RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (640) < ... 181 182 183 184 185 [186] 187 188 189 190 191 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e..



Posts: 3079
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,10:01   

Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 20 2008,05:55)
Wow, we seem to have been invaded by trolls and silly people.  Congratulations for Pim in moving them all here.

pHFFFFfffttt Pim is a complete wuss.

He binned my knifing of some twit and ALL the following comments were just Prozac versions of my comments.

He deserves them, why he even bothers to send second rate crap here when he could send quality instead indicates that Karl Marx was right.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"; and when you have seen, as I have, the bloodshot upturned eyes of a severely addicted elderly half naked person gliding through the kampong in a pipe dream then it's not too much to extrapolate that to the mindless miasma that accompanies those half man, half beasts that shuffle off to Bethlehem .....or fly into tall buildings for that matter.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10326
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,10:23   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 20 2008,10:01)
"Religion is the opiate of the masses";

This horrifically unfair to the opiates.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,10:28   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2008,10:23)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 20 2008,10:01)
"Religion is the opiate of the masses";

This horrifically unfair to the opiates.

Yes.

Television is the True Opiate of The Masses

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Brooke Connors

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,12:21   

Just when I thought it was over in Florida, here comes the "Academic Freedom Act."  Michael Mayo devotes his column to it in today's Sun-Sentinel.  The bill's a crock, and I hope somebody stops it so I don't have run screaming and naked down the street again.

Paul Burnett

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,12:21   

<blockquote> <strong>Arcoddath:</strong> @David Stanton - You miss the point -- their instruction manual says to honour your father and mother etc.  Apparently the honour only goes one way. AxS </blockquote>

For sure.  The Bible has many examples of children being expendable, from Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22) to Elisha's calling up of bears to eat unruly children (2 Kings 2) to Lot's offer of his daughters to a mob (Genesis 18) and his later incest with them.  Selling one's daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21), child abuse (Judges 11 and Isaiah 13) and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13 and Psalm 137) are mentioned as legitimate behavior.  And then there's the wholesale ethnic cleansing of entire cities - men, women and children - in Deuteronomy 3, Joshua 6, Judges 21 and many other passages.  

But the trolls say evolution is evil and the Bible is good (as well as scientifically accurate).  Puts it all in perspective, doesn't it?

raven

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,12:21   

<blockquote>DS:

It never ceaases to amaze me how creationists always seem ready, willing and able to disown their own children simply because they refuse to swallow their parents beliefs without question.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Deuteronomy 22:

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 <b>Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.</b> You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.</blockquote>

Her parents are slackers.  They are supposed to haul her to the city gates and stone her to death.

Somehow the so called biblical literalists always forget Deuteronomy.  FWIW, my guess is that at the time Deutero was spouting off, the Israelis thought he was a kook and just ignored him.  There is no evidence that Jewish cities had piles of tiny skeletons at their city gates.

Bill Gascoyne

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,12:21   

<quote>There is no evidence that Jewish cities had piles of tiny skeletons at their city gates.</quote>

How many would it take before all the children in the city got the message, lived in fear and dread, and grew up psychotic ready to repeat the whole exercise in the next generation?

Matt Ackerman

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,12:21   

<blockquote>
<strong>Paul Burnett:</strong>

<blockquote> <strong>Arcoddath:</strong> @David Stanton - You miss the point -- their instruction manual says to honour your father and mother etc.  Apparently the honour only goes one way. AxS </blockquote>

For sure.  The Bible has many examples of children being expendable . . .  

But the trolls say evolution is evil and the Bible is good (as well as scientifically accurate).  Puts it all in perspective, doesn't it?
</blockquote>

I presumes that you are infuriated when creationist grossly miss characterize scientific principles/findings, so find it odd that you intentionally misrepresents the nature of the bible. Seriously, what is the point of saying things which are obviously wrong? Just because creationist do the same thing? I think it might be more useful to ask every one to make rigorous arguments, instead of responding to irrationality in kind.

ndt

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,12:21   

What part of "The Bible has many examples of children being expendable" is inaccurate? Have you read the Bible?

raven

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,12:21   

<blockquote>Matt the Xian expert:

so find it odd that you intentionally misrepresents the nature of the bible. Seriously, what is the point of saying things which are obviously wrong?</blockquote>

Oops, I misread the bible.  You only stone disobedient <b>sons</b> to death.  Well, women are equal these days so why not?  I guess they will have to sell her as a slave.  Makes more sense anyway, everyone can always use a few extra bucks and women are just property.

