Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

No, emjay, you perhaps did not read far enough into the law.  The law states that it extends to prohibiting members from insulting newbies in other portions of the forum as well...x

Where does it state that then, or what, exactly does it state?

emjay, I will have to attempt to regress into the past of my thread and find a little tiny :   here  which appears as a blue link in a reply from Kit. So while I have to figure out a polite way to reply to the radio personality person, who is approaching me via insult, with which I am overdosed , I believe it best to ignore his shit for the time being, and, in an attempt to teach myself to step aside from the good old presentation of one's self to me via insulting me,  I have, now, to fail to respond to the insult-laden query, and, thereby stay out of further problems with the inauthoritative authorities acting inauthoritatively aganist me here on the forum, and, yet ,are well able to , unethically, shame me unjustifiably;-- I best not, at this time, engage some radio dude who proceeds via insult, because, I could get supra-upset, and, take the wrong tack in a reply to some nauseating  spectacularistically-oriented horseshit or other.
If we could ever get back to shiggles via Platonic dialogical dialectic, he could, if  he has the brains and the ability to go up against someone who has essentially, via reason, prevailed in all engagements with Jormungandr , Abaddon-Ire, Vulcanlogician, and others,  join in on a future dialogic, but, until we resolve my anger over being punished by corrupt and inauthoritative authority, the radio personality will not, ever, have a chance to rattle my cage dialogically.  Negatio

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you radically free to stop bitching, yet?

[LastPoet]

The guy is a robot or something? Because you can see the sheer terror on forumbot mangled form. Some staff members do not like bots.

[emjay]

Where does it state that then, or what, exactly does it state?

emjay, I will have to attempt to regress into the past of my thread and find a little tiny :   here  which appears as a blue link in a reply from Kit. So while I have to figure out a polite way to reply to the radio personality person, who is approaching me via insult, with which I am overdosed , I believe it best to ignore his shit for the time being, and, in an attempt to teach myself to step aside from the good old presentation of one's self to me via insulting me,  I have, now, to fail to respond to the insult-laden query, and, thereby stay out of further problems with the inauthoritative authorities acting inauthoritatively aganist me here on the forum, and, yet ,are well able to , unethically, shame me unjustifiably;-- I best not, at this time, engage some radio dude who proceeds via insult, because, I could get supra-upset, and, take the wrong tack in a reply to some nauseating  spectacularistically-oriented horseshit or other.
If we could ever get back to shiggles via Platonic dialogical dialectic, he could, if  he has the brains and the ability to go up against someone who has essentially, via reason, prevailed in all engagements with Jormungandr , Abaddon-Ire, Vulcanlogician, and others,  join in on a future dialogic, but, until we resolve my anger over being punished by corrupt and inauthoritative authority, the radio personality will not, ever, have a chance to rattle my cage dialogically.  Negatio

Okay, that's post #682 from Kit, linking to the rules for the Introductions forum:

Whilst we are generally lenient with insulting language / rudeness in other forums, this kind of behaviour is explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum. Please welcome new members to the community in a nice manner, or refrain from welcoming them at all.

Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums. Please try to be welcoming and friendly at all times, even if a member is disagreeing with you. Rather than engaging with obvious spammers and trolls, please report them to the staff and let us take care of them.

The second paragraph is an ideal situation but it's not a rule, indicated by the fact that the first paragraph says its explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum; it would not need to say that, nor would it make sense to, if it was explicitly disallowed everywhere. What it says is that elsewhere there is general leniency about it, which means that staff only take action against it if it crosses the line into trolling, flaming etc. Basically, this forum has three levels; 1) the Introductions forum where members are explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting, 2) most of the rest of the forum where members are not explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting but are encouraged not to be and would be punished if it went too far in the sense of devolving into persistent trolling/flaming etc, and 3) R'lyeh, the area of the forum where the gloves come off and are allowed to come off, ie the rules on flaming are relaxed. Here are the rules for the R'lyeh forum:

Every rule is still in place, with the exception of the "Flaming" rule, which is more relaxed. As long as large flame wars do not occur, no staff action will be taken against people flaming in this forum.

