patrick.net

Dan said:
Quarks tend to align themselves with peaks in quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles have been observed.

So Dan where did they come from?

PeopleUnited says

"Yes, a Christian is, by definition, someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Many such persons were pure evil, including Hitler."

More lies from Dan.

So you believe in the No True Scotsman definition of Christianity, anyone who makes Christianity look bad is no true Christian. By that criteria, you are no Christian.

The flame war in this thread is the perfect justification for the banning of trolls from an author's threads.

PeopleUnited says

Dan said:

Quarks tend to align themselves with peaks in quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles have been observed.

So Dan where did they come from?

Satan. Satan is the supreme being who created the universe and who you should worship. This assertion is every bit as well-justified as your assertion of your false god.

Again, if god can be self-begotten, why not nature itself? Why should a self-begotten entity have to be alive or sentient? A first mover premise does not imply the morality or sentience of the first mover.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

"Yes, a Christian is, by definition, someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Many such persons were pure evil, including Hitler."

More lies from Dan.

So you believe in the No True Scotsman definition of Christianity, anyone who makes Christianity look bad is no true Christian. By that criteria, you are no Christian.

No, you believe in the No True Scotsman definition of liberals, anyone who make Liberals look bad is no true liberal. By that criteria you are a Conservative.

I simply called you on your bullshit because you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to define what a liberal is according to empirical evidence. And you want to deny the right of anyone else to apply the same logic on identification of a Christian. Furthermore you seek to redefine Christianity into something that Christ (the author of Christianity) never intended and instead define it based on those people who CLAIM to be Christisan yet who commit atrocities that Christ said specifically NOT TO DO. That is like redefining liberalism as Triglypuffism as you rightly pointed out, yet you do the exact same thing with Christianity. It is bullshit and when someone calls you on it, you ban them. You are a liar and a censor of anyone willing to call you what you truly are.

You assume the authority to tell us who is a liberal and who is not by evaluating empirical evidence. And yet you refuse the authority of anyone else to do the same regarding Christians. That is hypocrisy.

Dan8267 says

"Saying that liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying that atheists believe in gods."

Yes, and Saying liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying Christians believe in rape, slavery and murdering babies. All of which Dan has stated on multiple occasions. More hypocrisy.

Dan8267 says

The flame war in this thread is the perfect justification for the banning of trolls from an author's threads.

The flame war was started by you when you sought not only to poison the well against individuals on this site, but in fact you poison the well and defame ALL CHRISTIANITY with your lies. And somehow you think you are the noble one. You spread lies, you spread hate and you censor those who call you on your bullshit. How come you are the only one who has to ban 28 people in order protect his own ego. Oh, because you are the biggest liar and most special snowflake on the Christmas tree. Thats right sweetheart, don't let any of those truth tellers make you feel bad, you just lock them out of your threads and create your own little safe zone. Mamma Patrick will keep you safe with your little ban button to keep the bad people out. Sleep tight honey.

ROTFLOL...

PeopleUnited says

Oh, because you are the biggest liar and most special snowflake on the Christmas tree. Thats right sweetheart, don't let any of those truth tellers make you feel bad, you just lock them out of your threads and create your own little safe zone. Mamma Patrick will keep you safe with your little ban button to keep the bad people out. Sleep tight honey.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Dan said:


Quarks tend to align themselves with peaks in quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles have been observed.

So Dan where did they come from?

Satan. Satan is the supreme being who created the universe and who you should worship. This assertion is every bit as well-justified as your assertion of your false god.

Again, if god can be self-begotten, why not nature itself? Why should a self-begotten entity have to be alive or sentient? A first mover premise does not imply the morality or sentience of the first mover.

Exactly, now you have admitted your true religion. You desire so deeply to discredit God the Creator, that you have defined the universe as its own creator and would jokingly give worship to Satan as a supreme being, knowing it to be anathema to Christian principals. Why don't you just be honest enough to say, that you will go to your grave ignoring any evidence, any notion of conscience that God created you and the world you live in. Your very existence is evidence of God, any every time you seek to explain God away, you admit that there is something out there that you cannot comprehend or fully describe. You push Him out of your knowledge only to find He is still lurking there in the shadows as the "first mover" you wish to depersonify.

PeopleUnited says

The flame war was started by you

It's what Dan lives for then feigns phony indignation--no one has thinner skin. It's also called drama.

