| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"A former Atheist" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2005 09:02:50 AM |
| Object: |
OT: One of my screenplays |
Mohamed Vadia: Welcome, wrestling fans! Welcome to our show. On my
right side is Chris Assaf and on my left side is Raymond Farrell. Oh,
and I am Mohamed Vadia. Welcome everyone to the Otherworldly Wrestling
Federation!
Raymond Farrell: What a great night this is going to be.
Chris Assaf: I agree with you, Ray. We have an interesting list of
matches lined up here today.
(Music from Dr. Jonathan Parker, PH.D's subliminal tape is played and
the bell rings.)
MV: Okay! Let's go to our first match.
Ring Announcer: This match is scheduled for one fall with a 10-minute
time limit. Introducing first from Auckland, New Zealand, weighing at
112 Pounds, and accompanied to the ring by Kenny, MARY GLONKA!!
CA: What a cute pooch Kenny is!
RF: ((Laughing) You want to pet him?
MV: Yeah, Right! That dog has to work.
CA: I know that. Guide dog for Mary, you know.
(Music from Bret "The Hitman" Hart plays in the background.)
RA: And her opponent, from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, he weighs in at
about 115 pounds, Dallas Hart!!!!!!
CA: Dallas Hart is a very talented kid! Emerged victorious over kids
his own age!
MV: And adults too, man!
RF: Can you imagine him being the champion?
MV: A thirteen-year-old kid as the champion?
(The bell rings)
CA: Okay, guys! The match has begun. As we all know, Mary is blind! But
she once told, she can do all things through Christ who strengthens
her.
MV: Yeah? Well......
RF: Okay, Mary and Dallas lock-up. Holding on! Mary being backed into a
corner....almost!
MV: But, she is showing some resistance. Finally, she is able to push
Dallas back, but she falls on her face in the process.
CA: Which could be dangerous for Mary. And I am about right as Dallas
returns with a stomp to the back of Mary's head.
MV: (Shaking his head) She is going to need her God for this one!
RF: Ouch! Chops to her back. That is something you don't see
everyday!
MV: Yeah! They are usually at the front.
CA: I don't think it would be a good idea to set her up for an Irish
whip.
RF: No. Dallas is pulling her to the middle of the ring. And NAILS HER
WITH A HARD RIGHT HAND!!!
CA: Mary is dazed right now.
MV: What? Don't use words I can't understand, guy!
CA: (A bit annoyed) It means, she is dizzy!
RF: It could be time for the sharpshooter.
CA: You said it. Dallas is going for it right now. Mary at this point
is trying to resist using her hands!
MV: Dallas is going to win! I am telling you right now!
RF: You could be right, Mohamed. Because he has got her turned over and
is now sitting on her lower back and tugging at her legs.
CA: It's over!
MV: I know! She taps out and IT IS OVER!!!!
(The bell rings and Bret "The Hitman" Hart's music plays)
RA: Ladies and Gentlemen, here is your winner, DALLAS HART!
CA: That sharpshooter can get you everytime.
RF: I would like to see a kid break the sharpshooter.
MV: That was one of our very interesting matches that we have lined up.
Stay tuned! We will be right back!
(The screen fades to black)
.
|
|
| User: "Milik the furious" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 07:20:25 AM |
|
|
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Nigdish the
hunchback-catechiser was standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Tegula Asterospora
Erythraeensis was standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote in
news:779fd4d1661d49688c042ea97a9eb151@soc.med.tadpoles:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com>, the
surrendered, empty-headed death-token, and usher and door
attendant, rued:
This statement is the stupidest thing I've read in a long
time.
That statement is the stupidest thing you've read in a long
time because atheism makes you stupid.
Yeah, that's it. The theist are stupid because I'm an
atheist.
On the subject of stupid atheists, do you mean "the theist is
stupid" or "the theists are stupid"? And how do you feel about
having just proved the point that atheism makes you stupid, you
stupid atheist twat?
Why do these fools keep crawling out of killfiles? I just put
them back in again.
You're a fuckwit as well.
Hypocrite!
*****-knuckle.
Hypocrite.
Atheist.
That one I wear with pride.
You wear stupidity with pride?
Stupid is believing in invisible friends. Prove to me that one exists
and I will cease my atheism immediately.
Do you want logical proof or do you want empiric proof?
Choose wisely. You are about to prove that atheism really does make you
stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ĉrchie" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 07:33:23 AM |
|
|
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone with
any sense had already left town. Yet Milik the furious was standin' in
the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Nigdish the
hunchback-catechiser was standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Tegula Asterospora
Erythraeensis was standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote in
news:779fd4d1661d49688c042ea97a9eb151@soc.med.tadpoles:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com>, the
surrendered, empty-headed death-token, and usher and door
attendant, rued:
This statement is the stupidest thing I've read in a long
time.
That statement is the stupidest thing you've read in a long
time because atheism makes you stupid.
Yeah, that's it. The theist are stupid because I'm an
atheist.
On the subject of stupid atheists, do you mean "the theist is
stupid" or "the theists are stupid"? And how do you feel about
having just proved the point that atheism makes you stupid, you
stupid atheist twat?
Why do these fools keep crawling out of killfiles? I just put
them back in again.
You're a fuckwit as well.
Hypocrite!
*****-knuckle.
Hypocrite.
Atheist.
That one I wear with pride.
You wear stupidity with pride?
Stupid is believing in invisible friends. Prove to me that one exists
and I will cease my atheism immediately.
Do you want logical proof or do you want empiric proof?
