It might not be scientific, but it still is a funny remark given the context.manfriday wrote:The pictures bingo posted only illutrate that there are assholes in the world.
The Blasphemy Challenge
What, no proof the orange isn't there? I understand your logic now. You have secret proof. Your logic is better than mine because you have magic logic. The type of logic which only you and your clandestine magicians can understand. You can go back to your miracle club now. I'm not intelligent enough to understand your wacky brand of logic.
manfriday wrote:It's a shame Kirk Cameron wasn't debating you in that video, braincell..
He would have looked a lot more intelligent.
Have you ever taken a course in logic?
Of course you haven't. why am I even asking?
well this was great fun kids.
I called Cameron and Comfort morons.....and I stand by it.
I do this not just because they are believers, but because I have spent time listening to the Way of the Master. Seriously, I challenga anyone to watch the now infamous 'banana clip' and tell me they could take these guys seriously. Morons, thats what they are, deluded weak minded idiots.... and I stand by that too.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must state that I have spoken to Sapient and Kelly on several occasions, and have 'known' them for several years. We all were members of the same forum. That said tho, I actually find Sapient and his whole RRS thing slightly childish. But it has been great in stirring up debate, and that, i believe, was his intention in starting the thing.
There are much better exponents of theistic thinking out there and there much better athiestic thinkers.
p.s. as for scientific evidence of evolution, the case has been proven. Evolution is indeed a fact. Any with doubt look up Retroviral Insertions.
I do this not just because they are believers, but because I have spent time listening to the Way of the Master. Seriously, I challenga anyone to watch the now infamous 'banana clip' and tell me they could take these guys seriously. Morons, thats what they are, deluded weak minded idiots.... and I stand by that too.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must state that I have spoken to Sapient and Kelly on several occasions, and have 'known' them for several years. We all were members of the same forum. That said tho, I actually find Sapient and his whole RRS thing slightly childish. But it has been great in stirring up debate, and that, i believe, was his intention in starting the thing.
There are much better exponents of theistic thinking out there and there much better athiestic thinkers.
p.s. as for scientific evidence of evolution, the case has been proven. Evolution is indeed a fact. Any with doubt look up Retroviral Insertions.
no, there isnt. but you changed directions on me.What, no proof the orange isn't there?
There is no proof therer isnt a magic floating orange in space.
It could be right next to the pink unicorn for all I know.
But that has nothing to do with your stupid green cheezy moon comment.
This I can agree with 100%. I thought everyone in that debate was rather lame.There are much better exponents of theistic thinking out there and there much better athiestic thinkers.
agreed.as for scientific evidence of evolution, the case has been proven. Evolution is indeed a fact. Any with doubt look up Retroviral Insertions.
-
hubird
That's what I meant Manfriday, when I called your arguing 'sectaric and baked in stone'.manfriday wrote:Come on man. Couldnt you have picked a better analogy than that?If I say the moon is made of green cheese let me see you prove that it is not.
The moon? Give me a break. We can all look at the moon. We've been there. We know what it is made of.
If you had said "let me see you prove there is no such thing as flying pink unicorns" you would have made a decent point, but sadly your wit seems to have gotten in your way again
You almost admit Braincell has a point, but you don't give it him just because there are better examples to give than he did...weak it is.
Mostly, when people start quoting a long list of sentences and sarcasticly commenting them, sentence after sentence, then I 'm sure the writer won't give in one single point.
His position then is clear as hell, baked in stone
I did not admit that he had a point, only that his examples made no sense.You almost admit Braincell has a point, but you don't give it him just because there are better examples to give than he did...weak it is.
I did admit that Me$$iah has a couple points, but you seem to have ignored that? Perhaps your own point of view is too baked in stone?
thanks for confirming, that was my impression after 5 minutes or so and I skipped the rest.manfriday wrote:...This I can agree with 100%. I thought everyone in that debate was rather lame.There are much better exponents of theistic thinking out there and there much better athiestic thinkers.
...
(as once mentioned) any aggregation of human beings beyond a certain degree or the evidence of 'herd building up' is in progress is highly suspective to me...
but then I'd add 95% of all scientists to the 'moron' group - because they are as 'pseudo' as those 'believers' they mock about
cheers, Tom
-
Liquid Len
- Posts: 652
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Home By The Sea
Yes, you did get it all wrong. In any event my thread was not intended for delusional people, only atheists.
manfriday wrote:NO, that is about right.someone called some "religious" people morons. Another person comes along arguing that calling people morons just because they are religious is not valid, and from there it went in several different directions - Or did I get it all wrong?
A virgin shark gave birth:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/ ... 1299.shtml
I wonder if a shark could give birth to jesus?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/ ... 1299.shtml
I wonder if a shark could give birth to jesus?
-
Liquid Len
- Posts: 652
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Home By The Sea
ROFLMAO!braincell wrote:A virgin shark gave birth:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/ ... 1299.shtml
I wonder if a shark could give birth to jesus?
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/
You just had to spoil it Wayne, you friggin' frigger!
astroman wrote:thanks for confirming, that was my impression after 5 minutes or so and I skipped the rest.manfriday wrote:...This I can agree with 100%. I thought everyone in that debate was rather lame.There are much better exponents of theistic thinking out there and there much better athiestic thinkers.
...
(as once mentioned) any aggregation of human beings beyond a certain degree or the evidence of 'herd building up' is in progress is highly suspective to me...
but then I'd add 95% of all scientists to the 'moron' group - because they are as 'pseudo' as those 'believers' they mock about
cheers, Tom
the purpose of the show is for getting weak-minded people on both sides arguing over stupidity instead of taking a good look at their meaningless lives and the sources of their ideas............
another example of divide and rule. another false debate. of course, the "god" of this debate doesn't exist! neither do purple spotted sh$t weasels! if i have a show debating spotted sh$t weasels will people argue that too(and feel superior doing it?)? would the creator of the universe need anyone's approval anyway? and would it matter to this creator what the humans thought either way?
arrogance is not a substitute for rightness or knowledge and all of human knowledge pooled together is so close to nothing of the totality of the universe as to be nothing. think what you want, but get over yourself, you're probably wrong when it comes down to it, no matter what you think.
I don't think that is really the point of a debate on the existence of god.would the creator of the universe need anyone's approval anyway?
assuming god exists, it would depend on the type of god he/she/it was I suppose..and would it matter to this creator what the humans thought either way?
if God is an impersonal force, then no. If it is a personal god who creates for the pleasure of creating, then sure it could matter.
Of course, until this creator deigns to step down off his proverbial cloud and grace us with the answer, all we can do is speculate.
it's not the point, but it's worth considering. one agument against god's existance is the lack of direct evidence, but this supposes that such a creator would definitely have a hankering to be known. it's also part of the arrogance that supposes that such a creator who did something that no human could even consider(creating the whole of the universe from scratch), could be understood by it's creation. these are old debates that certainly won't have anything of substance added by a television yelling contest. my point is the utter stupidity of the whole thing.manfriday wrote:I don't think that is really the point of a debate on the existence of god.would the creator of the universe need anyone's approval anyway?