LordReed:


LoLz! Look at this fickle dunderhead trying to form high road. When you started with the name calling you didn't know it was ad hominem, now you want to cry crocodile tears. LMAO!

Bomboclat, explain what is aggressive about this question:


I guess when you look in the mirror you see how bizzare you are so you must label the whole world as bizzare cos you can't cope with your bizzaro self.

How does me asking a question mean I care? Or you can read minds now?

I had to point out I am not FRANCISTOWN because you kept saying he said something. Dummy my question has nothing to do with what he said, it is about what you said. If I wanted a conversation about what he said I'd ask him not you. Even my 5 year old knows that but because you've lost your damn marbles you just had to go on a stupid rant didn't ya. Bwahahahahahaha!

*Politeness*
I don't do name-calling neither does it have any effect on me whatsoever. So have fun.

If someone just countered someone else that Einstein was not a Christian. It is very aggressive to interject with "what was he?", when you are not the person addressed.
The rest is obvious obfuscation. You said nobody cared what religion he was. It was pointed out to you you obviously cared because you interjected. And also that the person who first asked the question obviously cared. You went bizarre that you had a right to interject in any convo, and that you were not Francis (none of which had anything to do with what was being argued!) , and later even more bizarrely said you were starting a new different discussion by interjecting!!
If that's not madness I don't know what is!

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
I don't do name-calling neither does it have any effect on me whatsoever. So have fun.

If someone just countered someone else that Einstein was not a Christian. It is very aggressive to interject with "what was he?", when you are not the person addressed.
The rest is obvious obfuscation. You said nobody cared what religion he was. It was pointed out to you you obviously cared because you interjected. And also that the person who first asked the question obviously cared. You went bizarre that you had a right to interject in any convo, and that you were not the C
Francis (none of which had anything to do with what was being argued!) , and later even more bizarrely said you were starting a new different discussion by interjecting!!
If that's not madness I don't know what is!

Dumdum when you were sarcastically calling me genius and Mr Know It All what were those? You are so freaking stupid you think everyone is stupid like you. LoLz. Watch, I expect you to come and attempt to twist it and say calling me genius and Mr Know It All are not name calling. LMAO.

"What was he" is aggressive only to a snowflake of an insane fool who lacks the capacity to grasp the simplicity of a question.

See deliberate twisting. I asked why should we care and here you go twisting it to nobody cares. This is how you deceive your own brain cells into believing nonsense.

No amount of explanation gets through your bizzaro brain does it. You just create a fantasy and stew in it. You are insane and need help.

LordReed:


Dumdum when you were sarcastically calling me genius and Mr Know It All what were those? You are so freaking stupid you think everyone is stupid like you. LoLz. Watch, I expect you to come and attempt to twist it and say calling me genius and Mr Know It All are not name calling. LMAO.

"What was he" is aggressive only to a snowflake of an insane fool who lacks the capacity to grasp the simplicity of a question.

See deliberate twisting. I asked why should we care and here you go twisting it to nobody cares.This is how you deceive your own brain cells into believing nonsense.

No amount of explanation gets through your bizzaro brain does it. You just create a fantasy and stew in it. You are insane and need help.

*Politeness*
I can assure you everyone else can see it is very aggressive to interject the way you did. It was even beyond aggressive, you were advocating for the guy. Everyone else can see it but you!

Just as it is only you who can't see that "why should we care?" is same as "nobody cares."

PoliteActivist:

*Politeness*
I can assure you everyone else can see it is very aggressive to interject the way you did. It was even beyond aggressive, you were advocating for the guy. Everyone else can see it but you!

Just as it is only you who can't see that "why should we care?" is same as "nobody cares."

Your arrogant stupidity assuming you know what is in people's mind stinks.

Dumdum I am not so stupid like you if I wanted to say nobody cares I would have written that. Instead I asked you a question to elicit clarity but what a disappointment I was expecting sense from an insane fellow.

LordReed:




Your arrogant stupidity assuming you know what is in people's mind stinks.

Dumdum I am not so stupid like you if I wanted to say nobody cares I would have written that. Instead I asked you a question to elicit clarity but what a disappointment I was expecting sense from an insane fellow.

*Politeness*
Since everything has to be spelled out for you, "Why should we care?" is what is called a rhetorical question. It means same as "we don't care" or "nobody cares"

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
Since everything has to be spelled out for you, "Why should we care?" is what is called a rhetorical question. It means same as "we don't care" or "nobody cares"

Dumdum stop making an arse of yourself by assuming you know my mind.

