Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth?

[spamandham]

 

Absolute rubbish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

seagull overhead

[Ouroboros]

Speaking from ignorance does not make you "heard".

Yeah, so why did you?

[Mr. Neil]

Even more rubbish.

 

Speaking from ignorance does not make you "heard". I equate your statement to a deer caught in headlights.

...

 

 

Is it just me, or are the fundies visiting this site becoming more stupid? I thought we'd hit a new low with Invictus, but this guy here may have him beat.

 

How was I "speaking from ignorance"? All I said was that as science is able to provide better explanations for things that we'll be able to throw out your childish invisible ghosts.

 

How do I know this? Well, it's been happening for centuries. Every time science makes a new discovery, it peels away the shroud of mystery that religionists such as yourself like to hide behind. Have you noticed lately that earthquakes and lightning aren't the wrath of God anymore? Nope, now that we know what causes these things, we don't need invisible magic people to explain such phenomena.

 

This should be more than a clue for you that appealing to invisible magic ghosts is wrong, and I encourage you to join us in the 21st century.

 

"I've tripped over yet another platypus"

Oh wonderful. Be sure to pick it up and let it poke you with the spurs on its hind legs. It's real fun. Trust me.

 

 

Oh, and uh... go fuck yourself.

[crazy-tiger]

 

Is it just me, or are the fundies visiting this site becoming more stupid?  I thought we'd hit a new low with Invictus, but this guy here may have him beat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No Neil... it's not just you.

[Vixentrox]

Apperently science being self-correcting is rubbish. *shrugs* I'm pretty sure a science text book of 100 years ago has quite a bit that has been corrected over time. Oh...that's right...Xtians don't belive in science...just magic and miracles.....

[Isak The Newt]

OHOHOHOH, We should ban all xtians from being able to use anything that has to do with any science!!! kick em all out like thy father commands us to be condemned to hell for not believing your fallacy, woah... that just rolled out woot!

[Vixentrox]

No more airplane rides! Just flaming, flying chariots allowed!

[Guest California Believer]

...

 

 

 

Oh, and uh... go fuck yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

"..go f*** yourself." <=== Intellect and maturity at its finest; such a gentleman full of class and style...so debonaire. I'm sure you would fit right in at Oxford Mr Neil.

 

Whether or not he answered the posted question, Invicticus' reply was certainly creative and every bit as intriguing as some of your more thoughtful replies. I found it quite entertaining as I'm sure you did (whether you admit it or not) and a successful riposte IMHO.

 

You folks crack me up. You hate Christianity so much that you spend hours wasting your time bashing it. You can't wait for a Christian to post something so you can all swoop down and shred him/her up (as I'm sure you will me). Then after one (or more) of you has completed the kill, you don't waste any time patting each other on the back for a job well done. Truly, a sterling example of scientific debate.

 

You leave no room for civil debate on your site. Instead you resort to slanderous remarks about the author or spewing vulgarities. For those that are here seeking sincere answers or true debate...my apologies for generalizing you.

 

I also apologize if I offended anyone by using the word "rubbish" when describing comments in this thread but that's exactly what they were. Plagiarizing James Randi does not make your definition of science true. Please Google your comments first next time.

 

It would be a breath of fresh air to see some new threads on here that focused on seeking truth (albeit, however you choose to seek it) instead of the assassination of Christian tenets.

 

- CB

[Vixentrox]

Most of us sought truth....and eventully found it wasn't anywhere near the Xtian faith or that stupid tribal book called the bible.

[Mythra]

It would be a breath of fresh air to see some new threads on here that focused on seeking truth (albeit, however you choose to seek it) instead of the assassination of Christian tenets.

- CB

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So start one. Tell us up front in that thread that you only want serious discussion. We'll try to accomodate ya.

 

We are seeking truth. We just are firm believers that it isn't to be found in the Holy Bible. ( A subject that most of us have some knowledge of)

 

We can only assassinate christian tenets if they are vulnerable. And they are.

[Mr. Neil]

 

"..go f*** yourself." <=== Intellect and maturity at its finest; such a gentleman full of class and style...so debonaire.  I'm sure you would fit right in at Oxford Mr Neil.

Well well well... In true Christian form, our friend ignores the four paragraph rebuttal I gave him and goes right to my obscenity, as though taking the high moral ground relieves him from having to answer the challenges to his ignorance.

 

Whether or not he answered the posted question, Invicticus' reply was certainly creative and every bit as intriguing as some of your more thoughtful replies.  I found it quite entertaining as I'm sure you did (whether you admit it or not) and a successful riposte IMHO.