Choose wisely. You are about to prove that atheism really does make you
stupid.
I want replicable empiric proof.
The Free Online Dictionary defines "empiric" in two ways. I use it in the
second;
"2. empiric - derived from experiment and observation rather than theory.
Ĉrchie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 07:42:20 AM |
|
|
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com>, the three-cornered, diarrheal salesman,
and kitchen servant, puled:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Milik the furious was
standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Nigdish the
hunchback-catechiser was standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down,
Anyone with any sense had already left town. Yet Tegula
Asterospora Erythraeensis was standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote in
news:779fd4d1661d49688c042ea97a9eb151@soc.med.tadpoles:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com>, the
surrendered, empty-headed death-token, and usher and door
attendant, rued:
This statement is the stupidest thing I've read in a long
time.
That statement is the stupidest thing you've read in a long
time because atheism makes you stupid.
Yeah, that's it. The theist are stupid because I'm an
atheist.
On the subject of stupid atheists, do you mean "the theist is
stupid" or "the theists are stupid"? And how do you feel
about having just proved the point that atheism makes you
stupid, you stupid atheist twat?
Why do these fools keep crawling out of killfiles? I just
put them back in again.
You're a fuckwit as well.
Hypocrite!
*****-knuckle.
Hypocrite.
Atheist.
That one I wear with pride.
You wear stupidity with pride?
Stupid is believing in invisible friends. Prove to me that one
exists and I will cease my atheism immediately.
Do you want logical proof or do you want empiric proof?
Choose wisely. You are about to prove that atheism really does make
you stupid.
I want replicable empiric proof.
See? Atheism makes you fucking stupid. You want tangible proof of the
intangible. Just how fucking dumb are you atheist cunts? So, retard, just
how do you suppose one would gad about the universe and beyond seeking
empirical proof of the existance of a metaphysical X? Hmmm?
That's metaphysical, as in above or beyond physical. Your stupid attempt at
dragging the metaphysical into the physical realm has a name; two names
even. The logical fallacy of hypostatisation or reification.
HTH & HAND, you pillock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ĉrchie" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 07:57:18 AM |
|
|
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone with
any sense had already left town. Yet Kadaitcha Man was standin' in the
doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote in
news:779fd4d1661d49688c042ea97a9eb151@soc.med.tadpoles:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com>, the
surrendered, empty-headed death-token, and usher and door
attendant, rued:
This statement is the stupidest thing I've read in a long
time.
That statement is the stupidest thing you've read in a long
time because atheism makes you stupid.
Yeah, that's it. The theist are stupid because I'm an
atheist.
On the subject of stupid atheists, do you mean "the theist is
stupid" or "the theists are stupid"? And how do you feel
about having just proved the point that atheism makes you
stupid, you stupid atheist twat?
Why do these fools keep crawling out of killfiles? I just
put them back in again.
You're a fuckwit as well.
Hypocrite!
*****-knuckle.
Hypocrite.
Atheist.
That one I wear with pride.
You wear stupidity with pride?
Stupid is believing in invisible friends. Prove to me that one
exists and I will cease my atheism immediately.
Do you want logical proof or do you want empiric proof?
Choose wisely. You are about to prove that atheism really does make
you stupid.
I want replicable empiric proof.
See? Atheism makes you fucking stupid. You want tangible proof of the
intangible. Just how fucking dumb are you atheist cunts? So, retard, just
how do you suppose one would gad about the universe and beyond seeking
empirical proof of the existance of a metaphysical X? Hmmm?
That's metaphysical, as in above or beyond physical. Your stupid attempt at
dragging the metaphysical into the physical realm has a name; two names
even. The logical fallacy of hypostatisation or reification.
HTH & HAND, you pillock.
Translated - I want proof of the unprovable fraud which is "god"
Do you know of anyone who has met god? Talked with god? Been to the
afterlife and returned?
OK, I'll play your game on your terms - I will accept logical proof.
Now it is your turn to be very very careful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 08:07:11 AM |
|
|
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com>, the shabby, hopeless hairdresser, and
grain winnower, hassled:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Kadaitcha Man was
standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote in
news:779fd4d1661d49688c042ea97a9eb151@soc.med.tadpoles:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com>, the
surrendered, empty-headed death-token, and usher and door
attendant, rued:
This statement is the stupidest thing I've read in a
long time.
That statement is the stupidest thing you've read in a
long time because atheism makes you stupid.
Yeah, that's it. The theist are stupid because I'm an
atheist.
On the subject of stupid atheists, do you mean "the theist
is stupid" or "the theists are stupid"? And how do you feel
about having just proved the point that atheism makes you
stupid, you stupid atheist twat?
Why do these fools keep crawling out of killfiles? I just
put them back in again.
You're a fuckwit as well.
Hypocrite!
*****-knuckle.
Hypocrite.
Atheist.
That one I wear with pride.
You wear stupidity with pride?
Stupid is believing in invisible friends. Prove to me that one
exists and I will cease my atheism immediately.
Do you want logical proof or do you want empiric proof?
Choose wisely. You are about to prove that atheism really does make
you stupid.
I want replicable empiric proof.
See? Atheism makes you fucking stupid. You want tangible proof of the
intangible. Just how fucking dumb are you atheist cunts? So, retard,
just how do you suppose one would gad about the universe and beyond
seeking empirical proof of the existance of a metaphysical X? Hmmm?
That's metaphysical, as in above or beyond physical. Your stupid
attempt at dragging the metaphysical into the physical realm has a
name; two names even. The logical fallacy of hypostatisation or
reification.
