NationStates Jolt Archive

By Kirk Cameron:


http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/04/kirk-cameron-on-atheism.html


:D


Hehe.. It's funny!

Ah yes, the world according to Kirk Cameron. I love the bit about three-and-a-half minutes in when his numbskull partner starts using a banana as a phallic symbol.

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/bananas.gif

OOoh--give it to me baybeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish I had time to watch the whole thing, but I gotta go to work. For shame. Maybe I'll call in, not in a great mood today anyway.

Kirk Cameron is a dumb...ah forget it not like he is going to hear me.

hehe this is pretty funny...

can't watch the whole thing though. bah.

still kinda backwards that religion is such an issue in the states (but then tis the same in the southern countries of europe, so... *shrugs*)

Hilarious.
By the simplicity of the thing I can assume the target audience are morons.

I have no idea who this person is. And I thought he said "Who do you know who is insane?" Which made me think I was watching just that... and someone profoundly stupid. "If you look at the evidence it takes more faith to be an atheist." And the soda can and banana "analogies?"

Imbeciles.

Love the banana analogy. Too bad if you hold it backwards though, it loses all its design features. And how then does he explain a coconut? It sits high up in a tree and it's a prick to open. Not too user-friendly hey- maybe it was one of God's early prototypes???

Wow... talk about generalization city.
"People who believe in God are intellectuals, and it's the opposite for atheists."

...

HAHAHAHA

I know some rather clever atheists... I hate people who paint in broad strokes like that, but sadly that seems to be the norm for the hard core religious right... I don't remember the last time I saw one who didn't think things in grand generalizations... not to say they don't exist. They just aren't exciting and confrontational enough to get famous, I think. :p

I stopped watching it fairly early in. They're using strange, flawed logic all over the place, and it's hurting my head to think that they can be so stupid that they don't see the errors.
For instance, the supposed similarities of the evolution of the universe and the 'evolution' of a can of pop... I mean... We KNOW for a FACT that pop cans are created, and didn't just evolve out of nothing. We can go and WATCH the process if we want to. For obvious reasons, we can't do that with the universe. If you can't watch the universe being made, you can't make a conclusion about the process.

And the banana thing... "God made bananas so they fit perfectly in our hand, are biodegradeable, and easy to eat!"
...
Or, we evolved in a place where bananas were the main food source...
Or it's just a coincidence. :p Cuz I can eat apples fairly easily, too, and they don't have ridges. :p

Pretty funny, but not really all that informative.

I want to join in and laugh, but the crappy school computers are being crappy. We hates them, my precious.

I have no idea who this person is. And I thought he said "Who do you know who is insane?" Which made me think I was watching just that... and someone profoundly stupid. "If you look at the evidence it takes more faith to be an atheist." And the soda can and banana "analogies?"

Imbeciles.
i think he DID say that. It reminds me of Cornelius who loves to share faith.

Sorry, Khadgar, I'm having a great deal of trouble forcing myself to watch this.

If I die of severe brain haemorrhaging before this clip is over, I will come back and haunt you as a very dominating and evil cat.

Another glaring question this leaves me with: The guy keeps on saying that if all the world is creation, then there must have been a creator... OK, let's say I believe this backward man, but then I'm left with conundrum of who created the creator?:confused:

Another glaring question this leaves me with: The guy keeps on saying that if all the world is creation, then there must have been a creator... OK, let's say I believe this backward man, but then I'm left with conundrum of who created the creator?:confused:
The creator creator. Duh :rolleyes:

Another glaring question this leaves me with: The guy keeps on saying that if all the world is creation, then there must have been a creator... OK, let's say I believe this backward man, but then I'm left with conundrum of who created the creator?:confused:
He (the Creator is obviously male) created Himself. This is not unlike the principle of lifting yourself by tugging on your own shoelaces.

I'm sorry, I give up.

Can't watch.

This is like every single NS creationist post crammed into two really camp middle-aged men.


Ya know, I was always paranoid that people might simply be rote-learning excuses and reading them off in debates. Now that it turns out that people are actually rote-learning these excuses, does that still make me paranoid?

I'm sorry, I give up.

Can't watch.

This is like every single NS creationist post crammed into two really camp middle-aged men.


Ya know, I was always paranoid that people might simply be rote-learning excuses and reading them off in debates. Now that it turns out that people are actually rote-learning these excuses, does that still make me paranoid?
Nope. Just observant, unlike the two clowns in the video.

So ... the banana is the Atheist's nightmare, eh?

I'll have to remember that.

So ... the banana is the Atheist's nightmare, eh?

I'll have to remember that.
I must confess to awaking in the middle of the night, screaming in terror at the bananas that haunt me in my dreams.

I must confess to awaking in the middle of the night, screaming in terror at the bananas that haunt me in my dreams.
No!! NOT THE BANANAS!!! They're so obviously Created! So tasty, so conveniently portable, so easily peeled by my Created hands with their Created opposable thumbs! The bananas undermine every one of my hateful atheist theories!!

In all seriousness, though, this does explain my recurring dream about Charles Darwin being blugeoned to death by a mob of banana-weilding monkeys wearing "Jesus Saves" t-shirts.

I must confess to awaking in the middle of the night, screaming in terror at the bananas that haunt me in my dreams.
For me it's the orange.. So.. Round and.. Orange.

*shudder*

So ... the banana is the Atheist's nightmare, eh?

I'll have to remember that.

GET THAT THING AWAY FROM ME!

No!! NOT THE BANANAS!!! They're so obviously Created! So tasty, so conveniently portable, so easily peeled by my Created hands with their Created opposable thumbs! The bananas undermine every one of my hateful atheist theories!!

Aye ...

I think I'll call up Mr. Cameron and ask him to explain the hemorrhoid.

1] It's a biological flaw in the shifting of weight distribution to the anus that only upright bipeds get. Hence, this was clearly a design flaw in Adam and/or Eve.

2] It's a medically proven fact that men who engage in receiving anal sex are far less likely to suffer hemorrhoids. Hence, the vile queers have learned to overcome God's design flaw.

Perhaps we should just talk about bananas.

Aye ...

I think I'll call up Mr. Cameron and ask him to explain the hemorrhoid.

Or our sinuses. Talk about inefficient drainage. I guess maybe God just got befuddled when it came to human orifaces.



