Mommmyyyyy Stranger Danger. The man on the funny trike is (voice fades as I run up the street.)
Chillax, MonkeyBoy! He didn’t offer you a
Yes it can be frustrating, especially when after weeks of dishonesty evading posts he becomes enraged at any suggestion he is being anything less than honest, otten involving glaring hypocrisy.
Maybe he genuinely doesn’t see it, but I have to say that would be some achievement.
He hasn’t had a cherry in decades
but I have this bald spot where all the hair has been worn away.
I think he sees it and I think he is dishonest. Even if he didn’t see it, I was not the only one calling him on his bullshit assumptions. Repeatedly, in numerous ways, he was confronted with the false nature of his assertions and criticized for his misuse of quotations and misleading statements. Based on the sophistication (syntactically) of his writing, I presumed he possessed sufficient intellect to fully comprehend the information conveyed to him, and then chose to ignore it. He ignored it to push forward his own agenda. IMO - He was a troll.
Was that a proposal? And, how did he know I had a monkey face? I thought that was a secret. Fuck! No one on this site can keep a damn secret. No wonder we have such troubles in the Atheist club.
Regarding the Movie Clip:
The scene is very real and the person narrating probably isn’t far from the truth, at least for some patients. Disturbing? How so. We in America send our old, senile, and infirmed, to places exactly like this. We call them convalescent hospitals or nursing homes. What they really are, are places where people go to die. I had that exact patient but for one exception. The patient I cared for could speak. He had diabetes, and they removed his legs, segments at a time, over the course of 2 years. His arms were already gone when I began his care. But I was there for the removal of his testicles. I watched him rot away and listened to his pleas for two years. “Let me die.” Do you think it is disturbing? I’m telling you it is real. (I’ve not seen the movie. This specific scene is very accurate.) It is one of my biggest reasons for being a supporter of assisted suicide. (I have been in this room. I have been there with this patient. I have even seen nurses like the one in the movie who would have done what this nurse did, if they thought it would not destroy their own lives. In ways, you can’t imagine. (I almost said ‘horrible’ in that last sentence. But it is not horrible. It “IS” how people die." It is a fact. It is a fact that has been tucked away and hidden from the population as a whole. Unless you have experience in the medical profession, or perhaps in war, you have been sheltered from the truth of death in our culture. My understanding of death has provided me with nothing but benefits. Carlos Casteneda asserted, ‘Death is our eternal companion. It is always at arm’s length, just over our left shoulder, and behind us. Death is the only wise adviser that a warrior has. In times of despair, when everything seems spiraling out of control and demise is imminent, he confronts death itself and inquires if such a fate is inescapable. Death will tell him he is wrong, and that nothing really matters outside its touch. Death will tell him, I haven’t touched you yet.’ (But I have no interest in spiritual things… so this means nothing to me.) The fact is, we are all dying. There is nothing more liberating than this knowledge. All the spiritual woo-woo aside. I can now live my life, or sit by and wait for death’s touch. I have chosen to live. When I am being chopped up by the doctors and suffering at death’s door. I want to know that I have lived a good life.
Indeed, but then no one has called you a liar just because they disagree with you, they are offering compellingly evidenced that you have lied or been dishonest, and what strikes me as childish or immature here, is to ignore that evidence, and refuse to address it or the accusations honestly. Instead resort to faux indignation, with angry denunciations of the person(s) making the claim. This is also of course the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy, where you attack the person, in order to avoid addressing what they’ve said.
For example of the kind of dishonesty we’re talking about:
So firstly not one word there demonstrates or even suggests anti-theism, which is defined as opposition to belief in the existence of a god or gods. What is doubly dishonest is that you have gone from a single remark, to a sweeping comment about the entire site.
The there is this:
My response says it all, and you don’t even attempt to evidence that sweeping and dishonest straw man, since disbelieving the claims in the gospel myths, does not equate to a claim they are false. A fallacy in informal logic you seem happy to repeat and ignore it when it is pointed out to you, as of course is what @TheMagus points out above.
So this is again is a sweeping straw man fallacy, and again you don’t even pretend to evidence this dishonest and sweeping claim, and again it is based on the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, since not being able to prove only the natural exists or that the supernatural does not, does not in any way lend any rational credence to the existence of the supernatural.
Until the supernatural is demonstrated as possible, or demonstrated to have occurred or exists, then it is perfectly rationally to withhold belief from it, and one need not disprove the claims or offer any contrary explanations to it.
As fellow enthusiasts of the darker, more imaginative aspects of life, like horror literature and morbid art, do you also find that these interests offer a unique freedom and creativity, distinct from the superstitious beliefs we’ve left behind?
For the record, chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys.
Is Bullwinkle still able to read the posts on this site? If so this might help scrape some of that egg from his chops:
Be careful what you wish for…
I woud like to point out… "We actually can demonstrate the “Gospels,” in the form we accept them today, are very different from the “Gospels.” of those written, or that were around, in the 4th century. Multiple authors have altered the Gospels from what our first records show.
Here are 16 verses not included in our Modern version of the gospels.
Matthew 17:21, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” ( The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in (original handwriting), some Italic, Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopic manuscripts. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient
Matthew 18:11, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” (This verse is lacking in B, L (original handwriting) some old Italic, Syriac, Coptic and Georgian manuscripts, and such ancient sources as the Apostolic Canons, Eusebius, Jerome, and others.
Matthew 23:14, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” (This verse is lacking altogether in B,D,L,Z,θ, ƒ1, Ethiopic, Armenian, several Italic, and Syrian and Coptic manuscripts, and the writings of several early Church Fathers. It appears before verse 13 in K,W, and several New Testament minuscules. It appears after verse 13 in ƒ13, some Italic and Syriac and Coptic manuscripts. The fact that it is absent from the most ancient sources of multiple text types and that the sources that do contain the verse disagree about its placement.
Mark 7:16, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” (This verse here is lacking in B,L,Δ (original handwriting), some Coptic mss. It is included in manuscripts only slightly less ancient.
READ THE REST ON YOUR OWN. THIS BARELY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE
So what in the hell do the theists mean when they make ignorant comments like “We can’t prove the gospels false?” Of course, we can. We can clearly demonstrate that if there ever was an original gospel, “YOU DON’T HAVE IT.” Therefore, anything you do have is by its very nature “FALSE.” We can show you the additions, the changes, the contradictions, and the errors made over the centuries. We can tell you how the Bibles of today, all 3030 versions, were written. We know how and why KJ wrote his bible and upon what it was based. How can you even make such a statement as “We can not prove the Gosples to be false?” Of course, we can. (That does not imply the stories they reference are false. Though one must admit, the stories look mostly to be mythical. Rather, one must admit that the writers and compilers wrote false things. This is demonstrable.)