Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

don't talk to ozy like that. he is a trier, at least.

They were talking to you.

some people just rant around the forum because they want to get their dissatisfaction with life and their anger expressed.
not naming anybody.

It's ok. We all know you were talking about yourself.

[faye]

yeah yeah yeah. I'm done with you, troll.

see your little game? you come to a forum where you are aware that the majority of people are believers in an intelligent creator/god, then you proceed to infer that we are all fools.
if it gets too far out for your limited perspective, you make accusations of trolling.

[faye]

The rise of intelligent live is *not* an intrinsic topic when discussing the origin of the universe. They are so distantly related that it is silly to even discuss them as one thing.

so you believe intelligence is independent of mass?

[faye]

They were talking to you.

true? i didn't know.

[ozymandias]

true? i didn't know.

^

Indicates the preceeding post.

i love how you use commas here, there and all over the place.. it's almost as if you are using the same technique as you would to plant tomatoe seeds..

Immediately after a post where you hammered out a bunch of extra commas

and then there are the times when you are proved wrong.. "to YOU i MAY be wrong but blah blah bloah, that is YOUR definition of wrong, not mine.

The exact attitude you frequently, and recently take. You recently did this regarding the topic of reality, where you pretended that your subjective experiences, rather than be a part of all reality (like logic and science shows us is the case), they create a seperate reality just for you.

YOU are wrong because you believe in scientology and are prostituting your soul to it......".

This is also a parody of attitudes you consistently express. Seems clear to me...

[ozymandias]

see your little game? you come to a forum where you are aware that the majority of people are believers in an intelligent creator/god,

If you paid any attention, you would see that that is the point.

then you proceed to infer that we are all fools.

Not everyone. Just you, really.

if it gets too far out for your limited perspective, you make accusations of trolling.

I call it like I see it. You are either a deliberate troll, or an ignorant fool -- and ignorant fools would not consistently make the fallacies you make, nor attempt to set others up to fall for 'traps'.

[ozymandias]

so you believe intelligence is independent of mass?

And this is why I am done with you. I never said, nor implied that, but you are going to once again make up lies about me and pretend I said them.

[faye]

If you paid any attention, you would see that that is the point.
Not everyone. Just you, really.
I call it like I see it. You are either a deliberate troll, or an ignorant fool -- and ignorant fools would not consistently make the fallacies you make, nor attempt to set others up to fall for 'traps'.

try to expand the size of your golfball.

you can only see 2 alternatives?
i am doing research on the thinking mind of the devotees of this religion of yours, 'scientism'. you are the perfect subject for my observation and analysis of the limited capabilities of their dogma. i thank you for your contribution to my knowledge of the inadequacies of this type of indoctrination.

put me on ignore, if you have no proof of the beginning of creation or that there is no creator/god and don't like being called out on it.

[ozymandias]

try to expand the size of your golfball.

you can only see 2 alternatives?

Nope.

i am doing research on the thinking mind of the devotees of this religion of yours, 'scientism'.

You might want to look up the definition of the word 'religion' -- your trolling fails when you repeatedly use words contrary to their definitions.

you are the perfect subject for my observation and analysis of the limited capabilities of their dogma. i thank you for your contribution to my knowledge of the inadequacies of this type of indoctrination.

put me on ignore, if you have no proof of the beginning of creation or that there is no creator/god and don't like being called out on it.

HAHA. Way to pretend *that's* why I think you are a troll. I don't mind being 'called out on it', because that gives me an opportunity to correct your mistakes -- it is not up to science to disprove the claims of religion. It's up to religion to prove them. A creator does not make the origin of the universe any simpler or add any value to the discussion, so there is no point to believe in one without evidence.

[Manzareh]

Well..each to their own i guess.

[ozymandias]

Well..each to their own i guess.

Indeed.

[faye]

Nope.
You might want to look up the definition of the word 'religion' -- your trolling fails when you repeatedly use words contrary to their definitions.
HAHA. Way to pretend *that's* why I think you are a troll. I don't mind being 'called out on it', because that gives me an opportunity to correct your mistakes -- it is not up to science to disprove the claims of religion. It's up to religion to prove them. A creator does not make the origin of the universe any simpler or add any value to the discussion, so there is no point to believe in one without evidence.

