February 2010 Screwballs

[jpholding]

Get 'em rollin'.

[Jon_Day]

I love you.

[Raphael]

[Jon_Day]

Free Hugs!!!!!!

[Mr Minder]

Free Hugs!!!!!!

Hooray!

[Darth Ovious]

Guess who's back: -

As with many Christian arguments, they are filled with circumstantiality. And whether or not the creed was interpolated or not in 1 Cor is a good example. Whether it is or isn't doesn't significantly alter the reasonableness of Christian beliefs (at least of the vast majority of Christians on this site). For example, why would anyone take seriously, the Apostle Paul, when he said and claimed so many absurd and foolish things like this one, which Mattster cited:

One cannot make sense of this. And even if one would care to, and took this verse seriously, then he or she might have to ignore Paul's advice here. How can we know if he preached something contrary to his past preaching before or after this verse? We cannot. We simply have to trust Paul's message is the same or consistent. We can do that whether or not his message and future messages were new or different in any way.

Furthermore, if Paul did not get his message solely from revelation, then I believe I am on solid ground in calling him a liar, because he very clearly said it did come solely from revelation.

One more thing . . . an angel!? Seriously? You mean to tell me if an angel appeared before you, and said you something counter to Paul that you would tell the angel to take a hike? No, but like Paul, the circular reasoning can take over: "A true angel would never contradict Paul." How convenient. No amount of apologetics, evidence, or reasoning can predictably render someone from continuing to use this type of warped reasoning.

Hooks

Yeah I saw that. I bet LPOT is glad to have to have an old toy back to play around with.

[jpholding]

http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/jan10scr.html

January feature is up....I needed to get it done fast because I'll be out of town a lot this week.

There's also another coupla surprises shortly.

[Chaotic Void]

Free Hugs!!!!!!

Sorry, Melvin. I do not want a hug.

[Rational Gaze]

Yeah I saw that. I bet LPOT is glad to have to have an old toy back to play around with.

I'm sure AP will have fun tearing him apart too.

[Darth Executor]

Isn't hooks just minnesota?

[Darth Ovious]

I'm sure AP will have fun tearing him apart too.

Ah yes. The debate where Hooks insulted AP and people with autism. If you can't bring up good points against your opponent's arguments try character assassination instead.

[Darth Ovious]

Isn't hooks just minnesota?

Do you mean a sock puppet? Sorry, i'm not sure who minnesota is.

[Mountain Man]

Screwball nomination to the guys who made that cheesy "Mithra Buster" video on YouTube.

[Darth Ovious]

Screwball nomination to the guys who made that cheesy "Mithra Buster" video on YouTube.

Imagine that in the next issue. JP giving himself a screwball.

[Stax]

Ah yes. The debate where Hooks insulted AP and people with autism. If you can't bring up good points against your opponent's arguments try character assassination instead.

IIRC he said that Paul used "autistic reasoning" (whatever that is) to dismiss his arguments as well.

Love the parody of Jaecp's sig, BTW.

In other news:

Sorry [Stax], I didn't realize my passive-aggressiveness had gotten switched on. Strange... That usually only happens when I'm talking to a moron... Nah, it can't be. Oops, there goes the aggressive switch. I guess I'm tired of respecting rules of debate that you don't.

Yeah; it's hard to respect people who say there is no evidence for God whatsoever when there is and use passive-aggressive tactics while complaining that you're insulting them. It usually garners the label "liar" and "hypocrite".

And this is why I said you are having trouble comprehending my posts. That was not a disproof of omnipotence. That was an argument that you cannot come up with a test for god because if such a test existed it would lead to a logical contradiction because of omnipotence implying anything. Thanks for playing the reading comprehension game. You lose.

PS - That argument about testability also explains why god isn't falsifiable. The implication direction that would allow falsification of god is the one that leads to the contradiction.

Yes, I lose by assuming that you were reasonable and thus didn't interpret your words in a way that meant you were an idiot. Lesson learnt: next time I will take them at face value and just call you an idiot.

PPS (or is it PSS?) - The bible isn't evidence, it's a collection of writings by people who don't know any more than we do. Unless of course you're going to claim it was written by someone god spoke to. This would of course presuppose that god exists so your evidence is only evidence with that presupposition.

<Sarcasm>

Yeah, that's really good evidence.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

Oh no, I know what you're going to say, you're going to claim that because some of the bible correlates with history, all of it must be true! Because that makes sense! Seriously, what the [F] is wrong with you?

Ah, we're up to shfting standards now, are we? It's not "no evidence", but "no good evidence". How pathetic.

I also love the caricature of how Christians come to trust the Bible and the fact that he's run away now (ostensibly because I don't understand what he wrote).

ETA: Just realised the sarcasm tags he used work on this forum.