Invictus is a coward who refuses to educate himself. His posts are indicative of a person who hasn't picked up a science book in fifty years. If dodging questions can be considered creative, then I guess I can sort of agree with you. He has a rather interesting way of not addressing any of my arguments. Of course, none of his shenanigans get by me.

 

In some cases, he just blatantly ignores what I say and handwaves my references.

 

But I'll give him credit. At least he tries to argue. You've yet to make a single point and have opted to do nothing except attack other people's posts. At least when I do that, I do it within the context of an actual argument.

 

You folks crack me up.  You hate Christianity so much that you spend hours wasting your time bashing it.

Not necessarily. Theism in general wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't for fundamentalist bastards making astonishingly untrue statements about science and modern culture.

 

I think you're projecting your anger onto us.

 

You can't wait for a Christian to post something so you can all swoop down and shred him/her up (as I'm sure you will me).

Anticipating our responses isn't a rebuttal. More like covering your ass for when we show up to explain why you're wrong. As I see it, though, you've yet to even start an argument. It seems you're the one who's swooped in for the attack. You've had nothing to say except laugh and say "rubbish!"

 

Then after one (or more) of you has completed the kill, you don't waste any time patting each other on the back for a job well done.  Truly, a sterling example of scientific debate.

This isn't a scientific forum, assmunch. If you want scholarly debates, go to IIDB, where they'll be happy to tear you to shreds in the most polite way possible.

 

You leave no room for civil debate on your site.  Instead you resort to slanderous remarks about the author or spewing vulgarities.  For those that are here seeking sincere answers or true debate...my apologies for generalizing you.

Had you started out in a civil manner, you would have gotten civility. Note that when another Christian on another topic said he'd actually consider my argument, I gave him a bit of slack. It's when morons like you come in with an attitude that we start getting aggressive.

 

We're just slinging your shit right back at you.

 

I also apologize if I offended anyone by using the word "rubbish" when describing comments in this thread but that's exactly what they were.  Plagiarizing James Randi does not make your definition of science true.  Please Google your comments first next time.

I would suggest that you not accuse people of plagiarism unless you have ample evidence. If not, then I expect a retraction.

 

And if you don't provide one, then I'll be happy to get a mod to do it for you. And don't think I won't, because I'm quite the bitch on these sorts of things.

 

It would be a breath of fresh air to see some new threads on here that focused on seeking truth (albeit, however you choose to seek it) instead of the assassination of Christian tenets.

You're such an ignorant little shit. Christianity itself is wrong. People who are born of virgins don't have genealogies of male progenetors. In fact, not being the male son of Joseph invalidates Christ of ever being the Messiah, because according to the Torah law, you can only gain tribal status from your father.

 

You worship a false prophet that probably didn't even exist, therefore Christianity doesn't even have a say in scientific matters. It should be dead.

[Mr. Neil]

No more airplane rides!  Just flaming, flying chariots allowed!

And no computers! If Christians are really that opposed to science, then they should stop using computers if they want to be consistant.

 

They think they can cherrypick science. Christians need to learn that they can't treat science the same way they treat the Holy Bible.

[Checkmate]

 

"..go f*** yourself." <=== Intellect and maturity at its finest; such a gentleman full of class and style...so debonaire.  I'm sure you would fit right in at Oxford Mr Neil.

 

Whether or not he answered the posted question, Invicticus' reply was certainly creative and every bit as intriguing as some of your more thoughtful replies.  I found it quite entertaining as I'm sure you did (whether you admit it or not) and a successful riposte IMHO.

 

You folks crack me up.  You hate Christianity so much that you spend hours wasting your time bashing it.  You can't wait for a Christian to post something so you can all swoop down and shred him/her up (as I'm sure you will me).  Then after one (or more) of you has completed the kill, you don't waste any time patting each other on the back for a job well done.  Truly, a sterling example of scientific debate. 

 

You leave no room for civil debate on your site.  Instead you resort to slanderous remarks about the author or spewing vulgarities.  For those that are here seeking sincere answers or true debate...my apologies for generalizing you.

 

I also apologize if I offended anyone by using the word "rubbish" when describing comments in this thread but that's exactly what they were.  Plagiarizing James Randi does not make your definition of science true.  Please Google your comments first next time.

 

It would be a breath of fresh air to see some new threads on here that focused on seeking truth (albeit, however you choose to seek it) instead of the assassination of Christian tenets.

 

- CB

 

 

Hmm...Interesting. CB, um...I can't help but noticing that YOU did NOT answer or respond to the ORIGINAL question that I proposed for INTELLIGENT DEBATE.

 

You just popped out of nowhere to pick a fight with us.

