Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

1) Your intolerance is matched by your narrow-mindedness and belligerence, so I'll end it here save for the brief comment below. 

2) You do. You'll have taken a leap of faith, taken your chances. That's faith. Hopefully you have faith in your self. I appreciate that's all beyond your superficial outlook, but i's reality. 

1) Asking for evidence is not 'narrow minded'... it is rational.

2) What 'faith in yourself' are you claiming? I believe in things that there is evidence for. If there isn't evidence... I don't believe in it and withold belief until the p5iint there is evidence. No faith is required.

Edited Tuesday at 18:24 by Matthew Le God

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) If they aren't based on demonstrable evidence why would a rational person accept them? Are all Christians, Muslims, and Jews irrational ?

2) You think it is OK for a person not to find genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism as not objectionable? Hundreds of millions accept these teachings. It is quite possible that the Catholic Conclave will elect a new Pope who believes homosexuality is abhorrent.

3) The God as described in the Bible is incompatible with a good God. Genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism is demonstrably bad for human society. Yet the Abrahamic religions worship Him.

4) "Prove that God does not exist"

That is not how the burden of proof works. The burden is on those making a claim, not those that don't accept it. You claim God does not exist, prove this. As I said, hundreds of millions would tell you the proof is all around you.

There is however a vast amount of evidence the God as described in the Bible does not exist. The evidence does not match up with the accounts in the book, for a start there was no global flood. Imagine you are living in what is now the northern coast of Turkey, about 9 thousand years ago. After a geological disturbance the land in front oif you, as far as you know the entire World, is flooded as what we now call  the Black Sea is formed. The oral history you pass on will tell your successors that the whoile World was inundated.

"Exist" is both temporal and spatial and anything outside space and time doesn't meet the definition.  Only so far as your understnding of Space/Time allows.

 

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

You have now used an agumentum ad populum fallacy So you are right and hundreds of millions are wrong ? Way to go !

Deeply flawed especially when millions of others believe in different conflicting deities. They can't all be correct, so numbers of believers are no indicator of truth.

How do you know ?

Edited Tuesday at 18:30 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How do you know ?

Because they are clearly contradictory! The God of Bible has no wiggle room where he can coexist with Egyptian Gods, Viking Gods etc etc.

Edited Tuesday at 18:30 by Matthew Le God

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Because they are clearly contradictory! The God of Bible has no wiggle room where he coexists with Egyptian God's, Viking Gods etc etc.

...

Edited Tuesday at 18:33 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

1) If they believe things without evidence, then they are by definition being irrational 

2) Who you fall in love with is not a choice.

Humans are also not unique with having same sex relationships. Other animals do as well. So God isn't doing a great job if he designed his creation in a way he finds abhorrent!

What about the others I mentioned... genocide, slavery, sexism, infanticide, rape? Are those justifiable?

3) If they think genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism are acceptable then that say a lot about them! Do you think those things are all acceptable?

4) Again... you show a lack of understanding what the burden of proof is. It is on the person making a claim, not those that don't accept it.

I have not claimed there is no God. So you saying I have... is a strawman fallacy.

[egg]

19 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Asking for evidence is not 'narrow minded'... it is rational.

2) What 'faith in yourself' are you claiming? I believe in things that there is evidence for. If there isn't evidence... I don't believe in it and withold belief until the p5iint there is evidence. No faith is required.

Have you ever taken a leap of faith? Yes or no. Would be odd if you haven't. 

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Have you ever taken a leap of faith? Yes or no. Would be odd if you haven't. 

Surely that would depend on whether that was faith in something reasonable and tangible, or pure fantasy. For example, quitting a well paid job to set up a business you've always dreamed about doing or giving a slice of your income to celibate old men in robes, who say they've got the keys to paradise?

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) If they believe things without evidence, then they are by definition being irrational  Again you fail to comprehend that they are happy that the evidence is all around them, therefore they ARE rational. The fact that you do not accept the evidence is not disproving of their position.

2) Who you fall in love with is not a choice.

Humans are also not unique with having same sex relationships. Other animals do as well. So God isn't doing a great job if he designed his creation in a way he finds abhorrent!

What about the others I mentioned... genocide, slavery, sexism, infanticide, rape? Are those justifiable? If somebody accepts the Bible then they accept these events and teachings, on the understanding that God has a plan that is beyond man's understanding.

3) If they think genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism are acceptable then that says a lot about them! Do you think those things are all acceptable?

Personally no, but then I am not up for election as Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury.