HTH & HAND, you pillock.
Translated - I want proof of the unprovable fraud which is "god"
Do you know of anyone who has met god? Talked with god? Been to the
afterlife and returned?
I know that God is real, with 100% certainty, as a fact unquestionably
established.
Of course, you're going to want to try to put the burden of proof on me for
that, but I won't let you off so lightly. The burden of proof is on you to
show that atheism is both coherent and consistent, which it most certainly
is not. By that, you have to prove that atheism is a valid position from
which to argue anything other than your own complete stupidity.
OK, I'll play your game on your terms - I will accept logical proof.
Now it is your turn to be very very careful.
<shrug>
Atheism makes you fucking stupid. You are too pig-***** thick to realise you
were cut off at both ends of the pass. Here you are, a valid, logical proof
for the existence of a metaphysical X:
Definition 1: X is God-like iff X has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.
Definition 2: A is an essence of X iff for every property B, X has B
necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 3: X necessarily exists iff every essence of X is necessarily
exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by -- i.e., strictly implied by -- a
positive property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is
positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Your turn, fucktard. Happy flapping about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ĉrchie" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 09:09:35 AM |
|
|
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone with
any sense had already left town. Yet Kadaitcha Man was standin' in the
doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com>, the shabby, hopeless hairdresser, and
grain winnower, hassled:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Kadaitcha Man was
standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote in
news:779fd4d1661d49688c042ea97a9eb151@soc.med.tadpoles:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com>, the
surrendered, empty-headed death-token, and usher and door
attendant, rued:
This statement is the stupidest thing I've read in a
long time.
That statement is the stupidest thing you've read in a
long time because atheism makes you stupid.
Yeah, that's it. The theist are stupid because I'm an
atheist.
On the subject of stupid atheists, do you mean "the theist
is stupid" or "the theists are stupid"? And how do you feel
about having just proved the point that atheism makes you
stupid, you stupid atheist twat?
Why do these fools keep crawling out of killfiles? I just
put them back in again.
You're a fuckwit as well.
Hypocrite!
*****-knuckle.
Hypocrite.
Atheist.
That one I wear with pride.
You wear stupidity with pride?
Stupid is believing in invisible friends. Prove to me that one
exists and I will cease my atheism immediately.
Do you want logical proof or do you want empiric proof?
Choose wisely. You are about to prove that atheism really does make
you stupid.
I want replicable empiric proof.
See? Atheism makes you fucking stupid. You want tangible proof of the
intangible. Just how fucking dumb are you atheist cunts? So, retard,
just how do you suppose one would gad about the universe and beyond
seeking empirical proof of the existance of a metaphysical X? Hmmm?
That's metaphysical, as in above or beyond physical. Your stupid
attempt at dragging the metaphysical into the physical realm has a
name; two names even. The logical fallacy of hypostatisation or
reification.
HTH & HAND, you pillock.
Translated - I want proof of the unprovable fraud which is "god"
Do you know of anyone who has met god? Talked with god? Been to the
afterlife and returned?
I know that God is real, with 100% certainty, as a fact unquestionably
established.
How?
Of course, you're going to want to try to put the burden of proof on me for
that, but I won't let you off so lightly. The burden of proof is on you to
show that atheism is both coherent and consistent, which it most certainly
is not. By that, you have to prove that atheism is a valid position from
which to argue anything other than your own complete stupidity.
OK, I'll play your game on your terms - I will accept logical proof.
Now it is your turn to be very very careful.
<shrug>
Atheism makes you fucking stupid. You are too pig-***** thick to realise you
were cut off at both ends of the pass. Here you are, a valid, logical proof
for the existence of a metaphysical X:
Definition 1: X is God-like iff X has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.
An interesting definition - what does it mean?
Definition 2: A is an essence of X iff for every property B, X has B
necessarily iff A entails B.
I hope you are not talking about Vanilla Essence - B's sting you if they
smell it! Yes - B's sting you with A tail.
Definition 3: X necessarily exists iff every essence of X is necessarily
exemplified.
Huh? In other words X cannot exist if any essence of X is not exemplified?
What are those essences?
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Simple elementary mathematics - ok
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by -- i.e., strictly implied by -- a
positive property is positive.
Are we talking about ions or cations here?
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Sounds plausible
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Ipso facto
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Noooooo - I cannot accept that without explanation
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is
positive.
Does the same apply to any property Z?
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.
I accept the possibility
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
I get a feeling we are starting to go in circles
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
is an essence of that thing.
Yes -a good old-fashioned circular argument
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Yikes, it is so circular I am getting dizzy!
Your turn, fucktard. Happy flapping about.
Thems sure is a lot of purty words, pilgrim. Please define iff
And next time, don't try the circular argument. Since your logical proof
has failed, I shall continue with my atheism!
Your turn again, Wankstain. 40 love to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rchie" |
|
| Title: Re: embarrassed to be a teenager |
12 Sep 2005 09:11:33 AM |
|
|
rchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com>, whose name means "can't spell; has a
stupid name", indicted:
I'd like to autograph your bed pan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 06:14:20 PM |
|
|
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com>, the short-order, lurid flunky, and
college servant responsible for attending undergraduates, repined:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Kadaitcha Man was
standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com>, the shabby, hopeless hairdresser,
and grain winnower, hassled:
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Kadaitcha Man was
standin' in the doorway saying:
Ĉrchie, <archive23@pphotmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote in
news:779fd4d1661d49688c042ea97a9eb151@soc.med.tadpoles:
Enkidu the Atheist, <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com>, the
surrendered, empty-headed death-token, and usher and
door attendant, rued:
This statement is the stupidest thing I've read in a
long time.