P N Dr Lo R says

PeopleUnited says

The flame war was started by you

It's what Dan lives for then feigns phony indignation--no one has thinner skin. It's also called drama.

A true queen of his own little screen.

If we may please return to the topic of the thread:

"A Corte Madera bookstore has stepped up to host an event with evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins just days after Berkeley public radio station KPFA abruptly canceled a similar event, citing Dawkins’ criticism of Islam.

Book Passage will hold a book signing and discussion of Dawkins’ latest work, “Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.” The event is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 9 — the same date the original Berkeley event had been planned."

Also, don't donate to KPFA. Since they've chosen to go Islamic, let them cash in on the Petrodollars from Linda Sarsour.

Dan8267 says

How is the left and the right not both wrong for the fundamentally same reason?

They are. The "left" is simply 10x worse. This is exactly why the liberals are and will continue to lose.

Who said god was self-begotten?
The theory is that god has always existed outside of the space/time continuum.
No need to be 'created' in this instance...

Dan8267 says

Again, if god can be self-begotten, why not nature itself?

Dan8267 says

The quintessential attribute of conservatives.

You consistently make up your own definitions, then expect others to use your definitions as their authority.

Dans logic is the most self-important dribble you could possible spew on an anonymous forum. Total, and complete horseshit.

In glad you can point out that labels of groups and labels of ideological theories are uniquely different uses of the same word.

Yes liberals aren't liberal.

This appears to be the 'shaming' stage of the devastating defeat last november.
Liberals are redefining themselves to be outside of the losing entity known as the democratic party.
I hope all of these side effects are being documented, with new vaccines designed and accumulated for 2020...

CBOEtrader says

Yes liberals aren't liberal.

BlueSardine says

This appears to be the 'shaming' stage of the devastating defeat last november.

Liberals are redefining themselves to be outside of the losing entity known as the democratic party.

I hope all of these side effects are being documented, with new vaccines designed and accumulated for 2020...

CBOEtrader says

Yes liberals aren't liberal.

The democrats will continue to lose, and blame phantom racists/misogynists/classists while never pointing the finger at themselves. Today's DNC is the most racist, the most divisive, the most ideologically righteous, most anti-american, most anti-liberal movement i've seen in the US in my lifetime. They deserve to be smashed into a thousand little pieces and scattered into the wind.

Rather than admit this, Dan defines today's "liberals" as conservatives (LOLZ) and uses a childish fantasy definition of conservative that he made up in his fairy-tale mind. Lets at least admit where we agree. Today's liberals aren't liberal. The labels and definitions have been attacked for generations. This is nothing new. Look at what the left now defines as alt-right. (Alt-right= anyone who disagrees w the DNC.)

curious2 says

If we may please return to the topic of the thread:

A good idea! I wondered how it veered so off course! I kept wondering what that other stuff had to do with the original subject.

BlueSardine says

Who said god was self-begotten?

The theory is that god has always existed outside of the space/time continuum.

No need to be 'created' in this instance...

A computer virus can no more understand the software engineer that created it than we can understand our creator. It is beyond our comprehension.

If the brain were simple enough to understand, then we would be too simple to understand it.

Dawkins needs to evolve a more diplomatic and accommodating personality.

PeopleUnited says

No, you believe in the No True Scotsman definition of liberals, anyone who make Liberals look bad is no true liberal. By that criteria you are a Conservative.

Ah, the Bizzaro world of a brainwashed Christian.

The defining characteristic of liberal is the belief in the liberalism. The defining characteristic of Christianity if the belief in the divinity of Christ. Neither is a No True Scotsman.

You are caught pants down in your lie.

Sure, a liberal could look bad, but he won't look bad for advocating liberal philosophy. Show me how liberal philosophy is ever bad. I've shown you how belief in Christ is bad.

PeopleUnited says

Yes, and Saying liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying Christians believe in rape, slavery and murdering babies. All of which Dan has stated on multiple occasion

Actually, I stated that your Bible advocates all of the things, and it does. Do you deny that?

Clearly, today's castrated Christians don't believe in the Bible. They are still brainwashed enough to be dangerous though.

Also, for 1800 to 1900 years, longer than Islam has even existed, Christians did rape, enslave, and murder babies. Slavery, including the rape of slaves as young as six-years-old, was practiced extensively in American history, and the South used the Bible, both testaments, as a justification for slavery. Good old Southern Christians were feeding black babies to alligators as recently as the early 20th century. Being Christian does nothing to make people good.

