insane demands that words do not have to be defined.

  65. #66 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    Wtf?? “I think I can know Pi is a transcendent number” ??
    NOOOOOOO!!!
    I KNOW Pi is a transcendent number.
    And YES this position is tenable, what say I? Unavoidable even re gods! The word ‘supernatural’ even signifies believers themselves bloody know better!

    Tssss…. the fear is big in this world :D

  66. #67 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    Wtf?? “I think I can know Pi is a transcendent number” ??

    I search on this page for the words

    “I think I can know Pi is a transcendent number”

    And the only match is your post.

    Which reality are you reading your web page on?

  67. #68 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    The first time “Pi is a transcendent” appears is in page 5.

    But not with the other words you “quoted”.

  68. #69 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #64, aha, so you think I just guessed I would be overloaded with shit about ‘agnostic atheism’ while looking for ‘gnostic atheism’. What a convoluted mind you have. But… I COULD’VE guessed. True.

    #65, a, a, a. I decided to put the burden of definition on you. The necessity of definition is, as you also see so clearly now, a Theme with capital T in dealing with deities. That, of course, I was absolutely aware of all the time.

  69. #70 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #67, you are a very sorry reader indeed. Comparisons, metaphors and similes are way out aren’t they. Let me spell it out for you once more:

    I know there are no deities in the same way I know Pi is a transcendent number. This, of course, implies I think I know, but it is NOT the same.

  70. #71 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    #54 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    Looking up ‘gnostic atheist’, ‘gnostic atheism’.
    Nothing gave

    .

    After I found something:

    #61, I wasn’t looking for ‘Agnostic atheism’ though was confronted with that like an epidemy when I googled ‘gnostic atheism’ (fucking GNOSTIC. Not agnostic!!).

    NOTE Freethinking text here: 25 Sep 2009 – An atheist gnostic is …

    Atheist gnostic….

    But, hey, maybe retardo here missed it!

    Oh, nope, not that:

    For the find at Freethinker you have my thanks.

    Oh dear.

  71. #72 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #70 (before answering, please look up the difference between ‘implies’, ‘is implied by’ and ‘ is equivalent to’, thank you)

  72. #73 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    #64, aha, so you think I just guessed I would be overloaded with shit about ‘agnostic atheism’

    Again:

    25 Sep 2009 – An atheist gnostic is …

  73. #74 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#65, a, a, a. I decided to put the burden of definition on you.”

    And I’ve defined deity as demanded.

  74. #75 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#67, you are a very sorry reader indeed. Comparisons, metaphors and similes are way out aren’t they.”

    Quotation. How does that work?

  75. #76 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #71, the phrase coined here was ‘gnostic atheism’. Of course you had to muddle that up too, but serendipity!! My search finds it as hit nr 7, yours has it nr 3 immediately below the wiki article.
    Both searches are riddeled with the pest of ignorance. E.g. the wiki-article has nothing to do in either searches.

  76. #77 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #73… a tautology. As you see, I am also above the freethinker scheme.

    #74, and killed it for me, evidencing to my point. Why don’t you consider the work done, then?

  77. #78 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#71, the phrase coined here was ‘gnostic atheism’.”

    And so I placed in the google search bar.

    It turned up atheist gnostic because a simple computer program shows more sense than you do, dear.

  78. #79 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#73… a tautology. ”

    Nope.

  79. #80 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    #77, false

    false
    fɔːls,fɒls/
    adjective
    adjective: false; comparative adjective: falser; superlative adjective: falsest

    1.
    not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
    “he was feeding false information to his customers”
    synonyms: incorrect, untrue, wrong, erroneous, fallacious, faulty, flawed, distorted, inaccurate, inexact, imprecise, invalid, unfounded; More
    untruthful, fictitious, concocted, fabricated, invented, made up, trumped up, unreal, counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, spurious, misleading, deceptive
    “he gave a false account of his movements”
    antonyms: correct, truthful
    not according with rules or law.
    “false imprisonment”
    2.
    made to imitate something in order to deceive.

  80. #81 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #78, maybe you get the same results for both searches, I don’t. Search engines might be slightly more complex than you thought.

    #79, then an atheist is an agnost and I am a logician.

  81. #82 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#78, maybe you get the same results for both searches, I don’t.”

    Given your propensity to lie, how can anyone know you’re telling the truth this once?

    Given I found it without even attempting, you seemed to be unwilling to even attempt to see whether you had a match.

    Given you refuse an answer because the words are in the opposite order, you seem unwilling to even comprehend what is in front of you.

    Given all the above, you’re going to have to prove your protestations of innocence.

  82. #83 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#79, then an atheist is an agnost and I am a logician.”

    No and therefore no.

  83. #84 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    “Finally, here’s the graph in its final form. Where do you fit?”

    Nowhere, because you decided to take away my position, Peter Brietbart.

  84. #85 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #82, you can verify.

  85. #86 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #82, “Given all the above, you’re going to have to prove your protestations of innocence.”

    The Passion of the Christ.

  86. #87 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    re #85, I did. You’re a lying sack of crap.

  87. #88 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    #86 is the final proof of Kampie’s xtian fundamentalist background.

  88. #89 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    #84.

    hallucination
    həˌluːsɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
    noun
    plural noun: hallucinations

    1.
    an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.
    “he continued to suffer from horrific hallucinations”
    synonyms: delusion, illusion, figment of the imagination, vision, apparition, mirage, chimera, fantasy, dream, daydream;

  89. #90 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #87, I’m not going to make screenprints to prove you wrong. Not worth it. Keep up the faith.

  90. #91 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    ” I’m not going to make screenprints”

    Why not?

  91. #92 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    8-#75, Lotharsson:
    “.. that the [cRR’s, crr] argument is either (a) exceedingly novel, and will electrify the field if it stands up to scrutiny or (more likely) will fail under scrutiny, or (b) not novel and failed to impress the professionals for good reason.”

    I never gave a damn, IOLO so give it a swing. But it is beginning to look like (a). Never mind who are and who are not te be considered ‘the professionals’. For all we believe I am not a professional philosopher. Therefore, we know, do we not.

  92. #93 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #91, you didn’t say ‘please’.

  93. #94 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    Meantime, it was still the only hit on ‘gnostic atheist’ or ‘atheist gnostic’ amid the epidemy of ignorance oops agnosticm.
    And it did away with it along the way. So effectively there are nil hits to be found as yet. Damn, my guts.

  94. #95 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #91, nailed the problem. ‘gnostic atheism’ yields the Freethinker result in 3rd hit, but ‘gnostic atheist’ has this link below on the page. In so far I am not innocent I concede I didn’t scroll enough. Put off by all those non-hits.

  95. #96 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “I never gave a damn”

    five pages later, pretends not to care…

  96. #97 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    “#91, nailed the problem”

    PEBKAC for you, dear?

  97. #98 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #97, sure. Experimentally verified the deity cRR does not exist.

  98. #99 cRR Kampen
    January 24, 2014

    #96, “Hmm… This is getting interesting.” thought I.

  99. #100 Wow
    January 24, 2014

    #98: hallucination
    həˌluːsɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
    noun
    plural noun: hallucinations

    1.
    an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.
    “he continued to suffer from horrific hallucinations”
    synonyms: delusion, illusion, figment of the imagination, vision, apparition, mirage, chimera, fantasy, dream, daydream;

Current ye@r *