Ontological Disproof of God

[KevinM1]

Obvious troll is obvious..but you gotta let it play out.  Just fyi, this will have to continue for about 500 pages before it even get's in the running for best troll.  32 down, 468 to go.  Are you committed?

Such is the task before you OP. 

Oh yeah, very obvious. He overplayed his hand with the "I take it to mean that you think my writing is brilliant, but then you insulted me by rewriting my thoughts." Someone so brilliant should be able to understand what I meant - that his writing style is ridiculously terrible (do you even paragraph, bro?), and it stands in the way of any content he's purportedly trying to convey - given I wrote it without flourish.

Similarly with the excuse of posting his screed on a random internet forum as a way of archiving. Go to Staples and print out a physical copy. Get a memory stick and save a digital copy to it. Put both somewhere safe, like a safety deposit box. Put how you want both copies to be handled upon your death in your will.

I have to admit, butchering the quote system is a new one for me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not me, lol.  I do it to spammers all the time. You can milk it pretty hard.

[KevinM1]

Not me, lol.  I do it to spammers all the time.  You can milk it pretty hard.

I have much to learn, sensei

[The Grand Nudger]

It's fun, you gotta try it, basically, you cripple a spammer with "accidental" cc's on emails (that you wrote, to nonexistent people, and received, from yourself) - it's called a dolla chop.  

"Hi, President of the bank of barundi and widow of nelson mandela, i sent the payment as per your associates instructions, when can I expect my funds to be released?"

They're on the other end, confused, fucking frustrated, trying to teach you how to email, warning you about scammers..and fretting about the "payment" they just lost.

Speaking of, I have to update my thread.

[negatio]

Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

The OP is a critique of current American civilization, written in the language of existential phenomenological ontology, and, via employing the intellectual instrumentation of existential phenomenological ontology.

Oh, I get it, you just gave it the wrong title and put it into the wrong section. 

I have difficulty following this, that, and, now it.  What it are you referencing Khemikal ?!

The OP is a critique of current american civilization, not a disproof of any god.  More politics than philosophy, if you ask me.

Khemikal, The OP is alleged by me to accomplish disproof of the Deity of the three so called deities we have in western civilization.   Philosophy, (and, this is the philosophy forum part of the Atheist Forum), never proceeds on the basis of pure and bare assertion.  You cannot merely say the OP is "...not a disproof of any god." You need, somehow, to demonstrate the OP to be failing to disprove "...any god.", rationally, in language.  Wherein in politics have you ever heard any politicians discussing the ontological unintelligibility of law ?!  Yes, thank you, the OP is a critique of current American civilization, specifically regarding my allegation that American law is ontologically unintelligible when it mistakenly expects persons to move themselves to action, and inaction, by the mere fact that words are published on the pages of codes of law...Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're gonna have to work harder to up the post count, bud.  I'm here, giving you a one for one...really cheering you on - but that won't be enough.

[negatio]

Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

It's fun, you gotta try it, basically, you cripple a spammer with "accidental" cc's on emails (that you wrote, to nonexistent people, and received, from yourself) - it's called a dolla chop.  

"Hi, President of the bank of barundi and widow of nelson mandela, i sent the payment as per your associates instructions, when can I expect my funds to be released?"

They're on the other end, confused, fucking frustrated, trying to teach you how to email, warning you about scammers..and fretting about the "payment" they just lost.

Speaking of, I have to update my thread.

Khemikal What ?!  What the fucking fuck crazy shit are you rapping-on about now, ''dolla chop", yea, sure, I'll jump directly into dolla chopping banks ?! Crazy fucking fuck ! Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mmm, there we go, your native tongue.  

[negatio]

brilliant

No, Kevin, you misquote yourself, you originally used the term 'elegant'. It appears as if all you can do is hurl insult at me; what the fuck ?! Were you saying the writing was elegant, or not elegant ? That is your clarity for you....

Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

Obvious troll is obvious..but you gotta let it play out.  Just fyi, this will have to continue for about 500 pages before it even get's in the running for best troll.  32 down, 468 to go.  Are you committed?

Such is the task before you OP. 

Oh yeah, very obvious. He overplayed his hand with the "I take it to mean that you think my writing is brilliant, but then you insulted me by rewriting my thoughts." Someone so brilliant should be able to understand what I meant - that his writing style is ridiculously terrible (do you even paragraph, bro?), and it stands in the way of any content he's purportedly trying to convey - given I wrote it without flourish.

Similarly with the excuse of posting his screed on a random internet forum as a way of archiving. Go to Staples and print out a physical copy. Get a memory stick and save a digital copy to it. Put both somewhere safe, like a safety deposit box. Put how you want both copies to be handled upon your death in your will.

I have to admit, butchering the quote system is a new one for me.

---

brilliant

No, Kevin, you misquote yourself, you originally used the term 'elegant'.  It appears as if all you can do is hurl insult at me; what the fuck ?!  Were you saying the writing was elegant, or not elegant ?  That is your clarity for you....

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

Oh yeah, very obvious.  He overplayed his hand with the "I take it to mean that you think my writing is brilliant, but then you insulted me by rewriting my thoughts."  Someone so brilliant should be able to understand what I meant - that his writing style is ridiculously terrible (do you even paragraph, bro?), and it stands in the way of any content he's purportedly trying to convey - given I wrote it without flourish.

Similarly with the excuse of posting his screed on a random internet forum as a way of archiving.  Go to Staples and print out a physical copy.  Get a memory stick and save a digital copy to it.  Put both somewhere safe, like a safety deposit box.  Put how you want both copies to be handled upon your death in your will.

I have to admit, butchering the quote system is a new one for me.

Oh, you're still going on about how I must be a troll !?  And, Khemikal has joined in on that nonsense !  Kevin is simply harassing me, on and on, what bullshit. He's up to attempting to sow contention the minute I ask him to come back into my thread ?!  Kevin's a dangerous dude who knows only one approach to me via argumentum ad hominem...Kevin has just exhausted himself in some mafia game, and now he is pulling his mafia bull on me ! Very Funny. Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

Now..that might actually work, search the boards, pick a fight.  You could get a good five or six pages out of that alot easier than than reposting pointlessly verbose non-arguments.

Being an optimist, we could call it 39 pages...still 461 to go!

Besides, we know you speak gutter english, now, that routine's DOA.