Irony Toys with Fundies Again
(Image from Warrior Cats World)
I love how irony-impaired fundies are. It’s like irony is a cat playing with a mouse. Irony just keeps smacking them around, and they’re helpless to do anything about it.
The latest example is this image I found on a fundie web site. He was using it to illustrate other people’s behavior, totally oblivious to how apropos it was to 90% of his own articles.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Nice! How apropos. Now…if only their mouths would do the same.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
And that is a really cute cat picture.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I get that rap all the time. ‘You are biased and liberal! You mind is as closed as a Muslim woman’s crotch!’
Everything depends on the situation in terms of opinion…but when it comes to science it either follows the scientific method or it doesn’t…that’s all that it takes to prove whether something is or is not science.
They just don’t seem to get that part…
June 16th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Exactly, Sarah. I’m open minded to any scientific conclusion that challeneges my current presuppositions about the world, even if it totally shakes the very core of my beliefs (ie, sciences proves God exists, lakes are healthier with elevated mercury, republicans are honest, or that global warming isn’t happening, etc.). Yet, when I argue from the side of evidence, I am called closed minded.
It actually makes me less intelligent arguing with the sales guy at work about why global warming is, indeed, real and he is the one being closed minded, so I’ve gone to avoiding him if at all possible. And he’s the one breeding and wanting to leave a better world for his kids — I’m not! I just want a better world for all the birds.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
As for me, (possibly leaning towards the childfree route) I’d like to leave the world a better place for all the birds AND the animals.
As I read on bumpersticker once: “Humans aren’t the only species on earth, we just act like it.”
I guess Fundies would be content to cheerfully pollute the earth until all the animals are extinct, because hey, God gave it to us, it’s ours to ruin and desecrate after all! *gag*
June 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
And for them, why not? According to the fundiest of creationism, Dinosaurs roamed the earth Flintstones-style with Adam and Eve, but they died off, so what’s a few more billion species?
For the record, I want the world to be habitable and fairly shared by all plants and animals (including the greedy human animal), but I just have a soft spot for the little feathered ones.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
One thing I’ve noticed about fundies is that they seem to entirely lack any sense of humor. This is why they absolutely don’t get the concept of irony. Plugging up their ears, squeezing their eyes tightly shut, and screaming, “yaddahyaddahyaddah…I can’t hear you…yaddahyaddahyaddah!!!!” takes all their concentration and energy. There’s simply nothing left for anything else.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Do any of you actually think your views are not just another form of “fundie”? If you don’t, you are seriously deluded.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“Nice! How apropos. Now…if only their mouths would do the same.”
All those “fundies” do is cover their ears and scream yadda yadda yadda — what you really want is to do the same yourself and not have anyone challenge what you already “know”. This comment gives away your wish. You don’t really want to hear other views — you just want those who hold them to shut up.
Interesting how it works both ways isn’t it?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Edmund Ward:
We do listen to what fundies have to say.And then chew it up and spit it back at them.
“Pull the wool over your own eyes.”
June 20th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Why don’t you offer me a single instance where you will “chew up and spit back” what I’ve said.
Your lame generalizations mean nothing.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Sure, that’s why we come to a blog which routinely shows the fundamentalist way of thinking.Why we dissect their articles.Because we’re simply afraid to hear what they have to say.
To all others:I feel dirty for writing this one.Ever since the debates with edlisb sarcasm has in my eyes become a horrible way to convey an argument.
We are not another strain of fundy.Are we trying do deny anyone the same rights other’s have.We are open to what the others have to say- not just wanting them to shut up (although the temptation is…).
A good day to you from the prophet of the Church of the Subgenius.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Hold on — did Ed Ward just use the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” argument in response to Sue Blue up there?
June 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Ya know, I went to that guy’s website. All things considered, he seems to be one of the more intelligent (I use the term loosely) and well-spoken than some of his crazy brethren.
Which is saying a lot.
Oh sure, he’s a jerk, but at least he’s an articulate jerk, and knows how to use proper spelling and punctuation, which is more than I can say for others of his ilk. :p
I guess it’s a good thing that he’s sort of a rarity. I think he has the dangerous potential for people to actually take him seriously. Just sayin.’
June 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“I guess it’s a good thing that he’s sort of a rarity. I think he has the dangerous potential for people to actually take him seriously. Just sayin.’”
Of course … we wouldn’t want to admit there are aspects of these issues that should be taken seriously. Our minds are made up. Don’t confuse us with the facts.
It’s funny how easy it is to put down and laugh off idiotic arguments that (I hate to admit) many theists make. It’s a much different animal when you are forced to face serious challenges to your pre-conceived notions about reality. When all your buddies chuckle as you generalize (above) that all Republicans are liars (of course, no Democrats EVER lie), or that dinosaurs hung out with the Flintstones … ha ha ha … that’s easy.
It’s quite another thing to engage the actual arguments thinking theists are making. You ought to try it some time …
June 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
BTW … I have to respect J.R. Dobbs (above) who realizes that sarcasm and ad hominem attacks do not an argument make. That’s the kind of guy/lady I am happy to engage. Would that there were more atheistic “fundies” like him …
June 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Ed - So DI didn’t say that Adam and Eve and dinosaurs existing in the same time frame? You see, making a Flinstones joke may be funny, but it is, to be blunt, essentially what DI is REALLY implying. So, sure, you can come in here all high and mighty about how you are ever-so-seriousier than we are and therefore are much smarterer than us, but really, you’re just a fundie that is all talk, no proof.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Ed - have you ever read the arguments here? 99% of all studies claim that 99% of all fundies exclusively use 99% ad hominem attacks 99% of the time in 99% of the scenarios on 99% of this site.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Parrotlover …
So you fit right in … congrats.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Edmund Ward: It’s J.R. “Bob” Dobbs! And where are these atheist fundies you’ve been speaking of.And if you want to see the average fundie at this site, I suggest the article on “The Wisdom of Kent Hovind”.
Out of Character—I’m actually an agnostic.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
J.R.
