Attention Moffie . . .

I couldn't help but notice that on this thread - in your attempts to try and prove the ridiculous notion that an atheist shouldn't be allowed to use the term RIP - you actually had the gall to ask me some stupid question about 18th century tombs or something. 
You also blathered on about how I would be a coward by my own standards if I didn't answer your question and of course, needless to say, your praise-singing little Servile Gimp was soon ramming his dirty little snout up your arse, boasting that you had "sorted me out" and predicting that I would dodge this question.
Well, I'm not a coward and I'm not dodging your stupid question. I have an answer for you that is both unambiguous and clear . . . but fair is fair so here's the deal . . . before I answer your question, go back and revisit the question that I asked you twice on this thread, a third time on this thread and then a fourth time on this thread and then, once you finally summon up the courage to answer my very simple and reasonable question, I'll wait . . . let's see . . . 23 days and then I'll answer your stupid question.
Fair?
Please let me know if you think I'm being unreasonable in any way. 
The rest of the posters on the board can be witness that I promised to answer your question (once you've been subjected to the same wait I was subjected to of course) and you can feel free to point me to this thread if I chicken out. I won't though, because I'm not a  weak, quivering coward like you and Dense.

It's  8.00 in the morning. You sound upset...are you?

 
Why would a person who doesn't believe in an existence after death, wish one who's just passed to "rest in peace"? That doesn't make any sense.

Nothing exists. No torment, no judgement, no joy ... a whole lotta nothing.

There's no need to answer the question, Redneck. You seem to be confused about a lot of things these days.




 

Moz and Rooi, why don't you guys just answer one another's questions? For me personally, the lack of an answer indicates an inability to answer. Hence dodging the question. So from an outside point of view, you both look a little silly. Either of you can put it on the table right now, and have the other looking like a cowardly idiot. 
In other words, this is not a debate where the smarter man wins, it is a lame sarcasm contest that makes you both look like you are wrong. 

 
Sometimes you get folk that are being deliberately obtuse.

Why would you want to entertain their stupid questions in that case?

 

 Why would you want to entertain their stupid questions in that case?
Are you saying UrinalRooi is asking stupid questions?

 There's no need to answer the question, Redneck. You seem to be confused about a lot of things these days.

 rooitwit I have laboured long and hard to enlighten you that God exists and Christ is part of the Triune Godhead. "Through Him all things were Created" etc etc I have to inform you Rooitwit that atheists will not be resting on peace. That is the big truth you need to know. Seek the Lord while there is still time and he will reveal himself to you and that will be the end of all your nonsense.Ou rooitwit is certainly the sheep that has gone far astray . Be wise rooitwit and listen to Uncle Beeno who has, as the record shows, given you sound advice on many an issue.

 Gosh am I manifesting too much gall again. I do apologize. Still you gave us links to several threads where you asked questions....I opened the last one and this was the first question you asked:

Rooinek
 
Status: Rugby Legend 
Posts: 5364RE: How the Springbok Backline could be Shaping up against the French
April 30, 2017, 19:29:41

The real question is, do we play the lightning fast Eben Etzebeth at left wing or right wing?

 A rather odd question to be haunting you all this time. But let me try to answer. On the bold assumption that you would select him on the wing, I would select the right wing, as he scrums on the right side. Logical? Does that provide useful information.....type one star if yes/2 if no.
....
LMAOFY&Y!

 Moz
Take it easy on him, he's rather fragile at the moment, going by the time(7.42am) his post landed I hazard a guess that our boy suffered a rather restless nights sleep. Skipped Brekkie and a cuppa in his frenzy to get onto the board it seems. I feel his pain.

He used to be good for one or two rounds, now he looks like Joe Frazier in the George Foreman fight.

Rest in peace sounds more like their is no afterlife. Why would they be resting? 

Christians believe the resting souls are waiting for Judgement day, when all will be judged......living or dead. So RIP is rather fraught with meaning....not a phrase any card carrying atheist should use.

I think RIP certainly has its heritage in religion- but it is pretty mainstream now. 

 
I dunno, Mozart ... I'm sure I saw him step a lot better off of his left foot to the inside than the right.

I'd rather go with Eben on the left wing.



 

Nyakane at outside centre?