1] It's a biological flaw in the shifting of weight distribution to the anus that only upright bipeds get. Hence, this was clearly a design flaw in Adam and/or Eve.

Eve. Definitely Eve. She ate an apple, which is why modern humans experience sores on their bums (or "apples of the arse," if you will)...we are all sharing in the punishment for the wickedness of women.


2] It's a medically proven fact that men who engage in receiving anal sex are far less likely to suffer hemorrhoids. Hence, the vile queers have learned to overcome God's design flaw.

I think you've just proven that hemorrhoids are a weapon being wielded against us by the Forces Of Teh Gay.

Perhaps we should just talk about bananas.
I dunno, trying to segue from "vile queers" to "talking about bananas" seems risky to me...;)

I like to look at things in this light.
(how about THIS analogy)


A religious person looks at a sofa and says,"There is definitly a penny under that sofa"
and an athiest replies back,"No sir, there is DEFINITLY no penny under that sofa".

When in fact nobody has and idea on how that sofa got there even if there is a penny under it or not.

This is just my point of view, take it how you like it.

Or our sinuses. Talk about inefficient drainage. I guess maybe God just got befuddled when it came to human orifaces.

Oh yeah ... those too ... wet, drainy thing upside down over your mouth. Real smart move there. If it was designed, it sure as hell wasn't intelligent.

Eve. Definitely Eve. She ate an apple, which is why modern humans experience sores on their bums (or "apples of the arse," if you will)...we are all sharing in the punishment for the wickedness of women.

I've decided I don't want to hear, then, the explanation behind (ba-dum chik) the "Adam's Apple" then.

I think you've just proven that hemorrhoids are a weapon being wielded against us by the Forces Of Teh Gay.

Fred Phelps is a freedom fighter.

I dunno, trying to segue from "vile queers" to "talking about bananas" seems risky to me...;)

Hrmmm .... I'm gonna have to go ask some of the more vile queers then. Is thursday still trash fag night at Mary's Glory Hole?

A religious person looks at a sofa and says,"There is definitly a penny under that sofa"
and an athiest replies back,"No sir, there is DEFINITLY no penny under that sofa".


Almost.

The difference is the Atheist has generally already looked under the sofa before the religious person shows up. Sneaky Atheists.

Almost.

The difference is the Atheist has generally already looked under the sofa before the religious person shows up. Sneaky Atheists.

We do tend to cheat a lot...

I like to look at things in this light.
(how about THIS analogy)


A religious person looks at a sofa and says,"There is definitly a penny under that sofa"
and an athiest replies back,"No sir, there is DEFINITLY no penny under that sofa".

When in fact nobody has and idea on how that sofa got there even if there is a penny under it or not.

This is just my point of view, take it how you like it.

A Satanist probably put the sofa there in a diabolical plot to take over the world while the Religious person and atheist sit down to argue about some damned penny.
:D

We do tend to cheat a lot...
What with all that dishonest use of "facts" and "objective verification."

What with all that dishonest use of "facts" and "objective verification."

Don't forget "Logic", the deadliest weapon in the atheists arsenal.

I must confess to awaking in the middle of the night, screaming in terror at the bananas that haunt me in my dreams.
It's peanut butter jelly time, peanut butter jelly time, peanut butter jelly time...

YA.... i watched 5 seconds of it and then exited out :upyours:

Don't forget "Logic", the deadliest weapon in the atheists arsenal.

Your "Logic" is meaningless in the face of the mighty banana!

http://www.5aday.gov/tools/assets/photos/banana.jpg

I like to look at things in this light.
(how about THIS analogy)


A religious person looks at a sofa and says,"There is definitly a penny under that sofa"
and an athiest replies back,"No sir, there is DEFINITLY no penny under that sofa".

When in fact nobody has and idea on how that sofa got there even if there is a penny under it or not.

This is just my point of view, take it how you like it.

Well said. Except that it is actually quite logical to think that there might be a penny under the sofa. But Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit aren't so easy. It's more like,

Religious person looks at a sofa store, and says, "There is definitely a ninja under one of those",
to which the atheist says, after checking fwe dozens of the sofas, "It doesn't seem so, and it isn't likely, but I'll keep on searching".

And the religious guy, after seeing how the number of sofas that could possibly be hiding a ninja under them is getting smaller and smaller, starts to bring more sofas to the store. To keep on fighting. "Ok, no perhaps under that one (ok, perhaps Earth isn't flat), well not under that one neither (ok, perhaps Noak didn't save all the species with his boat) but I just WANT TO SEE A NINJA, SO THERE WILL BE ONE UNDER ONE OF THE SOFAS!".

Well said. Except that it is actually quite logical to think that there might be a penny under the sofa. But Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit aren't so easy. It's more like,

Religious person looks at a sofa store, and says, "There is definitely a ninja under one of those",
to which the atheist says, after checking fwe dozens of the sofas, "It doesn't seem so, and it isn't likely, but I'll keep on searching".

And the religious guy, after seeing how the number of sofas that could possibly be hiding a ninja under them is getting smaller and smaller, starts to bring more sofas to the store. To keep on fighting. "Ok, no perhaps under that one (ok, perhaps Earth isn't flat), well not under that one neither (ok, perhaps Noak didn't save all the species with his boat) but I just WANT TO SEE A NINJA!"
Yeah, that's a bit closer to the mark.

The superstitious person says, "I think there's a magical fairy under the couch who will grant our every wish, so long as we give him plenty of bacon and sunflower seeds. But we can't ever actually LOOK under the couch to see if he is there, because that would constitute a lack of faith and would cause the magical fairy to punish us."

The non-superstitious person says, "I think you've been huffing dust bunnies."

I say lets have a fruit fight.
Christians have the bananas, atheists have all the other fruits.

I got halfway through the video, and then my computer crashed.. I'm still not sure what's busted, so I'm back at uni again to use the computer >_<

Obviously God is trying to tell me something, probably that I shouldn't watch the rest of the video. Otherwise he'd have waited till the end, right?

Bah.. serendipity..

I'm not going to listen to that idiot for half an hour. Three minutes were enough to convince me that he is a nut!

Huh, that was close. They almost converted me. :eek:

The first few lines of this totally refute the rest of the program. In the first few lines they say, THEY say that Athiesm is the belief that their is no god. The rest of the program is them arguing that athiests are wrong because they are making an absolute statement that there is no god.