4) Again... you show a lack of understanding what the burden of proof is. It is on the person making a claim, not those that don't accept it. I fully understand the 'burden of proof', however, I have not made a claim about God, merely pointed out that hundreds of millions disagree with you, and are happy that there is sufficient proof for them.

I have not claimed there is no God. So you saying I have... is a strawman fallacy. So there might be ?

And now I'm off to have a life.

Edited Tuesday at 18:53 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

23 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

...

What a great rebuttal!

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Surely that would depend on whether that was faith in something reasonable and tangible, or pure fantasy. For example, quitting a well paid job to set up a business you've always dreamed about doing or giving a slice of your income to celibate old men in robes, who say they've got the keys to paradise?

It's all doing something in the belief or hope that things will go ok, without anything to justify that faith. 

Who said anything about keys to paradise/the kingdom? 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Have you ever taken a leap of faith? Yes or no. Would be odd if you haven't. 

Matthew? 

[Matthew Le God]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

Have you ever taken a leap of faith? Yes or no. Would be odd if you haven't. 

No

Give an example of the type of thing you mean.

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It's all doing something in the belief or hope that things will go ok, without anything to justify that faith. 

Who said anything about keys to paradise/the kingdom? 

Pretty much every preacher in the history of mankind. The point is you have to have some reason to hope or believe, even in you don't have evidence and that reason is nothing more than 'faith' in your own abilities and the support of your loved ones.

[Matthew Le God]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And now I'm off to have a life.

1) It is not demonstrable evidence that connects to the deity theyve picked. That is the issue.

2) If a plan endorses or commits genocide, slavery, sexism, infanticide and rape then that is incompatible with it being a good entity. 

3) The answer for 2 above also answers this.

4) No, you do not understand burden of proof. Because I have not claimed there is no God, I just reject any God claim I've seen so far sue to lack of sufficient evidence. If someone rejects a God claim, that does not mean they are taking the opposite position. Yet you keep using a strawman fallacy saying I've said there is no God. No, I reject the claims I've seen. That is not the same thing and the burden is with the claimant. 

[Turkish]

39 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) If they believe things without evidence, then they are by definition being irrational 

2) Who you fall in love with is not a choice.

Humans are also not unique with having same sex relationships. Other animals do as well. So God isn't doing a great job if he designed his creation in a way he finds abhorrent!

What about the others I mentioned... genocide, slavery, sexism, infanticide, rape? Are those justifiable?

3) If they think genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism are acceptable then that say a lot about them! Do you think those things are all acceptable?

4) Again... you show a lack of understanding what the burden of proof is. It is on the person making a claim, not those that don't accept it.

I have not claimed there is no God. So you saying I have... is a strawman fallacy.

I believe that you are a fucking knobhead 

that is not a strawman argument it is fact 

the burden of proof is on on me so I refer you to the numerous threads including this one as the overwhelming evidence 

game set and match 

😘😘😘😘😘

[Matthew Le God]

13 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I believe that you are a fucking knobhead 

that is not a strawman argument it is fact 

the burden of proof is on on me so I refer you to the numerous threads including this one as the overwhelming evidence 

game set and match 

😘😘😘😘😘

Yet more petty insults that are irrelevant to the discussion and are against the forum rules. Not that they seem to be applied...

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I hope everyone had a good Easter weekend.

I see MLG has spent some time proving without a doubt to be one of the most intolerant persons on the forum.

A shame he spent none of The Great Sulk he had, travelling and sharing his "wisdom" with belief systems around the world.

[Turkish]

25 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Yet more petty insults that are irrelevant to the discussion and are against the forum rules. Not that they seem to be applied...

Nonsense! It’s very relevant to the discussion which is about belief and faith. I have faith that quite a few people on here agree with me. So have proven your posts to be yet another fail 

 

[Matthew Le God]

1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I hope everyone had a good Easter weekend.

I see MLG has spent some time proving without a doubt to be one of the most intolerant persons on the forum.

A shame he spent none of The Great Sulk he had, travelling and sharing his "wisdom" with belief systems around the world.

Give an example of this and why it is a bad thing.

Intolerance is not automatically a bad thing. Is intolerance of the following a bad thing?

1. Intolerance of injustice

2. Intolerance of abuse

3. Intolerance of corruption

4. Intolerance of dishonesty in critical roles

5. Intolerance of cruelty

6. Intolerance of authoritarianism

7. Intolerance of apathy in the face of suffering

 

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 21:32 by Matthew Le God

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Give an example of this and why it is a bad thing.

Intolerance is not automatically a bad thing. Is intolerance of the following a bad thing?

