I just spent time reviewing the complete discussion (which is from 2016 until today) with Kafei/Jimmy on the AtheisticRepublic site. It is with…profound…?sadness but mixed with rage then tempered with pity followed indignation covered with incredulity showered with…well…a sense of hopelessness? that I read every single post.
Interesting reaction.
To say Kafei is at least consistent is like saying a frogs butt is watertight.
I wouldn't compare what you've read from 2016 to now. I've had plenty of time since then to refine my ability to speak on these topics, and hold a slightly different position today. Initially, I would say the Perennial philosophy is outside how theism or atheism is ordinarily conceived, and it is. However, in my 2017 call into The Atheist Experience, the screener asked, "Are you atheist or theist," and I said, "Neither," and Matt had a huge issue with that from the get go. I had a prepared a question that day to ask, and I didn't even get to ask it. Fortunately, the screener typed it out on Matt's screen, and it was addressed after Matt hung up. So, since then I've come to recognize the Perennialist view as a theist stance. Ralph Cudworth, the person who coined the word "theism" was also one of these Cambridge Platonist who was also an adherent of the Perennial philosophy.
He used every. Single. Phrase. He tried to use here. One person even called him out on his behavior this month citing his plagiarism and editing posts after the fact from the 2016 portion of the thread (with exacting evidence provided).
You're speaking of Nyarlathotep's weak attempt to lampoon me. I admitted it was a Terence McKenna quote. Not to mention it was over 4 years ago. This is what atheists do when they don't have any real arguments, they attempt to rely on these tactics, lampooning, ad hominem, straw manning, etc. It's the final fig leaf, it's the final resort of the pseudo-intellectual. Instead of addressing the actual points I bring currently, they want to dwell and attempt to attack something that is well in the past, and essentially irrelevant to today.
It's basically what happened to me at freethoughtsblog with t90bb who also attempted to lampoon, when it was him that typed out the BS he accused me of on that thread. t90bb is JayWalker403, a troll among you that's obviously got you all fooled. John Iacoletti even admitted that he blocked me due to the fact that he was tired of atheists whining to get me banned. I didn't break any rules or anything like that, it was literally due to social outcry. Even John David Balla took issue upon the fashion in which I was banned, he noted that John said he was just sick and tired of the constant e-mails, and so he did it basically out of "moderator fatigue." Further evidence of this is that it's not the first time it has happened. I've had people defend me on other forums for the very same thing. I attribute to the fact atheists don't want to dig into the deeper issues, they're content being atheists.
One person reminded me so much of me that I momentarily wondered if I was posting on the site in a fugue state. He was called dishonest, he was called out on his misinterpretation of just about every piece of evidence he tried to present, he was taken to task over his ‘heroic dosage’ concept, and despite increasing levels of being debunked in post after post, he appeared just as incapable of understanding as he did on this site.
Are you talking about when Old man shouts was confusing ODing which would consist of a toxic or fatal dose in contrast to a "heroic dose"? Because these are definitely two different things. I understand from your vantage point, you think I've somehow been debunked. Well, I've got news for you. The science I advocate has not been debunked, my friend. I'm also not misrepresenting the scientific research in the slightest. Another false charge that's been accused me of me that not a single atheist here nor there has been able to demonstrate.
I’ll probably take the time to post my thoughts on the thread. I feel an obligation bc it was fascinating to see essentially on that site everything we went thru with him on this site. In hindsight, I think it is clear that the decision to ban him from this blog was highly, highly appropriate.
Why? So, you could develop your own narrative against me, and then feel as though I was justified in being banned by John's moderator fatigue? Why don't you post here and speak to me directly instead of criticizing me afar and completely straw manning my entire position?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Waa waa waa, ask someone else to change your diapers, because I sure won't.
Do you even understand why your feelings are hurt? It's because you are 99% bullshit, and dance around the topic playing word games.
If you cannot sum up your position in three or four simple sentences, then you are either confused, or just playing the word salad game.
If you want to get down to the core of any discussion, whether god or jesus or whatever spiritual deity is real, go ahead. If not,, shove whatever bullshit you are packing back up your ass and put a cork in it.
Well, David seems to have covered it all. Kafei posts pretentious woo woo superstition, not once has he offered anything approaching cogent argument or objective evidence.
As for his hurt feelings, there's no need to lampoon him, just read the nonsense he posts. Anyone who thinks you can neither believe in any deity or simultaneously not not believe in any deity, is either too dim-witted to read a simple word definition, or too dishonest to bother with. The same is exactly true for anyone who can't grasp the difference between a belief, and the knowledge that should underpin it.
You can not know whether a deity exists, you can't not know whether you believe the claim. Why do theists think they can try and weasel deities into existence in a way they'd never accept for any other claim?
Invisible unicorns anyone?
@ Kafei
I will disregard the whining in the first paragraphs. You have failed completely to prove your proposition of "a divine". despite using most of the world's supply of circumlocutions, confusion,word salad and woo terms.
Then you say:
You misrepresent me.
ALL the drugs used in the experiments are classified as toxins. How toxic they end up depends on the dosage. ANY dose of your experimented drug is poison, an "heroic" dose is an overdose you fucking airhead.
'O'ding' is a colloquial term for taking so much of a drug that it can be fatal...and that depends on the victims general health, sex, weight, stature, metabolism...exactly the same fucking parameters are used to determine the overdose you childishly term a fucking 'hero's dose'. Utter bollocks you spout. Read the fucking papers.
All you have brought to this forum is the surprising knowledge that if you OVERDOSE on some hallucinogens you will get a chemically induced hallucination, one that has similarities to one that can be obtained by deep practised meditation and exercise.
That is all you have fucking brought to the table.