In other words they are complete idiots, and find people to interview who are stupider then they are.

Arguing against evolution using man made objects is classic, almost as good as the guy who used geology to argue against evolution.

I watched it all the way through... They basically say to call the person a sinner and guilt them into believing in God.... to use emotions and not reason, because if you use reason you won't convert the "lying, thieving, blaspheming, adulterer".

I'll have them know I'm only 1/4! And really is Blasphemy really that big of a deal anymore?

Huh, that was close. They almost converted me. :eek:

That's because they have years of personal experience at both attempting to convert people and being indoctrinated themselves; also, they have conviction. They know there is a god, and more importantly they have a definitive idea of who "he" is and what "he" wants. When that kind of person professes their beliefs in a seemingly systematic and rational matter, they can be very persuasive. But there is always a point in their argument where their logic lapses and they make an assumption that doesn't follow. If they've taken you for a ride successfully over that hiccup of intellect, it's only when they come to a point that your mind clearly has resolved - "Praise be Jesus" - that you realize you've been had. If they do it enough times to you, or your mind is feeble enough to fall for that kind of crap, they can erode the common sense that opposes the idea of some random deity judging your eternal fate.

They are right about one thing though. There are no "true" atheists. Any atheist worth his salt realizes that there is no way to definitively know whether there are "gods" or not. In that sense, we are to some extent "agnostics" -- though that would imply everyone is an agnostic in their own right, since religious people can't know for sure there are god(s) one way or another either. Thus, you could say that we atheists have "faith" that there are no gods, that we are created from randomness and oblivion, that entropy, evolution, and the endless void that surrounds us are proof enough.

It was too boring to watch the whole thing. Just wondering if anyone else noticed the Borg implants. Now Kirk looks like the rest of the Borg; Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Focus on The Family, Christian Coalition, Joyce Meyers, etc.

I say lets have a fruit fight.
Christians have the bananas, atheists have all the other fruits.

No sir, away! A papaya war is on!


Slightly more serious, the #1 thing to remember when talking to atheists is that they do not believe in a magical sky faery.
Many religious people make this mistake, to assume atheists also believe in a magical sky faery, but are merely pretending not to. Thusly, any arguments you make involving the magical sky faery(tm) will not work on an atheist.

Slightly more serious, the #1 thing to remember when talking to atheists is that they do not believe in a magical sky faery.
Many religious people make this mistake, to assume atheists also believe in a magical sky faery, but are merely pretending not to. Thusly, any arguments you make involving the magical sky faery(tm) will not work on an atheist.
Religious individuals often make a similar mistake when they assume that atheism requires dogma. Their own beliefs aren't simply theism, but rather are a system of organized shared beliefs and values, so they make the mistake of assuming that all atheists participate in a similar system of organized belief.

Yeah, that's a bit closer to the mark.

The superstitious person says, "I think there's a magical fairy under the couch who will grant our every wish, so long as we give him plenty of bacon and sunflower seeds. But we can't ever actually LOOK under the couch to see if he is there, because that would constitute a lack of faith and would cause the magical fairy to punish us."

The non-superstitious person says, "I think you've been huffing dust bunnies."
Reminds me of kissing hanks ass
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

It's peanut butter jelly time, peanut butter jelly time, peanut butter jelly time...

Damn that dancing banana! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=areyUfCNFxY&search=peanut%20butter%20jelly%20time)

That's great fun! I have NEVER heard of a "believer" (sorry for the name, can't come up with anything) use a banana of all things as a proof of god. Though I must admit, painter was fairly irritating.

That's because they have years of personal experience at both attempting to convert people and being indoctrinated themselves; also, they have conviction. They know there is a god, and more importantly they have a definitive idea of who "he" is and what "he" wants. When that kind of person professes their beliefs in a seemingly systematic and rational matter, they can be very persuasive. But there is always a point in their argument where their logic lapses and they make an assumption that doesn't follow. If they've taken you for a ride successfully over that hiccup of intellect, it's only when they come to a point that your mind clearly has resolved - "Praise be Jesus" - that you realize you've been had. If they do it enough times to you, or your mind is feeble enough to fall for that kind of crap, they can erode the common sense that opposes the idea of some random deity judging your eternal fate.

They are right about one thing though. There are no "true" atheists. Any atheist worth his salt realizes that there is no way to definitively know whether there are "gods" or not. In that sense, we are to some extent "agnostics" -- though that would imply everyone is an agnostic in their own right, since religious people can't know for sure there are god(s) one way or another either. Thus, you could say that we atheists have "faith" that there are no gods, that we are created from randomness and oblivion, that entropy, evolution, and the endless void that surrounds us are proof enough.

I think it basically boils down to this:

The one single convincing argument Christians have for the existence of God is the Banana. In every conversion attempt the Christian will at one point of the discussion reach for his pocket to present you a Banana.

When this happens you have to quickly place a pair of yellow sunglasses on his nose (this might take some practice). Now the Christian will not be able to see his own Banana anymore and you can use his confusion to escape unscathed.

Alternatively (if you happen to be short on yellow sunglasses) you can put your knowledge from Monthy Python's "Self defence against fresh fruit" into practice.

Love the banana analogy. Too bad if you hold it backwards though, it loses all its design features. And how then does he explain a coconut? It sits high up in a tree and it's a prick to open. Not too user-friendly hey- maybe it was one of God's early prototypes???
And don't forget the heavy husk around the shell and that the tree has no branches.
Ever read Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams? You are thinking along his lines here.

I think it basically boils down to this:

The one single convincing argument Christians have for the existence of God is the Banana. In every conversion attempt the Christian will at one point of the discussion reach for his pocket to present you a Banana.

When this happens you have to quickly place a pair of yellow sunglasses on his nose (this might take some practice). Now the Christian will not be able to see his own Banana anymore and you can use his confusion to escape unscathed.

Alternatively (if you happen to be short on yellow sunglasses) you can put your knowledge from Monthy Python's "Self defence against fresh fruit" into practice.

But what if you don't have a ten-ton weight or a crocodile?

Bah, I made it up until they mis-defined Agnostic. Geez, now that annoys me even more than messing with the meaning of Atheist does.

still kinda backwards that religion is such an issue in the states (but then tis the same in the southern countries of europe, so... *shrugs*)

From what I can gather it's a much bigger thing in the South over here, too. Most people I know aren't religious, and the ones that are religious are generally Christian in name only, but what they really practice is a rather weak form of agnosticism. I've only had one person ever come knocking on my door prosetylizing.