"Still you gave us links to several threads where you asked questions . . ."
Moffie, are you really so stupid and so utterly helpless that you need me to not only provide the links but hold your hand and show you the relevant question?
I did say I asked the same question 4 times, right? Did you see that? Yes? Good . . . so did I ask the Eben Etzenbeth question 4 times? No, it was a rhetorical question that was aimed at everyone rather than just you. The question that I asked you specifically appears on all 4 threads I linked you to. I mean, really, could you not work any of this out? How on earth did you survive this long being this helpless or this stupid?
If you're not actually this stupid or this helpless then I can only guess you're just being evasive and cowardly again so just to remove any doubt, the question I am referring to is the one regarding the Lions (or "Leins" as you called them to suggest they were one-season wonders) and how or when in your silly little mind they suddenly went from being mid-table plodders who would finish behind both the Stompies (pffffhahaha!) and the Sharks, to the "superior" SA team.
What was the event that caused this sudden change in their status because one minute you were saying one thing and the next minute you were saying something completely different and there was never any explanation from you.
Go on then, find some new way to dodge the question if you must . . . that is your style after all . . . and I'm sure your pathetic little Alpha Gimp will cheer your cowardly ducking and diving all the way.

Seriously, I think a tooth extraction is an easier and less painful process than getting you to answer a question that you're trying to avoid.

That was the first question, on the first string I opened up....I answered it.......it's not my problem if you botched the whole thing. Your turn.....hahahaha.....the old foot shooter in mid season form.

QED

 the old foot shooter in mid season form.
It would do us all a favour if he copped one in the mouth.

 Haha Rooi
You've really got it in for the world this week man. Maybe it's the other way round
Anyway, you're a full 100% atheist are you? Gotta say, for me, that makes as little sense as being a Christian.
I guess, I'm not entirely aware of exactly what it is to be an atheist. The words "supernatural", "eternity", "creation" or "soul" just seem way to subjective to me.
Take supernatural for example. Really, all it means is that it's something outside of our present understanding, right? My TV remote would appear to have supernatural powers to even Da Vinci back in the day. Until that is, I explain how it works and show him that even my dog can operate it. 
Soul? We have probably only figured out a small fraction of the physical reality of this world. So who is to say that we are not made up of or connected to some particle or energythat we have not yet discovered...let alone understand. 
Creation? The possibility of us living in some type of simulation seems more likely all the time. And if that is the case then it could well be that all things were created by something...possibly even a software that generates its own samples within the construct. 
To me, and I'm probably way off the mark here, but accepting that any of the above possibilities, of which there are many many many more, might be a reality means that one has to fail somewhere on the agnostic spectrum. God might exist, and be capable of everything the bible mentions and more, yet be a technology. Does that mean one should worship and praise him...Well I respect good hardware, but that's about where it ends
I guess, my question to you is this. Doesn't being an atheist require just as big a leap of faith as what is required to call one self a Christian? 

 Anyway, I reserve the right to wish anyone to RIP because I have have no idea if their lights just went out or if they just woke up from a dream.that sseemed to last forever.

Taking a scientific viewpoint, the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven. 
However just because someone does not prescribe to a religion does not mean that they believe there is no afterlife. They may hope there is an afterlife- but it is something that is incomprehensible . 

 "They may hope there is an afterlife- but it is something that is incomprehensible"
I disagree. It's only incomprehensible until someone explains to you how it works. That's kind of my point.

"To me, and I'm probably way off the mark here, but accepting that any of the above possibilities, of which there are many many many more, might be a reality means that one has to fail somewhere on the agnostic spectrum."
"Creation", "soul", "supernatural" . . . yes, those are all concepts I reject, but why would accepting the possibility of the concept of "eternity" make me an agnostic rather than an atheist?
I don't consider myself to be an agnostic. In the absence of even the tiniest shred of proof that there is a God, I'm happy to believe there isn't one. 
I also don't believe the onus of disproving a god or a creator is on me or my fellow non-believers in the same way that it's not for us to prove that a tooth fairy doesn't exist. It's the people who believe in these things that carry the burden of proof . . . and if someone did come up with something even remotely believable or compelling to support the claim that there is a god (or a tooth fairy for that matter ), then I could conceivably move from being an atheist to an agnostic . . . but so far, nothing.

"Moz and Rooi, why don't you guys just answer one another's questions? For me personally, the lack of an answer indicates an inability to answer. Hence dodging the question. So from an outside point of view, you both look a little silly. Either of you can put it on the table right now, and have the other looking like a cowardly idiot."
Really, bluebok? You think our behaviour with regards to these questions can be compared? You think Moffie and I are equally cowardly in this instance?

 I see.
I don't think I phrased my question properly. 
Do you accept that everything from souls to creation and and afterlife might be possible, just not necessarily supernaturally? Rather, naturally just not presently understood by science.

No, I don't think there was a creation, I don't believe there is any kind of afterlife and my definition of what constitutes a "soul" is probably a lot closer to what most people call a "conscience".

I ask that, because if one accepts the possibility that all those things are possible via technology or some not yet understood function of nature then it becomes tricky.
If they are possible it means that being an atheist amounts to not much more than rejecting spiritual terminology.

 Ok. 
All I know that the more I read the more I realise that we just keep discovering new tips to new icebergs. 
Elon Musk recently said that he has never heard an argument compelling enough to convince him that we don't live inside of a simulation. And I tend to agree with him. 
I'm not saying that it's true because obviously I don't know. Just that it might be. And if it is, then that one idea alone opens up every single idea in the bible to possibility...including an afterlife and creation. 
Hence my statement that being a full atheist requires leap of faith comparable to the one required for Christianity. 
Anyway, you seem a tad grumpy there. I shall stop poking you now.

Plum, you seem to be uncomfortable with me calling myself an atheist.
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there's a god or believes that the existence of a god is unknowable. I'm not one of those, which is why I made the point earlier on about the burden of proof.
I also don't believe that technology will ever advance to the point where it will be capable of creating universes or giving us life after death.
You get one life. Live it to the best of your abilty and stop relying on some crutch like heaven, reincarnation or any kind of afterlife where you get some kind of second chance. When you die, you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. That's all. 

Really? My answers seem "grumpy" to you?
Maybe I should stop answering then . . . although then we all know what the likes of bluebok, Moffie and Dense will be squealing!

Plum, I've answered a few of your questions and I've answered them honestly. My turn to ask you a question and I hope you'll do likewise.
Please re-read my responses to you and tell me which paragraphs, sentences or words made me come across as being a "tad grumpy".
Be specific now. Thanks.

 Rooi, you always sound a bit grumpy!

Plum, I am a Christian myself, but I like your view on things. You seem to really be trying to stay neutral and apply logic to the best of your ability...leave the door open for new ideas and developments. Keep on searching and exploring, the truth might find you.

Those who don't believe in the supernatural are left with explaining existence.....as strange a concept as a deity.

 Rooi. I'm not uncomfortable with you calling yourself an atheist. Just intrigued by the idea of atheism for the reason I stated IE The fact that it seemingly opposes religion yet requires similar ways of thinking in that for example, one has to reject certain possibilities out of hand. 
Just thought I'd take the opportunity to see what you thought.  
I am uncomfortable callingmyself an atheist though. 

My bad. Yo u seemed quite abrupt is all.

Oh for goodness sake . . . Dense, Moffie, bluebok and now Plum as well! Trying to get straight answers to simple questions is becoming quite the mission on this board of late!
Let me try to rephrase that then, Plum . . .
Please re-read my responses to you and tell me which paragraphs, sentences or words made me come across as being "quite abrupt".
Be specific now. Thanks.

" No, I don't think there was a creation, I don't believe there is any kind of afterlife and my definition of what constitutes a "soul" is probably a lot closer to what most people call a "conscience"."

I find that abrupt.
"Plum, you seem to be uncomfortable with me calling myself an atheist."

I find that to be defensive.
Font size is unintentional. 
Like i said. My bad. You probably never typed it in the tone I read it in.
Yeah yeah, go ahead let's hear it...oh P lum stop being so sensitive. 

'Seriously, I think a tooth extraction is an easier and less painful process than getting you to answer a question that you're trying to avoid.'......wow, how many teeth do you have left? Now we have to build in yet another fault, this is a step beyond yellow teeth.....sans teeth.