TJR666 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I am new to the group. Greetings to anyone who may be reading this. Being somewhat philosophical for a while: Is there anything we know that is absolutely true; something that we would all agree on; what is it that we can all say that we know is absolutely true? Not much is there? The only thing I can think of is that we actually do “think”. If we think then I would logically assume that thinking require a thinker; thus those who think must exist. Thus we as thinkers exist. I think, therefore I am. Do you agree? Continuing on; it seems thought requires the passage of “time”. Of course it is possible that thought may not require the passage of time, but it would be difficult to argue the position that a thought does not require the passage of time. Thus, it seems that time does also exist. What exactly is time? Who knows, but I guess what is important at this point is the effect it has on our discussion, that is, if time exists then events in time have a “beginning” and an “ending”. If we exist, then how do we know anything outside “us” exists? For example, suppose you were totally blind and deaf, couldn’t feel, smell or taste anything. How would you know anything outside “you” exists? Suppose you were this way since conception. How would you know? What you think exists “outside” you may just be your (very vivid) imagination. Again, it may be hard to prove that the “outside world” or “universe” exists, but it would be pretty safe to assume that it actually does exist. If it does not exist, then neither do I or anything else. That means you have probably gone crazy because you’re talking and arguing with someone who doesn’t exist! OK, so we as individuals exist, time exists, and the outside world and universe exist. What do we know about the universe “outside”? One thing we observe and do know for sure in that universe is that nothing starts to move without first being pushed (or pulled); every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, all events are caused, they just don’t happen by themselves. Another thing we know about our universe is that it is governed by the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics. These three laws are the most rigorously tested laws in all of scientific observation. No exception has ever been found. Paraphrasing the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy and matter can neither be created or destroyed. Matter and energy are interchangeable (remember Einstein’s famous E = mc squared) but neither can be created or destroyed. That’s a universally observed fact. Paraphrasing the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The amount of energy available to do work is always decreasing. Thus, though we can’t loose energy, it becomes more and more useless each time it is used. That’s a universally observed fact. Following on from this we observe that all things naturally go from an ordered state to a disordered state, breakdown from complex to simple if left to themselves. That’s a universally observed fact. Things only become more organised by deliberate intention. Intelligence and the ability to direct force are required to increase organisation and complexity. For example, you need to maintain your house. If you do nothing, it slowly falls to bits. Paraphrasing the Third Law of Thermodynamics: The average temperature of all matter can never reach absolute zero. This is because to reach absolute zero you would need something colder to draw the heat out and there is nothing colder than absolute zero. That’s a universally observed fact. So where are we so far? We assume that we exist. We assume that time exists. We assume that the universe exists. We assume that our scientific observations about the universe are real; that our scientific observations are valid. What that means (based on our scientific observations) is that the universe as we know it is winding down, wearing out, losing its useable energy. That implies there was a beginning because the universe does not contain infinite amount of energy. If it has a beginning then it will eventually have an end, and it appears a cold miserable one at that. Also, our scientific observations show that everything in the universe has motion, from the smallest element of matter right up to the largest galaxies. Since the universe exists, and since events occur within time within the universe, and since all events require something to cause them, then something must have started all the motion in the first place. Our scientific observations also show the presence of order and complexity from the smallest element of matter right up to the largest galaxies. Yet, our scientific observations show that this order and complexity decrease with time towards an eventual minimum value in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics. That means it started somewhere back in time with a much higher level of order and complexity. Where did this order and complexity come from initially? Remember, the Second Law of Thermodynamics demands that things only become more complex and organised by deliberate intention. Thus, intelligence and the ability to direct force are required to increase order and complexity. The design and order we observe scientifically within our universe must therefore have a “designer”. The motion we observe must have had a “prime mover”. Some say that complexity and order (such as “life”) can evolve in our universe without any intelligent input. That is only possible if the Laws of Thermodynamics are broken, and that is something which has never been scientifically observed. What all this means is this: We know that motion and complexity exist within our universe. We know that the laws governing the universe