From what you hear people say on this forum there is some sort of immense social pressure on Americans to be religious, but that's simply not true, at least not in many parts of the US. Just like how some people think that if you disagree with the President your neighbors will denounce you as a traitor or something, and that's not true either. At least not in this particular blue state.

And for reference, I do live in a rural area, so the atheism/agnosticism of my friends isn't due to being in a more sophisticated big city.

I hate people who paint in broad strokes like that, but sadly that seems to be the norm for the hard core religious right...
Wow!
Bravo! you just made a generalization about a large group of people not two sentences after saying that you hate people who make generalizations.
I'm sorry that you hate yourself.
Jesus loves you!
That is all.

I went to highschool with Kirk and we picked on him in ways that make me almost feel bad for him. I mean mayonaise in the hair, ketchuip squirts in the face. I used to build paperclip guns with a stick and a rubberband and fire them at him and those fuckers can draw blood. He was such an ass.

Ok, i just noticed this one thing: in the clip at the begining the one guy says that a can was designed, and so the world was designed/created, with people, etc. It was not possible to come open the idea of a can by accident/chance. Sorry, but there are soooo many inventions that were discovered by chance, even some that were supposed to do other things but turned out to be useful for something else in stead. In other words, there is a possibilty that the living things on earth at the moment were created by chance.

From what I can gather it's a much bigger thing in the South over here, too. Most people I know aren't religious, and the ones that are religious are generally Christian in name only, but what they really practice is a rather weak form of agnosticism. I've only had one person ever come knocking on my door prosetylizing.

From what you hear people say on this forum there is some sort of immense social pressure on Americans to be religious, but that's simply not true, at least not in many parts of the US. Just like how some people think that if you disagree with the President your neighbors will denounce you as a traitor or something, and that's not true either. At least not in this particular blue state.

And for reference, I do live in a rural area, so the atheism/agnosticism of my friends isn't due to being in a more sophisticated big city.


Who said you had t obe near a big city to be sophisticated? Anyways, I think there is pressure to be religious in many parts of the country, but not to be radical-religious, it's the whole "God and Country, gotta drink ma Budweiser, watch football and fix ma truck" thing. Damn it all. I want to drink my f*cking Guiness without some redneck b*stard coming up and remarking on me being a traitor for not going with the norm.

I love how he acts like bananas are designed to be eaten by humans.

[tag]d for later watching when I don't have a final to go to.

I love how he acts like bananas are designed to be eaten by humans.
Lol was thinking the same thing

What I can't understand is why evolution and belief in God have to be mutually exclusive. Who's to say he didn't set off the big bang then went to watch TV or something for awhile?

And that soda can argument was by far the worst argument for creationism I have ever heard. That guy sounds Australian. I thought Australians were supposed to be cool. You lied to me, Crocodile Dundee.

What I can't understand is why evolution and belief in God have to be mutually exclusive. Who's to say he didn't set off the big bang then went to watch TV or something for awhile?

And that soda can argument was by far the worst argument for creationism I have ever heard. That guy sounds Australian. I thought Australians were supposed to be cool. You lied to me, Crocodile Dundee.
They dont have to be

The problem is if the creation story is NOT absolute truth but rather an analogy or a parable then what other parts of the bible could be as well?

Who said you had t obe near a big city to be sophisticated? Anyways, I think there is pressure to be religious in many parts of the country, but not to be radical-religious, it's the whole "God and Country, gotta drink ma Budweiser, watch football and fix ma truck" thing. Damn it all. I want to drink my f*cking Guiness without some redneck b*stard coming up and remarking on me being a traitor for not going with the norm.

You're new to this board, so you'll quickly find that many people here think that if you're not in a large metropolis you're an ignorant redneck hick, which you and I know is certainly not true.

I've never felt pressured in the least to be religious at all. Sure, there's pressure to watch football (and basketball and hockey) and drink cheap beer (More Labatts or Strohs than Budweiser here), but not really to be religious. Also, I've never heard anyone accuse someone else of being a traitor.

I would like to beat up these guys just for Darwin and Einstein. There are a bunch of christians out there spreading lies about those two.

Darwin's actual quote:

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.


And for Albert Einstein:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side

And I really feel bad for the Christians who watch this show and feel that they can prove a point with an atheist.

I think a good way to dechristianize people is to have them watch this show, and then to have them try to explain it to atheists.

You're new to this board, so you'll quickly find that many people here think that if you're not in a large metropolis you're an ignorant redneck hick, which you and I know is certainly not true.

I've never felt pressured in the least to be religious at all. Sure, there's pressure to watch football (and basketball and hockey) and drink cheap beer (More Labatts or Strohs than Budweiser here), but not really to be religious. Also, I've never heard anyone accuse someone else of being a traitor.

I have, even in a teasing kind of way, it still gets annoying. Now...what was that one post a few posts back about the Naughty Catholic girl action, I must see that...

I got a strong feeling of that the "atheists" were just actors or something. The furry guy's answer to the question about his work seems... odd to me.

I would also like to point out that Kirk is, at best, subverting the truth about himself or, at worst, out right lying. When I knew him it was in highschool. He wasn't older than 15 and he was already a hardcore Bible thumper. He says in this video that he used to be an atheist. If that's true, then it wasn;t at any meaningful time in his life because it was, at latest, when he was preteen, not as an educated adult. He implies that he was an atheist at a time in his life when he was making decisions about his religious beliefs when he had relevant experience and education.

Your "Logic" is meaningless in the face of the mighty banana!

http://www.5aday.gov/tools/assets/photos/banana.jpg


It's a good thing we all know the Creationist's krypotonite!

PINEAPPLE!

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Fruit/Pineapple.jpg

Wow, half and hour around 1 statement.

I love the fact that even though they have total control over cutting and editing, they still manage to look like crazy people compared to those rather unsmart atheists they found.
And I've never seen two more obvious homosexuals.

how to talk to an atheist?

v e e r r r y s l o o w w l y

a n d i n a l o u d v o i c e


alas my bandwidth is not adequate to watch such an obviously enlightening video.

i was hoping that some kind soul could assure me that mr cameron is fully aware of the impact of humanity on the banana (and all other cultivated crops) and that he knows that the banana is a completely artificial fruit. it cant even reproduce on its own.

haha, no wonder people think Christians are idiots....

