Common decency

[jwocky]

Well, we know about Lydiot'S "common decency". After half a dozen posts about "moral", he went all rampant when his faith was challenged and even more mailgnant in the other thread when his political candidate was challenged. Since now four posts, Lydiot has to pull the complete denial card to defend his position.

Now, a little bit math for beginners, since you spread junk:

if y= not x, tertium non datur.

That means, if you belief in y, belief actually in not x, which IS actualla belief.
You can belief God exists (x)
or you can belief God doesn't exist (y=not x)

You can't just say, God exists and doesn't exist at the same time or God exists just a little bit ... this is a digital state of existence. I mean, technically, of course, you can say everything, you delivered this logical failure already twice, but it actually only proves with mathematical certainty, you didn't understood the logic.
The funny thing aside of it is of course, that Locke and Hume ran already in the same problem. But then, you refuse to read of course the fathers of Atheism, so how would you know that? Now, in the hope, you are willign to do something for your education at least in fields, you like to discuss about, you could read Nathan the Wise (Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, 1779). Lessing was not a classic Atheist, he was more a typical but in some ways over-average wise product of the Enlightenment Era (which, if you would have read the literature about Atheism, would ring a bell now, but I guess, it doesn't). Now, the reason why I recommend that drama is, that it is a plea for religious tolerance. The protagonists are, formally, a Jew, a Muslim and a Christian, but you can in their monologs already see some of the later Atheist argumentation in it. Lessing comes to the conclusion, that by tolerating each other's beliefs as beliefs, meaning religions, we can get pass each other quite well. As soon of course if someone, usually without any knowledge from where the things he and others belief in come, claims based on logical fallacies, his belief is better, is not your "normal" competing religion but the one and only true thing (as every religion and also Atheism, because it is a religion, actually do), things get bad.
So, at this point, in questions of religion, you are for me honestly in the same drawer as some of those Bible Thumpers who try to tell me about the grace of God and hate against pagans and Muslims and Atheists but mess up even relative simple Bible passages and have never heard of for example Irenaeus of Lyon or Flavius Josephus.
You do the very same thing, you claim to know but admit at the same time you don't, but still you insist, by parroting what others told you, without the faintest attempt to do research (opposite to your claim you do, made right above your claim nobody needs that), that your belief is correct and make therefore the implicit claim all others should convert to it. Which is exactly the textbook behaviour of a religious fanatic.

[jwocky]

@Israel: Lydiot forgot to mention, that his claim this is all just claim is actually the unproven one. We have the tweets, we have the user names of those who posted those things, some of those cases (I didn't bring up all, just a few examples) were investigated by police authorities because they were open calls for murder which is a felony in itself, you can get the results of those investigation in some cases via FOIA, in the case of the "kill whitey" tweeter not yet because his murder is still under investigation, but it will come give it a little time.
Lydiot also forgot to mention the dead cops lately, shot byBLM followers ... dead bodies are obviously not worth a second thought for some people, it is not that this problem is new with Lydiot, he is quite generous with victim's lives, but lets just call a question of personal taste. It is definitively not my taste!
So, we have another liberal in denial mode running rampant on two threads and at this point, I probably could whack him with case files and he would remain in denial.

[Lydiot]

Well, we know about Lydiot'S "common decency". After half a dozen posts about "moral", he went all rampant when his faith was challenged and even more mailgnant in the other thread when his political candidate was challenged. Since now four posts, Lydiot has to pull the complete denial card to defend his position.

Now, a little bit math for beginners, since you spread junk:

if y= not x, tertium non datur.

That means, if you belief in y, belief actually in not x, which IS actualla belief.
You can belief God exists (x)
or you can belief God doesn't exist (y=not x)

You can't just say, God exists and doesn't exist at the same time or God exists just a little bit ... this is a digital state of existence. I mean, technically, of course, you can say everything, you delivered this logical failure already twice, but it actually only proves with mathematical certainty, you didn't understood the logic.