I wrote a question and was expecting a reasonable answer not your pathetic attempts to deflect.

If I wanted to say nobody cares I'd have written nobody cares. I am not like you who needs tortuous nonsense to say what I mean.

LordReed:


Dumdum stop making an arse of yourself by assuming you know my mind.

I wrote a question and was expecting a reasonable answer not your pathetic attempts to deflect.

If I wanted to say nobody cares I'd have written nobody cares. I am not like you who needs tortuous nonsense to say what I mean.

*Politeness*
I honestly have been grossly overestimating you. You really are not too smart. I mean, for real! Not just because of this, but your other statements.
If you interject to ask someone who just said Einstein was not a Christian, "what religion was he", then followed it up with "why should we care?", it can only mean "we don't care", otherwise you wouldn’t have asked "what religion was he", you'd have simply asked "why should we care (that he was not a Christian)".
Geez. Feels like I'm explaining to a 4-year-old!

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
I honestly have been grossly overestimating you. You really are not too smart. I mean, for real! Not just because of this, but your other statements.
If you interject to ask someone who just said Einstein was not a Christian, "what religion was he", then followed it up with "why should we care?", it can only mean "we don't care", otherwise you wouldn’t have asked "what religion was he", you'd have simply asked "why should we care (that he was not a Christian)".
Geez. Feels like I'm explaining to a 4-year-old!

You are just a dummy and I say that without any reservations.

Why should we care is a question designed to elicit a response outlining why Einstein's religion is an important part of your submission. Your dumbarse self failed to understand such a simple concept and even repeatedly spelling it out for you still fails to stimulate what ever geriatric brain cells you still have left.

You are intellectually no different from a nursery school pupil whose only ability is to recite from rote.

LordReed:


I used to consider myself an agnostic atheist but now I identify with igtheism.

With every respect, old friend, I friend this a little escapist, to be mild. Because I doubt that most people involved in discussions on the existence of God can genuinely claim to have no idea of what the word "God" as used in these discussions refers to. And no, its not a question of "which god?" Because while there may be differing conceptions of "God" there is no doubt that in these discussions the concept of God is basically that of a supreme being said to be the creator of all else that exists.

Whether he is Jesus, whether he sent Mohammed, whether he cares about the way you live or die, where he is even a "he" at all, all of these things are secondary and vary from conception to conception. What does not vary is the fundamental idea of a source creator being.

LordReed:


You are just a dummy and I say that without any reservations.

Why should we care is a question designed to elicit a response outlining why Einstein's religion is an important part of your submission. Your dumbarse self failed to understand such a simple concept and even repeatedly spelling it out for you still fails to stimulate what ever geriatric brain cells you still have left.

You are intellectually no different from a nursery school pupil whose only ability is to recite from rote.

*Politeness*
That's one of the pitfalls of a forum like this. I could actually be debating with a bot and not know it.
Listen closely:
Once again, if you were asking a real question and not a rhetorical question, you would ask "why should we care?" right after someone had said "Einstein was never a Christian". You DON'T first ask the person "what religion was he?" then follow with "why should we care?". If you do, the question is rhetorical and just part of your continuing aggression towards the person.
Hope you finally get it

DeepSight:


With every respect, old friend, I friend this a little escapist, to be mild. Because I doubt that most people involved in discussions on the existence of God can genuinely claim to have no idea of what the word "God" as used in these discussions refers to. And no, its not a question of "which god?" Because while there may be differing conceptions of "God" there is no doubt that in these discussions the concept of God is basically that of a supreme being said to be the creator of all else that exists.

Whether he is Jesus, whether he sent Mohammed, whether he cares about the way you live or die, where he is even a "he" at all, all of these things are secondary and vary from conception to conception. What does not vary is the fundamental idea of a source creator being.

There is no attempt at escape here. I have recently begun to see that the entire conceptualisation captured in the word god is mostly nonsensical.

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
That's one of the pitfalls of a forum like this. I could actually be debating with a bot and not know it.
Listen closely:
Once again, if you were asking a real question and not a rhetorical question, you would ask "why should we care?" right after someone had said "Einstein was never a Christian". You DON'T first ask the person "what religion was he?" then follow with "why should we care?". If you do, the question is rhetorical and just part of your continuing aggression towards the person.
Hope you finally get it

Dumdum stop trying to assume you can read my mind. If you had an honest bone in your body you'd have accepted my explanation and provided a response but because you are only trying to deflect you persist in nonsense. You've dragged this out over how many days now just to not answer a simple question. You stink.