I couldn't really watch the whole thing, after the "banana" conversation I had to stop.

Even my 2 year old asked "is this like a parody?"

ROFL

those guys have all the intelligence of a peice of bread.



:p

Wow, half and hour around 1 statement.

And what a statement, "A creation needs a creator."

I didn't catch where they proved that the creator had to be the Christian God.

Christians, atheists... They have something in common.

They're all educated stupid

NATURE'S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE (http://www.timecube.com/)

EARTH DOES NOT EXIST!

I've just realised one cultural difference between me and the presenters.

For the presenters, windscreen wipers are for clearing bugs off of the screen, for me it's for wiping rain off of the screen... ;)

[Sorry, windshield. You say hood, we say bonnet, you say trunk, we say boot, you say stick-shift, we say... well... I don't know. I'd feel rather odd not being able to change gears when I want, to be honest, though when I get my fuel/electric hybrid car I suppose I'm gonna get some practice using only two pedals . ;)]


That's all I'm going to say about this literally "preaching to the converted" production.

And what a statement, "A creation needs a creator."

I didn't catch where they proved that the creator had to be the Christian God.

ah, but by using the word creation it is implied that there is a creator... a better arguement (and one that will confuse most of "those" types) is to deny creation at all, try the "it is because it is" tautology and then when they say that isn't possible ask them who created God, when they say he wasn't created, and HE IS, tell them that isn't possible.

And what a statement, "A creation needs a creator."

I didn't catch where they proved that the creator had to be the Christian God.
thats always the part they fail at.

its sort of the "missing link" of creationism.

God doesn't believe in athiests


:D

I say lets have a fruit fight.
Christians have the bananas, atheists have all the other fruits.

You win.

In other news, I've found a large stick. It seems to fit my hand perfectly, and clearly (by deep and scientific principles) was created. What oh what should I do with it?

ah, but by using the word creation it is implied that there is a creator... a better arguement (and one that will confuse most of "those" types) is to deny creation at all, try the "it is because it is" tautology and then when they say that isn't possible ask them who created God, when they say he wasn't created, and HE IS, tell them that isn't possible.

NEWS FLASH: Christians beaten by simple logic! Warning, citizens, arm yourself with riot gear! Or tin foil hats.

The banana is weapon of choice for creationists for three reasons. The first is the design/designer theory. The second is that bananas do not evolve! :eek: Thirdly, if you dip a banana into liquid nitrogen it becomes rock solid and you can use the banana to club the argumentative atheist to death.

The Pineapple is the weapon of choice for atheists for a similar three reasons. I mean whoever designed that must have going through a surealist movement or something. The second is that pineapples, unlike bananas, are able to exchange genetic material and evolve. Thirdly, you don't have to dip a pineapple in liquid nitrogen to be able to use it as a weapon.

NEWS FLASH: Christians beaten by simple logic! Warning, citizens, arm yourself with riot gear! Or tin foil hats.
it's not logical at all. (well, it's not good logic)

tautologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29) is pretty useless anyway, all I said is it would confuse "those" types.


btw, I am a Christian.

is there really no one willing to tell me what the fuck the banana has to do with talking to atheists?

haha, no wonder people think Christians are idiots....

I couldn't really watch the whole thing, after the "banana" conversation I had to stop.

Even my 2 year old asked "is this like a parody?"

ROFL

those guys have all the intelligence of a peice of bread.



:pYour two year old knows how to use the word parody? I believe your child will amount to great thing... perhaps even gaining the status as a living god. :eek:

is there really no one willing to tell me what the fuck the banana has to do with talking to atheists?


Actually nothing but I think the presentor felt the need to be holding a big ol' phallic symbol.

Actually nothing but I think the presentor felt the need to be holding a big ol' phallic symbol.
no really. i honestly dont have the bandwidth to watch this piece of crap video. he must have made SOME argument about the banana.

or should it be renamed "apologetics for perverts"?

:headbang: :upyours: silly westerners. bananas evolve...with a little help.
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/banana/technology.htm

doesn't anybody read? There is currently a plague killing off the most common variety of bannana. Its the second this century. ethnocentric imperialist...all you argue about is western christianity.

what of islam? zorastor and the other prophets?

in life people will find faith in many things. insallah. they still must face death alone...

"stand naked before the judgment of god" or become worm food. which ever brigns you happiness eh??? arguing about all of this is just egoboosting...jerking off.

yeah so i'm a hypocryte. lol so are you.:p
The banana is weapon of choice for creationists for three reasons. The first is the design/designer theory. The second is that bananas do not evolve! :eek: Thirdly, if you dip a banana into liquid nitrogen it becomes rock solid and you can use the banana to club the argumentative atheist to death.

The Pineapple is the weapon of choice for atheists for a similar three reasons. I mean whoever designed that must have going through a surealist movement or something. The second is that pineapples, unlike bananas, are able to exchange genetic material and evolve. Thirdly, you don't have to dip a pineapple in liquid nitrogen to be able to use it as a weapon.

no really. i honestly dont have the bandwidth to watch this piece of crap video. he must have made SOME argument about the banana.

or should it be renamed "apologetics for perverts"?
he claims that the banana is proof of creation since it is perfectly designed for your hand, has an easy open top and a non-slip grip. He calls it the atheists greatest fear or something stupid.

Order in creation...

yeah right...

Human bodies kill themselves with fever. I think that's enough to prove that order doesn't always exist.

:headbang: :upyours: silly westerners. bananas evolve...with a little help.
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/banana/technology.htm

doesn't anybody read? There is currently a plague killing off the most common variety of bannana. Its the second this century. ethnocentric imperialist...all you argue about is western christianity.

what of islam? zorastor and the other prophets?

in life people will find faith in many things. insallah. they still must face death alone...