[negatio]

Meh, who cares about all that.  His argument was and remains trash.  That's the real sin.

Well I have to reserve judgement on that, but I hope he will at some point engage you on the argument, rather than you two head-butting forever after. But whether or not the argument's any good, I just hope he can be accepted here as not a troll. So it's two separate issues for me; the argument and the person.

To Khemikal c/o emjay:  Like I have, previously, repeatedly, said to you Khemikal, if you have, via rational reason, written a viable anti-thesis to my position(s), by all means, submit said intelligible reasoning to the world.

Merely continuously going on and on and on with mere assertions regarding my OP, is incorrect. You must posit reason against Spinoza 's dictum; you need destroy Spinoza's dictum; and, if you are capable of that, you can demonstrate my position to be trash, until then, you are clearly merely blowing hot air on a day in Kentucky that is already too hot !

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually..I "mustn't"...that's what it means for something to be a non sequitur.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, it won't lead to the desired conclusion.  Pretty sure this has already been discussed, but lemme give you a great example.

John is a human, therefore john likes spinach flavored ice cream.

Do I really have to establish that john isn't human to doubt whether or not he likes spinach flavored icecream, or..even more pedantically..do I have to accept that even if he does, it's because he's human?  

In the same vein, regardless of whether or not your position on human determination is true..it won't actually establish that god was unfamiliar with something.  If you want to establish that...and you do because that's the turn of your argument..no amount of reasserting your position on human determination will be capable of doing that..and no one has any responsibility to establish the truth or falsehood of that irrelevance. In this case it's fairly easy to show that your assertion regarding human determination is not true as you've stated it. It's just as easy, unfortunately, to show that the character in magic book shares your dim view of the ability of law when it comes to the same.

That's why we had to tie a jew to a post and kill him, member?

[negatio]

emjay, I will have to attempt to regress into the past of my thread and find a little tiny :   here  which appears as a blue link in a reply from Kit. So while I have to figure out a polite way to reply to the radio personality person, who is approaching me via insult, with which I am overdosed , I believe it best to ignore his shit for the time being, and, in an attempt to teach myself to step aside from the good old presentation of one's self to me via insulting me,  I have, now, to fail to respond to the insult-laden query, and, thereby stay out of further problems with the inauthoritative authorities acting inauthoritatively aganist me here on the forum, and, yet ,are well able to , unethically, shame me unjustifiably;-- I best not, at this time, engage some radio dude who proceeds via insult, because, I could get supra-upset, and, take the wrong tack in a reply to some nauseating  spectacularistically-oriented horseshit or other.
If we could ever get back to shiggles via Platonic dialogical dialectic, he could, if  he has the brains and the ability to go up against someone who has essentially, via reason, prevailed in all engagements with Jormungandr , Abaddon-Ire, Vulcanlogician, and others,  join in on a future dialogic, but, until we resolve my anger over being punished by corrupt and inauthoritative authority, the radio personality will not, ever, have a chance to rattle my cage dialogically.  Negatio

Okay, that's post #682 from Kit, linking to the rules for the Introductions forum:

Whilst we are generally lenient with insulting language / rudeness in other forums, this kind of behaviour is explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum. Please welcome new members to the community in a nice manner, or refrain from welcoming them at all.

Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums. Please try to be welcoming and friendly at all times, even if a member is disagreeing with you. Rather than engaging with obvious spammers and trolls, please report them to the staff and let us take care of them.

The second paragraph is an ideal situation but it's not a rule, indicated by the fact that the first paragraph says its explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum; it would not need to say that, nor would it make sense to, if it was explicitly disallowed everywhere. What it says is that elsewhere there is general leniency about it, which means that staff only take action against it if it crosses the line into trolling, flaming etc. Basically, this forum has three levels; 1) the Introductions forum where members are explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting, 2) most of the rest of the forum where members are not explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting but are encouraged not to be and would be punished if it went too far in the sense of devolving into persistent trolling/flaming etc, and 3) R'lyeh, the area of the forum where the gloves come off and are allowed to come off, ie the rules on flaming are relaxed. Here are the rules for the R'lyeh forum:

Every rule is still in place, with the exception of the "Flaming" rule, which is more relaxed. As long as large flame wars do not occur, no staff action will be taken against people flaming in this forum.