That statement is the stupidest thing you've read in a
long time because atheism makes you stupid.
Yeah, that's it. The theist are stupid because I'm an
atheist.
On the subject of stupid atheists, do you mean "the
theist is stupid" or "the theists are stupid"? And how
do you feel about having just proved the point that
atheism makes you stupid, you stupid atheist twat?
Why do these fools keep crawling out of killfiles? I
just put them back in again.
You're a fuckwit as well.
Hypocrite!
*****-knuckle.
Hypocrite.
Atheist.
That one I wear with pride.
You wear stupidity with pride?
Stupid is believing in invisible friends. Prove to me that one
exists and I will cease my atheism immediately.
Do you want logical proof or do you want empiric proof?
Choose wisely. You are about to prove that atheism really does
make you stupid.
I want replicable empiric proof.
See? Atheism makes you fucking stupid. You want tangible proof of
the intangible. Just how fucking dumb are you atheist cunts? So,
retard, just how do you suppose one would gad about the universe
and beyond seeking empirical proof of the existance of a
metaphysical X? Hmmm?
That's metaphysical, as in above or beyond physical. Your stupid
attempt at dragging the metaphysical into the physical realm has a
name; two names even. The logical fallacy of hypostatisation or
reification.
HTH & HAND, you pillock.
Translated - I want proof of the unprovable fraud which is "god"
Do you know of anyone who has met god? Talked with god? Been to the
afterlife and returned?
I know that God is real, with 100% certainty, as a fact
unquestionably established.
How?
I'll tell you; Just as soon as you have established that atheism is is both
a coherent and a consistent position to discuss it from.
An interesting definition - what does it mean?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The definition is in the axioms.
Since your logical proof has failed
You do not understand even the more rudimentary terms of modal logic
therefore the logical proof fails? Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
PS: It isn't 'my' logical proof. It's by Kurt Gödel, one of the most
brilliant logical minds of the 20th century. Congratulations. You're the
first person ever to show that Gödel got the ontological argument wrong.
You'll be famous.
Your turn again, Wankstain. 40 love to me.
Ah, the sweet smell of your complete failure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 06:24:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:59:20 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
I know that God is real, with 100% certainty, as a fact
unquestionably established.
How?
I'll tell you; Just as soon as you have established that atheism is is both
a coherent and a consistent position to discuss it from.
Yet another lying moron who is too stupid to grasp that atheism is no
different than not believing in Santa Claus - and who is incapable of
understanding the concept of "put up or shut up".
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Falok the aeriferous" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 06:33:17 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee, <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:59:20 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
I know that God is real, with 100% certainty, as a fact
unquestionably established.
How?
I'll tell you; Just as soon as you have established that atheism is
is both a coherent and a consistent position to discuss it from.
Yet another lying moron who is too stupid to grasp that atheism is no
different than not believing in Santa Claus - and who is incapable of
understanding the concept of "put up or shut up".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! So, you can't establish that atheism is coherent and
consistent.
<plonk>
Try again. Your krillfile is fucked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was |
12 Sep 2005 08:27:42 PM |
|
|
Falok the aeriferous wrote:
Christopher A. Lee, <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:59:20 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
I know that God is real, with 100% certainty, as a fact
unquestionably established.
How?
I'll tell you; Just as soon as you have established that atheism is
is both a coherent and a consistent position to discuss it from.
Yet another lying moron who is too stupid to grasp that atheism is no
different than not believing in Santa Claus - and who is incapable of
understanding the concept of "put up or shut up".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! So, you can't establish that atheism is coherent and
consistent.
The atheist position is coherent and consistent: We do not believe in gods.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 09:01:00 PM |
|
|
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the snafu, gasified ape crotch, and
official recorder of events of historical unimportance, proclaimed:
Falok the aeriferous wrote:
Christopher A. Lee, <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:59:20 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
I know that God is real, with 100% certainty, as a fact
unquestionably established.
How?
I'll tell you; Just as soon as you have established that atheism is
is both a coherent and a consistent position to discuss it from.
Yet another lying moron who is too stupid to grasp that atheism is
no different than not believing in Santa Claus - and who is
incapable of understanding the concept of "put up or shut up".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! So, you can't establish that atheism is coherent
and consistent.
The atheist position is coherent and consistent: We do not believe
in gods.
How does your statement establish that atheism is both coherent and
consistent? Are people expected to have faith and just believe you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was |
12 Sep 2005 09:09:18 PM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the snafu, gasified ape crotch, and
official recorder of events of historical unimportance, proclaimed:
Falok the aeriferous wrote:
Christopher A. Lee, <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:59:20 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
I know that God is real, with 100% certainty, as a fact
unquestionably established.
How?
I'll tell you; Just as soon as you have established that atheism is
is both a coherent and a consistent position to discuss it from.
Yet another lying moron who is too stupid to grasp that atheism is
no different than not believing in Santa Claus - and who is
incapable of understanding the concept of "put up or shut up".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! So, you can't establish that atheism is coherent
and consistent.
The atheist position is coherent and consistent: We do not believe
in gods.
How does your statement establish that atheism is both coherent and
consistent? Are people expected to have faith and just believe you?
What do you mean? Am I expected to have faith and just believe that you
are coherent and consistent, simply because YOU say so?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 10:03:36 PM |
|
|
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the pigheaded, subjugated intestine,
and mercenary and gun runner, chafed:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the snafu, gasified ape
crotch, and official recorder of events of historical unimportance,
proclaimed:
The atheist position is coherent and consistent: We do not believe
in gods.