@Kafei
"Instead of addressing the actual points I bring currently"
What points? That is the problem, you are rattling on like a drug addled alcoholic with no grip on reality. In debates such as this, once the preamble and foreplay is over, after pages and pages of exchanges, it comes down to the simple question, "do you believe in a god, please define it, and give reason(s) for your position?"
Do you believe in a god?
Please offer your personal definition of this god.
Please provide evidence to support your position.
Really, is it that hard?
I've done that quite elaborately to my response to Einy at post #173 at the freethoughtblogs for The Atheist Experience.
@Kafei
"I've done that quite elaborately to my response to Einy at post #173 at the freethoughtblogs for The Atheist Experience."
Fuck you. If you want to address an issue from another thread, do it in that thread, don't open a new thread just to string things out.
This is a new thread, for a new discussion. State your case. Shit or get off the pot.
Cop-out response. I'm not "addressing an issue from another thread." In the OP, yes, that's true relative to twarren1111. However, not with you. What I directed your attention is where I've elaborately explained how God is understood within the Perennialist view. If you're not interested in reading, then don't participate in the thread.
@Kafei: RE: "I've had plenty of time since then to refine my ability to speak on these topics,"
My Resoonse: "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .....(Tears in my eyes) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (Sides hurting) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... (Can't stand up.) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ...."
Kafei "This is what atheists do when they don't have any real arguments,"
Firstly atheists don't need arguments per se, as atheism makes no claims. Secondly you're not being lampooned because no one here has any counter arguments, you're being lampooned because YOU have no arguments.
No amount of histrionics from you will change this.
Right, you admitted it was a quote from someone else, after you passed it off as a quote from yourself and got caught. That is called plagiarism. Don't even try it again.
Right, an event that happened over four years ago. Notice how everyone here avoids addressing the points in the OP, including twarren1111. Way to completely avoid the science I advocate. It's much easier to distract yourself from the point.
@Nyaiathotep: RE: "Don't even try it again."
Sometimes attention seekers will accept the negative when they are doing nothing in their lives to get the positive.
@Cognostic I find it hilarious that everyone is interpreting this post in the same reactionary fashion of the whiny atheists emphasized in the OP. I was hoping for a response from Twarren1111, not a bunch of whiny responses completely avoiding the points addressed in the OP. Anyone care to address the actual OP in lieu of twarren1111? I'm interested in a sincere, open-minded dialogue, not "I didn't get it so you're speaking word salad" or "I'm going to dwell in the past to avoid the present."
@Kafei
I only see one poster in this thread whining, and it's you.
Suck it up, no one likes a cry baby.
And there is still not one single link to any peer reveiwed research that evidences anything supernatural or any deity. As anyone can easily attest if the search all the major news networks, as they can't fail to notice there are no banner headlines that science has evidenced God.
Can you really be this obtuse by accident?
@Kafei
"Anyone care to address the actual OP in lieu of twarren1111?"
No.
@Daved Killens
Then this forum is precisely as I said, an echo chamber for atheists content on being atheists and unwilling to address arguments that would challenge their position. Thanks for proving my point.
@Kafei
My point is that you created a thread, yet have not contributed any content to it. I will not refer to another thread. You made this thread, this is the thread I will work with.
It is amazing that we are almost at the end of the first page and you, Kafei, have contributed zero content to this thread. You truly are the master of BS.
I left a link for you that thoroughly answers your question. The post contains the links which contain loads of content sufficient enough to answer your question. You simply refuse to address it. If you're not going to bother with the links, then it's simple... Don't participate in the thread. I'm responding to people who are intellectually honest and willing to explore the links, not those who give cop-out retorts.
@Kafei
I am not going to pursue link(s). Lay out your complete argument in THIS THREAD. If not, then you are the dishonest person.
Dishonest? If you're unwilling to click a single link, that makes you a dishonest person. There's no forum rule that says that all content must be addressed on the thread. Stop being lazy or get off my thread. You don't have to participate. If you can't click a simple link, then it's quite obvious you're not interested. Don't bother replying unless you're going to review the link.
Kafei, you wrote, “There's no forum rule that says that all content must be addressed on the thread.”
Correct. There is also no forum rule that precludes others from repeatedly requesting that an item be addressed.
“Stop being lazy or get off my thread.”
It’s not ‘your’ thread. You do not own it. You may have started it but once posted, it ‘belongs’ to AR.
“If you can't click a simple link, then it's quite obvious you're not interested.”
Interest in a thread is not necessarily defined by a willingness to click posted links.
“Don't bother replying unless you're going to review the link.”
Anyone can reply. You don’t get to call that shot. If you have an expectation that people are required to follow rules you set down, you will likely be disappointed.
@Kafei: " I was hoping for a response from Twarren1111, not a bunch of whiny responses." HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ...... You would not recognize a whiny response if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.
RE: "I'm interested in a sincere, open-minded dialogue," When a mind opens all the way to the ass, it begins oozing shit. Open it wide enough and all the intelligence runs out.
Another theist starts pissing and moaning and tries to play the victim when his vapid religious rhetoric is rejected for the superstitious guff it clearly is.
Quelle surprise.
I think we'll have to change Kafei's username to the incredible Sulk at this rate.
I'm not referring to any religious superstitions but rather decades worth of scientific research which has been established. And I'm not fazed whatsoever. If anything here, it's clear my post caused a butt-hurtedness response in everyone who decided to reply here. That much is obviously so.
@Kafei
Hah, accusing all atheist as a group of " lampooning, ad hominem, straw manning, etc." then do the exact same thing yourself in the same lines, paragraphs and post as you accuse atheist as a whole of doing this. While I don't really care, these are public, anonymous debate boards after all, but the irony in this post is amusing to me.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@Kafei
Settle your dispute with freethoughtblogs, at freethoughtblogs, not here. Locking this thread.