HAHA..you think i am pretending.

you are unable to correct my 'mistakes' because you have no evidence that proves me wrong, about the origin of creation which also incorporates the thinking mind. i don't have the divisions that you have. that is YOUR personal choice, within your limited view of what reality is.

i am amused by your indoctrination that one has to prove things to you.
religion doesn't have to PROVE itself to you. you accept it or not.
some people choose to believe a religion, but you have a problem with that. yet you have just agreed with manzareh, 'each to his own'.
for myself, who believes in an intelligent creator, it is simple. so if you scientists feel like getting your knickers in a knot, over what reality is, go for it. whether you do or you don't makes no difference to me.

here is the definition of RELIGION. for YOU to learn.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

[faye]

Not everyone. Just you, really.
I call it like I see it. You are either a deliberate troll, or an ignorant fool -- and ignorant fools would not consistently make the fallacies you make, nor attempt
to set others up to fall for 'traps'.

lol. anything is a fallacy to you, that you don't understand, believe in, or hasn't been taught to you by your scientific/scientism conditioning.

you're paranoid that i am setting traps?

[ozymandias]

HAHA..you think i am pretending.

you are unable to correct my 'mistakes' because you have no evidence that proves me wrong,

I have corrected this statement multiple times. The fact that you refuse to understand that I am not obligated to disprove your claims is why I am done talking with you.

You are obligated to prove your claims, just as I am obligated to prove mine. Your claims are not true unless someone else disproves them. That's not even an intelligent way to hold a conversation, let alone view the world.

about the origin of creation which also incorporates the thinking mind.

Evolution and the origin of the universe are not the same topic.

i don't have the divisions that you have. that is YOUR personal choice, within your limited view of what reality is.

Yeah yeah, I'm aware you love that comment, even though it makes no sense.

i am amused by your indoctrination that one has to prove things to you.
religion doesn't have to PROVE itself to you. you accept it or not.
some people choose to believe a religion, but you have a problem with that.

No I don't. Please stop lying about what I do, and don't do.

yet you have just agreed with manzareh, 'each to his own'.

That's not exactly a new comment from me.

for myself, who believes in an intelligent creator, it is simple. so if you scientists feel like getting your knickers in a knot, over what reality is, go for it. whether you do or you don't makes no difference to me.

You are welcome to believe what you want. If you expect to convince others you are right, expect to provide some sort of evidence.

here is the definition of RELIGION. for YOU to learn.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Science investigates the cause, and possibly the nature -- but not the purpose, nor does it believe it was created by an agent or agency, superhuman or not, nor does it have devotionals, ritual observances, or a moral code related to that. Sure, a small fraction of that definition applies, but not the whole thing -- and this definition is in the minority.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

"science religion" -- nope.

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

[/quote]

Again, even this does not seem to apply.

-- let's *not* forget the rest of your definition, which you conveniently forgot to paste:

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Again, neither of these definitions apply

re·li·gion

/riˈlijən/
Noun

• The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
• Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Gee, another definition that does not apply.

Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

Doesn't sound like science to me, again.

Definition of RELIGION

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Again, none of these really apply to science or scientists. Even the scientific method is fair game for revision, if sufficient cause is given and a better system proposed. It's hard to really call something that boils down to 'the best solution to a problem that fits the evidence is considered correct until a better one comes along' as a system of beliefs, let alone 'held to with ardor and faith'.

[ozymandias]

lol. anything is a fallacy to you,

There is actually a concrete list of what is, and is not a fallacy. It's a well known term, and most fallacies are well described.

Not anything is on that list, you just tend to use some of them over and over.

that you don't understand, believe in, or hasn't been taught to you by your scientific/scientism conditioning.

Sigh. Is it time to lie about what I have said and done again? Already? You really like to do that, don't you?

you're paranoid that i am setting traps?

I would not say paranoid. That implies I am worried or concerned. As transparent as your attempts are, and as easy as they are to get out of, it's not really a concern to me.