LordReed:


Dumdum stop trying to assume you can read my mind. If you had an honest bone in your body you'd have accepted my explanation and provided a response but because you are only trying to deflect you persist in nonsense. You've dragged this out over how many days now just to not answer a simple question. You stink.

*Politeness*
Well, sir, unless you invent your own language, we have norms. You don't get to make your own rules as it suites your current debate. If you ask someone Einstein's religion, then retort with "why should we care." right after they answer you, it means BOTH your questions were aggressive rhetoric questions!

LordReed:


There is no attempt at escape here. I have recently begun to see that the entire conceptualisation captured in the word god is mostly nonsensical.

This, again, is a vague response. I specifically said, the word "God as used in these discussions."

It is evident to any serious discussant in the atheism/ theism debate that the issue at play is simply that of a pre existing creator or designer.

Any discussant who claims not to know this is being either escapist, tiresomely pedantic or intellectually dishonest.

DeepSight:


This, again, is a vague response. I specifically said, the word "God as used in these discussions."

It is evident to any serious discussant in the atheism/ theism debate that the issue at play is simply that of a pre existing creator or designer.

Any discussant who claims not to know this is being either escapist, tiresomely pedantic or intellectually dishonest.

I am not saying I don't know how it is used, I am saying the entire concept is nonsensical. You can use nonsensical concepts in discussion, example FSM. I am not opposed to that along as we acknowledge what it is.

PoliteActivist:

*Politeness*
Well, sir, unless you invent your own language, we have norms. You don't get to make your own rules as it suites your current debate. If you ask someone Einstein's religion, then retort with "why should we care." right after they answer you, it means BOTH your questions were aggressive rhetoric questions!

Dumdum how is a question asking for clarification rhetorical? More you just reciting by rote. Engage your flagging brain cells for once.

LordReed:


I am not saying I don't know how it is used, I am saying the entire concept is nonsensical. You can use nonsensical concepts in discussion, example FSM. I am not opposed to that along as we acknowledge what it is.

This is ridiculous. It is not nonsensical to ask the question as to if a creator exists.

FSM on the hand is a mockery created and discussed by idiots.

LordReed:


Dumdum how is a question asking for clarification rhetorical? More you just reciting by rote. Engage your flagging brain cells for once.

*Politeness*
Old age is not a bad thing. In fact almost we all wish to live to a ripe old. Only that in your case it could be affecting your memory and cognition. So I hereby repost the convo. Note the part circled in green. That's the question you are insisting is an earnest request for info!

PoliteActivist:

*Politeness*
Old age is not a bad thing. In fact almost we all wish to live to a ripe old. Only that in your case it could be affecting your memory and cognition. So I hereby repost the convo. Note the part circled in green. That's the question you are insisting is an earnest request for info!

At this point it's clear you are merely grandstanding with nonsense.

DeepSight:


This is ridiculous. It is not nonsensical to ask the question as to if a creator exists.

FSM on the hand is a mockery created and discussed by idiots.

You are the one being ridiculous. Where did I say the question was nonsensical?

FSM is the concept of gods taken to its fully absurdity meant to highlight the nonsensical nature of the entire concept. It's funny you can't even see that.

LordReed:


You are the one being ridiculous. Where did I say the question was nonsensical?

Here -

LordReed:


I am not saying I don't know how it is used, I am saying the entire concept is nonsensical. You can use nonsensical concepts in discussion, example FSM. I am not opposed to that along as we acknowledge what it is.

Now I know very well that you will say you said nonsensical concepts can be used in discussion so long as we acknowledge them as nonsensical. The problem is that the concept of a creator is not by itself nonsensical. Many ideas attached to it by religion may be nonsensical but the bare concept of the existence of a creator is by no means nonsensical.

Now, again, this is not to say a creator exists, even if I personally believe so. It is simply to say that on the face of it, looking at the nature of the world, the concept of a creator is not nonsensical, much less so nonsensical as to be thus meaningless in the way you have alleged.

FSM is the concept of gods taken to its fully absurdity meant to highlight the nonsensical nature of the entire concept. It's funny you can't even see that.

I understand it perfectly and I repeat that it was created by and is discussed by idiots.

LordReed:


At this point it's clear you are merely grandstanding with nonsense.

*Politeness*
Nope. Just won't let you get away with saying that a clearly pejorative, aggressive, rhetorical question was an earnest attempt to elicit information!
Really ridiculous!😅

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
Nope. Just won't let you get away with saying that a clearly pejorative, aggressive, rhetorical question was an earnest attempt to elicit information!
Really ridiculous!😅

Dumdum you've showed your hand already.