Kent Hovind is a buffoon … no argument from me there. But that doesn’t absolve you from engaging the best arguments of your opponents. That’s all I’m asking.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Hey Parrotlover:
Ignoring your creepy aviaphilia for a minute, why don’t you ponder this …
On your view, birds are just one random outcome of a purposeless, non-teleological process … the meaningless result of natural selection acting on genetic mutations. They just “are” … yet you proclaim unbounded “love” for these accidents of nature and “… just want a better world for all the birds.”
Why? What is the source of your affection for our feathered friends and why are they valuable at all?
On my view, birds are just one of many beautiful examples of the work of a caring Creator, and whatever means he decided to use to bring them into existence. In other words, their value springs from the dignity and benevolence of he who created them (by whatever means).
So, whose view is more rational?
It’s worth considering
BTW .. why don’t you provide a source for your claim that DI supports the notion that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. That’s pure hogwash. Kent Hovind, yes. DI, not.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Parrotlover says:
“you can come in here all high and mighty about how you are ever-so-seriousier than we are and therefore are much smarterer than us, but really, you’re just a fundie that is all talk, no proof”
“seriouser” is not an actual word — just so you know.
I never claimed to be smarter or more serious than you. My claim was that I hold my beliefs (and can defend them) for intellectual, philosophical and scientific reasons — not because “the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.”
So, contrary to your unfounded claim, I was not saying ANYTHING about you. I was referring to the weak arguments offered by some of my fellow theists — people like Kent Hovind for instance.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Ed Ward: I don’t see how birds developing via evolution makes them meaningless.Parrot has never stated that birds just “are”, rather that evolution just “is”.Poor logic on your part especially considering that Parrotlover77 has never said birds were born of meaningless means.Off topic but your appreciation of birds is probably nothing compared to Parrot’s despite the non-existant handicaps in his beliefs.
http://tinyurl.com/74uzx
June 20th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
J.R. Dobbs says: “Parrot has never stated that birds just “are”, rather that evolution just “is” … Parrotlover77 has never said birds were born of meaningless means.”
??? And you think theists are intellectually deficient …
Ha!
How, exactly, would something be “born of meaningless means” or, for that matter, born of meaningful means. Could you explain what these actually mean or is this just random babbling on your part?
While you’re at it, am I to accept that a meaningless process is capable of producing meaning in some way? Please explain how that works. Why would ANYTHING have any meaning in a meaningless universe? On what basis would you attribute meaning to things?
June 20th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Did I ever state that there were meaningless means?
June 20th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I don’t think that, but your assesment on my retort may prove that of you.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:06 am
For those who may be following .. the above comment was NOT left by me. I don’t know who — or why — someone would use my name to spew such garbage but I do not want it attributed to me. I wouldn’t be surprised is one of the regular “thinking” haters of the “religious right” would do such a thing however. Those who have no way to argue logically and civilly are just the kind who have to resort to tactics like this.
Whoever you are, you should be ashamed.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:08 am
Thank you Ed Ward.While I disagree with some of your logic, I can surely say your a good person.Not to mention that the contrived mess of an argument the False Ed Ward used makes you look like a Ken Ham.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Thanks J.R. I sincerely appreciate your kind words.
While I’m not quite sure if the Ken Ham reference should be taken as a compliment or an insult let me be clear about one thing — my hope is that I NEVER portray the condescending, arrogant, out-of-touch-with-reality, disregard for basic scientific evidence that Ken Ham so regularly displays. I will assume that’s how you meant the reference …
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:52 am
Whoever you are using my name, you are not only spineless for doing so — you’re not very clever either
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Ahhh, an impostor.
Looks like a troll. *sighs* Where’s Ron when you need him?
Ed Ward wannabe is a gigantic prick.
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
LadyRavana: He might still be at The Amaz!ng Meeting 6 in Vegas.I wonder if he got to meet P.Z. Myers?
We’re also getting some PORN SPAM on the Life in the Duggar Family.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Yep…I’ve seen that.
And yeah, I figured Ron was away.
*sighs* While our fearless leader is away, the idiots come crawling out of the woodwork. Well, moreso than usual.
And Ed Ward, I’m sorry some asshat has decided to drag your good name through the mud. I can’t believe some people. It’s just pitiful. If this guy had any spine, he’d come up with his own name and come on here and defend his views. And attacking Parrotlover in the disgusting way he has is just plain low. Poor PL. He’s a good guy, I think. He loves animals (mainly, the feathered kind) so that gives him points in my book.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I’m back now.
There appears to only be two impostor Ed comments. I deleted those.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
Ed, how is calling Parrotlover a “creepy aviaphilia” on topic?
Hypocrite?
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:44 am
Aviaphilia? What type of logical fallacy is it when somebody attacks character to prove an unrelated point, but the claim isn’t even true?
Evolution isn’t random (although random chance is involved in the complex process), but I’ll let this one slide so you can make your point.
Huh? How does something’s origin affect one’s affection? That’s like saying that you cannot love your son or daughter because they were born in a foreign country (or some other nonsense). That’s a sad state of mind to live in! Very nihilistic.
The more “rational” one is the true one.
An example. Two views…
1. Santa Claus is a very caring immortal person that gives to all children in the world just to be nice at Christmas.
2. Parents tell their kids a fairy tell to give them something to look forward to each Christmas and also as a tool of discipline (do X or Santa won’t bring you anything), while sneaking presents out after the children are asleep.
Well… Which one is more rational?
Did I assert all DI believers did? I apologize if I did. I specifically meant the AiG crowd. That was my mistake if I said that.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
Jeremy,
Not hypocritical at all …
It seems to me that anyone reading the entries above would agree that “Parrotlover” would be happy to describe himself as a bird lover — so labeling him as such hardly seems sarcastic. Using the “creepy” adjective simply describes my assessment of such an extreme view. I will give you that “creepy” may border on inappropriate so I apologize if it came across that way. But it was not meant as an “attack” on Parrotlover the person — only on the ideas he espouses. I would be hypocritical of me to attack Parrotlover — but the point of this site (I thought) was to attack IDEAS. There is a difference.
The “topic” that began this thread was IRONY. I find it ironic that someone who holds to the atheistic tenets of undirected Darwinian Evolution would elevate a random result of that process to so high a level of adoration. What is the source of the worth of our feathered friends? This is the exact question I asked Parrotlover at the time and to which no one has offered a response. That too is ironic.