A person of faith applying logic to the topic is a bit amusing I think, but regardless of that opinion of mine you're actually missing the point of what the term "belief" actually refers to. It is an opinion. The fact that is being explained in "I believe god exists" is the belief the person has. That's the fact. The belief is the fact. Not whether or not something exists. Whether or not god exists is probably a binary issue as you point out, but that's not what Atheism refers to, it refers to the lack of a belief. So you would have to show, clearly, how the belief follows the same binary alternatives as the existence of god.

A simple way of showing that you're wrong is to ask what Israel's belief was, one week ago, about the existence of my mother. Was he a believer in her existence? Did he believe she did not exist? Or did he not believe anything about her existence at all? It's probably the last option, because it never occurred to him to consider it in the first place. He might now have a belief about it, but then again he might not. He might be undecided.

Atheism is the lack of Theism. That's all it is.

The funny thing aside of it is of course, that Locke and Hume ran already in the same problem. But then, you refuse to read of course the fathers of Atheism, so how would you know that?

I would hope you think that an argument should be evaluated on its own merits instead of resorting to an argument from authority. And 'no', they weren't the "fathers of Atheism".

Now, the reason why I recommend that drama is, that it is a plea for religious tolerance. The protagonists are, formally, a Jew, a Muslim and a Christian, but you can in their monologs already see some of the later Atheist argumentation in it. Lessing comes to the conclusion, that by tolerating each other's beliefs as beliefs, meaning religions, we can get pass each other quite well. As soon of course if someone, usually without any knowledge from where the things he and others belief in come, claims based on logical fallacies, his belief is better, is not your "normal" competing religion but the one and only true thing (as every religion and also Atheism, because it is a religion, actually do), things get bad.
So, at this point, in questions of religion, you are for me honestly in the same drawer as some of those Bible Thumpers who try to tell me about the grace of God and hate against pagans and Muslims and Atheists but mess up even relative simple Bible passages and have never heard of for example Irenaeus of Lyon or Flavius Josephus.
You do the very same thing, you claim to know but admit at the same time you don't, but still you insist, by parroting what others told you, without the faintest attempt to do research (opposite to your claim you do, made right above your claim nobody needs that), that your belief is correct and make therefore the implicit claim all others should convert to it. Which is exactly the textbook behaviour of a religious fanatic.

Well, I could say the exact same thing about you of course, and just saying it doesn't make it true.

Atheism is the lack of theism. If something is wrong it is wrong. If someone uses a logical fallacy he is possibly wrong. I'm sure you're super-tolerant of Muslims blowing themselves and others up in the name of religion, and of those flying airplanes into buildings etc. Right? Tolerance all around, because we need to respect religious beliefs... right? Somehow I doubt this is true based on your posting history.

The quicker you get into your head that Atheism means a lack of Theism the quicker you can get to talking about things that are actually more interesting. But one can note of course that there's a not insignificant amount of convenience in talking about Atheism being a Religion rather than talking about that which supposedly justifies the Religion the believer in god actually is a part of. In other words: Of course you'd rather talk about Atheists being more or less the same as people believing in god, because that way you don't have to say anything about what justifies your belief in god.

I'd call it a red herring myself.

[Lydiot]

@Israel: Lydiot forgot to mention, that his claim this is all just claim is actually the unproven one.

Sorry, but the onus should be on the person making the claim, not the other way around.

We have the tweets, we have the user names of those who posted those things,

Ok, I must confess that I skimmed through the rest of your post, so if I go back and check the tweet I will see that the tweet in question was made by a leader in the BLM movement, yes? And it was "tweet", not "tweets", right?

some of those cases (I didn't bring up all, just a few examples)

Well, we can only discuss the ones you bring up though. Like I said, the onus is on the one making the claim and the claim you made was quite big, so the evidence should be of proportional magnitude. I would have expected you to lead with the most clear evidence available, and if this is the best you've got it doesn't bode well. But I'm open to investigating other evidence if you have it.

were investigated by police authorities because they were open calls for murder which is a felony in itself, you can get the results of those investigation in some cases via FOIA, in the case of the "kill whitey" tweeter not yet because his murder is still under investigation, but it will come give it a little time.

These are leaders of BLM that are being investigated? And that have been convicted? Again, give us at least a link please.

Lydiot also forgot to mention the dead cops lately, shot byBLM followers ...

So it would be fair to call Trump a full-blown racist because his followers call Obama a n----r during a rally? Think carefully before you answer please, because you're entering into guilt-by-association territory here, and the question is if it's voluntary or not.

dead bodies are obviously not worth a second thought for some people, it is not that this problem is new with Lydiot, he is quite generous with victim's lives, but lets just call a question of personal taste. It is definitively not my taste!

You just can't help yourself from making it a personal insult though, can you? I've fucking tried to keep it civil in this thread to this point, and this is the second time you make it entirely personal.

So, we have another liberal in denial mode running rampant on two threads and at this point, I probably could whack him with case files and he would remain in denial.

Please do whack me with case files.

[jwocky]

I think, I withdraw from this thread. A malignant rampant fanatic who openly refuses to even read up on what he treis to promote here in denial mode, that is a little bit too crazy and not worth my time. Feel free to never leanr anything, Lydiot.

[Lydiot]

Self-preservation is an understandable trait.

[jwocky]

Lydiot, you embarrass yourself on a regular base. We know, you have nothing like what I would understand as "common decency", we know that already since the bomb attacks of Brussels, you had to demonstrate it again. So, what is your game? Trying to provoke me with lies, unproven claims, and hard to watch embarrassments of yourself based on your lack of knowledge and logical ineptness till I ban you ... that oyu can say "see, JWocky banned me"? I am afraid, our life expectancy is insufficient to wait for that. Unlike you, I hold on to rules, unlike you, I am a man with a quite old-fashioned sense of honour. So, the question is not whether I try to preserve myself, the point is what I try to preserve. But then, serving a community is a thing very hard to explain to someone without the faintest shred of common decency, isn't it?

[Lydiot]

So much for withdrawing from the thread. OCD is a bitch....

Lydiot, you embarrass yourself on a regular base.

I think that would be "on a regular basis."

We know, you have nothing like what I would understand as "common decency", we know that already since the bomb attacks of Brussels, you had to demonstrate it again.

Again a horrendous usage of the comma.

So, what is your game?

Soccer?

Trying to provoke me with lies, unproven claims, and hard to watch embarrassments of yourself based on your lack of knowledge and logical ineptness till I ban you ...

I see that this month's obsessive-compulsive overused word is "embarrassments".

that oyu can say "see, JWocky banned me"? I am afraid, our life expectancy is insufficient to wait for that.

Sorry, I'm not looking for you to ban me. Although it surely again would be something that would affirm that everything revolves around you.... so, sorry to disappoint you. What I say isn't said because the universe to me revolves around you, I don't think it revolves around me either.

Come to think of it, god created all of this for you though, didn't he. So your narcissism seems entirely understandable considering the other thread.....

Unlike you, I hold on to rules, unlike you, I am a man with a quite old-fashioned sense of honour. So, the question is not whether I try to preserve myself, the point is what I try to preserve. But then, serving a community is a thing very hard to explain to someone without the faintest shred of common decency, isn't it?

lol... you're just too much man...

I think there are overnight shipments of meds now in the US, since you seem to have run out of them....

....just a thought....

[jwocky]

So, I made typos, it was late. But then, your little English teacher post only shows, you read the commas, not the content. The only thing, you used content far was to rip it out of context to twist it. Well, we know, you have no "common decency" in any form and since common decency also would include some degree of honesty, how could anyone expect that from you?
So, we have rhetorical tricks, the showing off of your ego-centric mind who thinks, because I don't revere your "superior intellect", I would be after the same things you are (I am not) and all hallmarks of a deeply hurt narcissistic kid in your posts. Do you want to show off more of your short coming? Be my guest.