Sphynxcat wrote:^^That quote is just completely mental.

You read the whole thing?

^^approx two thirds was enough. By that time I was reasonably sure that there would be no dazzling theological insight.

From some of the statements made in that description I find myself wondering if it was written by a poe. Either that or the writer has some seriously fucked-up thinking skills, maybe mental retardation (if one used such reasoning in other areas of life they would considered such, why does religion get to be free of such analysis and conclusion?). Most of the conclusions made aren't even related to the premises.

P: All atheists believe in evolution,
C: which means they don't believe in morality and think we should all act like animals.

P: Some famous atheists have shown they occasionally have doubts about their disbelief,
C: which proves that all atheists really do believe in God. (also doubt != believe in god entities)

P: Because we can think of the existence of God (talking marshmallows, leprechauns, vampires, gingerbread men),
C: God (talking marshmallows, leprechauns, vampires, gingerbread men, etc) must obviously exists, and therefore atheists are illogical.

P: atheism cannot explain the origins of the universe
C: therefore God exists.

P: Friedrich Nietzsche went crazy and was an atheist
C: therefore atheism drove him insane (although there is an ongoing debate on the matter...)

(I mean really, the above must be either signs of a poe or a person with problematic mental capabilities)

a lot of mass murderers were atheists, and all atheists, having no morality to guide them, are only a bad day away from going on a genocide spree. There have no exactly zero cases on Christian mass murderers throughout all of history.

Just read the bible for one, but any review of history can show otherwise.

"The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality"

Why are the religious so obsessed with things that don't have affect on anyone who isn't part of it (and therefore no affect on them)? Steal and a non-willing person is affected. Murder and a non-willing person is affected. But the list of above activities for the most only affect the involved parties (unless one is drunk while driving).

I wonder what their take is on that Roman Catholic mass murderer of the last century. What was his name now? Hinter? Hilter? Oh, Hitler! That's it.

That group's mental processes are seriously fucked-up.

pcCoder wrote:From some of the statements made in that description I find myself wondering if it was written by a poe.

I think it is a damn good parody of "athiests are eevil" sort of thinking. Maybe too good, judging by some reactions on this thread

Not sure it counts, but was just at a street fair a block from my house where a local church is giving away free food and having bands and free games for little kids (took granddaughter there and got dinner for free, score) and the band singing the lyrics 'Joyful noise to the lord' sounded seriously and repeatedly as if they were saying 'Joyful molesting the lord.' My wife heard it that way too. It was funny.

Liam Miller wrote:Not sure it counts, but was just at a street fair a block from my house where a local church is giving away free food and having bands and free games for little kids (took granddaughter there and got dinner for free, score) and the band singing the lyrics 'Joyful noise to the lord' sounded seriously and repeatedly as if they were saying 'Joyful molesting the lord.' My wife heard it that way too. It was funny.

The ear plays funny tricks sometimes. When I was a kid we had school assembly where we sang a hymn or two:
"We three kings of orient are..." always sounded like "We three kings of jolly and tar..." and sang them as such and I didn't figure the proper words until I actually read them.

(Apologies for the digression).

.
Does this count:
Slaughter of the Canaanites

murshid wrote:.
Does this count:
Slaughter of the Canaanites

Dr. Craig does it again:

From the above link wrote:Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Bloody moronic crap. And the fucking idiot is serious! Should be locked up.

Alan B wrote:

murshid wrote:.
Does this count:
Slaughter of the Canaanites

Dr. Craig does it again:

From the above link wrote:Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Bloody moronic crap. And the fucking idiot is serious! Should be locked up.

And that's from Craig, too! As well as this:

You can’t read the Old Testament prophets without a sense of God’s profound care for the poor, the oppressed, the down-trodden, the orphaned, and so on.

It's incredible how these so-called, self-proclaimed doctors, can just tell the very opposite of what is actually in the bible, without flinching. A blatant lie in the face of people, who could actually read the lines themselves if they wanted to, but the words of their "best" debater is enough for them.

Ridiculous. Compared to others here on this forum, my knowledge of things is severely limited and I think even I could give Craig a run for his money in a formal debate.

Alan B wrote:

Liam Miller wrote:Not sure it counts, but was just at a street fair a block from my house where a local church is giving away free food and having bands and free games for little kids (took granddaughter there and got dinner for free, score) and the band singing the lyrics 'Joyful noise to the lord' sounded seriously and repeatedly as if they were saying 'Joyful molesting the lord.' My wife heard it that way too. It was funny.