 

Now, I'm trying to be kind, but I'm about to lose it. YOUR actions are the very kind that enrage us, and bait us, and lead us to dub people like you ASSHOLES. And then we tell you to go fuck yourself.

 

IF you are here for serious debate, then ANSWER MY FUCKING PROPOSED QUESTION!!!! (I.E. "Why do Xians disagree about the bible?")

 

DON'T come here and attack us for existing and having opinions that differ from your cherished views.

 

<<<<BREATHE. BREATHE. BREATHE.>>>>>

 

OK. I'm calm now. I shall go away and await a response. HOPEFULLY it will be something of intelligent merit and not more Xian bullshit.

 

If it isn't, you can believe I've got a ready post waiting in the wings.

[Checkmate]

Well well well...  In true Christian form, our friend ignores the four paragraph rebuttal I gave him and goes right to my obscenity, as though taking the high moral ground relieves him from having to answer the challenges to his ignorance.

 

 

 

You're such an ignorant little shit.  Christianity itself is wrong.  People who are born of virgins don't have genealogies of male progenetors.  In fact, not being the male son of Joseph invalidates Christ of ever being the Messiah, because according to the Torah law, you can only gain tribal status from your father.

 

You worship a false prophet that probably didn't even exist, therefore Christianity doesn't even have a say in scientific matters.  It should be dead.

 

 

Bravo!!!!! Encore!!!! One of the best rips I have read!!!!!

 

Mr. Neil, you can speak for me anytime! Rock on!

[spamandham]

You can't wait for a Christian to post something so you can all swoop down and shred him/her up (as I'm sure you will me).  Then after one (or more) of you has completed the kill, you don't waste any time patting each other on the back for a job well done.  Truly, a sterling example of scientific debate...

 

Your very first post on this board was... "absolute rubbish" in response to nothing more than a description of the scientific process.

 

The attacks you received were earned by coming here and throwing out arrogant non sequiters before even introducing yourself. There are several Christians who post here with whom civil discourse is maintained, because they're sincere and not merely arrogant ass wipes.

 

It isn't martyrdom when you've earned it.

 

You leave no room for civil debate on your site. 

 

Then leave. You won't be missed.

[chefranden]

...How do I know this?  Well, it's been happening for centuries.  Every time science makes a new discovery, it peels away the shroud of mystery that religionists such as yourself like to hide behind.  Have you noticed lately that earthquakes and lightning aren't the wrath of God anymore?  Nope, now that we know what causes these things, we don't need invisible magic people to explain such phenomena...

...

Oh, and uh... go fuck yourself.

 

Neil,

 

I'm about to pick on this statement but not on you.

 

 

As you are probably aware, one of the criteria of adequacy is the criterion of conservatism, which states that the best theory is the one that is most in agreement with well-established beliefs. The criterion of conservatism is little more than the fallacy of appeal to tradition. Faith of my fathers and all that.

 

As a result of this science, which can be self-correcting, is not self-correcting. In fact corrections often await the death of a particular generation of scientific high priests. The Big Bang theory is a case in point. Instead of scrapping the theory in the face of the piles of anomalies that it produces, true believers keep adding ad hoc constants and other weird speculations such as dark energy and dark matter in order to preserve the theory. I do not see much difference between this and the ad hoc explanations that Christianity uses to try to eliminate the many contradictions found within their data. A scientist that comes up with a hypothesis that better explains the anomalies will not get a hearing, if the hypothesis includes scrapping the Big Bang. This is also the case with other pet theories. And the reason that they are preserved is pretty much the same as the reason Christian doctrine or religious doctrine is preserved. People who hold the doctrinal power are personally invested in what they have written and in the positions they have acquired via that work. If that is challenged they react to it in the same way any pope or bishop would.

 

Scientists are people as well as bishops. They will protect their place. They will declare ideas too wide of the present doctrine heresy.

[Guest California Believer]

I would suggest that you not accuse people of plagiarism unless you have ample evidence.  If not, then I expect a retraction.

 

And if you don't provide one, then I'll be happy to get a mod to do it for you.  And don't think I won't, because I'm quite the bitch on these sorts of things.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fair enough:

 

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -- James Randi

 

"Science is not unchanging or infailable. It has built in corrections where things can be brought to date as new discoveries are made." -- Viventrox

 

"...As scientists gain more knowledge, they'll be able to provide more information, and eventually, we won't have to have fairy tales about magic ghosts creating life, because we'll know how life really came to be." -- Mr Neil

 

How original and inventive. You can disagree all you want but it took me less than 2 minutes of googling *your* and Viventrox's comments (in context) to find James Randi's striking quote. It's no wonder you want a mod to remove it. No I most certainly will not "retract".