So Matt what is the going rate for daughters these days?  I suppose it depends on age, condition, looks, number of advanced professional degrees (MD, DVM, JD, etc.), and whether she is a virgin or not.

<blockquote>Exodus 21

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.</blockquote>

Bill Gascoyne



Posts: 2
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,12:34   

<quote>I presumes that you are infuriated when creationist grossly miss characterize scientific principles/findings, so find it odd that you intentionally misrepresents the nature of the bible. Seriously, what is the point of saying things which are obviously wrong? Just because creationist do the same thing? I think it might be more useful to ask every one to make rigorous arguments, instead of responding to irrationality in kind.</quote>

What you are criticizing is, I believe, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum">
"reductio ad absurdum"</a>. Creationists seek to do this using the logic of science, their critics seek to do it with the "logic" of biblical literalism. If it is being done incorrectly (that is, without proper logic), please give examples rather than simply equating the logic of science with that of biblical literalism.

  
matt ackerman



Posts: 15
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:31   

Paul Burnett made the assertion that “Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac” implies that “children [are] expendable.” It is impossible for an unbiased person to read the story in such a fashion, as such a reading would remove all moral conflict from the story, an obvious central feature. If I assert that it is moral to kill one person in order to save some number of people, I am not asserting that people are expendable, but that there are circumstances under which moral conflict arises and we must chose the highest good. Returning to the story of Abraham, it is a story of Abraham resolving a moral conflict, which would not exist if children are expendable. Furthermore, we know that Isaac is not ultimately sacrificed, so not only does Abraham consider Isaac valuable, but so does God. I believe that a characterizing such a story as asserting that children are expendable is intellectually dishonest.

I will not apologize for the other passages, but you may ask yourself weather you believe they support his point based on your own prejudices, or on your clear understanding of the passages.

Atheist are also subject to human prejudices and form irrational arguments as a result of these prejudices. You should approach arguments that assert that the bible is egregiously and obviously morally wrong with some skepticism since there are SOME smart and honest people who study the bible and believe it to have moral authority. No mater how much you dislike fundamentalist world views, I don’t believe it will make you a better person to stop acknowledging the fundamental humanity that they posses, nor to do similarly for any group of people form Scientology, islamists, etc.

  
Wolfhound

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:41   

Jacob Jig = Gish Gallop.  What, you think if you keep repeating the same things over and over again we'll finally get so fed up that we'll throw our hands in the air and say, "You're right, Goddidit"?  

Tiresome creotroll.

Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:42   

Quote (matt ackerman @ Mar. 20 2008,13:31)
No mater how much you dislike fundamentalist world views, I don’t believe it will make you a better person to stop acknowledging the fundamental humanity that they posses, nor to do similarly for any group of people form Scientology, islamists, etc.

I can't parse the last clause here -- are you saying we should treat the Koran and the Scientologists' stories of Xenu with the same respect we treat the OT, or that we should *not*?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
matt ackerman



Posts: 15
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:43   

> What you are criticizing is, I believe, “reductio ad absurdum”.

No, this is a perfectly sound form of argument, however, it relies, like any other form of argument, on the validity of each of its statements, if one of the statements in the argument is unsound (a non-squter, or simply false), then the argument false apart.

> rather than simply equating the logic of science with that of
> biblical literalism.

I am not equating the logic of science with that of biblical literalism, (though my original post was breif and it is an honest miscommunication) but simply asserting that if you wish to attack the logic of biblical literalism, you should not do so in an irrational way, which I think is obvious. All rational beliefs should be formed in a rational way, and one should not attack irrational beliefs with irrational arguments. I do not disbelieve in santa clause because santa clause kills babies, but rather disbelieve in him because it is impossible for him to exist in a meaningful way, which I will not argue here.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:46   

Quote (matt ackerman @ Mar. 20 2008,13:31)
You should approach arguments that assert that the bible is egregiously and obviously morally wrong with some skepticism since there are SOME smart and honest people who study the bible and believe it to have moral authority.