1. Intolerance of injustice

2. Intolerance of abuse

3. Intolerance of corruption

4. Intolerance of dishonesty in critical roles

5. Intolerance of cruelty

6. Intolerance of authoritarianism

7. Intolerance of apathy in the face of suffering

 

 

 

 

Where does intolerance of intolerance fit into all of this?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

MLG's original post asked why intolerance is a bad thing.

A while later, someone must have pointed out what an imbecile that made him look.

 

[Matthew Le God]

7 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

MLG's original post asked why intolerance is a bad thing.

A while later, someone must have pointed out what an imbecile that made him look.

 

Wrong! It was asking why the intolerance I was accused of was a bad thing, not intolerance in general. 

I then added examples of types of intolerance that are not bad to show intolerance is not automatically bad by default.

[egg]

50 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Wrong! It was asking why the intolerance I was accused of was a bad thing, not intolerance in general. 

I then added examples of types of intolerance that are not bad to show intolerance is not automatically bad by default.

You lying sod. H&W is correct. I reacted, you changed it. 

Discussion with someone who is intolerant, belligerent, clueless, and dishonest, is pointless. 

[Weston Super Saint]

11 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

2) Nonsense. I do not have faith in anything. I have no need for faith.

 

Just to clarify, you've never, ever, in your pitiful existence, had faith that Saints would win a game?  Not once, ever, because you have no need for faith?

I assume this means that the result of every single Saints match, past, present or future is already known by you, because science something, something?  If so, what will the score be on Saturday and who will be the scorers?

In fact, scrap that, you must know the result of all matches before they are played.  Why are you on this board spouting your utter drivel?  Surely you should have won the pools every week?

I pity your children to be fair.  Children whose father literally has NO FAITH in them or their abilities.  They must be miserable as fuck.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, egg said:

You lying sod. H&W is correct. I reacted, you changed it. 

Discussion with someone who is intolerant, belligerent, clueless, and dishonest, is pointless. 

And people grizzle that he gets bullied 😂

[sadoldgit]

MLG is a pedant and clearly cannot help himself. What is your excuse?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, egg said:

You lying sod. H&W is correct. I reacted, you changed it. 

Discussion with someone who is intolerant, belligerent, clueless, and dishonest, is pointless. 

It's no surprise he acts in bad faith on these forums, since he has little understanding of faith.

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

And people grizzle that he gets bullied 😂

If anything, MLG is much like a kindergarten bully. The entire board is subjected to it, and the tone changes, much like having a stroppy kid in your class.

Attention seeking: All the threads that end up focused on his attitude. Then there's things like the transfer window thread where he got all passive aggressive with those posting news before he could.mixed in with the "breaking news MLG" which he clearly enjoys and is fine.

Undermining others: Will always look for a gotcha, whether the original post is fully read or understood or not. These will be mixed in with sometimes useful corrections, but when the corrections are wrong...

Nearly everyone else is happy to give the benefit of the doubt and discuss like grown ups (mostly...well...often anyway) with a common interest.

Never wrong: I can't think of many who are more factually incorrect on the board. A lot of it due to jumping in without thought combined with delusions of intelligence and self importance. As above, everyone else just happy to have a chat where we can all express ourselves and learn. I can't think of anyone else where being right or wrong particularly matters that much.

Actions extend to changing arguments/points or regularly editing original posts, as we saw above and a week or so back too.

Blaming others: Combined with never being wrong, it will be our fault, or recently other FM thread creators, or SI or anyone else.

Huffs: When things don't go to plan, there's always just abandoning the derailed thread. When we had The Great Sulk, the tone of the place really improved after a couple of weeks. When he's here, any number of threads can be impacted by the same attitude.

Before the huffs, we see someone with the emotional intelligence of a child stubbornly clinging on, regardless of reason, with no consideration to anyone else around them.

Actions & Consequences: Since in his mind he's never wrong, and it's never his fault, every thread is a fresh start to repeat the same behaviours. It's been that way from the start. Different people, putting up with it, just have different tolerance levels of when to call it out. There's not much hope in it changing, but we can have some faith that it will one day.

So, as odd as it seems, a number of the poor attitudes, you'd be telling your kid off about, are actually shown by MLG. 

As egg said "intolerant, belligerent, clueless, and dishonest"

I see some of the rest of us just react to it in different, and long suffering, ways. I think that some, seeing the responses of those preparing for another slew of nonsense, and trying to put an early stop to it, consider the reactions as preemptive bullying. But, as above, there are reasons for it.

[Turkish]

59 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

It's no surprise he acts in bad faith on these forums, since he has little understanding of faith.

If anything, MLG is much like a kindergarten bully. The entire board is subjected to it, and the tone changes, much like having a stroppy kid in your class.