How does your statement establish that atheism is both coherent and
consistent? Are people expected to have faith and just believe you?
What do you mean?
I mean you claimed that, "The atheist position is coherent and consistent"
but you made no attempt to show that to be a correct statement. So, you
either expect people to believe it to be correct without question, vis
people should have faith that it is a correct statement, or you are
incapable of supporting your own claim and wish to avoid it. Which one is
it?
Am I expected to have faith and just believe that
you are coherent and consistent, simply because YOU say so?
Where did I ever claim that I was both coherent and consistent? No such
claim was ever made by me. Do you find it odd that, as an atheist, you might
poke fun at people whom you might claim imagine things that are not there at
all, only to imagine things that are not there at all your very self? Hmmm?
That is inconsistent, so there goes one half of your claim already.
Explain, please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was |
12 Sep 2005 10:09:34 PM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the pigheaded, subjugated intestine,
and mercenary and gun runner, chafed:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the snafu, gasified ape
crotch, and official recorder of events of historical unimportance,
proclaimed:
The atheist position is coherent and consistent: We do not believe
in gods.
How does your statement establish that atheism is both coherent and
consistent? Are people expected to have faith and just believe you?
What do you mean?
I mean you claimed that, "The atheist position is coherent and consistent"
but you made no attempt to show that to be a correct statement.
Actually, I did. It is coherent ("We do not believe in any gods.") and
it is consistent ("We really do not believe in any gods.").
So, you
either expect people to believe it to be correct without question, vis
people should have faith that it is a correct statement, or you are
incapable of supporting your own claim and wish to avoid it.
I am capable of supporting my claim.
Which one is
it?
Neither. I am capable of supporting my claim.
Am I expected to have faith and just believe that
you are coherent and consistent, simply because YOU say so?
Where did I ever claim that I was both coherent and consistent? No such
claim was ever made by me. Do you find it odd that, as an atheist, you might
poke fun at people
....I don't poke fun at anyone...
whom you might claim imagine things that are not there at
all, only to imagine things that are not there at all your very self?
I do not do that. I do not imagine things that are not there at all.
Hmmm?
That is inconsistent, so there goes one half of your claim already.
It would be, if you were correct, but you're not.
Explain, please.
I hope you listen to what I wrote. It is both coherent and consistent.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 10:47:47 PM |
|
|
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the manic, steaming door-to-door
salesman, and operator of the machine that doesnt do much, discharged:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the pigheaded, subjugated
intestine, and mercenary and gun runner, chafed:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the snafu, gasified ape
crotch, and official recorder of events of historical unimportance,
proclaimed:
The atheist position is coherent and consistent: We do not
believe in gods.
How does your statement establish that atheism is both coherent and
consistent? Are people expected to have faith and just believe you?
What do you mean?
I mean you claimed that, "The atheist position is coherent and
consistent" but you made no attempt to show that to be a correct
statement.
Actually, I did. It is coherent ("We do not believe in any gods.")
and it is consistent ("We really do not believe in any gods.").
Now, that is a restatement of a statement. Restating something over and over
does not make it true.
So, you
either expect people to believe it to be correct without question,
vis people should have faith that it is a correct statement, or you
are incapable of supporting your own claim and wish to avoid it.
I am capable of supporting my claim.
You are not, and I can prove it, however that's your problem entirely, not
mine. Now, support your claim. Show how atheism is both coherent and
consistent.
Which one is
it?
Neither. I am capable of supporting my claim.
Ok, so when are you going to do it?
Am I expected to have faith and just believe that
you are coherent and consistent, simply because YOU say so?
Where did I ever claim that I was both coherent and consistent? No
such claim was ever made by me. Do you find it odd that, as an
atheist, you might poke fun at people
...I don't poke fun at anyone...
Where did I say you did poke fun at anyone? You are imagining things that
are not there, again. Are you sure you are sane?
whom you might claim imagine things that are not there at
all, only to imagine things that are not there at all your very self?
I do not do that. I do not imagine things that are not there at all.
You have done it twice. You just forced an implication that I may have
claimed that you poke fun at people, when in fact no such thing ever
happened.
Hmmm?
That is inconsistent, so there goes one half of your claim already.
It would be, if you were correct, but you're not.
So, you imagine things that are not there twice in a row, but when I tell
you what you've done, I'm wrong, both times? Is that what you want sane
people to believe? Yes?
Explain, please.
I hope you listen to what I wrote.
I do not hear words when I read. Whose voice do you hear when you read?
It is both coherent and consistent.
Pishtosh. Complete and utter rubbish. Your claim is tantamount to one of
complete knowledge. Your knowledge must be incomplete if it is to be both
consistent and coherent.
A calculator that always produces 2 when fed 1 + 1 = is consistent. Since
the calculator cannot prove that 1 + 1 = 2, it is coherent. The proof of 1 +
1 = 2 lies outside of the calculator, not within it.
So there goes the other half of your claim. Now, read the calculator analogy
again, carefully. The proof that a metaphysical X exists (above or beyond
physical) lies outside of the physical system that you exist in. So, please
explain how you can be both coherent and consistent by claiming there is no
metaphysical X, as in by definition of your statement, "We do not believe in
any gods.", when the truth of the matter is, to prove your statement
correct, you would have to leave the physical world and enter the
metaphysical.
Do you astral travel much, atheist?