No mater how much you dislike fundamentalist world views, I don’t believe it will make you a better person to stop acknowledging the fundamental humanity that they posses, nor to do similarly for any group of people form Scientology, islamists, etc.

WTF??!!

That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard it quite a while!  You are on the wrong board, dude!  You should be at UD - they LOVE this kind of fuzzy thinking over there - you will fit right in!~

Because there are are "SOME smart and honest people" believe that moon is made of green cheese, does that make it therefore worth consideration?  No, I don't think so!

Regarding your last sentence:!  Are you a recent graduate of The Denyse O'Leary School For Writers That Don't Write So Good?  If English is your second language, please forgive my snarky comment about your writing "skillz".

I   think what you are trying to say is that we are all people, so give all fundamentalists a break?

added in edit:  RATS- Arden you beat me to it - but I see Great Minds do think alike!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
matt ackerman



Posts: 15
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:50   

> I can't parse the last clause here -- are you saying we should treat
> Koran and the Scientologists' stories of Xenu with the same
> respect we treat the OT, or that we should *not*?

No no, neither. It is perfectly alright to disagree with the core of the belief itself (story if you will), in addition to the logic of the argument through which the truth of the story is asserted. Rather, I am saying we should not believe that people who profess faith, any faith, are inhuman as a result of their profession (reasonable caveats to the proceeding statement apply). Atheists should not hate Christians. Doing so makes these atheist prone to irrational assertions that an empiricist should not make.

  
Matt Ackerman

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:52   

Paul Burnett made the assertion that "Abrahams willingness to sacrifice Isaac" implies that "children [are] expendable." It is impossible for an unbiased person to read the story in such a fashion, as such a reading would remove all moral conflict from the story, an obvious central feature. If I assert that it is moral to kill one person in order to save some number of people, I am not asserting that people are expendable, but that there are circumstances under which moral conflict arises and we must chose the highest good. Returning to the story of Abraham, it is a story of Abraham resolving a moral conflict, which would not exist if children are expendable. Furthermore, we know that Isaac is not ultimately sacrificed, so not only does Abraham consider Isaac valuable, but so does God. I believe that a characterizing such a story as asserting that children are expendable is intellectually dishonest.

I will not apologize for the other passages, but you may ask yourself weather you believe they support his point based on your own prejudices, or on your clear understanding of the passages.

Atheist are also subject to human prejudices and form irrational arguments as a result of these prejudices. You should approach arguments that assert that the bible is egregiously and obviously morally wrong with some skepticism since there are SOME smart and honest people who study the bible and believe it to have moral authority. No mater how much you dislike fundamentalist world views, I don't believe it will make you a better person to stop acknowledging the fundamental humanity that they posses, nor to do similarly for any group of people form Scientology, islamists, etc.

t-guy

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:52   

I wish the sciencey folk would stop laying blame for fundamentalism on the Jews. Even the most separatist Jewish sects in America take a far more sophisticated approach to argumentation and interpretation of the Talmud than these fundamentalist Christians do their version of the Bible. Literalism is a Christian invention; in contrast, Judaism's essence is interpretation of the law.

Science Avenger

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:52   

<i><b>Atheist are also subject to human prejudices and form irrational arguments as a result of these prejudices.</b></i>

Yes, we just have one less prejudice cluttering up our rationality.  ;)

More seriously, that is also why so many of us have so much confidence in the scientific method.  It's the only epistemology that assumes we are prejudiced and flawed from the outset.

Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:55   

Quote
I do not disbelieve in santa clause because santa clause kills babies, but rather disbelieve in him because it is impossible for him to exist in a meaningful way, which I will not argue here.


Meaningful?

Um, does whether one's existence is meaningful make it more likely that they existed?

