(December 5, 2012 at 8:23 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm not an atheist.

Ie, I am no convinced of the claim that "God does not exist".

My position is closer to agnosticism.

Thanks for clearing that one, though I'll take it with a grain of salt.

I just read your introduction thread right now and it seems to affirm your statement above as well:

(August 29, 2012 at 5:04 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You see I'm a skeptic. And it's hard being a skeptic in such a traditional family as mine [...]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14499.html

(December 5, 2012 at 7:49 pm)apophenia Wrote:
For what it's worth, though there is no rule about it, I think it as improper for you to create a thread about yourself, likely for the reason of manipulating opinions about you, just as I think it was improper for TGAC to create a thread with the identical aim, to manipulate people's opinions about you (and Greneknight before him). That you feel no shame at all in this is simply one more character flaw that I will add to the list.

I suppose, as with anyone, whether they find you personally, religiously, or otherwise offensive depends in large part about what that person specifically values. Being among atheists, you'll find some common values, including the value of empirical inquiry, honesty and rationality. Perhaps that's why they and I get along. As a result of my childhood and my uniqueness as an individual, I value three things above all others: truth, honesty, and good thinking. You, for your part, manage to offend all three of my gods. Be that as it may, you are so pathetically bad at it, I find it hard to give a rat's ass about you. I'll certainly take advantage of when opportunity shines upon me to swoop in and skewer your bullshit, but it has nothing to do with hate. If anything, it's simply good sport.

I think perhaps many are upset that you have adopted a persona which, in its presentation, aims to deceive. While I certainly have concerns about that, it's not something I find myself willing to get all worked up about. Yes, there is the potential for harm anytime when deceit is involved, but somehow I'm not too worried here. Nor am I necessarily comfortable with the real possibility that I might treat your choices in creating your persona differently than I would my own, simply because some of those choices push on my hot buttons. (For what it's worth, I have personas on the net which bear little resemblance to my real life persona — assuming there is one — including on one forum where I adopt the persona of Travis Bickle, the murdering psychopath from Taxi Driver [maybe that's not as big a stretch for me after all]).

I can't say I've hashed all these questions out, but at the end of the day, I imagine the most common response is, "I smell a rat."

And that makes people uncomfortable. Perhaps for good reason. Not sure I'm suggesting anything, but if you are dissembling, perhaps you will find greater acceptance by dropping the mask.

Course, you'll likely still be viewed as an illogical and moronic fucktard, but then I doubt this persona of yours is helping in that regard anyway.


(ETA: It also occurs to me that this is very strange behavior for someone who until recently was rather inactive on the forum. I don't like coincidences. They make my spidey sense tingles.)

It has been clear for quite some time that I'm not concerned with peoples' opinions. You understand that.

To that end, I started this thread because I want to adjust my approach to the people here. Out of my own volition. I've been quite harsh lately. To that end, I've decided to mellow out, and give people what they want:

Accepting criticism. Engaging in good faith. Being serious. Listening to people saying absurd things and not screwing with them. No mockery, no sarcasm, no memes.

People want this, and I will give it. At least a little, in the interest of good faith engagement, the least of which I owe to people here who I have found likable and refreshing.

For this I feel no shame. And for this, I don't mind going on your naughty list. Although in the interest of full disclosure, my experiences of reading your posts over time have somewhat made me want, if only a smidge, to be on your nice list. But that's not a very significant amount of care by any means and you should pretend it doesn't exist.

Now you also said I insulted all three of your gods. And truth be told, there is a sting to that for me.

But my God is rationality. And for me to enter an arena where gods are routinely smashed, yet to attempt to preserve yours simply because of your charm, and that intellectually and linguistically ticklish username you sport smacks of irrationality. Why is your god any more special than that of the Christian, at who we chafe? The Muslim, at whom we moan? The Jew, who we jeer?

We are in a world where gods are trampled, and that is clear to see. So this puts me in a situation most unfortunate with your three.

I've already spent more time writing this post than I have any other. I'll answer the rest later.

Ciao amico mio.

---

(December 5, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 8:23 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm not an atheist.

Ie, I am no convinced of the claim that "God does not exist".

My position is closer to agnosticism.

