Cliche Opening Statement

[ghoulslime]

Allighiero wrote

Strongly inferring that my arguments are counterproductive and the antithesis of reason does not refute my stance or serve as an intelligent retort. Now if you want to have a debate instead of calling me an idiot whilst your own argument is nothing more than a implicit ad hominen attack, I will gladly take you head on instead of exchanging slurs back and forth.

That your arguments are counterproductive and the antithesis of reason seems to be self-evident, in that your semantic circus has led to the rightful assumption by those participating on this thread thus far that you are an unreasonable person worthy of the most scornful slurs.

If you will recall through your self-righteous stupor, you were the first to draw the idiot sword:

Allighiero wrote

I was pretty sure the rules stated no flaming, and if they want to start a fight I will still treat them with basic respect. However, if you think that I am a "chew toy," then you should be in for a surprise. Nonetheless, my views on atheism is one other atheists and nonatheists share and I'm certainly not going to call you an idiot for your view, even if I find it idiotic- but if you and others have to do so back that is your prerogative.

You have already taken me head on, whether you are aware of it or not. I choose the format of my debate. You do not. You will simple serve as another jester in the courts of the Raving Atheists. So far, you amuse intensely!

[Tenspace]

Ghoul, do you mean head on like this?



Or, like this:

ghoulslime wrote

Swoon! Swoon! We are in the presence of greatness! Were we supposed to be impressed with three languages?

Do simple semantics trip you up in all of them?

No you are not suppose to be impressed,and if you were impressed- Then that would be speaking ill of both your intelligence and character.

I was just stating I am a non-native English speaker- But of course, you're looking far too much into these words and trying to create an imaginative but incorrect parable detailing my intentions.

Tenspace wrote

Inferred apology accepted. And yes, I do view godless religions as atheistic. Please see my previous post if you wish to continue this discourse further.

And, my apologies for not realizing English was not your primary language; you speak, or rather type it very well. However, Tenspace isn't really a word, and Teenspace could be easily construed as a lame attempt at belittlement. So, try not to hold down the "e" key too long, or you will find that that could beeeeeeeeee offeeeeeeeeeenisiveeeeeeeeeee.

The second language I learned was Latin so that may be the reason why I speak/type English well in comparison to other who like me, are non native English speakers. I will continue this in the reply to your other remarks, and I see you too touched on it, Non-Theism. I see a clear distinction between being non-theistic and being atheistic in this contemporary world, and view atheism as a non-theistic view but not an interchangeable one. So, I view Buddhism as a non-theistic religion, but not an atheistic religion.

[Tenspace]

Then what, pray tell, is the term used to describe someone who doesn't hold a religious doctrine?

[ghoulslime]

Allighiero wrote

Parodies are very fun but lets try to be more serious here so that I can take you seriously. But I guess I will play.

I have never heard of your leprechaunism, thus I currently have no opinion on your beliefs, neither belief in or a disbelief of because I have no idea what this new and wonderful religion really is. Could you list your core beliefs?

Cocksure wiseacres strutting presumptuously toward the edge of certain debasement can also be fun. What you desire to take is irrelevant to me.

Yes, you will play. You will play or be exposed at the pseudo-intellectual you seem to be. You will play and probably be exposed as the pseudo-intellectual you seem to be.

I smelled a liar with an ulterior motive from your first post.

The beliefs of Leprechaunism are sacred, and not for the faithless. You are obviously an infidel and an atheist.

Do you reject my gods? I have told you that they are real. I have many reasons why I believe them to be real. I have testified the truth of my gods unto you. Do you reject this truth?

Does your position in rejecting my gods carry the same argumentative weight as my position in postulating their existence?

(It can be a rhetorical question. You have already lost the argument.)

Tenspace wrote

Then what, pray tell, is the term used to describe someone who doesn't hold a religious doctrine?

Irreligious, which can be hostility toward religion, indifference to religion or the lack thereof. Irreligion can apply to deistic, atheistic, agnostic views or non-Practising theistic views, among many others.

