Pardon, gordo....

..but you are a pompous bloviating ASS, and I don't mean the equine kind.

To Neil Rickert you arrogantly barfed:

4.1
kairosfocus
September 8, 2011 at 4:51 am

NR:

Why do you insist on strawman caricature, regardless of how often you are corrected? Do you not see that that insistence goes to your sincerity, and not happily so, in the end?

(and a lot of other bile)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gordy, you are NOT a god. You are NOT the arbiter of what's "correct". You are NOT in charge. You are NOT the boss. You are NOT the ruler of the world or the universe. You are NOT sane. In fact, you are a total nutcase with severe mental problems.

YOU are the one who constantly erects strawman caricatures, and who constantly poisons the atmosphere with your IDiotic drumbeat repetitive rhetorical talking points, your ad hominems laced and soaked with the crude oil in your pea brain, your dishonest, maniacal lunacy, your massively pompous bald assertions and demands, your delusions of god-hood, your FALSE accusations, your deliberate LIES, your wacked out, dominionistic, theocratic worldview and agenda, your reliance on ridiculous religious fairy tales, your weird love affair with and nauseatingly endless quoting of Plato and other characters, your confused, incoherent, non-scientific, rambling diatribes, and your GARGANTUAN EGO.

chris doyle, yellow bellied big mouthed coward

29.3
Chris Doyle
September 8, 2011 at 6:16 am

It would be good if you replied to post 36.1.1.1.9 over on the Three Silly Objections to Cosmological Fine Tuning (part one) thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-398816

Or at least, admit that you’re unable to respond to that post because reason is on my side, not yours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's funny coming from you chris-the-gutless. You run from me, and from people on other blogs when you don't have reason on your side (which is always) and when you're shown to be the hypocritical, lying, cowardly, delusional fool that you are.

Why don't you come here and show me the reason that you claim is on your side? Bring it on, chicken-shit.

gordon e. mullings, NOT a paragon of virtue or goodness

gordo says: "Morality is not arbitrary.."

Yours is. In fact, your morality is nonexistent.

gordo says: "I am noticing just how hard it is to see what is being said, and what is NOT being said. That is a measure of how deeply poisoned the atmosphere is. (And, I am always a bit less than amused when words are pushed into my mouth that do not belong there. I have said and linked more than enough that what is being said and what is a strawman caricature can be distinguished.)"

Do you mean like the words you dishonestly keep pushing into my mouth that don't belong there? You know, the ones you dishonestly spew about me allegedly threatening you and your family? The ones you put quote marks around, even though I NEVER said them? Is that the strawman you're talking about? And is the constant poisoning of the atmosphere BY YOU what you're talking about? It OUGHT to be.

gordo says: "Humans, are finite, fallible, morally fallen/ struggling and too often ill-willed. None of us is strong enough to bear the weight of being an IS who can ground OUGHT."

Speak for yourself, dipshit.

gordo says: "And, as moral strugglers, sorry, I get wary when I hear ANYone putting himself forth as a paragon of virtue or goodness."

Then you should be absolutely terrified of yourself, and frankly, I think you are. Because YOU are filled with terrible, amoral thoughts and desires, you think that everyone is, and it scares the shit out of you to think that others are anything like you. You NEED a set of external rules (what you would call morals) that are defined and determined by some 'authority' (god, religion, the bible) to internally fight against all those evil thoughts and desires you constantly have, and to convince yourself that you are a paragon of virtue or goodness, even though you're not. You project your wicked thoughts and desires onto everyone else because you want to believe that everyone else is as fucked up as you are and needs the same set of rules from the same 'authority' as you do.

You're a deranged basket-case gordo, and you don't even come close to displaying/living the moral standards that you constantly projectile vomit about in your drumbeat repetitive rhetorical talking points.

gordo says; "Please, do not let the moral equivalency tactic mislead you. We are dealing here with a known dangerous worldview that undermines morality."

Don't worry, I won't. I won't let your dishonest tactics mislead me from seeing that your known dangerous worldview undermines morality, honesty, reality, and freedom. Your so-called morals are not superior, and they're not even equivalent. They are a a fraud, perpetrated by a fraud: YOU.

What a crock

26.1
William J Murray
September 7, 2011 at 9:01 pm

My theism-based moral arguments here are not predicated on anything found in the Bible.

From here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rabbi-pleads-with-darwinian-atheists-turn-back-from-legal-pedophilia-but-they-can%E2%80%99t/comment-page-1/#comment-398776

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are they "predicated on" then?