Finally, I found it ironic that a blogsite dedicated to the eradication of “fundie” input to society is so full of “fundies” of a different stripe.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 am
Parrotlover,
Our posts must have crossed in cyberspace. Your comment was not there when I typed the above response. With that in mind, let me apologize if you felt my questionable use of “creepy” was personal. It wasn’t directed at you personally but at the idea that animals deserve more respect and love than people. That’s creepy. I respect animals too — but I don’t adore them. Perhaps you don’t go that far. I shouldn’t have assumed you do but your comments led me to believe you did. As for “aviaphilia,” your name is ParrotLOVER so I’m not sure why you would find that to be an attack on your character. Are you, or are you not, a bird lover (which is all aviaphilia means)?
Now on to the actual issues …
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
“Evolution isn’t random (although random chance is involved in the complex process), but I’ll let this one slide so you can make your point.”
So random chance involvement does not make Evolution random? I know what you will say — that natural selection (NS) determines which mutations will survive — but at its root, Evolution is a non-directed, random process. You folks like to attribute some kind of divine (interesting word), teleological wisdom to NS — as if it has a target outcome in mind — but in doing so you are denying the randomness on which the process is based.
“How does something’s origin affect one’s affection? That’s like saying that you cannot love your son or daughter because they were born in a foreign country (or some other nonsense). That’s a sad state of mind to live in! Very nihilistic.”
You are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that origin impacts affection. I am asking for the basis on which you attribute worth to ANYTHING. If the universe has a completely natural explanation, it is not only deterministic (so you can’t effect outcomes and therefore have no free will), but also there is no inherent worth to anything in it — everything just “is” the result of an irrational natural process.
You want to attribute “worth” to objects that, in a purely natural universe, cannot have worth. So, you are either being irrational in doing so, OR, you are stealing theistic concepts and using them in your anti-theistic worldview.
Finally, you said: “The more “rational” one is the true one.”
I absolutely agree. And I am saying that your view cannot be true if the birds you love so much have actual worth. That is not rational. And that is my point.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Ed Ward: You don’t need to believe faeries are behind a garden to recognize its beauty.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
… and you consider that to be an adequate response to the point I made?
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
BTW J.R.
… it’s funny you injected beauty into this discussion. Aristotle founded all knowledge in the objective reality of truth, goodness and beauty. The problem is that naturalism (or atheism) can provide no basis for any of the three …
Thanks for bringing that up and helping me make my point.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
The misspelling of “serious” was intentional — a satirical literary tactic to emphasize just how unserious the topic actually was. This is similar to how Stephen Colbert uses the word “truthiness” to refer to things that are, indeed, not truthful.
I shouldn’t have been too surprised to see you miss it. After all, as irony toys with fundies, satire toys with them to an even greater extent.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Wow A Greek philosopher defined tenets to beauty and thus we must all recognize them as absolutes.
And that is a kind off bleak outlook on beauty.So something must be designed for it to have meaning.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
I don’t really know how to answer that question because, to me anyway, it is a bit like asking, “the sky is blue, so how can you possibly love a cat?”
I wish I could be clearer for you, Ed Ward, but, to me, the question of how species originate does not in any way correlate to their “worth.”
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Truth- So only a theistic universe can explain truth.You must be confusing truth with the Truth as your malarchy calls it.
Beauty-As we see it.You don’t need atheism or theism to explain it
Goodness-So it never occurred to you that morality can exist without a higher entity
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Literally, perhaps, but the suffix “-philia” has very different connotations nowadays.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Then you didn’t read my comment. I said VERY CLEARLY, that I do not correlate origin with worth … I am questioning the very notion of worth itself.
What makes ANYTHING good (i.e. worthy of admiration)? That’s the question.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Ed - Random does not mean what you think it means.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
If that is what you believe, then there is literally nothing I can say that will satisfactorily explain how an atheist or agnostic can assign worth to something. “It just is” is about the only explanation I can give.
The concept of requiring a designer to appreciate something is just completely foreign to me. I appreciate (find worth in) the oceans, but I don’t need to think Poseidon is down there controlling them for me to continue to appreciate it. I do not know how to answer that. It’s a complete non sequitor for me.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
As we see it.I for one don’t think cats are worth admiring.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
“Literally, perhaps, but the suffix “-philia” has very different connotations nowadays.”
Yes, Parrotlover — literally. Words actually mean things and I try to deal in actualities. So I “actually” called you a bird lover. What connotation you choose to let flit about in your head is out of my control. If you insist on being offended, so be it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
I really don’t see how you think you are proving anything. I can use your same arguments against you and achieve the same results.
Here…
How can anybody who believes in a creator find worth in anything? After all, the creator created it, so it just is. It doesn’t require you to find worth in it for the creator to have created it, so what’s the point?
Just as nonsensical as your argument…
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
So if I find out that you love kids, is it okay for me to call you a pedophile?
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Wow, you atheistic “fundies” are really very frustrating to deal with sometimes. I actually thought I might get a serious discussion going here. Obviously, you guys either cannot, or will not, engage in such a thing. You’d rather trade nonsensical one-liners.
Your choice. I’d rather play golf.
Cheers …
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Truthiness!
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Ah.. again a fundie cries “wah wah yer not as seriouser as i am. me go now. brain hurts.”
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 am
Oh wait I should end the conversation like the fundies do.
YOU DIDN’T ANSWER MY QUESTION SO I AM GOING TO STOMP MY FEET AND TYPE IN ALL CAPS.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Parrotlover — if you think your input to this discussion has been seriouser than mine, anything that requires actual thought on your part would just be an exercise in futility. I have a tee time in 30 minutes. Frankly, that sounds infinitely more interesting to me …
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
Please note: only Parrotlover use all caps in his earthshatteringly brilliant commentary.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
You never addressed my non sequitur argument, nor my -philia comment, and although the latter was steeped in sarcasm, the former was a very serious comment.
Have a great 18 holes!
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Yeah Parrot wouldn’t waste any of that on you considering your leaving. Careful with infinity though; its larger than 6000.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Please Note:That was a parody of the many fundies we get here that don’t even have a smidgen of intelligence.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It looks like Ed Ward the impostor (and troll) is back for another round of verbal sparring.
Charming, eh?
I’ll have you know, Ed Ward, that I place animals in value above people, because frankly, I am not impressed with my species. Animals are more compassionate, loving, and forgiving than people will ever hope to be. Rather than dominating them, I think we should take lessons from them in how to treat each other better. The world would be a better place if we did. So, I guess to you, animals don’t have souls, and have about as much personality, thought, and feeling as rocks.
Typical fundie way of thinking.
Does that make me a creepy fetishist? :p
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
LadyRavana:
That’s the real Ed Ward. The email address he’s using matches all of his earlier posts.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Actually I think the correct term would be “ornithopilia”.
Which still sounds a little creepy.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
LadyRavana says: “… I guess to you, animals don’t have souls, and have about as much personality, thought, and feeling as rocks. Typical fundie way of thinking.”
Well LadyRavana, your own “fundie”ness is betrayed by your poor attempt at pseudo-thought — the same, lame arguments I hear from most fundie atheists. It’s kind of funny how defensive you all get when someone doesn’t tow the line you’re used to hearing. Frustrating isn’t it?
The fact is, I DO believe animals have personality, thought, and feeling, even souls. Wow, how shocking! And, because all living things (including plants) require something external to their DNA to make it function, this is what I would call a “soul.” So, I doubt this makes me “typical” but then, you wouldn’t know how to respond unless I fit the template you have in your head — so all I get back is sarcasm and cute one-liners. No actual arguments.
Ponder me this LadyR — you claim animals have souls. OK, I agree. So, if the universe is completely explained by naturalistic material processes, how does ANYTHING have an non-material entity like a soul? Non-material things cannot exist on your view.
Souls don’t compute in a purely material universe. So, just like the definition of truth, goodness and beauty (see: discussion of “worth” above) you have to borrow from theism to make your worldview work.
This is what philosophers call an “incoherent worldview.”
In short, your inability to explain these things via naturalism forces you to steal from theism. None of you have even ATTEMPTED to answer that challenge — nor do I expect you will try, let alone be successful (Hint: it’s impossible to do so on your view).
So instead, I get the usual drivel that is, yes, TYPICAL of atheistic fundies …
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Ed - You are right, souls don’t compute. Not speaking for LadyR, just for myself.
I am not going to get into an argument of “do souls exist or not” because, frankly, it doesn’t interest me. Souls don’t do anything physical, so they are not important. And I mean that from a physical sense — I do understand the abstract nature and importance of souls to religion. However, souls do not “think” (we can prove this by tinkering with the brain), souls do not feed the body nutrients (we can prove this by tinkering with the heart), so what does it do? If the answer to that is simply that souls provide the “essence” or “feeling” of being alive, that is an unprovable statement, and therefore (to me), irrelevant, because I do not concern myself with mythological afterlife.
If you do (and it appears you do), you probably do spend time concerning yourself with the soul. And that’s fine. But the soul is still an unverifiable “thing” so an argument over it is moot. Russel’s teapot, and all that.
Oh — back onto what you were talking about. Yes, to concede there is a soul, you have to look to a mythology to describe it. You win. I do not concede that point, however. As for “truth” and “beauty” your argument about requiring religion makes absolutely no sense.
Also, I’m curious, can you elaborate on this statement: “And, because all living things (including plants) require something external to their DNA to make it function, this is what I would call a ’soul.’”
I don’t understand. What precisely external to DNA are you referring to? If I may snark a moment here, I’m relatively certain you are not referring to the organelles, cytoplasm, and cell membrane.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
For your information, I’m not an Atheist, you arrogant ass. I have my own ideas of spirituality, I don’t need some religion to tell me what to believe and what to fear, how to think, what views to have, etc.
In short, I don’t feel the need to prostrate myself before some so-called “loving” God.
I admit, I disagree with Ron from a spiritual or philosophical standpoint, BUT I DO agree with his views that the Religious Right and the “fundies” are full blown crazy that want to mould this country in THEIR own image, and alienate the rights of its gay, lesbian, and female citizens. (Like me)
Because of this, I believe their agenda to be extremely dangerous, and a threat to me, and my fellow Americans. When I come here, I leave my spirituality at the door, and enjoy reading, commenting, and replying to the comments here. All of us may not agree on everything, but we are polite and respectful towards one another, and Ron does his best to keep the atmosphere friendly, and he’s fair and even-handed in how he handled everybody, and yes, that includes people like you Fundies, who from what I’ve seen have been nothing but rude and vicious, and have resorted to only outright attacking, or they simply come here to proseletize, saying we’re all gonna burn in hell.
From what I’ve seen, you’re no different. To be blunt, you’ve proven to be a rude, arrogant ass that can’t argue their points in a mature or respectful manner. You come here and mock and attack people’s character, people whom you know nothing about. Yeah, that’s gonna convince people. Since you’ve been here, you spew nothing but vitriol.
But then, I guess I should expect no less from those of you or your disgusting, bottom-feeding, malicious ilk. I have nothing but contempt for the Fundamentalists.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Ed,
Are you kidding? You attack people for being sarcastic yet your posts drip with it. You attack people for not giving thoughtful responses, however the responses you are getting are showing the holes in your question. Your philosophy is flawed.
You give an awful lot of one-liners yourself:
The idea of worth, based on the evidence I’ve seen, seems like it could be explained from an evolutionary stand-point. The idea of adoration can be explained from an evolutionary stand-point. For some reason, we’ve evolved to appreciate things that have certain forms and capabilities. I certainly can’t explain the reasons behind it, our minds are far too complex for me to comprehend everything, but if you study the field of Evolutionary Psychology, I’m sure you’ll get some insights. In fact, you can do some research yourself. I know that I’m going to do some because I’m interested in how we came to be and how we work. I’m so interested in human development and psychology, that I realized several years ago that religion didn’t have satisfying answers. No evidence. All it has is people posing worthless questions. Questions about defining what worth means. Well, it means what we perceive it to be. Let’s not argue semantics. Let’s understand how we work. Maybe then we can understand WHY we work that way. Science is attempting to unravel HOW we work.
The best thing we have right now to explain why we perceive beauty and feel adoration is through this damned atheistic evolution.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Lady (?) Ravana says (with kindness, compassion and the tolerance we’d expect from her):
“For your information, I’m not an Atheist, you arrogant ass … I should expect no less from those of you or your disgusting, bottom-feeding, malicious ilk. I have nothing but contempt for the Fundamentalists.”
… and then accuses ME of spewing “vitriol”. You might notice that I have never once called her a name, questioned her character, or said a single nasty thing about her.
You might notice that I have done none of the things she accuses me of (”outright attacking … proseletizing … saying we’re all gonna burn in hell”). Not one.
You may also notice in her irrelevant rant, that she poses absolutely no response to the points I actually made. Nothing new about that.
Sadly, it’s what I’ve come to expect from fundies of her sort.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
… on the other hand, ParrotLover, I would like to thank you for a respectful, thoughtful reply. Even though I disagree with you (I will address that later), at least you have the common courtesy and decency to respond to what I have actually said. I appreciate it. …
You are honest when you say: “You are right, souls don’t compute.”
Thanks … but you might want to point this out to Lady (?) Ravana, who accuses me of vitriol for identifying the incoherence of her worldview.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
With little regard to your “Athiest fundie” theory:
*LadyRavana never claimed to not spout “vitriol”.
*She may have confused false Ed Ward with you.
*She doesn’t have to respond to any of your points. She may dictate (type?) her observance of your comments.
*You have attacked others claiming that they have no reason to believe the world has worth.
I do admit I disagree with her calling you an arrogant ass, being immature, and being unable to hold your own-(, ?) but You have attacked the character of others. Despite that I do believe you’re more civil than most of the retarded fundies we get and that edlisb fellah we got a few weeks ago and I congratulate you on that.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Again, I hate speaking for other people here, but I must inject a major flaw in your comment here…
Lady R is not an atheist (as per her post you just complained about) — her “religion” simply doesn’t fit into a standard cookie-cutter Christian (or other) model. So since she is using essentially the same argument as you (some sort of spirituality and/or soul does, indeed, exist), I’m not sure how you can say her worldview is incoherent. Specific details not withstanding, you both are asserting a supernatural side to existence, so if you say her worldview is incoherent, yours must be too.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Off topic, but can anyone tell me how to make the text gray like I’m quoting someone.Somehow I did it with Ed Ward earlier.Or was that Ron Britton editing my comment?
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I’m anal retentive. I was just prettying up the site. Use the HTML blockquote tags. Put the word “blockquote” inside angle brackets to open the quote and then “/blockquote” inside angle brackets to close the quote.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Thanks. *Will dexplode if gets it wrong on first try*
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
D’oh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFZvCJYDme0
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
“Bob”:
You left off the slash that precedes the closing tag. It’s “/blockquote”. I fixed it for you, cuz I’m anal. No guarantees I’ll fix it in the future. Sometimes I just let ‘em rot.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Parrotlover,
Again, you are attacking an argument I’m not making. I never once said that truth or beauty “require religion.” Religion has nothing to do with it. Again you are assuming that I am making the same arguments that others have (apparently) made here. These things are not grounded in religion, they are grounded in REALITY. They are part of the fabric of the universe. To deny that they are real is just plain silly.
What I am saying is that a purely materialistic worldview cannot account for the reality of such things. It’s a simple proposition. And, before someone goes off on the usual tangent and accuses me of saying atheists can’t be moral or good or know beauty (yada yada yada) — that is NOT what I’m saying.
Of course atheists can do all those things precisely because they are each grounded in reality and the atheist cannot escape reality. What they cannot do however, is provide a grounding explanation for the existence of these things within a purely materialistic worldview — hence my claim that they are “stealing from theism.”
Great question. What I am saying is that the A, C, T and G nucleotides that define DNA contain information that makes the cell work. That information depends on the order of the nucleotide *letters” that make up the language of DNA. Yet there is no chemical or physical reason that they should be arranged in any particular order. So, something external to the DNA molecule must be determining the order of the nucleotides that conveys the information the cell needs to function.
In other words, just like computer code cannot write itself, the language of DNA must be imposed from outside the physical structure of the molecule. Yet there is no physical reason for it to be that way. I believe that the soul — whatever it is — must in some way control and regulate the formation of DNA information. There is no physical or material explanation for it otherwise.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
no explanation for how DNA is organized≠soul gone dunnit
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
J.R. says:
A minor point: Too bad the moderator doesn’t disagree with her vitriol. I can guarantee if I had used the language Lady (?) Ravana used, I would have been sent packing. Apparently its OK to do so as long as you do so from the party line point of view.
Secondly, please give me a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE where I have “attacked the character of others.” That’s pure hogwash. You folks seem to confuse someone’s having the audacity to actually disagree with you as an “attack.”
Very fundamentalist I’d say …
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Another stunning retort by J.R. Bravo!
If (once again) you actually read what I wrote, I never said the “soul gone dunnit.” What I actually said was that I don’t know what the soul is, but being that there is no physical reason to determine the order of DNA nucleotides, the fact that they contain information IS CONSISTENT WITH the existence of a non-physical source — some method of intelligence that orders the information.
As you can provide no physical process that creates complex information, my speculation is not only just as good as any you could offer — it’s better because we have real world examples that are consistent with it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Saying that Parrotlover should not be appreciating birds because he believes the evolutionary model for their development.
Care to show any real-world examples that occur naturally.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Not “soul gone dunnit” exactly.
Note: I despise smilies and do not fully understand why I added that.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
No, you can’t guarantee that. However, repeatedly accusing me of negative behavior without any proof will get you banned. That was one of edilsb’s sins.
Discussions have gotten heated before. I don’t delete comments just because somebody occasionally gets carried away. I will intervene if somebody is consistently making the comments an unpleasant place to hang out.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:22 am
I don’t think I misquoted you. Since you are saying that the scientific method cannot describe these concepts (I disagree, but I’m merely repeating your assertion), then there must be something “more” that does. That something more is supernatural (right?). Supernatural ~ religion. Ergo, beauty (or at least why beauty exists) requires religion, by your definition. I don’t see how I am misquoting you at all.