Attention seeking: All the threads that end up focused on his attitude. Then there's things like the transfer window thread where he got all passive aggressive with those posting news before he could.mixed in with the "breaking news MLG" which he clearly enjoys and is fine.

Undermining others: Will always look for a gotcha, whether the original post is fully read or understood or not. These will be mixed in with sometimes useful corrections, but when the corrections are wrong...

Nearly everyone else is happy to give the benefit of the doubt and discuss like grown ups (mostly...well...often anyway) with a common interest.

Never wrong: I can't think of many who are more factually incorrect on the board. A lot of it due to jumping in without thought combined with delusions of intelligence and self importance. As above, everyone else just happy to have a chat where we can all express ourselves and learn. I can't think of anyone else where being right or wrong particularly matters that much.

Actions extend to changing arguments/points or regularly editing original posts, as we saw above and a week or so back too.

Blaming others: Combined with never being wrong, it will be our fault, or recently other FM thread creators, or SI or anyone else.

Huffs: When things don't go to plan, there's always just abandoning the derailed thread. When we had The Great Sulk, the tone of the place really improved after a couple of weeks. When he's here, any number of threads can be impacted by the same attitude.

Before the huffs, we see someone with the emotional intelligence of a child stubbornly clinging on, regardless of reason, with no consideration to anyone else around them.

Actions & Consequences: Since in his mind he's never wrong, and it's never his fault, every thread is a fresh start to repeat the same behaviours. It's been that way from the start. Different people, putting up with it, just have different tolerance levels of when to call it out. There's not much hope in it changing, but we can have some faith that it will one day.

So, as odd as it seems, a number of the poor attitudes, you'd be telling your kid off about, are actually shown by MLG. 

As egg said "intolerant, belligerent, clueless, and dishonest"

I see some of the rest of us just react to it in different, and long suffering, ways. I think that some, seeing the responses of those preparing for another slew of nonsense, and trying to put an early stop to it, consider the reactions as preemptive bullying. But, as above, there are reasons for it.

Christ, dont set him off again.......

[trousers]

To be fair to MLG, and acknowledging that I'm being somewhat presumptuous here, he displays classic character traits of someone with autism and/or ADHD. (My adult daughter was recently diagnosed with ADHD so I have a bit of insight into such behaviours)

So, before criticising / judging, it might be worth considering that MLG doesn't have the same level of 'behavioural control' or 'self awareness' that you or I might have. 

Just a thought

#bekind ♥️ 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, trousers said:

To be fair to MLG, and acknowledging that I'm being somewhat presumptuous here, he displays classic character traits of someone with autism and/or ADHD. (My adult daughter was recently diagnosed with ADHD so I have a bit of insight into such behaviours)

So, before criticising / judging, it might be worth considering that MLG doesn't have the same level of 'behavioural control' or 'self awareness' that you or I might have. 

Just a thought

#bekind ♥️ 

I have neuro divergent adult children, and do some work with neuro divergence. Assuming MLG is neuro divergent (I'm not here to diagnose), he knows exactly what he's doing imo. He spent a year or so keeping quiet ISH on here, so I'm not buying the whole "lack of behavioural control" thing. If he's going to engage, he has to accept what comes from engaging as he does. 

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, trousers said:

To be fair to MLG, and acknowledging that I'm being somewhat presumptuous here, he displays classic character traits of someone with autism and/or ADHD. (My adult daughter was recently diagnosed with ADHD so I have a bit of insight into such behaviours)

So, before criticising / judging, it might be worth considering that MLG doesn't have the same level of 'behavioural control' or 'self awareness' that you or I might have. 

Just a thought

#bekind ♥️ 

He isn't the only one with autism on here.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

50 minutes ago, trousers said:

To be fair to MLG, and acknowledging that I'm being somewhat presumptuous here, he displays classic character traits of someone with autism and/or ADHD. (My adult daughter was recently diagnosed with ADHD so I have a bit of insight into such behaviours)

So, before criticising / judging, it might be worth considering that MLG doesn't have the same level of 'behavioural control' or 'self awareness' that you or I might have. 

Just a thought

#bekind ♥️ 

It wouldn't be my intention to ever be unkind. Hopefully, my posting history backs my outlook up.

It's important that others, like Tommy and Nick, have pointed out what they consider to be bullying, and for others, like yourself, to provide possible scenarios that could help with understanding. Also, in how such behaviour triggers others, and things they could do to deal with that. I don't take any of that lightly.

My intention is not to judge. It's to outline long standing patterns, that have  impacted my activity here, and perhaps others too. I find an ongoing awareness of them helps in how I react.