"stand naked before the judgment of god" or become worm food. which ever brigns you happiness eh??? arguing about all of this is just egoboosting...jerking off.

yeah so i'm a hypocryte. lol so are you.:p
Thanks! I'll write my congressman and tell him about your post! :)

he claims that the banana is proof of creation since it is perfectly designed for your hand, has an easy open top and a non-slip grip. He calls it the atheists greatest fear or something stupid.

so what he said was that the banana's perfect form is a proof that is has a creator...that creator being farmers through out the ages... and that it serves as a splendid example of how a great creation implies a creator?

right?

he knows that the banana is a hybrid that is completely created by humans not by "god".

right?

he knows that there is NO commonly cultivated crop that hasnt been greatly altered by human intervention.

right?

so what he said was that the banana's perfect form is a proof that is has a creator...that creator being farmers through out the ages... and that it serves as a splendid example of how a great creation implies a creator?

right?

he knows that the banana is a hybrid that is completely created by humans not by "god".

right?

he knows that there is NO commonly cultivated crop that hasnt been greatly altered by human intervention.

right?

I don't think so. He knows that if you make your hand like you were to grip a banana that there are 3 ridges on top and two on bottom just like a banana has and also it's got a pointed end for easy insertion (he actually did say that, and I actually had an impure thought) and that it's curved to your mouth for easy eating. God made it that way so that we could all eat bananas it's proof!!!!!!!!:rolleyes: :p

no really. i honestly dont have the bandwidth to watch this piece of crap video. he must have made SOME argument about the banana.

or should it be renamed "apologetics for perverts"?


He was trying to say that bananas are the perfect size and shape to be eaten by humans, and thus must of been designed. The phallus imagry was just a bonus.

so what he said was that the banana's perfect form is a proof that is has a creator...that creator being farmers through out the ages... and that it serves as a splendid example of how a great creation implies a creator?

right?

he knows that the banana is a hybrid that is completely created by humans not by "god".

right?

he knows that there is NO commonly cultivated crop that hasnt been greatly altered by human intervention.

right?
It should also be noted that the process of creating a banana over the millenia, or a poodle or orange or kobe beef cow for that matter, is the same mecahnism that evolution uses. The only difference is that instead of natural forces, i.e. natural selection in producing sucessful offspring, we have replaced with human selection. To me the banana and the poddle are proof of evolution.

It should also be noted that the process of creating a banana over the millenia, or a poodle or orange or kobe beef cow for that matter, is the same mecahnism that evolution uses. The only difference is that instead of natural forces, i.e. natural selection in producing sucessful offspring, we have replaced with human selection. To me the banana and the poddle are proof of evolution.
well yeah. if you look at the proto-banana you can see about 4000 years worth of human driven evolution to get to the perfect hybrid banana we have today.

I don't think so. He knows that if you make your hand like you were to grip a banana that there are 3 ridges on top and two on bottom just like a banana has and also it's got a pointed end for easy insertion (he actually did say that, and I actually had an impure thought) and that it's curved to your mouth for easy eating. God made it that way so that we could all eat bananas it's proof!!!!!!!!:rolleyes: :p
thats odd. i dont think the heavily ridged banana existed when i was a kid. it seems to me to be pretty recent.

the whole thing may have been worth it just to see kirk cameron say "insertion" in regard to a banana. (not that i suggest such a thing, think of the pesticides!)

he claims that the banana is proof of creation since it is perfectly designed for your hand, has an easy open top and a non-slip grip. He calls it the atheists greatest fear or something stupid.
By that logic, a pear must be lucifers creation. It's impossible to eat one of those things without getting juice everywhere.

:headbang: :upyours: silly westerners. bananas evolve...with a little help.
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/banana/technology.htm

doesn't anybody read? There is currently a plague killing off the most common variety of bannana. Its the second this century. ethnocentric imperialist...all you argue about is western christianity.

what of islam? zorastor and the other prophets?

in life people will find faith in many things. insallah. they still must face death alone...

"stand naked before the judgment of god" or become worm food. which ever brigns you happiness eh??? arguing about all of this is just egoboosting...jerking off.

yeah so i'm a hypocryte. lol so are you.:pYou got all upset over my little silly post? I... I thought it was obvious it was a silly post...

Besides, that article says the banana genome has only just been sequenced. We ain't done nothing practical yet. My basic point was that bananas do not exchange genetic material in the production of the fruit, as is the case with most fruits...

I'm not really sure what makes me a hypocrite though.

Anyone who is intellectually retarded enough to take what Kirk Cameron has to say seriously, and to even consider the arguments posed as valid, deserves to be caged.:rolleyes:

Posted for comedy value only!

I thought that was kind of cute. Stupid, but cute.

Right up to the point where he got to the bit about absolute statements. By then I just wanted to scream at him. :rolleyes:

Anyone who is intellectually retarded enough to take what Kirk Cameron has to say seriously, and to even consider the arguments posed as valid, deserves to be caged.:rolleyes:

Go to the MySpace forums, people reguarly quote the Argument ad Bananum. :rolleyes:

Incidently they've actually retracted said argument on radio quite recently:

Alleee : I'm just saying that, that there are very few plants, and we argue - with some environmentalists a lot who don't believe in bioengineered food, because all, because most of the food that we eat of course is farmed, and is done through horticulture, and we've engineered these - these fruits and vegetables to be more tasty to us. So actually, the banana seems to be not, not made by God at this point, it's more like um... what, what came first, the banana or the hand ? [laugh] You know ? Man took the banana and made it better for man...

Ray Comfort : Okay, you've got that one. You can have the banana.

Franc : WE WIN ! WE WIN ! WE'VE WON THE BANANA !

:D link here (http://www.freethoughtmedia.com/forum/index.php/topic,164.0.html)

Argh... they say that unless you know there is no god your an agnostic! Load of rubbish... to be an athiest you believe there is no god. You dont know. Argh... an agnostic is someone who is not sure what they believe.

The worst part is that people actually buy this garbage.

Down by the Huntington Beach Pier, there's a guy that walks around the area and tries to convert atheists on a semi-regular basis. Sometimes during the day, he will even attract small crowds. One night, he approached me. He used this exact argument, and I even still have a little booklet detailing why the banana is my worst nightmare, and how the Pepsi can debunks science.

Aside from that lunacy, he was extremely charismatic. If I was as poorly versed in logic as Average Joe, he probably would have convinced me. Which is unfortunate, as he undoubtedly convinces many people with this BS.

Argh... they say that unless you know there is no god your an agnostic! Load of rubbish... to be an athiest you believe there is no god. You dont know. Argh... an agnostic is someone who is not sure what they believe.

*twitch* Agnosticism is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism. It is also compatible with theism. This is because agnosticism is a view about knowledge concerning God, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof) concerning God. For example, it is possible to believe in God but to believe that knowledge about God is not obtainable.