cannot provide either one. We know that the universe is losing its order and complexity. That means the universe is unable to sustain itself. That means the universe could not have begun itself. That means there is something beyond our universe. Putting it another way: If we know that highly complex and ordered systems like life exist, and that highly complex and ordered systems like life can never be self-created by our universe (and the laws governing the universe) then something external to our universe is responsible. That means the “super-natural” does in fact exist. I believe that if we continue from this point, it can be shown that only the monotheistic religions are possible candidates to explain the “designer”. But which one? What’s your thoughts so far? Shall I continue? TJR666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I am new to the group. Greetings to anyone who may be reading this. Being somewhat philosophical for a while: Is there anything we know that is absolutely true; something that we would all agree on; what is it that we can all say that we know is absolutely true? Not much is there? The only thing I can think of is that we actually do “think”. If we think then I would logically assume that thinking require a thinker; thus those who think must exist. Thus we as thinkers exist. I think, therefore I am. Do you agree? Hello Descartes. *waves* Continuing on; it seems thought requires the passage of “time”. Of course it is possible that thought may not require the passage of time, but it would be difficult to argue the position that a thought does not require the passage of time. Thus, it seems that time does also exist. Time is a human construct of measurement, if that's what you mean. What exactly is time? Who knows, but I guess what is important at this point is the effect it has on our discussion, that is, if time exists then events in time have a “beginning” and an “ending”. If we exist, then how do we know anything outside “us” exists? For example, suppose you were totally blind and deaf, couldn’t feel, smell or taste anything. How would you know anything outside “you” exists? Suppose you were this way since conception. How would you know? What you think exists “outside” you may just be your (very vivid) imagination. Again, it may be hard to prove that the “outside world” or “universe” exists, but it would be pretty safe to assume that it actually does exist. If it does not exist, then neither do I or anything else. That means you have probably gone crazy because you’re talking and arguing with someone who doesn’t exist! OK, so we as individuals exist, time exists, and the outside world and universe exist. What do we know about the universe “outside”? One thing we observe and do know for sure in that universe is that nothing starts to move without first being pushed (or pulled); every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, all events are caused, they just don’t happen by themselves. That can be contested. Another thing we know about our universe is that it is governed by the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics. These three laws are the most rigorously tested laws in all of scientific observation. No exception has ever been found. The "laws" of nature are actually more like observations. There is always the possibility for exception, especially since we, as humans, have only been "observing" this world for a relatively short time. Paraphrasing the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy and matter can neither be created or destroyed. Matter and energy are interchangeable (remember Einstein’s famous E = mc squared) but neither can be created or destroyed. That’s a universally observed fact. Paraphrasing the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The amount of energy available to do work is always decreasing. Thus, though we can’t loose energy, it becomes more and more useless each time it is used. That’s a universally observed fact. I think I know where this is headed... Following on from this we observe that all things naturally go from an ordered state to a disordered state, breakdown from complex to simple if left to themselves. That’s a universally observed fact. Things only become more organised by deliberate intention. Intelligence and the ability to direct force are required to increase organisation and complexity. For example, you need to maintain your house. If you do nothing, it slowly falls to bits. Yep. I definitely know where this is heading. Paraphrasing the Third Law of Thermodynamics: The average temperature of all matter can never reach absolute zero. This is because to reach absolute zero you would need something colder to draw the heat out and there is nothing colder than absolute zero. That’s a universally observed fact. So where are we so far? We assume that we exist. We assume that time exists. We assume that the universe exists. We assume that our scientific observations about the universe are real; that our scientific observations are valid. What that means (based on our scientific observations) is that the universe as we know it is winding down, wearing out, losing its useable energy. That implies there was a beginning because the universe does not contain infinite amount of energy. If it has a beginning then it will eventually have an end, and it appears a cold miserable one at that. A lot of "ifs" in use in that statement... Also, our scientific observations show that everything in the universe has motion, from the smallest element of matter right up to the largest galaxies. Since the universe exists, and since events occur within time within the universe, and since all events require something to cause them, then something must have started all the motion in the first