PeopleUnited says

The flame war was started by yo

Oh honey, the flames were started long before that. And again, it just goes to show why you trolls are rightfully banned. How much has this thread gone off-topic because of you?

PeopleUnited says

Exactly, now you have admitted your true religion.

BlueSardine says

The theory is that god has always existed outside of the space/time continuum.

No need to be 'created' in this instance...

If you're going to say that kind of bullshit, simply say that nature itself has always existed outside of the space/time continuum and need not be created. Again, such a premise, as meaningless as it is, does not imply sentience, morality, or the knowledge of human existence.

The constant childish attempts by trolls to insult me in this thread demonstrates exactly why such trolls need to be banned from productive threads. All other non-troll users on this site should read through this thread and ask if you really want trolls like PeopleUnited, Blue Sardine (Shrek), CBOEtrader, and P N Dr Lo R doing the same thing on your threads. Once they get a stick up their ass regarding someone, they never quit. The only way to handle them is to ban them so they can only jerk off in their own threads.

rando says

If the brain were simple enough to understand, then we would be too simple to understand it.

This is a statement that is appealing to the masses, but there is no reason to believe it is true, and plenty of reason to believe it is false.

On a daily basis I understand software code that is far too big to be loaded into my memory at once. Yet, I do understand the code. I could never hand-execute the code, but I can trace down any problem and fix it. I can develop new features. I can integrate the software with other software. I can do all this because of several things including modularization.

The brain also has modules, subnets of neurons, and those subnets have subnets. The same pattern of neural circuitry is repeated. The same ideas used over and over. Sure, the human brain is complicated, but it's not irreducibly complicated, and so it can be understood.

A problem may be hard, damn hard, so hard that it remains unsolved for centuries. Yet, this does not mean the problem is unsolvable.

curious2 says

If we may please return to the topic of the thread

This can only happen if trolls are banned. There is a reason I say they disrupt conversations and derail threads. This thread proves that beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

Dan8267 says

curious2 says

If we may please return to the topic of the thread

This can only happen if trolls are banned. There is a reason I say they disrupt conversations and derail threads. This thread proves that beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

Once again Dan is wrong. The "flame war" is very pertinent to this thread. Patrick is expressing the hypocrisy of the liberal left, and the pitfalls of accomodating Islam. Many of us on this thread have called Dan out for doing the exact same thing, by banning people who he disagrees with from posting on his threads. You see, those of us who are willing to call bullshit to the many lies Dan slings around this site have been banned JUST LIKE that liberal radio station BANNED Richard Dawkins for speech that they disagree with. Dan is just like Patrick says

KPFA Radio 94.1 FM

Dan8267 says

rando says

If the brain were simple enough to understand, then we would be too simple to understand it.

This is a statement that is appealing to the masses, but there is no reason to believe it is true, and plenty of reason to believe it is false.

On a daily basis I understand software code that is far too big to be loaded into my memory at once. Yet, I do understand the code. I could never hand-execute the code, but I can trace down any problem and fix it. I can develop new features. I can integrate the software with other software. I can do all this because of several things including modularization.

The brain also has modules, subnets of neurons, and those subnets have subnets. The same pattern of neural circuitry is repeated. The same ideas used over and over. Sure, the human brain is complicated, but it's not irreducibly complicated, and so it can be under...

Once again Dan is false and Patrick is right. Software code is.... wait for it.... SOFTWARE!

The brain is hardware. But Dan if you are so good, please tell us how to reboot a brain once it is turned off completely by the death of the organic unit that supports that hardware. I am sure it is only a matter of time before geniuses like you learn how to reanimate a brain right?

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

Show me how liberal philosophy is ever bad. I've shown you how belief in Christ is bad.

It is not my intention to paint "liberal philosophy" in a negative light. But your misrepresentation of my intentions is one of the reasons why I am repeatedly forced to call you on your bullshit. You simply won't let me or many of the others who disagree with you speak for ourselves and define our own positions.

Oh, and by the way you have not shown how belief in Christ is bad, you have shown how you misunderstand what it means to believe in Christ.

What is shocking to me is that the analogy is nearly perfect. Earlier in this thread you have argued that liberals are not liberals unless they pass your definition of what it means to be a liberal. I am also making that SAME ARGUMENT that Christians are not Christians unless they live up the Christ's definition of what it means to be a a Christian.

