Don’t get me wrong. I think Dawkins is a very thoughtful guy, and I like him enough to have read a couple of his books. He’s also very charming in a C-3PO kind of way. But he’s definitely a hardass, at least as far as his intellect goes.
If you really want to know what life is like without any sun, you’re in the right place. SRK is full of experts.
But Pope Gregory still tells us how many there are and when they happen.
cryptonomicon is elder god tier as far as I’m concerned*
As far as gibson goes, anybody who is interested but yet to jump on board should start with Neuromancer then move on to pattern recognition. Finish the sprawl trilogy after that because imo pattern recognition will give you so much insight into how he thinks that it improves everything else he did beforehand.
what about Marvel gods?
Same thing. If you die under the age of eight (which is arbitrarily the age of accountability and the age Mormons get baptized) you get auto-heaven’d. The way my dad explains it is that people who die that early already proved themselves in the pre-mortal life and only needed to come here for the purposes of getting a body.
I just started a Science Fiction thread so we can discuss Gibson/Stephenson without derailing this thread. :tup:
drunk post
i’m just saying the 4 horsemen are hot no homo???
dennet, hitchens (RIP), dawkins, and harriss.
we are finally at a period in history where its OK to be an atheist without being burned at the stake. i feel sorry for all the atheists who had to keep it closet during the middle ages. and the world will never know about these ppl because they were smart enough to keep it on the down low. cause the thing is, god is imaginary and so is hell. the only real hell was when the christians burned heretics at the stake. but now christianity is on the decline. if we can keep islam in check then the world will be a better place. if we can achieve the final death of the desert dogma religions, then scientology will topple soon afterward, and we can usher in a period of rationality and happiness. cause you know atheist countries found in europe have higher standards of living, less murder, less infant mortality, and better education for all.
it wont solve all the worlds problems, but it will go a long way
I think that’s putting the cart before the horse. Simply washing away the current dominant religions isn’t going to change the way people think, which is the real issue. It won’t make them automatically begin to understand how they affect the world by believing what they believe and acting on it as they do.
If people took more responsibility for those things, then we’d see a lot more rationality and a lot less medieval superstition. That, I suspect, is when the big religions will lose their hold.
in other words … believe responsibly!!!1111
I have this tattooed on my ass.
Fishjie is checking out my ass.
great idea for a tramp stamp!
i will copy you
and marry any woman who has that tatoo
Ah Dawkins, the guy who refuses to go into a debate with Craig after watching Craig destroy Hitchens and Sam Harris and who also took back almost all of his statements in his God delusion book during a debate with some Christian Philosopher? I hope you love Dawkins for that too.
Oh btw, you actually can disapprove something by showing an actual reason backed up academically. The “you can’t disapprove anything” is nothing but a cop out that poser atheists use because when it comes to a debate, there is nothing scientific or even rational out there to actually show it’s possible for anything to come and work out of nowhere. What “Faith” strong bunch eh?
You’re lame ass “Overman (remember him)” gimmick is old but ya, you are fishjie, one of the biggest keyboard e-thugs in this site.
oh finally the one fundie shows up. you can’t disprove anything. this is common knowledge. its impossible to disprove santa claus.
if you cannot grasp this simple concept, there is no help for you
ps i am not overman, i was debating him when i still a christian. not sure where he went.
That’s wrong. You can disapprove something. You atheists only say such because you can’t debate in reality. All this “evidence”, “science” shit that you guys boast about is more against your forced points of view there for the “you can’t disapprove something” excuse comes out of your mouth. If you managed to show an academic basis to show the this and that’s then that is disapproving it’s just up to the person if he/she wants to embrace it.
I thought you loved dawkins? Haven’t even watched any of his debates and how the “you can’t disapprove something” is shown to be logically invalid? Religion bashing Atheists such as you are the only true fundies here, having no academic or observational examples to even show as to why they are so “smart”.
I never said you are overman, learn to read. What i mean is the “Overman gimmick” is old.
LOL did Fishjie just get called an e-thug? 
You can’t disprove anything because there is a constant possibility that outside factors beyond your ability to observe are influencing the results of your proof. Which if you kinda think about it, actually allows for the existence of a creator, but I’m pretty sure all you hear is “science science evolution dinosaur.”
sigh these are wasted words. And I’m a Christian, BTW. :tup:
its not so much about possibilities as it is about likelihoods. Sure you can’t prove anything, but if you really believed that instead of simply throwing it out in arguments, you wouldn’t bother listening to doctors, mechanics, etc would you.
Hey you’ve got nut cancer, pffffft prove that shit, show me some muckus commercial looking motherfuckers under that devilscope and then we’ll talk
for perspective purposes, I believe some kind of general impulse or spirit most likely set the universe in to motion, but its not the kind of thing that’s particularly concerned with what hat I wear or what book I read. I don’t have any real rational basis for this, but then again I never put too much time into considering why I like gin and sinning either, I just do.
starvin marvin has had a hard on for me for many years, from the first time he said i was an emo goth girl and got banned for it. see he makes baseless assertions, provides no proof and gets owned for it.
again its impossible to disprove anything
the burden or proof is on the person making the claim. otherwise, i could sit around and make up outrageous claims all day (which religions do) and ask people to disprove. disprove there is a flying spaghetti monster god. for the same reason you can’t disprove santa claus. he could be a super advanced alien with super advanced cloaking technology that prevents people from detecting him on the north pole. you can make up as much crap as you want, but if the burden of proof isn’t on the person making the assertion, it would be impossible to determine the veracity of anything.
again if you can’t grasp this simple concept, there is no helping you. you are too fundie.
edit: simple exercise. disprove santa claus. go ahead. try.
as a student of history, I’d also like to throw this out there, it’s always amazed me-- the fact that every religions god or gods just happen to look like the rich people of that culture/people is very apparent and everyone just kind of doesn’t comment on this
as many spoiled ass rotten kids as I see walking with ipads instead of grotesque grimaces as they blast founts of coal dust out of their eye sockets, that fool aint real
I normally have a rule against trying to argue rationally with someone whose point of view has no regard for rationality, but I will say this.
Once you discount the importance of evidence–including the conspicuous lack thereof–then there can be no argument. And without the argumentative process of winnowing out what is correct and what is incorrect, then there is no proving anything, no learning anything, no possibility of attaining knowledge of any kind. It’s a recipe for stupidity and gullibility.
Typical fundie atheist reply. I did think you were an emo-goth girl but i guess i was disapproved when it time made it obvious that you are a male. You see you can disapprove things ;). As i said, watch some of Dawkin’s debates to see that the “impossible to disapprove” thing is an atheist cop out. It is logically possible to disapprove something, if you can actually show us an alternative example to actually take your point of views of value
The burden of proof is on the person the making the claim, you are also making the claim that the belief in a god is wrong, stupid because of Science and evidence. That’s a claim, isn’t it? But you just don’t want to take resposibility in participating the right way in debates therefore you just start passing the burdens to the theist only and all the replies you give is contradictions with out any academic basis.
Here is a way to disapprove the Santa Clause myth, there is no academics or academicians out there who has ever supported his existence outside of the fact that he is based on some guy named St. Nich. The lack of academic approval is already good enough to dismiss it. It’s funny how you love Dawkins yet know jack little about him.