 

FYI - I was not accusing "people" of plagiarizing, I was only accusing *you* and Viventrox of robbing someone else's defintion. Stop making attempts to incorporate everyone else in your crusade by dropping the "people" bomb (what people?) and take ownership for your own misspent efforts.

 

I will devote some time later this evening to address the rest of your ridiculous comments (because I obviously hit a nerve) and then for the sake of digressing from this thread I will offer a rebuttal to the original post. I am truly interested in civil "discourse" so I apologize for any previous gouge attempts (again) and look forward to some intellectual fencing wtih some of you.

 

Peace

 

-CB

 

John 8:32

[Dio]

Fair enough:

 

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -- James Randi

 

"Science is not unchanging or infailable.  It has built in corrections where things can be brought to date as new discoveries are made." -- Viventrox

 

"...As scientists gain more knowledge, they'll be able to provide more information, and eventually, we won't have to have fairy tales about magic ghosts creating life, because we'll know how life really came to be." -- Mr Neil

 

How original and inventive.  You can disagree all you want but it took me less than 2 minutes of googling *your* and Viventrox's comments (in context) to find James Randi's striking quote.  It's no wonder you want a mod to remove it.  No I most certainly will not "retract". 

 

FYI - I was not accusing "people" of plagiarizing, I was only accusing *you* and Viventrox of robbing someone else's defintion.  Stop making attempts to incorporate everyone else in your crusade by dropping the "people" bomb (what people?) and take ownership for your own misspent efforts. 

 

I will devote some time later this evening to address the rest of your ridiculous comments (because I obviously hit a nerve) and then for the sake of digressing from this thread I will offer a rebuttal to the original post.  I am truly interested in civil "discourse" so I apologize for any previous gouge attempts (again) and look forward to some intellectual fencing wtih some of you.

 

Peace

 

-CB

 

John 8:32

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umm, rubbish.

[Guest California Believer]

Umm, rubbish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Deep

[Dio]

I guess I "plagiarized" it from you.

[TruthWarrior]

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -- James Randi

 

"Science is not unchanging or infailable.  It has built in corrections where things can be brought to date as new discoveries are made." -- Viventrox

 

"...As scientists gain more knowledge, they'll be able to provide more information, and eventually, we won't have to have fairy tales about magic ghosts creating life, because we'll know how life really came to be." -- Mr Neil

 

How original and inventive.  You can disagree all you want but it took me less than 2 minutes of googling *your* and Viventrox's comments (in context) to find James Randi's striking quote.  It's no wonder you want a mod to remove it.  No I most certainly will not "retract". 

 

What?! That's not plagarising. It's 3 different ways of describing the same thing. If you describe Jesus and I google for another's description of Jesus it doesnt mean you plagarised the person because you had a similar description. Silly person!

[Mr. Neil]

So basically you've deliberately tried to defame and slander me. This is outragious, and I will absolutely not put up with some little shit like you trying to attack my credibility with such flimsy evidence.

 

I want this accusation removed, and I expect a full retraction. And if you don't, I will get a mod in here to remove it for me, and I will insist on having you removed from this forum. You have one post to comply.

 

Nobody has the right to do what you just did. How DARE you!?

 

Next time you print something about somebody, you'd better be sure it's true.

[Lunar Shadow]

What the fuck just happened??? I knew that when Neil got here and saw CD's post all hell would break loose and the shit would hit the fan but this just swept in like a whirl wind with a shit load of posts in a matter of a couple hours

 

 

OK I am starting a pool.

 

2 to 1 odds that CB ends up another seagull

35 to 1 that he actually sticks around

 

any takers??

[Mr. Neil]

The only way he escapes my wrath is if he decides to be a seagull, because he will never hear the end of it if he stays.

 

I want that unwarranted accusation removed, and I expect an apology and a retraction.

 

You see me on here all the time cracking jokes and having fun, but this is something I take very seriously.

[crazy-tiger]

So basically you've deliberately tried to defame and slander me.  This is outragious, and I will absolutely not put up with some little shit like you trying to attack my credibility with such flimsy evidence.

 

I want this accusation removed, and I expect a full retraction. And if you don't, I will get a mod in here to remove it for me, and I will insist on having you removed from this forum.  You have one post to comply.

 

Nobody has the right to do what you just did.  How DARE you!?

 

Next time you print something about somebody, you'd better be sure it's true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neil... non-subscribers can't edit their posts after around 30 mins, (or is it an hour now?) and they certainly can't delete them.

 

 

He's gonna find it hard to remove it.