Creationists are bad enough but they are by no means the worst.

MasterOfKrikkit said:

You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you.

Click to expand...

You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die.

And don't worry, it's only Vizzini who surely is a meanie.

Click to expand...

He's really very short on... charm.

consol said:

I admit I am a lot of things, but I am not an American, which means I do not think crazy religions are the norm,
crazy religions are crazy religions, and anyone who would believe them is just plain crazy, and should be treated as such,
so you can give creationists and Mormons and the rest of the fruit cake religions all the respect you want,
but I won't, because they are crazy, and they should be treated the same way you would treat any other crazy person.

Click to expand...

Posts in this thread (not by consol) up to this point: 15

Posts suggesting that creationists (or any other beliefs) should be treated with respect, without respect, in any way at all, in fact: 0*

Watching consol be worse than AV and dad**: priceless


*Which, for the non-mathematically-inclined, is 0%.
**Whose tangents are at least, well, tangentially related to the debate at hand.

MasterOfKrikkit said:

Posts suggesting that creationists (or any other beliefs) should be treated with respect, without respect, in any way at all, in fact: 0*

Click to expand...

Oops... you're a couple posts late.

AintNoMonkey said:

Oops... you're a couple posts late.

Click to expand...

MasterOfKrikket said:

Posts in this thread (not by consol) up to this point: 15

Click to expand...

"This point" being consol's post. Technically, I didn't reuse that phrase on the second statement, but I was implying it. Either way, Danyc brought it up because consol did, which was the point I was trying to make: consol's post was a complete non-sequitur for the thread.

So. Neener to you. (You warthog-faced buffoon.)

MasterOfKrikkit said:

So. Neener to you. (You warthog-faced buffoon.)

Click to expand...

And now for something completely different...

So....consol's attacking evolutionists now, eh?

I was discussing the concept of a fundamentalist atheist on another Board, and the closest thing I could come up with was that a fundamentalist atheist is an atheist version of Kent Hovind with a bit of Ken Ham thrown in for flavour. In reality, I said I had never met, seen or read othe words of one.

But congratulations Consol, you fit the bill down to a "T". You are the archtype fundamentalist atheist. Your comments are FSTDT worthy. I might even nominate a couple.

To keep this post at least remotely on topic for the sub-forum I am posting on (a fact which is completely lost on Consol, who apparantly cannot read forum headings), I accept evolution as the best explanation for the observed evidence.

Is it permissable to call someone an attention ***** in this forum? I have been away from here for a while, so I am not sure of the revised rules, so I will be careful not to call anybody an attention *****, unless it is permissable.

Norm

fromdownunder said:

I have been away from here for a while, so I am not sure of the revised rules.

Norm

Click to expand...

Norm, I do believe that the second word in that phrase will get your post deleted for vulgarity.

consol said:

So, because we can not prove Gods do not exist, we must assume that they MAY exist,
so Neptune, Thor and a host of other Gods may exist, we don't know,
and because I don't agree with this crap, I am called a fundamentalist Atheist.

Let me get this clear.

You want everyone to think that:
Until Gods are proven NOT to exist, we must assume that Gods MAY exist,
and as we will never be able to prove that Gods DO NOT exist we will ALWAYS need to assume that Gods DO exist.

Why not look at it from a logical point of view:
Until Gods are proven TO exist, we must assume that Gods DO NOT exist,
and as we will never be able to prove that Gods exist, we will NEVER need to assume that Gods exist.

Click to expand...

If you want to discuss this, take it to the correct forum. GA is just up the hall. THIS IS A SCIENCE FORUM! EVOLUTION IS NOT THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

I may join you there, and if you discuss in a reasonable matter, and not come out with all guns blazing, you wolUd probably get a lot further than you are now.

Norm

Thanks Morcova, I have edited out the offending word.

Norm

consol said:

So, because we can not prove Gods do not exist, we must assume that they MAY exist,
so Neptune, Thor and a host of other Gods may exist, we don't know,
and because I don't agree with this crap, I am called a fundamentalist Atheist.

[blah blah more of the same]

Click to expand...