place. Our scientific observations also show the presence of order and complexity from the smallest element of matter right up to the largest galaxies. Yet, our scientific observations show that this order and complexity decrease with time towards an eventual minimum value in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics. That means it started somewhere back in time with a much higher level of order and complexity. Where did this order and complexity come from initially? I think you'd better look over the Second Law of Thermodynamics again. We've already heard this argument. It is not as impressive as you seem to think. Remember, the Second Law of Thermodynamics demands that things only become more complex and organised by deliberate intention. Thus, intelligence and the ability to direct force are required to increase order and complexity. The design and order we observe scientifically within our universe must therefore have a “designer”. The motion we observe must have had a “prime mover”. Nope. Some say that complexity and order (such as “life”) can evolve in our universe without any intelligent input. That is only possible if the Laws of Thermodynamics are broken, and that is something which has never been scientifically observed. Do the words "closed system" mean anything to you? What all this means is this: We know that motion and complexity exist within our universe. We know that the laws governing the universe cannot provide either one. We know that the universe is losing its order and complexity. That means the universe is unable to sustain itself. That means the universe could not have begun itself. That means there is something beyond our universe. Putting it another way: If we know that highly complex and ordered systems like life exist, and that highly complex and ordered systems like life can never be self-created by our universe (and the laws governing the universe) then something external to our universe is responsible. I don't agree with that. And what exactly do you mean by "complex" anyway? That means the “super-natural” does in fact exist. The "supernatural" is a nonsense word. If something exists, it exists inside of nature and is therefore "natural". If it does not exist inside of nature, we wouldn't be able to interact with it or be effected by it. I believe that if we continue from this point, it can be shown that only the monotheistic religions are possible candidates to explain the “designer”. But which one? Why only the monotheistic religions? You haven't shown anything of the sort. What’s your thoughts so far? Shall I continue? Not if you are going to give the same sloppy logic as you did in this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 yay..another presuppositionalist...let us see how long he lasts here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 *passes corn chips to Zoe* Anybody want this cream soda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 jesus christ man, think you could shorten it up a bit? Your post is unnecessarily large, let me sum up: TAG, Kalam, Fallacy of Composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 jesus christ man, think you could shorten it up a bit? Your post is unnecessarily large, let me sum up: TAG, Kalam, Fallacy of Composition. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Asimov, we should make you an official editor. Thank for the summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Asimov, we should make you an official editor. Thank for the summary. jesus christ woman, think you could shorten it up a bit? Your post is unnecessarily large, let me sum up: Asimov Rocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Or... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bdp Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 *passes corn chips to Zoe* Anybody want this cream soda? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If it's a sugar-free cream soda send it this way! bdp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 People still drink that stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Of course we do! It's pink! And fizzy! If that doesn't make it an awesome drink, then I don't know what does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Of course we do! It's pink! And fizzy! If that doesn't make it an awesome drink, then I don't know what does. I've never seen pink cream soda. The only stuff I ever saw was clear. I think I've had one serving of that stuff in my entire life. I just don't care for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokudo Ningyou Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Barq's red cream soda, man. That stuff tastes like a Cherry Blow-Pop in a bottle. Utterly fantabulous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been borg again Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 can i try with the Second Law quote? Correct me if i screw up. ........... quote..... Paraphrasing the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The amount of energy available to do work is always decreasing. Thus, though we can’t loose energy, it becomes more and more useless each time it is used. That’s a universally observed fact. ........................... Following on from this we observe that all things naturally go from an ordered state to a disordered state, breakdown from complex to simple if left to themselves. That’s a universally observed fact. Things only become more organised by deliberate intention. Intelligence and the ability to direct force are required to increase organisation and complexity. For example, you need to maintain your house. If you do nothing, it slowly falls to bits. ..end quote.................. Two key concepts Closed System / Open System Imagine your body as