I just saw their evolution video... so many total morons on that... and so many arguements that have the strength of overcooked pasta

Oh, and I like their arguement for avoiding intellectual debate and appealing to the conscience instead.

Oh, and I didnt know that about agnosticism. But they are still wrong about their stance.

Here's what I learned about "talking to atheists":
-throw a bunch of complicated, pointless metaphors in to confuse him*
- pretend that the definition of atheist is an omniscient being that knows God doesn't exist, in order to hopefully convince the person that he is not an "atheist"
- convince the person that he is a bad guy, who is very naughty for checking out girls and telling the teacher the dog ate his homework, and is doomed to rot in hell (typical scare tactics)
- Use tricky wording to coax the atheist into admitting that there is always a chance he is wrong (without you admitting that there is a chance you are wrong)
- bring up pointless passages from the bible
- twist the words of various scientists
-insult the intellect of atheists
-don't spend too much time talking about intelligence (you'll only lose the battle), and quickly convert to morals
- use your past an as atheist to help people identify with you
-when all else fails, bring up your baby son

*Because of course the only proof of a pop can being man-made is it's intricate design, not the fact that anyone can get a pass to the Coke factory to watch them be made.

Here's what I learned about "talking to atheists":
-throw a bunch of complicated, pointless metaphors in to confuse him*
- pretend that the definition of atheist is an omniscient being that knows God doesn't exist, in order to hopefully convince the person that he is not an "atheist"
- convince the person that he is a bad guy, who is very naughty for checking out girls and telling the teacher the dog ate his homework, and is doomed to rot in hell (typical scare tactics)
- Use tricky wording to coax the atheist into admitting that there is always a chance he is wrong (without you admitting that there is a chance you are wrong)
- bring up pointless passages from the bible
- twist the words of various scientists
-insult the intellect of atheists
-don't spend too much time talking about intelligence (you'll only lose the battle), and quickly convert to morals
- use your past an as atheist to help people identify with you
-when all else fails, bring up your baby son

*Because of course the only proof of a pop can being man-made is it's intricate design, not the fact that anyone can get a pass to the Coke factory to watch them be made.

"You have learned well, young one. Now go, go and show them...The Way of the Master!"

[ I almost broke down and cried at that.

It really, really makes me ashamed to see someone making a mockery of Christianity--and seriously, I thought they were simply making fun of the steretype of the Bible Belt conservatives, until I realized they were serious.

And if some people will recall, humans were the last thing God made. And it was kind of a work-in-progress, as it stops to say "and He saw it was good" every time. A bananna is no more a product designed especially for us super-special humans than dirt was obviously meant for our feet to walk upon, if you understand me. To think so is selfish, and demeans the creativity of God, as obviously, everything was tailor-made to fit us and our needs and wants. Bullshit. It happened to fit our hand (as many things are, given that our hands can grasp a variety of things), and we happened to be able to eat and metabolize it.

Whether people like to admit it or not, God made this world for Himself, not for us, though he did grant us worldly dominion over it. But that was a stewardship, not a kingship (remember the Stewards of Gondor--like that), and the two should never be confused. ]

It's a good thing we all know the Creationist's krypotonite!

PINEAPPLE!

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Fruit/Pineapple.jpg


NOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh wait....

I'm not a Creationist. *whew*

Put a slice of that pineapple on my glass of rum, would ya?

God made this world for Himself

I'm gonna need to see a scholarly source on that.

Hahaha! They shot them self in the foot with their "dazzling tactics"

Christian guy "He doesn't know shit, he's not an athiest, he's an agnostic"

Atheist "Well, you don't know shit either. You're not a christian, you're an agnostic"

I love it.

I'm gonna need to see a scholarly source on that.

[ {::blinku::}

Look it up for yourself. The fact that this is God's world is repeated over and over again in the Bible.

Hint: Usually, when something does that, it means that the author(s) wanted it to sink through, and it was probably important.

Seriously, did you expect me to list a bunch of random verses and expect you to believe me?

Or was this more sarcasm? I'm not sure, as my SADAR array's battery is low on power. ]

Or was this more sarcasm? I'm not sure, as my SADAR array's battery is low on power.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

You take a faith based assumption and present it as universal fact, then you must be prepared to back it up with a scholarly source. Unfortunately, the Bible (when I say Bible, I mean Torah) and its subsequent derivative works, such as The Book of Mormon, The Gospel, and Qu'ran are not scholarly sources but they're the only ones you've got.

Can't really cite from anything subsequent to Genesis 1:1-2:9 when it comes to Creation simply because any subsequent mention in Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim, The Gospel, Qur'an, etc are merely repetition of the original statement, which has never been submitted for peer review to the scientific or educational communities nor published in any Journal.

In short, try to avoid absolutes because my response is: No, that's not right at all.

He should have stuck to Growing Pains.
Ten million atheists in the US, OMG!:eek: :p

there is no god... ooh but if this message is here then there must be someone who wrote it... so if the earth is here there must be a god! OMG these guys r good wow... they say retards are the happiest ppl these guys look pretty happy 2me... and about them being "ex athiests" plz dont insult my intellegence:upyours: :upyours:

A little from column A, a little from column B.

You take a faith based assumption and present it as universal fact, then you must be prepared to back it up with a scholarly source. Unfortunately, the Bible (when I say Bible, I mean Torah) and its subsequent derivative works, such as The Book of Mormon, The Gospel, and Qu'ran are not scholarly sources but they're the only ones you've got.

Can't really cite from anything subsequent to Genesis 1:1-2:9 when it comes to Creation simply because any subsequent mention in Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim, The Gospel, Qur'an, etc are merely repetition of the original statement, which has never been submitted for peer review to the scientific or educational communities nor published in any Journal.

In short, try to avoid absolutes because my response is: No, that's not right at all.

[ My apologies, everyone. I should have said, "God made this world for himself, if you subscribe to Christianity."

I hope I haven't stepped on too many toes.

Sigh. I'm being far too bitter tonight. I need some food, and maybe some rest. ]

What the fuck does counting sand have to do with not being crazy?
ZOMG, they're showing a "real life atheist."

[ My apologies, everyone. I should have said, "God made this world for himself, if you subscribe to Christianity."

I hope I haven't stepped on too many toes.