 
Quote
Rather, I am saying we should not believe that people who profess faith, any faith, are inhuman as a result of their profession


Strawman. I think the OT is by and large ridiculous and shot through with contradictions, but I'm quite aware of how human the people who believe in it are.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
matt ackerman



Posts: 15
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:55   

> Because there are are "SOME smart and honest people" believe
> that moon is made of green cheese, does that make it therefore
> worth consideration?  No, I don't think so!

You entirely misinterpret me. I am not arguing that we should give assent to the belief that the moon is made of green cheese, but rather that if almost every believes that it is, then we should have good reasons for rejecting their belief. I cannot help but thinking that you presumed that I was an idiot because of your biases, and did not read my post carefully do to this assumption.

> I  think what you are trying to say is that we are all people, so
> give all fundamentalists a break?

*shrug* More or less.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:57   

Arden - I don't think, this poster is serious, only a serious troll.  Boo Hoo - We need a new FTK-type toy!

And we need one that can put a sentence that makes sense together.  This one writes way too much like Denyse.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
matt ackerman



Posts: 15
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,13:57   

> Strawman. I think the OT is by and large ridiculous and shot
> through with contradictions, but I'm quite aware of how human the
> people who believe in it are.

Bah. I am not making the argument you think I am making.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,14:04   

Quote (matt ackerman @ Mar. 20 2008,13:57)
> Strawman. I think the OT is by and large ridiculous and shot
> through with contradictions, but I'm quite aware of how human the
> people who believe in it are.

Bah. I am not making the argument you think I am making.

Clearly you don't express yourself very well.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,14:06   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 20 2008,14:04)
Clearly you don't express yourself very well.

Poster Matt - Are you

1.)  a Jr. High Student? (in remedial classes)

2.)  Is English is your second Language?  If so, where are you from?

3.)  Home Schooled

4.)  Other

edited

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
matt ackerman



Posts: 15
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,14:06   

> Meaningful?

> Um, does whether one's existence is meaningful make it more
> likely that they existed?

I could argue that Santa Clause exists as a feeling in our hearts, but, such an existence is not the normal usage of the word exists when applied to people, so it is likely to cause confusion in thinking, and consequently it should not be asserted that Santa Clause exists.

On a personal note, I take offense to the common courtesy that many posters feel free to disregard. The purpose of manners is to never give offense when unintended. I understand this is the internet, and you do not care if you offend me, but perhaps you should.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,14:10   

Quote (matt ackerman @ Mar. 20 2008,14:06)
On a personal note, I take offense to the common courtesy that many posters feel free to disregard. The purpose of manners is to never give offense when unintended. I understand this is the internet, and you do not care if you offend me, but perhaps you should.

Poster Matt - Once again what you posted does not make sense.  

Are you

1.)  a Jr. High Student? (in remedial classes)

2.)  Is English is your second Language?  If so, where are you from?

3.)  Home Schooled

4.)  Other

edited

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,14:15   

Quote (matt ackerman @ Mar. 20 2008,14:06)
> Meaningful?

> Um, does whether one's existence is meaningful make it more
> likely that they existed?

I could argue that Santa Clause exists as a feeling in our hearts, but, such an existence is not the normal usage of the word exists when applied to people, so it is likely to cause confusion in thinking, and consequently it should not be asserted that Santa Clause exists.

Um, this doesn't line up real well with your previous statement. It seems to me that you don't have to appeal to 'meaningfulness' to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

I can't imagine what 'confusion in thinking' you think we're at risk for here.

So, uh, back to my previous question, if someone's existence is meaningful, does that make it more likely that they existed?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
matt ackerman



Posts: 15
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2008,14:17   

Just to clarify things, in case anyone is confused, I am a graduate student in evolutionary biology, and so, yes, I believe that the universe started with the big bang, through naturalistic means life arose from non-life, and that natural selection has been working ever since. The core of my argument has been that people, atheists included, make irrational arguments due to their own prejudices. I haven't seen anyone disagree with this assertion since it is nearly a truism. It was made with regards to a single post and a single argument. Refer to this if you think I am wrong.

  
  19183 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (640) < ... 181 182 183 184 185 [186] 187 188 189 190 191 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]