(April 3, 2019 at 9:24 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Awww, didums wittle feelers get bruised and  now you're going to carry on like an idiot?

It's commonly referred to as a tantrum, or "throwing ones toys out of the pram".

(April 3, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 9:24 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Awww, didums wittle feelers get bruised and  now you're going to carry on like an idiot?

It's commonly referred to as a tantrum, or "throwing ones toys out of the pram".

Also referred to as 'pigeon chess'.

"It's like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory".

(April 3, 2019 at 6:15 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 6:00 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Waving the white flag of victory, are you?

Those are words, and yesterday you asserted words don't have meaning. Only usage. And we can't be sure of your usage. You may be recommending skin care products, or describing how to build a ladder. 

So if you want to convey a meaning, please don't use words.

(April 3, 2019 at 7:32 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 6:15 am)Belaqua Wrote: Those are words, and yesterday you asserted words don't have meaning. Only usage. And we can't be sure of your usage. You may be recommending skin care products, or describing how to build a ladder. 

So if you want to convey a meaning, please don't use words.

How childish. You are embarrassing yourself. Try getting an education.

Nope, still incomprehensible. 

Here, this video may help. Note the reference to Hamlet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRWK5I49jOs

(March 20, 2019 at 3:28 am)Catharsis Wrote: When the sun rises over the good and the bad
and the rain pours on the righteous as well as the wicked,
wouldn't you wish there's a god?

Besides all ideas about the creator being a wicked psychopath

wouldn't you wish for a loving god?

I believe in God. There is one Almighty United Love. But sometimes I wish for a god that I was raised as a child to believe in. A personal god that would come to earth and set all matters straight

(April 3, 2019 at 8:03 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: Put it this way: I personally think that atheism, to be internally consistent, implies a whole range of other positions.  But I also point out that atheists don't necessarily have to be, and often aren't, internally consistent.  The "Lackism" is the minimum requirement, the price of admission to be an atheist.  Individual atheists may not make the effort to be consistent.  Some people just want to live ordinary lives without religion, and so ignore the deeper issues involved.

Yeah, I don't think atheists have to be internally consistent or reasonable or anything like that. 

To be fair to you, this was a discussion I had earlier with some of the Pure Lackists, and I'm kind of drawing you in. They hold a pretty extreme position. 

I've been clear that I'm talking about adult atheists who were raised in a society and who are capable of language. Not rocks, lizards, children raised by wolves, or people in a persistent vegetative state. I hold that adult atheists raised in a society and capable of language have all heard and rejected religious claims. They rejected those claims according to some standard of judgment. The standards may be better (e.g. science, not revelation, gives us reliable information) or it may be worse (e.g. the nuns were mean to me). But all such atheists are atheists because they hold to some standards of judgment. That is, they have beliefs (in the sense of things they hold to be true) and they are atheists for reasons. 

The Pure Lackists deny this, say they are atheists for no reason at all, and in some cases claim that their minds are the same as when they were infants.

Rejecting your very specifically christian claims does not imply, entail, or necessitate what you think it does.  This is what they've told you, in many more ways, time and time again.

They don't believe in gods. Sure, they may think that the christian god is utter horseshit, but that's just one drop in a bucket full of gods described and potential. They don't rule out those other gods, many of them think that there's no way to do so in the first place. They're agnostic atheists, like most atheists.

What I find ironic, is that they very much take this position as a position of rational moderation. True or false, it's an attempt to be as generous to the idea as a person can be. This, ofc, is not enough, Their position is "extreme". More evidence of the fact that no matter how calmly you frame any generous negotiation of concept, a nutter will call you an extremist.

(April 3, 2019 at 5:58 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 7:32 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: How childish. You are embarrassing yourself. Try getting an education.

Nope, still incomprehensible. 

I don't get it?

He's communicating in the most basic, easy to understand English I can imagine.

What am I missing that is allegedly incomprehensible? Please explain.

(April 3, 2019 at 7:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 5:58 pm)Belaqua Wrote: Nope, still incomprehensible. 

I don't get it?

He's communicating in the most basic, easy to understand English I can imagine.

What am I missing that is allegedly incomprehensible? Please explain.

I'm teasing him.

The other day he asserted that words don't have meanings. So I'm taking him at his word, so to speak. 

To his credit, he came back later and added the essential qualifier, "intrinsic." It's true that the sounds we make and write down don't have an essential connection to their meanings. But that's not what he said at first. And of course he didn't say, "oops I was wrong to leave off the qualifier." But then, "sorry" is just a word. 

I think it's clear that he doesn't want a reasonable conversation with me. He's an insulter. So I'm just playing.

But isn't that Kyary Pamyu Pamyu video amazing? Andre Breton, you should be living at this hour!

(April 3, 2019 at 7:21 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 7:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I don't get it?

He's communicating in the most basic, easy to understand English I can imagine.

What am I missing that is allegedly incomprehensible? Please explain.

I'm teasing him.

The other day he asserted that words don't have meanings. So I'm taking him at his word, so to speak. 

To his credit, he came back later and added the essential qualifier, "intrinsic." It's true that the sounds we make and write down don't have an essential connection to their meanings. But that's not what he said at first. And of course he didn't say, "oops I was wrong to leave off the qualifier." But then, "sorry" is just a word. 

I think it's clear that he doesn't want a reasonable conversation with me. He's an insulter. So I'm just playing.

But isn't that Kyary Pamyu Pamyu video amazing? Andre Breton, you should be living at this hour!

Thanks for the explanation.

But it seems like a waste of time, since he corrected himself.