a System... if it was a "closed " system and not recieving Energy/food... it would be unable to maintain the complexity and break down into its simplier form ( death and decay) But since we get Energy/food from an outside source= Sunlight , then our bodies are able to maintian its level of complexity.as long as we keep useing Energy from an outside source.. So our bodies use the Energy as it gets transfered into body heat or what not , and it needs to be replaced, Energy doesnt become " useless" it just transfered or stored ( Fat) into another form of Energy. As long as the fuel keeps coming then the molecular and biochemical bonds can stay together in its complexity. If the Energy stops coming, then a chain reaction starts breaking down the molecular and protein structures into its simpler parts. Imagine you have a structure that is wanting to fall apart. this structure is applying a certian amount of force in wanting to fall apart, so in order to keep this structure from falling apart, you have to apply AT THE LEAST equal opposite energy/force to keep it together, right? If you want to fix this structure ( incease its complexity) then you must invest Energy that is MORE THAN the opposite Energy that is trying to cause the structure to fall apart. BUT if this structure is a CLOSED SYSTEM , then it cannot provide sufficent ENERGY in itself to keep it from falling apart, it MUST take its Energy from an outside source. Because Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I dont think an intelligence is directly needed to direct the Energy, its only following Law, like a lightning bolt doesnt need divine intervention to follow the path of least resistence, does it? Its just following predictable LAW. Unless deity created the LAWs to begin with ( I dont know), but your claiming the LAws cant function without divine intervention, , 2 completely different worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 What’s your thoughts so far? Shall I continue? Not if your further arguments are as weak as what you've started with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Not if your further arguments are as weak as what you've started with. Exactly. TJR, I'll grant you that you've been quite polite. At least in this thread, and so far. But that doesn't change the fact that you base your "reasoning" on some severe misconceptions. If you seriously want to discuss stuff with us, I'd suggest you do some research and are willing to think a bit about the arguments of "the other side". They aren't that hard to find (can you say google? I knew you could). For starters, Talk.origins' index of creationist claims has a not-too-long, not-too-difficult rebuttal of the 2nd law strawman you (maybe unknowingly) use. Please do read that. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Now...where exactly were you going with this? Oh let me guess you were going to use this as a jumping off point to hijack reality with christianity. yeah, that's not gonna work here. but thanks for playing. seriously. we have lovely parting gifts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gawdammit, Zoe you're gonna get me in trouble. I'm sittin at my 'puter at work, and people start lookin at me funny when I fall on the ground laughing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I've never seen pink cream soda. The only stuff I ever saw was clear. I think I've had one serving of that stuff in my entire life. I just don't care for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you are thinking of club soda. Club soda = gross (unless you need to clean a stain off your shirt). Cream soda = awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I am new to the group. Greetings to anyone who may be reading this. Hi TJR and welcome! Again, it may be hard to prove that the “outside world” or “universe” exists, but it would be pretty safe to assume that it actually does exist. If it does not exist, then neither do I or anything else. That means you have probably gone crazy because you’re talking and arguing with someone who doesn’t exist! Not necessarily. You could exist and the world is just an illusion. The people around you could be just images that are made in the purpose to fool your mind. Our scientific observations also show the presence of order and complexity from the smallest element of matter right up to the largest galaxies. Yet, our scientific observations show that this order and complexity decrease with time towards an eventual minimum value in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics. That means it started somewhere back in time with a much higher level of order and complexity. Where did this order and complexity come from initially? Remember, the Second Law of Thermodynamics demands that things only become more complex and organised by deliberate intention. Thus, intelligence and the ability to direct force are required to increase order and complexity. The design and order we observe scientifically within our universe must therefore have a “designer”. The motion we observe must have had a “prime mover”. Some say that complexity and order (such as “life”) can evolve in our universe without any intelligent input. That is only possible if the Laws of Thermodynamics are broken, and that is something which has never been scientifically observed. And that intelligence must have had a first mover of higher intelligence to come into being, and that intelligence must have had of even higher intelligence and so on. You suppose that the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t exist for the intelligence that created the universe, and how can you prove that? If the universe is so complex that it need a more complex creator, then a very complex creator need, by the