Now, as for the scientific reason. Beauty is a very subjective thing. Humans find beauty in different things. So do birds and cephalopods and every other animal. What is beauty at its core? It’s something that pleases you. What is pleasure? Pleasure is a “good” feeling that influences you to want to repeat an action. So let’s take this very massive oversimplification and put the pieces of the puzzle together.
When a (straight) man sees a beautiful woman, why is she beautiful? Because her actions, shape, and proportions indicate “health” and the ability to birth children. (Among other things, but this is a gross oversimplification.)
June 24th, 2008 at 6:25 am
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
June 24th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Repeatedly?!
I have never referred to you once before this. Why don’t you show me where I have?
June 24th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Unless, of course, you repeatedly act like Lady (?) Ravana but you are on her side of the issue.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:36 am
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
What is this supposed to prove?
June 24th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Something non-physical does not = religion by my definition or any other I know. You can keep trying to put words in my mouth but this discussion would be more fruitful if you responded to the words that actually come out of my mouth.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Well, if you would have bothered to read it, you would have seen that it proves that the formation of life (and DNA and so on) does not require “something more.”
June 24th, 2008 at 6:44 am
You keep moving the goal posts. This is getting annoying.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:10 am
I’m merely pointing out what it takes.
Right there. Keep babbling, and you’ll provide me with even more examples.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:20 am
I did “actually read it” and it “proves” no such thing. As one (of many) example, your “proof” reads:
Yes, it “could” have happened this way. Show me the mechanism that can even conceivably make it work. It could have happened lots of ways — but saying that is no different than someone saying “God dunnit.” Sounds very “fundie” to me
Here’s the deal: DNA is the blueprint for life. Proteins must have the blueprint to replicate and form new cells. You can’t form proteins without first having DNA, but you can’t replicate DNA without proteins. They BOTH have to be in place from the beginnning or … no life.
No, you keep insisting we play on a different field.
Agreed.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Okay, Ed. You show ME the mechanism that can conceivably make YOUR theory work.
(The link included links to actual research that, indeed, actually has successfully created self-replicating molecules from basic building blocks without devine — or mortal — intervention. The required “millions of years” to go from that to bacteria were not done experimentally because, well, millions of years is a bit long to run an experiment.)
June 24th, 2008 at 9:43 am
First of all, -5 points for spelling (devine???)
Second of all … nonsense. IF you are talking about computer models, that dog won’t hunt. You first have to have someone WRITE THE PROGRAM! Do you not see that for you to even run your experiment requires intelligent intervention in the process.
It amazes me how blind you people are to obvious flaws in your “theory” — a very fundie trait from which you cannot escape.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:46 am
From your “source”:
June 24th, 2008 at 9:47 am
oops, I accidentally put my comments (starting with “uh huh”) in the quote.
My mistake …
June 24th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Actually, its closer to saying, “God could have done it.” That’s a big difference. It’s a fundamental difference between fundies and intelligent people.
What the studies study actually PROVES is that there is a definite possibility of life forming not through a “god dunnit” approach.
There are no absolutes. One things fundies like to criticize science on is that it’s always changing. I won’t rehash why that logic is so flawed, but I think your smart enough to get my point.
They have not proven that life actually formed a certain way, they have proven a possibility which is damning to hard headed fundies who claim with absolute conviction that they know God did it.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
So? Being a human means you have some sort of intelligence (intelligence being defined by humans).
In order to UNDERSTAND anything, you have to have some intelligence.
So what? If there was no human intelligence, then there wouldn’t be anyone around to understand the results either.
Are you saying a simulation can only provide good data on evolution if the simulation was evolved through natural processes?
I really don’t get the point. Perhaps I’m too much of a science fundie. I require logic and supporting evidence. Math…logic…simulations…hmmm, so your saying those tools couldn’t possibly give believable data since you have to be intelligent to understand them?
June 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Jeremy:
No, they haven’t given a “possibility.” They have given a solution that their own materialistic presuppositions demand MUST be true, then (circularly) claimed it the only possibility. That’s a far different thing than what I’m saying.
You are putting arguments in my mouth again. I never said, “God did it this way.” I said that the appearance of specified, complex information in DNA is consistent with intelligence derived complex information that we create in things like computer code. I am correlating an effect to a cause we know produces such things.
Correlation does not equal causation. I know that. But circularly reasoned speculation doesn’t equal causation either — as you materialistic fundies want to insist.
Nor would I expect you to…
June 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
First, bite me about the spelling. As if you haven’t typoed anywhere before.
Second, if you would have read the fucking article, you would have seen that experiments were carried out with real matter (the article is absolutely chock FULL of citations to real research that real scientists have done, as opposed to the Pretend Scientists of the Discovery Institute). Sure, computer models were done too, but abiogenesis researchers are not just writing computer programs and saying “I just pwned the cr3ation1sts!”
If all you are going to do is slay strawmen, why are you hear? I’m happy to discuss actual limitations of science (the afforementioned discussion on soul and so forth), but making false claims about a link I presented is just childish.
Besides, weren’t you the one complaining about hostility? The only hostility I’ve seen as of late is coming directly from you. (Yes, I read the posts from Lady R, but that was like two days ago, which is equivelent to 1000 years in Blog Time).
June 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Doh! I typed “hear” instead of “here” - Ed Hominem Ward will certainly slay me for that…
June 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Self-replicating molecules are not limited to DNA. The article clearly lays out many non-DNA examples of self-replicating moledules. In fact, that entire sentence makes no sense. There’s no circle. It starts as simple self-replicating molecules which eventually become complex enough to form RNA strands. This is all billions of years before the first shred of DNA exists.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Patently not true. Abiogensis is a field full of research with many parallel possibilities that are mostly complimentary to each other and all are actively being investigated. What exactly happened on earth is, indeed, a mystery because evidence from that long ago barely exists (that we know of). No scientist that I have ever seen (and I dare you to find one) has said with absolute certainty that they know how life began. Only fundies make that claim — goddidit. Now, mind you, I’m sure you can find some that say it wasn’t God, but that’s far from knowing exactly what did it. There are FAR more than the two possibilities you bring up: god and you favorite strawman, randomness.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Yeah I see it now..
W3 l337 5c13n71575 h@v3 pwn3d 7h3 cr3@710n157 n00b5.F@g5.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Parrotlover said:
Are you listening, Ron?