Now, here is the logical proof that your claim is neither consistent nor
coherent:
Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s is
provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable;
So is the set of proofs which use these axioms;
So is the set of provable theorems and hence;
So is P, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, P can be defined
thus P is definable.
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is false."
By Tarski, s exists since it is the solution of:
2) s iff < s > is not in P.
Thus
3) s iff < s > is not in P iff s is not provable.
Applying excluded middle, s is either true or false.
If s is false, then by 3), s is provable.
That is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by 3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
Conclusion: There are statements that are true but cannot be proved.
Corollary 1: Truth outruns provability.
Corallary 2: Knowledge is incomplete.
Corollary 3: It is inconsistent to claim "The atheist position is coherent
and consistent".
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was |
12 Sep 2005 11:32:22 PM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the manic, steaming door-to-door=
salesman, and operator of the machine that doesn=92t do much, discharge=
d:
=20
=20
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the pigheaded, subjugated
intestine, and mercenary and gun runner, chafed:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the snafu, gasified ape
crotch, and official recorder of events of historical unimportance,
proclaimed:
The atheist position is coherent and consistent: We do not
believe in gods.
How does your statement establish that atheism is both coherent and
consistent? Are people expected to have faith and just believe you?
What do you mean?
I mean you claimed that, "The atheist position is coherent and
consistent" but you made no attempt to show that to be a correct
statement.
Actually, I did. It is coherent ("We do not believe in any gods.")
and it is consistent ("We really do not believe in any gods.").
=20
=20
Now, that is a restatement of a statement. Restating something over and=
over
does not make it true.
Exactly, but, it is coherent and consistent. What, are you looking for, =
exactly?
=20
=20
So, you
either expect people to believe it to be correct without question,
vis people should have faith that it is a correct statement, or you
are incapable of supporting your own claim and wish to avoid it.
I am capable of supporting my claim.
=20
=20
You are not, and I can prove it, however that's your problem entirely, =
not=20
mine. Now, support your claim. Show how atheism is both coherent and=20
consistent.
I have already done so. Atheism is coherent ("we do not believe in any=20
gods") and it is consistent ("we do not believe in any gods.")
=20
=20
Which one is
it?
Neither. I am capable of supporting my claim.
=20
=20
Ok, so when are you going to do it?
I've done so. Twice now.
=20
=20
Am I expected to have faith and just believe that
you are coherent and consistent, simply because YOU say so?
Where did I ever claim that I was both coherent and consistent? No
such claim was ever made by me. Do you find it odd that, as an
atheist, you might poke fun at people
...I don't poke fun at anyone...
=20
=20
Where did I say you did poke fun at anyone?
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
You are imagining things that=20
are not there, again. Are you sure you are sane?
So, you never said "You might poke fun at people?" Are you sure that=20
you're the sane one here?
=20
=20
whom you might claim imagine things that are not there at
all, only to imagine things that are not there at all your very self?
I do not do that. I do not imagine things that are not there at all.
=20
=20
You have done it twice. You just forced an implication that I may have
claimed that you poke fun at people, when in fact no such thing ever=20
happened.
YOU are the one that made the "poke fun at people" claim.
=20
=20
Hmmm?
That is inconsistent, so there goes one half of your claim already.
It would be, if you were correct, but you're not.
=20
=20
So, you imagine things that are not there twice in a row,
So, I'm just making it up that you said "poke fun at people." Gotcha.
but when I tell=20
you what you've done, I'm wrong, both times?
Huh?
Is that what you want sane=20
people to believe? Yes?
I really don't know what you're talking about. You said "you might poke =
fun at people," and when I said that I don't poke fun, you went off on=20
this tangent that you never said "poke fun."
=20
=20
Explain, please.
I hope you listen to what I wrote.
=20
=20
I do not hear words when I read.=20
listen: intr. v. 2. to pay attention; heed.
[Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language,=20
Fourth Edition]
listen: v. 3: pay close attention to; give heed to; "Heed the advice of=20
the old men" [syn: heed, mind]
[Source: WordNet =AE 2.0, =A9 2003 Princeton University]
Or don't you know English?
Whose voice do you hear when you read?
I don't hear any voice when I read. "Listen" means more than hearinga=20
conversation. It can also mean "pay attention" or "understand."
=20
=20
It is both coherent and consistent.
=20
=20
Pishtosh. Complete and utter rubbish. Your claim is tantamount to one o=
f=20
complete knowledge. Your knowledge must be incomplete if it is to be bo=
th=20
consistent and coherent.
Explain.
=20
A calculator that always produces 2 when fed 1 + 1 =3D is consistent. S=
ince=20
the calculator cannot prove that 1 + 1 =3D 2, it is coherent. The proof=
of 1 +
1 =3D 2 lies outside of the calculator, not within it.
Atheism is simply the disbelief in gods, like 1+1=3D2. That is it.
=20
So there goes the other half of your claim.=20
Really? Explain.
Now, read the calculator analogy
again, carefully. The proof that a metaphysical X exists...
<snip here>
There is no proof of the metaphysical. It is irrelevant to atheism.
=20
Do you astral travel much, atheist?
What does astral travel have to do with atheism? Are you trying to=20
derail the conversation?
=20
Now, here is the logical proof that your claim is neither consistent no=
r=20
coherent:
=20
Let s =3D any sentence, thus Let s =3D "This statement is false".
And I'll stop you right here, too. This is not atheism.
<snip to>
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.=20
Who is poking fun at who now?
--=20
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
12 Sep 2005 11:44:52 PM |
|
|
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the melancholic, sneaking fraud, and
shopkeeper, extruded:
Actually, I did. It is coherent ("We do not believe in any gods.")
and it is consistent ("We really do not believe in any gods.").