same definition, a even more complex creator. You can’t argue with logic and then explain it with something without logic. Why did you stop? Is it because you don’t like the idea of an infinite regression? You argue with logic until one point, then your emotions take over and force you to stop. What all this means is this: We know that motion and complexity exist within our universe. We know that the laws governing the universe cannot provide either one. We know that the universe is losing its order and complexity. That means the universe is unable to sustain itself. That means the universe could not have begun itself. That means there is something beyond our universe. It’s all ok, but even if there is something beyond the universe, by the fact that it is beyond our universe and our senses and abilities to measure and reason, then it’s immeasurable and unthinkable, and hence only speculations. At that point, only emotions guide you, and not logic anymore, and you can’t prove anything. Putting it another way: If we know that highly complex and ordered systems like life exist, and that highly complex and ordered systems like life can never be self-created by our universe (and the laws governing the universe) then something external to our universe is responsible. That means the “super-natural” does in fact exist. Everything is supernatural until it is explained and it becomes natural. I believe that if we continue from this point, it can be shown that only the monotheistic religions are possible candidates to explain the “designer”. But which one? No. God’s name is Bob and he has 42 sub-gods that act on his commands. If there is a prime mover, then I can prove his name is Bob, and you should read the Bobble and not the fallacious and heretic Bible. What’s your thoughts so far? Shall I continue? TJR666 Some of it is good, but you still make a leap of faith. If you can prove that God exists, that means that his existence is logical and provable and not by faith. So you leave faith behind and he becomes a fact and an artifact of reason. So why do you need faith then? You don’t anymore, because in such case God is a fact, and you don’t have to have a Bible to tell you anything, because he’s evident. But if he’s evident, why doesn’t every human being in this world see it and believe in him, and have the facts and undeniable proofs in front of them? If it is so simple and obvious, as you elude, than faith and religion is dead, and hence the need of faith is gone. Are you with me? Which way do you want it: Faith without logic, or logic without faith? If you win your argument, you loose, but if you loose your argument, you win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJR666 Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 Greetings to all from TJR666: I forgot I posted this posting, finally remembered and came back to have a look. Imagine my surprise to see that I had 21 replies. Eagerly I read them. What a disappointment. Go back and have a read of most of them. It’s sad really. Two or three very genuine attempts to discuss the posting (and thank you); the rest are absolute nonsense. If you were trying to appear to be “intelligent and witty”, then you have failed miserably. All it shows me (and anyone else who wishes to discuss things rationally) is that the vast bulk of those who inhabit such sites as these are not “intelligent and witty”, but are pure half-wits. Those who ridicule do so because they don’t have the brains to think out and compose a decent rebuttal; it’s just that simple. If what I say is wrong about you, then prove me to be wrong; discuss the posting rationally and sensibly and leave all this so-called “intelligent and witty” nonsense out, or go somewhere else to amuse your fantasies. I suppose I will get the usual dozens of “go and look at the Talk Origins site”; like I haven’t already been referred there dozens of times? I’ve probably read more of the “Gospel according to Talk Origins” than most of you! Believe me; it also has its straw men. On the Second Law of Thermodynamics; let’s see: “There are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.” John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, Volume 58, July 7, 1980, p40 “Another way of stating the second law then is “the universe is constantly getting more disorderly!” … everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out all by itself – and that’s what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, [Note the title >] “In the game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even”, Smithsonian Institute, June, 1970, p6 “An answer can readily be given to the question: Has the second law of thermodynamics ever been circumvented? Not yet.” Frank Greco, “On the Second Law of Thermodynamics”, American Laboratory, Volume 14, October 1982, p80-88 “There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries …” E.B.Stuart, B.Gal-Or and A.J.Brainard, “Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics and a Critical Review of Thermodynamics”, Mono Book Corp, 1970, p78. “It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted.” Emmett Williams, “Thermodynamics and the Development of Order”, CRS Books, 1981, pp 7-8 Enough said for now. It appears that some of the mental giants here have the utmost difficulty if they have to read more than a two sentences at a time. TJR666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Why are all your sources from 20-30 yrs old? Don't you have any recent evidence of anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Continuing on; it seems thought requires the passage of “time”. Of course it is possible that thought may not require the passage of time, but it would be difficult to argue the position that a thought does not require