And again, a frothing rant that has absolutely no relevance to any of the discussion so far. No-one has suggested (here) that anyone must assume any gods exist. The fact that you've pulled this pointless strawman out of your lower freckle then raved about it for a bit is what makes you a "fundie atheist"; it's your actions, not your beliefs. Your beliefs (or lack thereof -- don't get in a hissy fit over the semantics) make you an atheist, your actions make you a fundie. This is not hard to understand. Putting words in others' mouths, vehement tirades, patronizing others, "feeling sorry for" those who don't have exactly the same views as you, etc etc. It's all part of the fundie MO.

beamishboy said:

So who is Dad? I know AV but who is Dad? Now I know a new character in CF - consol, the fundamentalist atheist (and a mighty angry one; hehe). What's Dad's full name? Just as AV is short for AV1611VET.

Click to expand...

dad is just dad. And I mean that in two ways At the risk of getting in trouble, I'll be blunt: he's a loony. His particular saw is that we have no way to prove that the laws of nature were the same in the past, therefore science should shut up and be his slave* and stop talking nonsense about the past or the future. He also likes to throw in some of his own pseudoscientific gibberish occasionally. He's also nasty, aggressive and far less Christian** than many of the atheists here. He's special.


*Direct quote. I kid you not.
**@rse-covering fine print: I mean that in terms of actions -- by their fruits shall ye know them, etc. And, obviously, that's just my NSHO.

beamishboy said:

So who is Dad? I know AV but who is Dad? Now I know a new character in CF - consol, the fundamentalist atheist (and a mighty angry one; hehe). What's Dad's full name? Just as AV is short for AV1611VET.

Click to expand...

dad is short for, well, dad. Here's a thread by him if you really want to know who he is.

consol said:

So, because we can not prove Gods do not exist, we must assume that they MAY exist,
so Neptune, Thor and a host of other Gods may exist, we don't know,
and because I don't agree with this crap, I am called a fundamentalist Atheist.

Click to expand...

No, you're called a fundamentalist atheist because, similar to fundamentalist Christians bashing atheism, you go on the attack at every opportunity given, in this thread stooping to a new low by flinging four-letter words around.

Also, strawmanning, as per the above quote.

Dude, as one brit to another, calm down.

consol said:

You want everyone to think that:
Until Gods are proven NOT to exist, we must assume that Gods MAY exist,
and as we will never be able to prove that Gods DO NOT exist we will ALWAYS need to assume that Gods DO exist.

Click to expand...

No-one's said that. Again with the similar tactics - fundy YECers love to enforce the bogus rule that creationist=Christian. Evolutionist != atheist.

consol said:

Why not look at it from a logical point of view:
Until Gods are proven TO exist, we must assume that Gods DO NOT exist,
and as we will never be able to prove that Gods exist, we will NEVER need to assume that Gods exist.

Click to expand...

Some people deal with this one by their faith. If you don't, fine. But just as you can't prove God, you can't disprove God, however, you're preaching to the converted here - most of the contributors to this thread are theistic evolutionists (or atheists that think you're talking rubbish, which is really a good sign to quit while you're ahead), most of whom realise this anyway.

Your point leaves both sides in exactly the same situation, exactly the way Dad's "same state" dogma does, please don't be as arrogant as him by then belittling the people who don't buy into an idea that has little merit either way you look at it.

consol said:

So, because we can not prove Gods do not exist, we must assume that they MAY exist,
so Neptune, Thor and a host of other Gods may exist, we don't know,
and because I don't agree with this crap, I am called a fundamentalist Atheist.

Let me get this clear.

You want everyone to think that:
Until Gods are proven NOT to exist, we must assume that Gods MAY exist,
and as we will never be able to prove that Gods DO NOT exist we will ALWAYS need to assume that Gods DO exist.

Why not look at it from a logical point of view:
Until Gods are proven TO exist, we must assume that Gods DO NOT exist,
and as we will never be able to prove that Gods exist, we will NEVER need to assume that Gods exist.

Click to expand...

Consol, really. Why is it so hard for you to actually respond to the points people make on these threads?

I'll even help you with starting an answer to this question:
"It is hard for me, consol, to answer the point people make on these threads because..."

Maybe if you start like that, you'll actually answer the question instead of starting of on a rant.