[calpurnpiso]

Allighiero wrote

I have a generally apathetic or haphazard view of the various philosophies on that highly debated "Why" that we are here. I really don't adhere to any particular view and I migrate depending on what rational and/or convincing information or argument I happen to stumble across...or learn myself in. An atheist? Well there are so many definitions that the ones I most put stock in, no, not an atheist at all. I grew up without a religion- not atheist though, I didn't even know there was such thing as a god until I was 12- And ever since then I haven't known what to think. Life was so much more simple before this whole deity concept entered into my field of vision. Then again, I'm only 19- I'm allowed some time to figure this "life" thing out.

I've been through many faiths and lack thereof and I haven't yet found the quintessential representation of what I want to refer to myself as or what best resembles my beliefs, so until I do, I find its pretty unintelligent to present myself as anything given the my volatile mood and what one could call beliefs. At best, a wandering free thinker.

I can get along with the religious and irreligious well and am fortunate enough to have intelligent friends from the wide spectrum of religious, philosophical and ethical views. So, I can't say that I've been exposed much to the creationist crybabies, secular imbeciles or those few and far between. Perhaps I'm heading toward a rude awakening on this forum however one can't always expect to win the lottery every time one decides to place a bet.

Other than that, I'm a science major/ photojournalism major and its been a pleasure to introduce myself to such an interesting forum.

Hi Dante, welcome to the Forum. Without realizing you may precipitously engulfed inside the hellish empirical facts of a down to earth forum facilitated by the fact the majority of its members having balanced & healthy UWs ( Universes Within aka brains).

Here are the facts as true as 2+2=4

1) The brain is us, it is a product of 1/2 billion years of evolution due to random chances & mutations. A lucky series of accidents that resulted in matter becoming aware of its own existence. This awareness been produced by a record of instructions ( DNA) over 1/2 billion years, accumulating in the UW ( Universes Within aka brain) initiating Cognition in our evolved mutated primate brain. God/After life concepts was then invented to anesthetize
our awareness of our finality, becoming a psychopathy. The brain thus creates the mind

2) We are all born tabula rasa, IOW, lacking belief ( knowledge) ergo atheist.

3) We created god & other delusions void of reality with our brains. The acceptance of those delusions as reality has been defined by the new science of Neurology( 150 years old) as schizophrenia.

4) All religious beliefs have imaginary friends at its center, this makes people of faith DR (Deluded Retarded ) this in spite of their intelligence or education.

a)Delude because they accept irrational fairy tales as if they were true &
b) Retarded because despite this been the 21st Century with updated information constantly been available, they rather adopt deluded beliefs accepted as fact centuries ago.

"I have a generally apathetic or haphazard view of the various philosophies on that highly debated "Why" that we are here. "

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DJojahIPsyc

I suggest you read Epicurus instead of Socrates for he had, unlike Socrates & Plato whose minds floated in a world of delusions, his feet planted in the real world, knowing gods were invented by us thus irrelevant. Acquiring knowledge was our purpose.

[Tenspace]

Allighiero wrote

Irreligious, which can be hostility toward religion, indifference to religion or the lack thereof. Irreligion can apply to deistic, atheistic, agnostic views or non-Practising theistic views, among many others.

Then the (somewhat clumsy) method of addressing me would be, as an irreligionist? Funny, there's no check-box for that term on match.com.

"Hey, baby, what's your faith?"

"I'm an irreligionist."

"A what?"

"I don't believe in any deities."

"Oh, so you're an atheist."

"No, an atheist believes in the nonexistence of God or gods. I don't believe in anything. Do you put out on the first date?"

"Not with an atheist."

Tenspace wrote

Then the (somewhat clumsy) method of addressing me would be, as an irreligionist? Funny, there's no check-box for that term on match.com.

"Hey, baby, what's your faith?"

"I'm an irreligionist."

"A what?"

"I don't believe in any deities."

"Oh, so you're an atheist."

"No, an atheist believes in the nonexistence of God or gods. I don't believe in anything. Do you put out on the first date?"

"Not with an atheist."