DeepSight:


Here -



Now I know very well that you will say you said nonsensical concepts can be used in discussion so long as we acknowledge them as nonsensical. The problem is that the concept of a creator is not by itself nonsensical. Many ideas attached to it by religion may be nonsensical but the bare concept of the existence of a creator is by no means nonsensical.

Now, again, this is not to say a creator exists, even if I personally believe so. It is simply to say that on the face of it, looking at the nature of the world, the concept of a creator is not nonsensical, much less so nonsensical as to be thus meaningless in the way you have alleged.



I understand it perfectly and I repeat that it was created by and is discussed by idiots.

Glad you realize I am addressing the concepts not the question. If after asking the question you begin to form an image or concept with no clear evidence why such a concept should be plausible then it is mere fantasy. Think of the question like an empty box, we fill it with substance to answer the question. If we attempt to fill the box with imagination while claiming we have substance then we have just done nonsense. That is where the concepts of gods are, filling the question of a creator with nonsense.

Your opinion on the nature of those who discuss FSM doesn't take away from what it is.

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
Nope. Just won't let you get away with saying that a clearly pejorative, aggressive, rhetorical question was an earnest attempt to elicit information!
Really ridiculous!😅

does it matter why he asked or what he meant by asking?

is einstein not overrated?


is he worth all these?

LordReed:


Glad you realize I am addressing the concepts not the question. If after asking the question you begin to form an image or concept with no clear evidence why such a concept should be plausible then it is mere fantasy. Think of the question like an empty box, we fill it with substance to answer the question. If we attempt to fill the box with imagination while claiming we have substance then we have just done nonsense. That is where the concepts of gods are, filling the question of a creator with nonsense.

Your opinion on the nature of those who discuss FSM doesn't take away from what it is.

Your position is still rather escapist. Because it seeks to cast the matter of the existence of God as too nonsensical to be discussed (or say that if discussing it, we must acknowledge it as nonsensical). The laws of causality alone, (whether anyone disputes them with voodoo quantum physics or not) are sufficient to render the question a sane, meaningful and sensible matter to address.

DeepSight:


Your position is still rather escapist. Because it seeks to cast the matter of the existence of God as too nonsensical to be discussed (or say that if discussing it, we must acknowledge it as nonsensical). The laws of causality alone, (whether anyone disputes them with voodoo quantum physics or not) are sufficient to render the question a sane, meaningful and sensible matter to address.

Once again you are trying to put words in my mouth I never said. Why create strawmen of my words when what I said is clearly written?

LordReed:


Once again you are trying to put words in my mouth I never said. Why create strawmen of my words when what I said is clearly written?

No matter what you say, that is what is reasonably deduced from your statement that the very concept of God is nonsensical.

And Jeez, deduction aside, you did say so. As well as saying that one may discuss it, so long as one so acknowledges it as nonsensical.

So how am I putting words in your mouth. I am quoting you.

DeepSight:


No matter what you say, that is what is reasonably deduced from your statement that the very concept of God is nonsensical.

And Jeez, deduction aside, you did say so. As well as saying that one may discuss it, so long as one so acknowledges it as nonsensical.

So how am I putting words in your mouth. I am quoting you.

Nope that is not a reasonable deduction at all. In my illustration I clearly stated that the question should be filled with substance not imagination and that filling it with imagination renders it nonsensical. We've been here before and I told you I am not opposed to discussing imagination as long as we know we are merely speculating. What part of what I wrote is difficult to understand that you need to keep misrepresenting it?

LordReed:


Nope that is not a reasonable deduction at all. In my illustration I clearly stated that the question should be filled with substance not imagination and that filling it with imagination renders it nonsensical. We've been here before and I told you I am not opposed to discussing imagination as long as we know we are merely speculating. What part of what I wrote is difficult to understand that you need to keep misrepresenting it?

Ok, let us start filling the box in a few short logical steps.

Step one, do you agree that something cannot come from nothing?

DeepSight:


Ok, let us start filling the box in a few short logical steps.

Step one, do you agree that something cannot come from nothing?

Yes I agree.

LordReed:



Dumdum you've showed your hand already.

*Politeness*
Sooo, QED as usual
Now on to your next point:
I only quoted Einstein's statement: "I don't think God plays dice with the universe". I did NOT gratuitously keep meentioning God as you obvoously compulsively need to do!