Now, that is a restatement of a statement. Restating something over
and over does not make it true.
Exactly, but, it is coherent and consistent. What, are you looking
for, exactly?
I have already done so. Atheism is coherent ("we do not believe in
any gods") and it is consistent ("we do not believe in any gods.")
You seem to be stuck in a loop.
Where did I ever claim that I was both coherent and consistent? No
such claim was ever made by me. Do you find it odd that, as an
atheist, you might poke fun at people
...I don't poke fun at anyone...
Where did I say you did poke fun at anyone?
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
You have used up all your strikes, and then some.
might aux.v.
Used to indicate a possibility or probability...
Used to express possibility or probability...
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
Might - a supposition. A supposition is not a claim.
Where you said
My lips never left my mouth.
Clearly simple, coherent argumentation is beyond you. And logic? Well,
that's up in the dizzy heights of thinking, where you have no hope of ever
treading.
Rest snipped, unread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was |
13 Sep 2005 12:51:36 AM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the melancholic, sneaking fraud, and
shopkeeper, extruded:
Actually, I did. It is coherent ("We do not believe in any gods.")
and it is consistent ("We really do not believe in any gods.").
Now, that is a restatement of a statement. Restating something over
and over does not make it true.
Exactly, but, it is coherent and consistent. What, are you looking
for, exactly?
I have already done so. Atheism is coherent ("we do not believe in
any gods") and it is consistent ("we do not believe in any gods.")
You seem to be stuck in a loop.
Also known as consistency.
Where did I ever claim that I was both coherent and consistent? No
such claim was ever made by me. Do you find it odd that, as an
atheist, you might poke fun at people
...I don't poke fun at anyone...
Where did I say you did poke fun at anyone?
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
You have used up all your strikes, and then some.
might aux.v.
Used to indicate a possibility or probability...
Used to express possibility or probability...
Right, and I've shown you that there is no possibility or probability
that I do not poke fun.
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
Might - a supposition. A supposition is not a claim.
And I was showing you that "might" is wrong. I...do...NOT...poke...fun.
Where you said
My lips never left my mouth.
say v.
2. to express in words
5. to indicate; show; to give nonverbal expression to.
Clearly simple, coherent argumentation is beyond you. And logic? Well,
that's up in the dizzy heights of thinking, where you have no hope of ever
treading.
Do you honestly believe that poking fun at me is going to strengthen
your argument? I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
Rest snipped, unread.
Fine. You've shown your inability to reason or even comprehend simple
English. If you do not wish to communicate, that is up to you. Do not
expect a lucid response when you cannot even communicate.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
13 Sep 2005 12:56:41 AM |
|
|
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the close-cropped, stick-on waste of
space, and person employed to clean the lard vats, declared:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the melancholic, sneaking
fraud, and shopkeeper, extruded:
Actually, I did. It is coherent ("We do not believe in any
gods.") and it is consistent ("We really do not believe in any
gods.").
Now, that is a restatement of a statement. Restating something over
and over does not make it true.
Exactly, but, it is coherent and consistent. What, are you looking
for, exactly?
I have already done so. Atheism is coherent ("we do not believe in
any gods") and it is consistent ("we do not believe in any gods.")
You seem to be stuck in a loop.
Also known as consistency.
Where did I ever claim that I was both coherent and consistent?
No such claim was ever made by me. Do you find it odd that, as an
atheist, you might poke fun at people
...I don't poke fun at anyone...
Where did I say you did poke fun at anyone?
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
You have used up all your strikes, and then some.
might aux.v.
Used to indicate a possibility or probability...
Used to express possibility or probability...
Right, and I've shown you that there is no possibility or probability
that I do not poke fun.
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
Might - a supposition. A supposition is not a claim.
And I was showing you that "might" is wrong.
I...do...NOT...poke...fun.
Where you said
My lips never left my mouth.
say v.
2. to express in words
5. to indicate; show; to give nonverbal expression to.
Clearly simple, coherent argumentation is beyond you. And logic?
Well, that's up in the dizzy heights of thinking, where you have no
hope of ever treading.
Do you honestly believe that poking fun at me is going to strengthen
your argument? I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
Rest snipped, unread.
Fine. You've shown your inability to reason
Really, now? And who was it who snipped a logical argument because he
couldn't understand it and then stated, "It is irrelevant to atheism." Oh,
that's right. You did. FNAR!
Atheism makes you fucking stupid. You are particularly stupid. You must've
been an atheist for quite a while. Or were you born that way?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was |
13 Sep 2005 01:04:18 AM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the close-cropped, stick-on waste of
space, and person employed to clean the lard vats, declared:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the melancholic, sneaking
fraud, and shopkeeper, extruded:
Actually, I did. It is coherent ("We do not believe in any
gods.") and it is consistent ("We really do not believe in any
gods.").
Now, that is a restatement of a statement. Restating something over
and over does not make it true.
Exactly, but, it is coherent and consistent. What, are you looking
for, exactly?
I have already done so. Atheism is coherent ("we do not believe in
any gods") and it is consistent ("we do not believe in any gods.")
You seem to be stuck in a loop.
Also known as consistency.
Where did I ever claim that I was both coherent and consistent?
No such claim was ever made by me. Do you find it odd that, as an
atheist, you might poke fun at people
...I don't poke fun at anyone...
Where did I say you did poke fun at anyone?
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
You have used up all your strikes, and then some.
might aux.v.
Used to indicate a possibility or probability...
Used to express possibility or probability...