It isn't a method, it is a qualifier. There isn't an "irreligionist" but there are irreligious theists or irreligious atheists, for example. If you want to equate this to a philosophical argument, an irreligious atheist would likely be an anti-theist. Clusmy? for a Match.Com site, sure however, luckily- We have more multiple choice options in real life. This is the problem that comes with generalisations, both good an bad- We must confine our views to one statement even when all those of that statement, may not be the same.

[ghoulslime]

Allighiero wrote

No you are not suppose to be impressed,and if you were impressed- Then that would be speaking ill of both your intelligence and character.

I was just stating I am a non-native English speaker- But of course, you're looking far too much into these words and trying to create an imaginative but incorrect parable detailing my intentions.

If I were to believe that someone were attempting to establish credentials as an intelligent person by feigning an incomplete mastery of the English language in order to affect the possible inference that some deep and refulgent mind were being restricted from complete expression due to faulty linguistics, I am not certain how this would formulate a statement bespeaking a lack of intelligence or character on my part. On the contrary, it would seem to make a profound statement on my talent for discernment.

I am in the process of learning my 7th language. While my mastery of these languages varies considerably from one to another, the one constant is my desire to use these tools as objects for communication. I manage to maintain my wit and logic, regardless of the verbal challenges I sometimes find myself in.

It is my opinion that you would be an argumentative ass and arrogant penis wrinkle regardless of the vernacular. You are free to prove this conclusion wrong.

[Tenspace]

Actually, yes, there is an irreligionist:

Webster's Unabridged leads us on this merry chase:

Irreligionist

Ir`re*li"gion*ist\, n. One who is irreligious.

Irreligious

Im"pi*ous\, a. [L. impius; pref. im- not + pius piou. See Pious.] Not pious; wanting piety; irreligious; irreverent; ungodly; profane; wanting in reverence for the Supreme Being; as, an impious deed; impious language.

And, please, keep in mind that much of what is said here, pumps like a heart through a vein of humor. Lighten up and laugh a bit, unless my previous post just wasn't that funny.

Are you disrespecting me because of my match.com account? Hmm..

[ghoulslime]

Tenspace wrote

Ghoul, do you mean head on like this?



Or, like this:

I would say this clown leans more towards the dick head headed toward a train wreck...a combination of both of these concepts.

[ghoulslime]

Tenspace wrote

Actually, yes, there is an irreligionist:

Webster's Unabridged leads us on this merry chase:

Irreligionist

Ir`re*li"gion*ist\, n. One who is irreligious.

Irreligious

Im"pi*ous\, a. [L. impius; pref. im- not + pius piou. See Pious.] Not pious; wanting piety; irreligious; irreverent; ungodly; profane; wanting in reverence for the Supreme Being; as, an impious deed; impious language.

And, please, keep in mind that much of what is said here, pumps like a heart through a vein of humor. Lighten up and laugh a bit, unless my previous post just wasn't that funny.

Are you disrespecting me because of my match.com account? Hmm..

The arrogance of this bumptious Allighiero cocksucker is astounding! The fucker thinks he is qualified to redefine the meaning of words for our edification.

Tenspace wrote

Actually, yes, there is an irreligionist:

Webster's Unabridged leads us on this merry chase:

Irreligionist

Ir`re*li"gion*ist\, n. One who is irreligious.

Irreligious

Im"pi*ous\, a. [L. impius; pref. im- not + pius piou. See Pious.] Not pious; wanting piety; irreligious; irreverent; ungodly; profane; wanting in reverence for the Supreme Being; as, an impious deed; impious language.

And, please, keep in mind that much of what is said here, pumps like a heart through a vein of humor. Lighten up and laugh a bit, unless my previous post just wasn't that funny.

Are you disrespecting me because of my match.com account? Hmm..

Well you took me a bit out of context, but yes if we go by that there is an irreligionist. I was making reference that to be an irreligionist you have to do so with some other view, as a qualifier- In which why I stated there isn't an irreligionist and why I put it in quotation marks. However in retrospect, I can see why that may have confused you- My fault for not properly explaining my statements.