June 24th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Parrotlover says:
Now you want to bring abiogenesis into the mix. Fine by me. But you should know that your fellow materialistic fundies don’t like that. Their claim is that “Evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of life.”
If I’ve heard that vacuous dodge once, I’ve heard it a thousand times. So I must commend you Parrotlover, for willingness to admit that abiogenesis matters.
That said, your boy Dawkins gave us two possibilities for abiogenesis:
1) The process started “on the backs of crystals” with absolutely no evidence or explanation for how that might be. (Very convincing, don’t you think)
2) Panspermia — life was planted here by aliens. Which begs the question, “Where did the aliens come from?”
That’s it.
And you mock religious fundies. Ha!
June 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
It’s hard to listen on the internet.And that doesn’t appear to be insulting you.Just the article.Which is odd considering he cited it.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
FYI Parrotlover, the only thing I did was cut and paste verbatim quotes from the link you sent me to. How, exactly, is that “making false claims about a link [you] presented”?
Just curious…
June 24th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
It was you you who brought it in, while at the time we were discussing…Yeah I forgot.I’m not trudging through that.It had do do with souls, right?
:
Note:Parrot didn’t state that abiogenesis had to due with the origin of species.
Note:The only non-religious fundies I’ve heard of are the “Plutonians”.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
J.R. says:
Excuse me, but are you engaged in the same discussion as us? Your “comments” are undecipherable and inane.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The computer code comparison is very poor. They work on entirely different principals. Apples to oranges.
Also, you may not have said “god did it” but there is only one end solution to intelligent design: god did it. Ron posted a video a while back which exposes this fallacy. There is no other end game to ID than god creating life. Stop pretending that isn’t the case.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
If you cannot bring yourself to analyze that,I wonder how you are doing so well with Parrot.I’m merely correcting you is all.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Ed - Again you slay the strawmen. You spent like three posts complaining about how DNA is requried for all self-replicating molecules (clearly an abiogenesis topic) then get mad at me when I poke holes. Next you falsely assert that there are only two theories of abiogenesis and with the mighty strawman slaying sword you wield, you strike it down before any crows get to sit on it in the middle of it’s corn field.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
You keep changing the topic, moving the goal posts, and slaying strawmen and then post “AH HA! I just pwned Parrot!”
This is tiring. If you ever bring up a new topic or ask a mildly intelligent question, I’ll answer it. Until then, good day.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
When someone has a weak (non-existent) argument they usually resort to screaming, swearing, or quitting. Congratulations. You have done all three.
Good day.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Shouting? That was typed!Parrot always swears!Quiting?He’s just waiting for a relevant question to answer.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Ed,
Who said that it doesn’t matter?
One of the things that IDers try to claim against the Theory of Evolution is that it doesn’t consider abiogenesis. Intelligent people think IDers are morons for holding that against Evolution since Evolution doesn’t attempt to explain abiogenesis. There are many other theories that try to explain that, as ParrotLover pointed out.
Its funny that when you were presented with the idea that there were many complimentary theories of abiogenesis, you dodged that and said, “Oh yeah? Well Richard Dawkins said this…”. So? Who said Richard Dawkins had all the answers?
What if there truly were only two theories of abiogenesis? SO WHAT!?
Do you have any theories about abiogenesis? I’d love to hear them.
You’re arguing the scientific theories aren’t good enough.
You must be familiar with all the theories already.
Do you have anything better?
Can you admit that not only DNA can be self-replicating?
Can you admit its a possibility? If you can’t, you must be 100% sure in your own theory.
I’d sure love to hear it. I’m honestly open to being convinced otherwise.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
For the record Ed, I’m not a fundie because I’m NOT 100% sure science holds all the answers! I can admit that, yes, there may be a God! However, without any evidence, there’s not a reason for me to believe that. Pink unicorns.
That’s why we aren’t fundies.
We are open to new ideas…but we do require evidence before we consider those ideas.
And since evidence currently shows there is no God, we don’t develop theories requiring a God. We develop theories that don’t require a God and test those theories. Science.
I certainly can understand that the mind is complex and there seem to be evolutionary reasons for having developed the ability to see worth, beauty, etc…
It may not be good enough for you to believe 100%, but if you don’t even entertain the possibility, then you must have 100% proof on your side.
So let’s hear it.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:29 am
… and neither am I. At least you, Jeremy, will (claim to) admit that you are open to new ideas. So am I. I started my journey to seek what is actually true PRECISELY BECAUSE I was not buying into the ideas I had been brought up to believe. But in reading and seeking, my OPINION is that I find it more reasonable to accept theism than the alternative. For instance …
This is indefensible. Please show me the positive evidence that “proves” there is no God. There isn’t any. It may be your interpretation of the evidence but that doesn’t mean your interpretation is the only one or that it is correct. To give two basic examples …
I think the emergence of the entire universe out of the Big Bang Singularity is positive evidence that supports the theistic hypothesis. You don’t. But that doesn’t make me stupid and you brilliant. And it doesn’t mean I haven’t considered all the evidence.
I think the existence of complex, specified information in DNA is consistent with the theistic hypothesis and intelligent action. You don’t. But that doesn’t mean I have ignored the evidence. It means I interpret it differently.
You may not like the IMPLICATIONS of the evidence but you cannot say that the evidence negates the possibility of a God. You certainly can’t say I’m not justified in holding my opinion. If I determine that it’s a 51% probability that theism is true and 49% that the opposite is true, I am justified in holding to that belief.
Once again, you put words in my mouth. I have NEVER said that I have “100% proof on my side.” That would be a stupid thing to say. So I am not a “fundie” either. I think I explained why. Your cohorts on here who ridicule me as a “fundie” without even knowing why I claim to hold my position are the real “fundies” because they DO claim 100% knowledge of the opposite belief.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I don’t think we have claimed 100% knowledge of our belief.That means we know all there is to know on biology and evolutionary theory.We have said evolution happens, just that we are not entirely sure on the mechanisms through which it happens.
And who here has been ridiculing you.LadyRavanna did, but she probably doesn’t even know Jeremy and doesn’t qualify as a “cohort”.What’s with this cohort shit.Jeremy hasn’t posted in months, and I don’t think he is working with Parrot and the others you’ve argued with.