The ear plays funny tricks sometimes. When I was a kid we had school assembly where we sang a hymn of two:
"We three kings of orient are..." always sounded like "We three kings of jolly and tar..." and sang them as such and I didn't figure the proper words until I actually read them.

(Apologies for the digression).

...like the kid who comes home from school and says that he's learnt god's name, which is Harold.

Mummy asks how he found that out.

"Well it's in a prayer; 'Our father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name.'"

MattHunX wrote:
I think even I could give Craig a run for his money in a formal debate.

Not unless you can be as intellectually dishonest as he is and play as dirty as he does.

pnerd wrote:

MattHunX wrote:
I think even I could give Craig a run for his money in a formal debate.

Not unless you can be as intellectually dishonest as he is and play as dirty as he does.

That's the problem. He slithers his way out of simple arguments, like the immorality of the things done in the OT, arguments that would quickly change the opinions of theists, but who are brought up to naively believe a wrong interpretation of their holy book, and Craig, well I can't really tell if he is exploiting this, or he is genuinely as deluded as the people who think his a good debater. How do you win a debate like that? And by win I don't just mean have the atheist part (majority to out-vote the other at the end) of the audience applaud you, but make the theists in the audience use the brains for once, and perhaps even convince them.

MattHunX wrote:

pnerd wrote:

MattHunX wrote:
I think even I could give Craig a run for his money in a formal debate.

Not unless you can be as intellectually dishonest as he is and play as dirty as he does.

That's the problem. He slithers his way out of simple arguments, like the immorality of the things done in the OT, arguments that would quickly change the opinions of theists, but who are brought up to naively believe a wrong interpretation of their holy book, and Craig, well I can't really tell if he is exploiting this, or he is genuinely as deluded as the people who think his a good debater. How do you win a debate like that? And by win I don't just mean have the atheist part (majority to out-vote the other at the end) of the audience applaud you, but make the theists in the audience use the brains for once, and perhaps even convince them.

Probably someone like Matt Dillhunty (athiest experience, also not sure on spelling). I find that the religious listen to him more due to the fact he did study to be a priest. Its like a brownie award its seems until he goes off on one like telling someone that you can put a banana in your butt. LoL

pnerd wrote:

MattHunX wrote:
I think even I could give Craig a run for his money in a formal debate.

Not unless you can be as intellectually dishonest as he is and play as dirty as he does.

Video play list of Hitch debating this douche - be warned it is about 2.5 hours or so. Note how Craig claims victory at the end. He is such a pompous ass. Hitch was a sport debating this turd.

blasphemer_number1 wrote:

pnerd wrote:

MattHunX wrote:
I think even I could give Craig a run for his money in a formal debate.

Not unless you can be as intellectually dishonest as he is and play as dirty as he does.

Video play list of Hitch debating this douche - be warned it is about 2.5 hours or so. Note how Craig claims victory at the end. He is such a pompous ass. Hitch was a sport debating this turd.

But Craig was doing what he does all the time anyway - not letting little inconvenient things like facts get in his way.

Foxy wrote:My dad: "If evolution is true, how come there aren't any elephants with half-trunks or beavers with half-tails?"

My mother: "For some reasons back 6,000 years ago people didn't get inbred when relatives married each other. We know this because Adam and Eve's children much have had kids together."

My college-age Sunday school teacher: "Evolutionists think that one day there was just this big blob floating around in the water. Then, later, the blob became a bigger and more complex blob."

Tell me where you live so I'll know when to kill myself if I'm ever abducted and dragged there by terrorists.

blasphemer_number1 wrote:
Note how Craig claims victory at the end. He is such a pompous ass.

You think he's pompous? Wait till you see this video (Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4):


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4[/youtube]

murshid wrote:

blasphemer_number1 wrote:
Note how Craig claims victory at the end. He is such a pompous ass.

You think he's pompous? Wait till you see this video (Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4):


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4[/youtube]

He calls that vigorous thinking?

Ubjon wrote:

murshid wrote:

blasphemer_number1 wrote:
Note how Craig claims victory at the end. He is such a pompous ass.

You think he's pompous? Wait till you see this video (Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4):


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4[/youtube]

He calls that vigorous thinking?

William Lame Craig.