(Just so you know, "William J Murray" formerly posted on UD as "meleager".)

beauty: fact, or opinion?

My responses are in bold type.


On UD vince torley has posted a long "essay" (LOL) in response to some things I said here recently. He originally said:

4
vjtorley
September 3, 2011 at 8:01 am

rhampton7,

You make a valid point. I would argue, however, that the fact that the laws of Nature display a deep underlying beauty and “hang together” very well (as I explained in my post, Beauty and the Multiverse ), points to a single Intelligent Designer of the cosmos. I think that this would be a sensible default hypothesis for ID to adopt. Only philosophy can make this conclusion certain beyond reasonable doubt, however.

To which I responded:

"Beauty is not a "fact". "hang together" is meaningless. The two put together don't point to squat. There's nothing sensible in ID and never will be. Philosophy cannot make such a stupid, baseless, so-called "hypothesis" and "conclusion certain beyond reasonable doubt". It takes actual evidence to make something certain beyond reasonable doubt."

So, vince believes that beauty is an "objective fact" and that somehow the laws of nature and mathematics and hanging together and his opinion and the opinion of some other guys proves that, therefor god, oops, I mean therefor a "single Intelligent Designer", which of course we all know is not just another term for god (ROFLMAO!).

torley uses comments from several people to try to prove his claim about beauty but he's actually appealing to authority and opinion, and frankly, some of the stuff he says seems to contradict his 'beauty is an objective fact' claim.

Anyone with a clue knows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's an opinion. It is not a fact and it is not objective. Do I really need to provide examples?

In torley's first statement (quoted above) about "the fact that the laws of Nature display a deep underlying beauty", he goes way beyond just saying that there is beauty in nature, or that the laws of nature display beauty, or that it's just his opinion, or that some other people may have the same opinion. He does the therefor god thing (his chosen god of course). He takes that ENORMOUS extra step, without any coherent or substantiated evidence (actually, no evidence at all). He even says that "Only philosophy can make this conclusion certain beyond reasonable doubt, however." Philosophy? Certain beyond a reasonable doubt? Surely you jest, vince?

Philosophy can't do anything of the sort, and especially what you think of as philosophy. People like you think that imagining is all anyone needs to do to figure out, well, just about everything. You obviously think that you, and maybe some others, have all the answers to every question in your head and that all you have to do is keep imagining and you'll find all of the answers, no matter how big the questions. The bigger the questions, the more likely that you think you can find the answer by imagining, and only by imagining.

I'm sure that you also think that your chosen god put all of the answers in your head, and maybe some other heads, and that your chosen god put them there for you or those others to find by imagining.

I've got some news for you vince. Brace yourself. The world does not revolve around your imaginings. The universe does not exist or function based on your imaginings. Facts are not determined or proven by your imaginings. Objectivity is not determined or proven by what you imagine. In fact, your imaginings and bald assertions are subjective, and your chosen god, or any other alleged god, is imagined.

Here is vince's "essay":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-mathematical-beauty-we-find-in-the-cosmos-is-an-objective-fact-which-points-to-a-designer/

delusional dullard

5.3.1.1.1
bornagain77
September 2, 2011 at 8:47 am

No problem TG. I really wouldn’t call it expertise so much as I would call it holding Darwinists accountable to even a minimal amount of scientific plausibility, which or course, even a minimal level of scientific integrity, is unable to be maintained by them.

From here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/ann-coulter-on-the-dog-that-ate-darwin%E2%80%99s-fossils/comment-page-1/#comment-398634

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, as if the IDiotic, religious, illiterate tripe you spew has even a minimal amount of scientific plausibility or integrity.

And I really wouldn't call the barf you upchuck "expertise" either, "so much as I would call it" totally insane bullshit.

o'leary, sicko extraordinaire

In this post:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/scientists-on-a-pedestal-are-just-plaster-frauds/

o'leary (News) shows even more what a wacked out PSEUDO-journalist she is, and the same goes for Debra J. Saunders.

o'leary, you are severely fucked up. You are a member and staunch supporter of a cult of pedophiles, murderers, liars, criminals, and culture destroyers who put themselves on "a pedestal" (the catholic church). You believe in and promote delusional fairy tales. You bear "false witness" on a daily basis. You're a hypocritical, dishonest freak. You talk as though you know something about science, evolution, and evolutionary theory but you don't know squat. The only things you know anything about are lying, deceiving, and supporting your church's vile behavior. At being a deranged, fraudulent, frigid, ignorant, arrogant twat, you're an expert.