You allow yourself the liberty to define liberalism and evaluate a person's actions to determine if the label applies to an individual or organization. But you deny the liberty of Christ or Christians to define Christianity and evaluate a person's actions to determine if the label applies to an individual or organization. You are such a hypocrite.

Dan8267 says

The constant childish attempts by trolls to insult me in this thread demonstrates exactly why such trolls need to be banned from productive threads. All other non-troll users on this site should read through this thread and ask if you really want trolls like PeopleUnited, Blue Sardine (Shrek), CBOEtrader, and P N Dr Lo R doing the same thing on your threads. Once they get a stick up their ass regarding someone, they never quit. The only way to handle them is to ban them so they can only jerk off in their own threads.

Translation: please, Patrick and anyone else who will listen to his whining, Dan doesn't feel safe, he needs other people to expand his safe zone because he is one of, if not the most special snowflakes on the Christmas tree and there are too many people who are not accepting his false logic despite many years and numerous hours of typing and posting and crying like a baby when his thread is derailed, (even though he repeatedly does the exact same thing when given the opportunity). You must make them accept him or ban them from posting.

Does that sound like anything else today???

Dans logic.... Hitler was a man therefore all men are pure evil. That's how his mind reasons.

Dan8267 says

The constant childish attempts by trolls

Am I the only one that justs scans through Dan's long tedious posts?

Edit: Dan does have some good ideas but gets caught up in his own egotism.
@patrick reinstate the comment limit to enforce succinctness. Thanks

FortWayne says

Dans logic.... Hitler was a man therefore all men are pure evil. That's how his mind reasons.

Are you really so stupid that you don't realize I was demonstrating that such reasoning is wrong? Or are you just lying because you think the ends justify the means?

The people I've banned can be summed up as follows, and this is why other people need to start banning them as well.

Richard Dawkins censored in Berkeley because he does not like Islam

Dan censors 28 Patnetters from posting on his threads because he does not like people who disagree with him. Patrick supports this.

A Corte Madera bookstore has stepped up to host an event with evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins just days after Berkeley public radio station KPFA abruptly canceled a similar event, citing Dawkins’ criticism of Islam.

“As an independent bookseller, we are in strong support of independent thinking,” Karen West, events director for Corte Madera’s Books Passage, said in a statement. “We would never censor one of the greatest thinkers of our time!”

Book Passage will hold a book signing and discussion of Dawkins’ latest work, “Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.” The event is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 9 — the same date the original Berkeley event had been planned.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/28/controversial-atheist-richard-dawkins-to-speak-at-book-passage-is-corte-madera-new-home-of-free-speech/

This is a bookstore that deserves everyone's support! Good on them.

Female reproduction definitely goes down as IQ goes up, but it's the opposite for men IIRC.

rando says

Female reproduction definitely goes down as IQ goes up, but it's the opposite for men IIRC.

No, women prefer bad boys, not smart boys. Women used to prefer smart men because there was a high correlation to the intelligence of the man of the house and the survivability of the children as well as with income. Today that is not true. Ultimately, this is a bad thing for the species.

rando says

Maybe there should be a part where posts are structured as propositions, with one person taking the pro stance, and one taking con, and points awarded by everyone else for:

1. providing good evidence and reasoning

2. answering the question

3. being civil

This would not work. Assholes will simply award points to their butt buddies and assign penalties to those they hate regardless of the content.

You have two choices to make this work.
1. Hire professional judges (expensive).
2. Use an A.I. to judge debates.

The later is much more fun, but would take a lot of time to develop, multiple person-years. It would be a very interesting project though.

Dan8267 says

rando says

Maybe there should be a part where posts are structured as propositions, with one person taking the pro stance, and one taking con, and points awarded by everyone else for:

1. providing good evidence and reasoning


2. answering the question


3. being civil

This would not work. Assholes will simply award points to their butt buddies and assign penalties to those they hate regardless of the content.

Ha ha ha. Look who's talking.

Richard Dawkins has spent a significant part of his career as an antagonist against Christianity, working hard to make Christians look like fools, uneducated rubes, believers in an ancient dead mythology.

As he has observed Islam beginning to take cultural hegemony over Britain, he has found himself increasingly worried at the results.

Oopsie.

I wonder if he has considered what Islamic Law says about atheists?

That's right — 'misbelievers' — non-Muslim religious people and atheists are lumped together and are at risk of life imprisonment (for women) and death (for men) in some Muslim countries.

Poor Richard.