To feed or not to feed? Must...resist urge...to...agh, forget it. Atheism is not the claim that god does not exist, but the rejection of the claim that he does, thus taking the default position.

I reject this position on philosophical grounds. I have good reasons for doing so that I am more than willing to expound on in another thread.

Needless to say, I see no stock in the claim of a default position and I can prove, quite empirically that a default position is internally incoherent.

You should drop it if you care about being rational.

---

(December 5, 2012 at 8:37 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 8:23 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm not an atheist.

Ie, I am no convinced of the claim that "God does not exist".

My position is closer to agnosticism.

Thanks for clearing that one, though I'll take it with a grain of salt.

I just read your introduction thread right now and it seems to affirm your statement above as well:

(August 29, 2012 at 5:04 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You see I'm a skeptic. And it's hard being a skeptic in such a traditional family as mine [...]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14499.html

I would be offended if you didn't take it with a grain of salt.

You've been cool to me. And regardless of how cold, calculated, (ir)rational, and trolltastic you may perceive me to be, I genuinely appreciate that, not least because I'm running rampant on your forum here, offending, hurting, tweaking nipples and hurting bums. I realize the urge to ban burns in you like a fire and it takes a lot of self-control to talk to me without wanting to snap my neck and defecate down my throat.

That being said, and in the interests on being cool to someone who is cool to me, please, take everything I say with a grain of salt.

If not for the skepticism, than for the flavor.

(December 5, 2012 at 8:47 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I reject this position on philosophical grounds. I have good reasons for doing so that I am more than willing to expound on in another thread.

Needless to say, I see no stock in the claim of a default position and I can prove, quite empirically that a default position is internally incoherent.

You should drop it if you care about being rational.

Philisophical? Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist, who says that they cannot know for certain whether or not any god exists, but that it is more likely that none do.

(December 5, 2012 at 8:55 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 8:47 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I reject this position on philosophical grounds. I have good reasons for doing so that I am more than willing to expound on in another thread.

Needless to say, I see no stock in the claim of a default position and I can prove, quite empirically that a default position is internally incoherent.

You should drop it if you care about being rational.

Philisophical? Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist, who says that they cannot know for certain whether or not any god exists, but that it is more likely that none do.

We just saw two definitions of atheism come up between you and me. I gave you a reason to be skeptical of your definition.

Therefore, you have a reason to be skeptical of your claim that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Neither of us want to butt heads over definitions here, but trust me on this. The popular definition of atheism is not the same as the historical and academic definition of atheism. The popular definition of atheism is merely the result of atheists chafing under the burden of proof of "Belief that God does not exist".

The redefinition is a rhetorical ploy. It might help you win arguments, but it won't help you get a full and proper picture of atheism.

I don't like you, it's as simple as that. But do I want you to disappear? No.
When you break the rules, I'll (or someone else will) wield the banhammer on you, otherwise, carry on being an annoying guido, unfortunately is not against the rules yet

I'm gonna say ban his ass just so we don't have to fret about whether or not to feed he damn troll anymore.

(December 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

I'm gonna say ban his ass just so we don't have to fret about whether or not to feed he damn troll anymore.

Nip slip troll has spoken.

---

(December 5, 2012 at 9:46 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: I don't like you, it's as simple as that. But do I want you to disappear? No.
When you break the rules, I'll (or someone else will) wield the banhammer on you, otherwise, carry on being an annoying guido, unfortunately is not against the rules yet

There is a significant contingent of people here who want me banned.

But they won't admit it because it looks bad to say "Yeah I want you to ban him."

But trust me, it will very likely reach 51%.

There is no reason for you not to change the rules and wield dat hammer.

There is only one person I'll truly miss on this forum anyway, and I can't even say her name.

Vinnie, I have to level with you bro, you're not interesting and your shtick is really repetitive.

Quote:The contents of this message are hidden because Vincenzo "Vinny" G. is on your ignore list.

Boring. And all your posts say that.

(December 5, 2012 at 10:12 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Vinnie, I have to level with you bro, you're not interesting and your shtick is really repetitive.

Quote:The contents of this message are hidden because Vincenzo "Vinny" G. is on your ignore list.

Boring. And all your posts say that.

Thank you for reminding me that there is something called "ignore list".