February 2012 Screwballs

[jpholding]

I definitely will not be around much the next 24 hours, so starting this now.

[Chrawnus]

[Raphael]

[fm93]

Eat healthier, guys.

[The Moonshield]

It has nothing to do with religion or theology, but youtuber humphrey1967's pretty much defines "screwball" when responding to another user at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3GGwgV7R0

yc001.png

MrConsitution: How can he/President claim this in this video, I am amazed at how the American people can believe this President on what he says, follow what he does not what he says, he is a spinner and swinger at the same time, he sincerely believes he's right, but he is sincerely wrong!"

"humphrey1967: @MrConsitution And you are a racist, you source of news is from fox and people like you, ignorant, racist and moronic are what keeps this country from moving forward.

Not that he's the only person to ever cry "racist" at any non-liberal who dares to even sneeze in Obama's general direction, but it's one of the more blatant examples I've seen in awhile.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

We're not used to seeing the name of Humphrey tied in with Screwballs around here anyway.

[Darth Executor]

It has nothing to do with religion or theology, but youtuber humphrey1967's pretty much defines "screwball" when responding to another user at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3GGwgV7R0

yc001.png



Not that he's the only person to ever cry "racist" at any non-liberal who dares to even sneeze in Obama's general direction, but it's one of the more blatant examples I've seen in awhile.

At least he's a nobody. Juan Williams is now claiming "Constitution" and "Founding Fathers" are racial codewords.

[KingsGambit]

At least he's a nobody. Juan Williams is now claiming "Constitution" and "Founding Fathers" are racial codewords.

What about "constitutional", as in, I'm taking my morning constitutional?

[Chaotic Void]

Subbin'.

[jpholding]

http://www.tektonics.org/tektoonics/.../jan12scr.html

January feature up.



I'm still debating what to do about Little Miss Black Screen and her "response" (guffaw) vid. Since a lot of people would whine if I started beating up a little girl, regardless of how much a fool she was being, I figure my options are:

1) Forge post linked from the vid description of the original Jephthah vid.
2) Make a vid where she's refuted by Jephthah's daughter herself (voiced by Melanie Zens, who's about the same age too).

She has only 29 views now, and I imagine half of that came from here, so I'm heavily leaning towards 2, especially given how little time I have right now.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What about "constitutional", as in, I'm taking my morning constitutional?

racist scum.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

DJ decided to start February off screwy. (Like every other month.)

First, note this post.

I cannot conceive of an omniscient God being able to do this given all that I know about Christianity, the Bible, theology, philosophy, science, and the history of the church. For God to do this he would have to re-create this universe and basically rewrite history itself. But what is done is done. If however, it takes omniscience (or near omniscience) to show the Christian faith is true, then God should also know that without it I could not think otherwise. I might be wrong. But not even an omniscient God can show me that I willfully reject Christianity against the overwhelming evidence given that I am not omniscient and given what I find in this world. What the evidence leads me to think is that the Christian faith is wildly improbable.

Now compare this to the newest post, that is, the newest post at the time of my posting this, that can be found here

This starts with:

Previously I described several deceptive apologetic strategies. I want to highlight one more: The use of empty rhetoric utterly lacking in substance.

As if that wasn't bad enough, see what else I found in that last post.

The reason I bring this additional deceptive strategy up is because Christian apologist David Marshall continues to spout off that there is one God who can be seen in every religion. I had asked him who answers prayers? His response:
Who answers prayer? God, of course. That's "Bog" in Russian, "Dieu" in French, "Shang Di" in Chinese (also other names), and "Allah" in Arabic.
Now if you read the link I provided he did not attempt to answer the difficulties inherent in saying this. He responded with rhetoric, empty rhetoric, that is utterly lacking in substance.

There are other problems with his rhetoric. As an evangelical Marshall does not think God through Allah authorized Mohammad to be his prophet, for Marshall would say God's prophetic word through Mohammad contains obvious errors. God through Mohammad wants Muslims to kill Jews while the God of the Old Testament called Jews his chosen ones and granted them Palestine as an eternal possession. God through Mohammad said Jesus did not die on the cross while God in the New Testament said he died and that he arose from the dead.

Please note that Mr. "I know too much" did not even recognize that David Marshall was saying how to pronounce the word "God" in various languages, and he's right! Arabic Christians refer to God as Allah and an Arabic Bible would have verses like "IN the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Allah and the Word was Allah."

Instead, way too well-educated DJ goes on about how Allah and YHWH are not the same.

Note also the article is about arguments like Pascal's Wager and yet does not show the apologist today arguing that. Note also how the article ends.

No wonder I maintain that defending the Christian faith makes an otherwise intelligent person look stupid. That's because these Christian apologists are emotionally engaged much like romantic love is blind.

Let's hope DJ's wife doesn't read what he writes.

[MWM958]

burp

[lilpixieofterror]

Bert is trying really hard to get the 2012 Platinum screwball from 2011 reward winner Tassman with this:

No, for two reasons. 1, It would be infantile for me to ask for evidence of non-existence. 2, it would be infantile for you to try and produce evidence for non-existence.
Because if a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. If you don't get this very simply explanation, then there is no hope for you.

So basically, the fact there is no evidence for something existing, cannot be evidence according to Bert!

[Sparko]

Bert is trying really hard to get the 2012 Platinum screwball from 2011 reward winner Tassman with this:



So basically, the fact there is no evidence for something existing, cannot be evidence according to Bert!

I told him I have definitive evidence that Yoda was a fictional character and did not really exist. I bet it is eating him alive not to ask me for the evidence.