Emjay 
The statement which you maintain is not a rule is, indeed, a rule.  The statement appears within the parameters of a language of Forum rules.  The auteurs did not pause to inform us the second sentence is not a rule.  The second sentence is a rule, because the subordinate portion thereof prescribes members must refer suspected spammers and trollers to staff; so the fragment of concern to us now, stands between two explicitly enunciated rules, and cannot therefore be characterized as not a part of the forum rules.  The declaration is a rule which is telling us members do not have carte blanche to conduct themselves in an insulting manner in any sector of the forum.  Negatio

[Bob Kelso]

Are you actually mentally challenged or something? I’m truly wondering at this point, not even jokingly. You have both mods and long standing members telling you what is, and what isn’t, a rule in the forums.

Yet you’re still arguing. As if we don’t know what’s acceptable in our own stomping grounds. Jesus Christ, dude.

[emjay]

Okay, that's post #682 from Kit, linking to the rules for the Introductions forum:


The second paragraph is an ideal situation but it's not a rule, indicated by the fact that the first paragraph says its explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum; it would not need to say that, nor would it make sense to, if it was explicitly disallowed everywhere. What it says is that elsewhere there is general leniency about it, which means that staff only take action against it if it crosses the line into trolling, flaming etc. Basically, this forum has three levels; 1) the Introductions forum where members are explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting, 2) most of the rest of the forum where members are not explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting but are encouraged not to be and would be punished if it went too far in the sense of devolving into persistent trolling/flaming etc, and 3) R'lyeh, the area of the forum where the gloves come off and are allowed to come off, ie the rules on flaming are relaxed. Here are the rules for the R'lyeh forum:

Emjay 
The statement which you maintain is not a rule is, indeed, a rule.  The statement appears within the parameters of a language of Forum rules.  The auteurs did not pause to inform us the second sentence is not a rule.  The second sentence is a rule, because the subordinate portion thereof prescribes members must refer suspected spammers and trollers to staff; so the fragment of concern to us now, stands between two explicitly enunciated rules, and cannot therefore be characterized as not a part of the forum rules.  The declaration is a rule which is telling us members do not have carte blanche to conduct themselves in an insulting manner in any sector of the forum.  Negatio

Okay well I guess you should just clarify with the staff... those who actually wrote the rules... what exactly that rule means. But I still think it's what I said, but will obviously accept correction if it is otherwise.

[Losty]

Okay, that's post #682 from Kit, linking to the rules for the Introductions forum:


The second paragraph is an ideal situation but it's not a rule, indicated by the fact that the first paragraph says its explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum; it would not need to say that, nor would it make sense to, if it was explicitly disallowed everywhere. What it says is that elsewhere there is general leniency about it, which means that staff only take action against it if it crosses the line into trolling, flaming etc. Basically, this forum has three levels; 1) the Introductions forum where members are explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting, 2) most of the rest of the forum where members are not explicitly disallowed to be rude/insulting but are encouraged not to be and would be punished if it went too far in the sense of devolving into persistent trolling/flaming etc, and 3) R'lyeh, the area of the forum where the gloves come off and are allowed to come off, ie the rules on flaming are relaxed. Here are the rules for the R'lyeh forum:

Emjay 
The statement which you maintain is not a rule is, indeed, a rule.  The statement appears within the parameters of a language of Forum rules.  The auteurs did not pause to inform us the second sentence is not a rule.  The second sentence is a rule, because the subordinate portion thereof prescribes members must refer suspected spammers and trollers to staff; so the fragment of concern to us now, stands between two explicitly enunciated rules, and cannot therefore be characterized as not a part of the forum rules.  The declaration is a rule which is telling us members do not have carte blanche to conduct themselves in an insulting manner in any sector of the forum.  Negatio

Wrong. We encourage members to please try to be welcoming and friendly. We do not require it outside of the introduction forum.