In a forum this big, there's not much any number of us won't have had some sort of experience of. So, on balance I'm more aligned to...

38 minutes ago, egg said:

I have neuro divergent adult children, and do some work with neuro divergence. Assuming MLG is neuro divergent (I'm not here to diagnose), he knows exactly what he's doing imo. He spent a year or so keeping quiet ISH on here, so I'm not buying the whole "lack of behavioural control" thing. If he's going to engage, he has to accept what comes from engaging as he does. 

 

37 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

He isn't the only one with autism on here.

 

[Matthew Le God]

7 hours ago, egg said:

You lying sod. H&W is correct. I reacted, you changed it. 

Discussion with someone who is intolerant, belligerent, clueless, and dishonest, is pointless. 

Bullshit. Nothing was removed from the post. All I did was add the second bit. Everything that was in the original post is still in it. So what on earth are you talking about? A mod should be able to confirm that if they look at the post edit record.

Edited Wednesday at 13:51 by Matthew Le God

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Bullshit. Nothing was removed from the post. All I did was add the second bit. Everything that was in the original post is still in it. So what on earth are you talking about? A mod should be able to confirm that if they look at the post edit record.

H&W is accurate in what he says you changed. You know that, and you're doing yourself a huge disservice here. 

Edited Wednesday at 14:36 by egg

[Matthew Le God]

44 minutes ago, egg said:

H&W is accurate in what he says you changed. You know that, and you're doing yourself a huge disservice here. 

Bullshit! Nothing was altered from the original post. The original text remains exactly how it was. All that changed was I added the second bit.

[Matthew Le God]

@egg 

A mod @Lighthouse should be able to confirm that nothing from the original post is different. If they wanted to join in with this nonsense!

[The Kraken]

Looking forward to the VAR review on this one.

[Weston Super Saint]

23 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just to clarify, you've never, ever, in your pitiful existence, had faith that Saints would win a game?  Not once, ever, because you have no need for faith?

I assume this means that the result of every single Saints match, past, present or future is already known by you, because science something, something?  If so, what will the score be on Saturday and who will be the scorers?

In fact, scrap that, you must know the result of all matches before they are played.  Why are you on this board spouting your utter drivel?  Surely you should have won the pools every week?

I pity your children to be fair.  Children whose father literally has NO FAITH in them or their abilities.  They must be miserable as fuck.

Are you not going to bother answering the questions?

Normally, by now, you would have bullet pointed the questions and answered each of them with some magnificient comeback as to why I'm the idiot and you're the genius.

Hasn't happened this time.  I guess your deathly silence means you really do have faith after all.

[Matthew Le God]

8 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Are you not going to bother answering the questions?

Normally, by now, you would have bullet pointed the questions and answered each of them with some magnificient comeback as to why I'm the idiot and you're the genius.

Hasn't happened this time.  I guess your deathly silence means you really do have faith after all.

I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

[Turkish]

Last night when i put my son to bed he said "night Daddy love you". I of course refused to accept this and demanded evidence this was the case. I made him write down all the ways he thought he'd shown he loved me in the last week and went through line by line if this was in fact a demonstration of love or something else, what even is love? Just something people use to label an untangible emotion. Anyway thats told him and he wont be doing that again.

Edited Thursday at 14:33 by Turkish

[whelk]

Can anyone tell me where the universe ends? And if so what is 20 billion to the power 20 trillion further on from that? Thanks 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Can anyone tell me where the universe ends? And if so what is 20 billion to the power 20 trillion further on from that? Thanks 

What is infinity + 1 ?

[whelk]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

What is infinity + 1 ?

MLG will know

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

What is infinity + 1 ?

 

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

MLG will know

 

I have evidence for this

[whelk]

To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.

Graham Taylor 1992
 

 

[Matthew Le God]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Last night when i put my son to bed he said "night Daddy love you". I of course refused to accept this and demanded evidence this was the case. I made him write down all the ways he thought he'd shown he loved me in the last week and went through line by line if this was in fact a demonstration of love or something else, what even is love? Just something people use to label an untangible emotion. Anyway thats told him and he wont be doing that again.

The evidence is his actions. No need for further justification. No faith required.

[badgerx16]

I think MLG's inflexible pedantry will eventually bury him.

Edited Thursday at 15:45 by badgerx16

[egg]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

Ill repeat my unanswered point from the other day - have you ever taken a leap of faith, or put your faith in something or someone?

Yes or no. 

[Weston Super Saint]

39 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I think MLG's inflexible pedantry will eventually bury him.

Maybe before someone else does...