As a side question, how was golf two days ago?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
You say you don’t claim 100% knowledge and then, in the next sentence you claim absolute knowledge that “evolution happens.” How’s that?
As always, it depends what you mean by “evolution.” If you mean variation and adaptation, no argument. If you mean that this exceeds genetic limitations and leads to macroevolution and speciation — you “know” no such thing.
You speculate about it. You ASSUME it. But the only way you “know” is by employing circular reasoning — you assume it has to be true, then read that assumption into the evidence. Voila — we “see” it.
No one has EVER “seen” evolution because it is, by definition, not repeatable. Secondly, by definition (again), it is not predictive. You cannot predict what evolutionary changes will occur in the future. And so, all the supposedly “scientific” proclamations you make about your way of thinking are based on a process that is not REPEATABLY or PREDICTIVE.
Minor detail — repeatability and predictive power are two elements of science. So you are therefore appealing to a theory that is NOT SCIENTIFIC.
Love to hear your thoughts on that.
Hello, Ron. Your boys are using bad language (again). Is that acceptable or not?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
REPEATABLE*
June 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Wahhh, Bad language.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
June 25th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Wahhh, I can’t think of a response so I’ll send you to the same tired old website that me and all my cohorts always do…
Let’s hear your thought, J.R.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
… or is that asking a little much?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
And do you know those flu vaccines we all love so much.Apparently virologists predict what changes could occur in the influenza virus genetics to develop a vaccine.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v8/n6/full/nm0602-562.html
Needless to say it doesn’t always work.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Fuck, didn’t expect it to come out that way.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Same question, Ron? What’s your policy — for EVERYBODY?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
My thoughts: Perhaps your should read the paper in question.
Fuck Kent Hovind and his claims that speciation doesn’t occur.
I wonder if they’ll start showing reruns of MST3K?
Should we have pie tonight?
How is my brother doing?
Is the new RiffTrack worth getting?
Why are we here?
Oh yeah, we’re at are computers because its too hot to play outside.
Is Ron Britton back from The Amaz!ng Meeting?
Who the fuck developed l33t speak?
Should I trim my hair?
That’s a bad tangle and-ouch, I really ought to buy a hair brush.
Is it odd I find Jack chick to be a good person and an asshole simultaneously?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I don’t think Ron has a problem with profanity on his site.It’s in his blog posts for JHVH-1’s sake.And it’s not such a big deal here.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“Cohorts”: Reminds me of the villains in pulps and James Bond films.I want to be Jaws.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Sorry to bother you kids — I must have accidentally been redirected to a website for 7-year olds.
Ron Britton says:
Apparently he doesn’t mean it (re: J.R. above) — or he thinks this garbage is “pleasant.” Either way he (and his “discussion forum”) is a joke. I defy anyone to claim that my comments here have been on the same level as junior “bobby”
I’ll leave you all to play in the sandbox together in peace and ignorant bliss (keyword: ignorant) …
June 25th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I agree. When I reread what I posted, I thought I should clarify that I meant to say that there’s is no currently no evidence showing the need for a God, but I figured you were smart enough to know what I meant, especially after I said I would leave room for a possibility of a God existing. You’d be hard pressed to find an atheist who had 100% conviction that there was no God.
So I asked you for your theory. Still, I haven’t heard it.
From what you’ve stated, your theory is this: “I don’t believe there is enough evidence for a non-theistic abiogenesis.” Okay….so what evidence is there of God that would then make you even 51% certain that God existed.
I asked you if you could admit that there was a possibility that God didn’t exist.
J.R. didn’t say that he knows for a fact that the Theory of Evolution is correct, he said he knows little ‘e’ evolution happens. It’s not all that debatable anymore. There is actual proof of that.
Why are you suddenly attacking people for typing ‘fuck’? Just changing the topic?
June 25th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Maybe we all just need to agree that nobody can be 100% sure of anything and call it a day.
The point of this article was that we find it ridiculous that there are people who will believe something 100% in the face of contradictory evidence.
There certainly may be some people who post here that absolutely believe 100% that they are correct and leave not even a possibility for God, and I agree that those people would be fundies as well. A different breed, but fundies nonetheless.
Is it clear to you now that most of the people on this site are not of that breed?
June 25th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
No, it’s not.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Wow, my occasional bout of profanity (not directed at anyone) is enough to make poor Ed Ward recede inside his shell.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Modern l33t speak is a very thick dialect of what was used in the 80s/90s on BBSes to emphasize text when there was only one font and font-size. It started with just substituting the first letter or the vowels (or some such) to put emphasis on a user’s handle. For instance, if your handle was Rocker, you may write it RoCKeR or R0CK3R or something. ASCII art was also popular at that time to add flair to the BBS experience. Many tricks for cool looking ASCII art were co-opted for l33t-speak and vice versa. Eventually, as most online memes do, it spread into general use to a self-parodying point. Sort of like Ed’s posts are these days and why I’m not responding to him (self-parodying, that is). You can’t win a chess game with somebody who constantly rearranges the pieces on the board. So, well, why bother? I’ll just post facts and let them stand on their own no matter what ignorant retort comes back. (J.R./White - I’m sure you are beginning to see what I mean. And when you stop replying, of course that’s his cue to say “me won - atheists is fundies!”)
June 25th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Anyone else feel this site is being made unpleasant by Ed Ward?
June 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
The reason I started commenting on here in the first place was because I read this from Sue Blue
Her solution to the stated mission of this blog is to wish everyone who disagrees with her would just shut up. Sounds pretty fundie to me … as has everyone who has attacked me since I got here.
I also find it comical that you think I am “attacking” the likes of J.R. after his thoughtful posts.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Actually I believe that was in jest.Those are probably not her actual views.
It’s just being on the internet tends to lead to this, otherwise known as “The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory”
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
June 25th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
You have aknowledged my intelligence.Thank you!
June 25th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Oh, I don’t know about that. There’s a difference between being sure you are right and being open-minded to change. I actually consider myself agnostic. I can’t prove an unprovable claim (it’s impossible to prove a negative, e.g. that God does not exist) even if I don’t find religion credible. However, that&#