Right, and I've shown you that there is no possibility or probability
that I do not poke fun.
Where you said "you might poke fun at people."
Might - a supposition. A supposition is not a claim.
And I was showing you that "might" is wrong.
I...do...NOT...poke...fun.
Where you said
My lips never left my mouth.
say v.
2. to express in words
5. to indicate; show; to give nonverbal expression to.
Clearly simple, coherent argumentation is beyond you. And logic?
Well, that's up in the dizzy heights of thinking, where you have no
hope of ever treading.
Do you honestly believe that poking fun at me is going to strengthen
your argument? I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
Rest snipped, unread.
Fine. You've shown your inability to reason
Really, now? And who was it who snipped a logical argument because he
couldn't understand it and then stated, "It is irrelevant to atheism."
No, I understood it and it was, indeed, irrelevant to atheism. I could
say that because I understood it.
Oh,
that's right. You did. FNAR!
I'm sorry if I snip irrelevancies. Atheism is simply the lack of belief
in gods. And your FNAR shows that you are unable to communicate lucidly
because you cannot even reason... as I said above.
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
I prefer fucking smart. 8-)
However, you have yet to show how atheism makes someone stupid. Can
you, perhaps, enunciate your contentions without, y'know, foolishness?
You are particularly stupid.
Do you have an argument, or are you just posting to show that you suffer
from acatamathesia?
You must've
been an atheist for quite a while. Or were you born that way?
Yes, I was born an atheist. Do you have anything to say to this, beyond
asininity?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
13 Sep 2005 01:19:40 AM |
|
|
DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the convinced, mad dessert, and old
woman who goes about the streets gathering dog droppings to be used for
tanning leather, clamoured:
No, I understood it and it was, indeed, irrelevant to atheism.
Actually, you didn't understand it, and it is wholly relevant to atheism
since the principle it demonstrates exposes atheism for the illogical crock
of ***** that it is. That's a claim, not a statement. Here is proof for the
claim:
Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s is
provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable;
So is the set of proofs which use these axioms;
So is the set of provable theorems and hence;
So is P, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, P can be defined
thus P is definable.
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is false."
By Tarski, s exists since it is the solution of:
2) s iff < s > is not in P.
Thus
3) s iff < s > is not in P iff s is not provable.
Applying excluded middle, s is either true or false.
If s is false, then by 3), s is provable.
That is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by 3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
Conclusion: There are statements that are true but cannot be proved.
Corollary 1: Truth outruns provability.
Corallary 2: Knowledge is incomplete.
Corollary 3: It is inconsistent to claim "The atheist position is coherent
and consistent".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
13 Sep 2005 08:03:57 AM |
|
|
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s is
provable.
Time to trot out Gödel again?
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
13 Sep 2005 08:07:54 AM |
|
|
Mike Smith, <mikesmith@godisdead.com>, the motley-minded, superficial
foot-licker, and bobbin turner, orated:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s is
provable.
Time to trot out Gödel again?
The newbies need a lesson in arguing. As for you, I doubt that your modus
operandi has changed one skerrick.
<insert stupid question here>
<insert stupid statement here>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
13 Sep 2005 12:49:35 PM |
|
|
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
Mike Smith, <mikesmith@godisdead.com>, the motley-minded, superficial
foot-licker, and bobbin turner, orated:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s is
provable.
Time to trot out Gödel again?
The newbies need a lesson in arguing. As for you,
I doubt that your modus operandi has changed one
skerrick.
<insert stupid question here>
<insert stupid statement here>
Much lamer than you copying & pasting pseudo-
arguments about a "metaphysical x", I suppose.
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
13 Sep 2005 06:51:33 PM |
|
|
Mike Smith, <mikesmith@godisdead.com>, the over-active, tasselled throat
scraping, and fringe and trimmings maker, susurrated:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
Mike Smith, <mikesmith@godisdead.com>, the motley-minded, superficial
foot-licker, and bobbin turner, orated:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s
is provable.
Time to trot out Gödel again?
The newbies need a lesson in arguing. As for you,
I doubt that your modus operandi has changed one
skerrick.
<insert stupid question here>
<insert stupid statement here>
Much lamer than you copying & pasting pseudo-
arguments about a "metaphysical x", I suppose.
You messed up, Mike. You should have replaced <insert stupid statement here>
with that line.
HTH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
13 Sep 2005 11:04:00 PM |
|
|
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s
is provable.
Time to trot out Gödel again?
The newbies need a lesson in arguing. As for you,
I doubt that your modus operandi has changed one
skerrick.
<insert stupid question here>
<insert stupid statement here>
Much lamer than you copying & pasting pseudo-
arguments about a "metaphysical x", I suppose.
You messed up, Mike. You should have replaced
<insert stupid statement here> with that line.
You took care of it for me.
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATION: Fake "Dr." Chris Assaf for Busted Urinal Award (was Re: OT: One of my screenplays |
13 Sep 2005 11:10:12 PM |
|
|
Mike Smith, <mikesmith@godisdead.com>, the gluteal, insufferable farmer, and
examiner of food on sale at the markets, sobbed:
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:
Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s
is provable.
Time to trot out Gödel again?
The newbies need a lesson in arguing. As for you,
I doubt that your modus operandi has changed one
skerrick.
<insert stupid question here>
<insert stupid statement here>
Much lamer than you copying & pasting pseudo-
arguments about a "metaphysical x", I suppose.
You messed up, Mike. You should have replaced
<insert stupid statement here> with that line.
You took care of it for me.
And you did it again, you fucking dunce.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