the passage of time. Thus, it seems that time does also exist. Of course thought requires the passage of time. Why? The second law of thermodynamics. What exactly is time? Who knows, but I guess what is important at this point is the effect it has on our discussion, that is, if time exists then events in time have a “beginning” and an “ending”. Again the second law of thermodynamics. Remember, the Second Law of Thermodynamics demands that things only become more complex and organised by deliberate intention. Thus, intelligence and the ability to direct force are required to increase order and complexity. The design and order we observe scientifically within our universe must therefore have a “designer”. The motion we observe must have had a “prime mover”. Some say that complexity and order (such as “life”) can evolve in our universe without any intelligent input. That is only possible if the Laws of Thermodynamics are broken, and that is something which has never been scientifically observed. This is not, I repeat not, what the second law implies. Order can and does increase within a subset of a system if in the rest of the systems disorder also increases. By your interpretion you would not be able to post your message as you wouldn't be able to create memories. Life can and is created all the time (babies and little cuddly baby rabbits) without breaking the second law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Two or three very genuine attempts to discuss the posting (and thank you); the rest are absolute nonsense. If you were trying to appear to be “intelligent and witty”, then you have failed miserably. That is the overall culture of this site, so either you take it or you shouldn’t go into a discussion. You will find any kind of person here. Don’t expect miracles here, or explanations to every thing you posts. We don’t have answers to everything, and the reasons why we don’t believe are not necessarily philosophical arguments, but could just as well be experiences. If what I say is wrong about you, then prove me to be wrong; discuss the posting rationally and sensibly and leave all this so-called “intelligent and witty” nonsense out, or go somewhere else to amuse your fantasies. Ah, yes, it’s your site, and you demand obedience! Don’t you dare throw us out from our site! This site happens to be called ex-christian, not Christian-Rules-Yeah.com. If this site and these forums don’t amuse you, then you should go somewhere else, to some more “professional” discussion sites, like the infidelguy or such. You can allow you to discuss on this site if you behave, not demand that we behave. You have to eat it or beat it! This is OUR Church, not Yours! Enough said for now. It appears that some of the mental giants here have the utmost difficulty if they have to read more than a two sentences at a time.TJR666 You like to use demeaning language, don’t you? I will play the game too: So we are mental giants, so is your brain bigger? How big is your brain? Is it 40-50 feet circumference? And we can’t read more than two sentences at a time, well I guess you can read three sentences concurrently, so that’s why you’re so smart, you three eyed mutant! Enough said. Members will start beating you up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antihero Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Greetings to all from TJR666: What a disappointment. Go back and have a read of most of them. It’s sad really. Two or three very genuine attempts to discuss the posting (and thank you); the rest are absolute nonsense. If you were trying to appear to be “intelligent and witty”, then you have failed miserably. All it shows me (and anyone else who wishes to discuss things rationally) is that the vast bulk of those who inhabit such sites as these are not “intelligent and witty”, but are pure half-wits. Those who ridicule do so because they don’t have the brains to think out and compose a decent rebuttal; it’s just that simple. If what I say is wrong about you, then prove me to be wrong; discuss the posting rationally and sensibly and leave all this so-called “intelligent and witty” nonsense out, or go somewhere else to amuse your fantasies. I suppose I will get the usual dozens of “go and look at the Talk Origins site”; like I haven’t already been referred there dozens of times? I’ve probably read more of the “Gospel according to Talk Origins” than most of you! Believe me; it also has its straw men. [... Look behind you! A three headed monkey! ...] TJR666 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What a little dickweed. Post translated: "I don't have any way to rebut the "two or three very genuine attempts to discuss [my pathetic] posting", and as I have no sense of humour, I'll become condescending and insult those that had fun (how dare they have any fun at my expense, when my arguments are so obviously and totally obviously obvious. Totally). I'll put in a little insult about brains and insults, not even notice the irony of it, and return to not providing any argument whatsoever. I'll pretend I know everything then throw a few anachronistic quotes in to distract them while I piss off, masturbating myself tonight with the pleasure of another clear intellectual victory." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bdp Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Those who ridicule do so because they don’t have the brains to think out and compose a decent rebuttal ...or they just didn't see anything worth expending the energy to create a rebuttal. You have no idea how many times your arguments have come and gone here, some of the residents here just can't take them seriously anymore. Sorry if that truth hurts. bdp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts