KLOBBER wrote:WOOPWOOP! MOAR TROLLS!
Moderator: Community Team
KLOBBER wrote:WOOPWOOP! MOAR TROLLS!
KLOBBER wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:...We're not actually scared....
Not actually scared, huh? Just pretending to be scared?
b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri and the cerealsultan say this is a 450 year old argument that has been debunked. So why not post how it was debunked? It sounds like a logical premise to me, and i'm sure a refutation would be more interesting than any of the catty, spammish replies that i've heard so far. What are you two scared of?
Honibaz
Snorri1234 wrote:b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri and the cerealsultan say this is a 450 year old argument that has been debunked. So why not post how it was debunked? It sounds like a logical premise to me, and i'm sure a refutation would be more interesting than any of the catty, spammish replies that i've heard so far. What are you two scared of?
Honibaz
We're not actually scared. If you had made this thread I would've responded and it would've made for an interesting discussion.
It's just that we either mock or don't respond to such an infuriating troll. Hell, you would respond the same to prowler and his shit posts.
SultanOfSurreal wrote:b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri and the cerealsultan say this is a 450 year old argument that has been debunked. So why not post how it was debunked? It sounds like a logical premise to me, and i'm sure a refutation would be more interesting than any of the catty, spammish replies that i've heard so far. What are you two scared of?
Honibaz
klobber's troll is a clumsy example of cartesian dualism and hinges entirely on the separateness of the mind from the physical world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)
this shit was clever in 1650, not so much today
xelabale wrote:Well, you see the atheist says that in actual fact there is a dualistic plurality that...
Screw this, I LOVE FISHSTICKS! But what sauce to put on it?
Seriously though I'm kinda sad, no more klotes, no more klobberfacts, no more bullklit. I'm gonna miss it.
KLOBBER wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri and the cerealsultan say this is a 450 year old argument that has been debunked. So why not post how it was debunked? It sounds like a logical premise to me, and i'm sure a refutation would be more interesting than any of the catty, spammish replies that i've heard so far. What are you two scared of?
Honibaz
klobber's troll is a clumsy example of cartesian dualism and hinges entirely on the separateness of the mind from the physical world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)
this shit was clever in 1650, not so much today
Wrong. My post is not a "troll," it is the OP, and it makes no reference to the mind being separate from the physical world. You have committed the straw man logical fallacy.
I wrote it last week, not in 1650, and whatever "shit" you may see is coming from your consciousness, not mine.
I am the OP, you are trolling.
KLOBBER wrote:I did not posit that God was necessary for the existence of the human mind -- my original post did not even mention the human mind. You need to re-read what I actually posted in order to have a rational discussion about it, as you are engaging in pure straw-man fallacies here, up to this point, in-between your trolling and low-class vulgarities.
SultanOfSurreal wrote:...the mind is, in this sense, the non-physical part of the human brain....
KLOBBER wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:...the mind is, in this sense, the non-physical part of the human brain....
I have never seen any evidence that the mind is non-physical, nor that it is "part of the human brain." Also, since the human brain IS physical, it is illogical for you to believe that it has any non-physical part, be it the mind or any other part. Can you provide any evidence for these three strange beliefs of yours?
Also, by "non-physical," do you mean "spiritual?" Or do you mean "material," but outside the scope of physics?
KLOBBER wrote:Your explanation is your explanation, not mine.
SultanOfSurreal wrote:KLOBBER wrote:Your explanation is your explanation, not mine.
please kindly explain then what is so unique about people that only god could have created it
tia
KLOBBER wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:KLOBBER wrote:Your explanation is your explanation, not mine.
please kindly explain then what is so unique about people that only god could have created it
tia
Are you positing here that God created people, or that God created something in people? I did not posit any such thing. Seriously, dude, read my OP before attempting to comment on it. So far, from your end, it's straw-man, straw-man, straw-man, right down the line.
My OP does NOT mention the concept of "creation" at all. Are you a creationist?
KLOBBER wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:KLOBBER wrote:Your explanation is your explanation, not mine.
please kindly explain then what is so unique about people that only god could have created it
tia
Are you positing here that God created people, or that God created something in people? I did not posit any such thing. Seriously, dude,
Snorri1234 wrote:KLOBBER wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:KLOBBER wrote:Your explanation is your explanation, not mine.
please kindly explain then what is so unique about people that only god could have created it
tia
Are you positing here that God created people, or that God created something in people? I did not posit any such thing. Seriously, dude,
Actually, you did. According to you God is the source for life.
KLOBBER wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:KLOBBER wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:KLOBBER wrote:Your explanation is your explanation, not mine.
please kindly explain then what is so unique about people that only god could have created it
tia
Are you positing here that God created people, or that God created something in people? I did not posit any such thing. Seriously, dude,
Actually, you did. According to you God is the source for life.
Aha! An actual (somewhat)accurate paraphrase -- congratulations, you have finally graduated from pure straw-man fallacies mixed with ignorant trolling and low-class vulgarities to the beginning of an actual debate!
According to God, not according to me, He is the source of all other life, yes.
A source is not necessarily a creator, however -- to assume so is illogical, and it also shows that the concept of creation is foremost in your consciousness, as I did not mention it at all, but you injected the concept into this conversation independently. In that sense, you are a creationist.
I can easily explain the difference between the concept of sourcing and creating, if you actually need me to.
KLOBBER wrote:Too bad. You're back in low-class, vulgar, straw-man land, and I'm beginning to lose hope for the possibility of you ever debating intelligently. I was honestly trying to help you, but some individuals are simply hopeless. This is obviously the case with you.
SultanOfSurreal wrote:so are you saying god just ate some mexican food that didn't agree with him one night and shat adam and eve out the next morning
SultanOfSurreal wrote:ohhhh i get it
he jerked us off into existence, right
Users browsing this forum: No registered users