Sigh. I'm being far too bitter tonight. I need some food, and maybe some rest. ]
i think its all the tiny talk. it could make anyone bitter


really, unless you are an internet gorean sub,(in which case you should drop the personal pronoun) you might want to consider that your posts are a burden to read.

[ Gor...ean...sub?

Um, forgive me for not knowing what that is, but...um. Well, there it is. Help me out?

And to be truthful, you are the first person that has ever commented on the text size. ]

Besides, what's the practical differance between an agnostic and an atheist anyway.

Anybody else want to punch that hypocritical little interviewer?

Besides, what's the practical differance between an agnostic and an atheist anyway.

*double twitch*
Agnosticism is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism. It is also compatible with theism. This is because agnosticism is a view about knowledge concerning God, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof) concerning God. For example, it is possible to believe in God but to believe that knowledge about God is not obtainable.

Besides, what's the practical differance between an agnostic and an atheist anyway.

Anybody else want to punch that hypocritical little interviewer?

[ Agnostics believe in something, but don't know what it is, while atheists just don't care one way or another? ]

[ Agnostics believe in something, but don't know what it is, while atheists just don't care one way or another? ]

...Okay, first of all, remove "[size=2][b][[ /b][ /size][size=1] " and corresponding tags from the posts, and then read the post above yours.

*double twitch*
Yeah, but what does that matter to an unpromising evangelical Christian nutcase?
I know the difference, but a Christian still despises the existance of both.

Yeah, but what does that matter to an unpromising evangelical Christian nutcase?

Who cares what matters to uncompromising evangelical Christian nutcases?

and about them being "ex athiests" plz dont insult my intellegence:upyours: :upyours:
Hahaha, that guy might as well had said "And here's one we converted earlier" when he introduced him:D

Who cares what matters to unpromising evangelical Christian nutcases?
This ageing child actor seems to think that an agnostic is more susceptible to his bullshit than an atheist.

This fat guy with the beard pwns.

...Okay, first of all, remove "[size=2][[ /b][ /size][size=1] " and corresponding tags from the posts, and then read the post above yours.

[b][ I'm not allowed to post at the same time?

Third time's the charm.

EDIT: I would prefer it if you didn't box up Christians into a single well...box. It's quite annoying, to say the least, to be grouped with idiots. ]

Wow!
Bravo! you just made a generalization about a large group of people not two sentences after saying that you hate people who make generalizations.
I'm sorry that you hate yourself.
Jesus loves you!
That is all.

WOAH!! And out of left field comes the Jesus Sniper Brigade to strike yet another hapless bystander! The first in how many dozens of posts to actually respond to somebody? Now, isn't there something in the bible against using them fightin' words?

There is no such thing as an atheist. People are just as religious today as they are five hundred years ago. They just have different gods. What is your god? Money, TV, Videogames, sex, the computer? Or do you believe in the one true God who created you and loves you no matter what you say about him or to him. A god can be anything you dedicate your life to. Its called neopaganism.

WOAH!! And out of left field comes the Jesus Sniper Brigade to strike yet another hapless bystander! The first in how many dozens of posts to actually respond to somebody? Now, isn't there something in the bible against using them fightin' words?

[ Gotta admit, that was good marksmanship, though. ]

I swear to Jesus fucking God that if people start mixing me up with Ulducc, I'll do... someting.

Christianities time has come and gone. It slowly sinks into the sunset of Athiesm, while Islam has stolen any thunder it may have once had.

Whew, I think I sounded almost poetic there for a moment.:cool:

Really, I talk to Athiest using American English, as that is the language of my Athiest friends.

I would talk to the Creationists, but alas I don't speak dumbass.

I would talk to the Creationists, but alas I don't speak dumbass.
sigged.

[ I'm not allowed to post at the same time?

Third time's the charm.

EDIT: I would prefer it if you didn't box up Christians into a single well...box. It's quite annoying, to say the least, to be grouped with idiots. ]

No, see, the adjectives didn't refer to all christians just....ummm...I meant, some Christians are those things, and those ones don't matter, not all Christians are. And you really don't need to do that bracket thing. All this ([/size][size=2][b]][ /b][ /size]) stuff can go.

Creationists aren't dumbass's. They have their own justifyable opinion.

Creationists aren't dumbass's. They have their own justifyable opinion.

They're taking their time with justifying it then...

No, see, the adjectives didn't refer to all christians just....ummm...I meant, some Christians are those things, and those ones don't matter, not all Christians are. And you really don't need to do that bracket thing. All this ([/size][size=2]][ /b][ /size]) stuff can go.

[b][ I really wish dust-dry humor could carry through text.

As I said before, though, it's kind of a habit. Ctrl-V, post. I'm usually in II, but I saw this and decided to check it out.

But since everyone seems so put off by it, I'll make an effort to stop. At least in this forum. ]

Im not sure what you mean but I think all opinions should be respected

Im not sure what you mean but I think all opinions should be respected

...
-_-"
Yanno...I'ma let this go...not worth it.

Im not sure what you mean but I think all opinions should be respected
rofl

PLease speak directly. Im Italian and have trouble understanding english or american sarcasm

As well as acronyms

Im not sure what you mean but I think all opinions should be respected

You do get that this video was about how to shove christianity down other people's throats, right? Honestly, the judeo-christian religions would have died out long ago had it not been for brutal conversion techniques and incessant peddling. Do you think these guys are very respectful of the atheistic view?

PLease speak directly. Im Italian and have trouble understanding english or american sarcasm

Rofl=rolling on the floor laughing.

I don't get what's so funny, though. All valid opinions have a place. Just because they conflict doesn't mean they're automatically wrong.

But you know? I'm not going down that "well, yes, but this is why you're wrong...." road. It usually degrades into a flame war, and nobody wins, except maybe trolls who pop in and beat the shit out of both sides.

And no one's said anything about the specifics of a Gorean sub. Wikipedia and Google helped, but I really can't see the difference between that and a normal sub/dom thing.

Which, um, whoever it was, I am, although it has nothing to do with text size. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/blast_archives/Emotes/icon_sweatdrop.gif

I dont agree with all they say or do but they do make some points absolute statements. When did they stuff religion down peoples throats. I dont know about church leaders forcing people to convert but I do know that I beleieve in a loving God. NOone forced me or brainwashed me. I just saw the effects of his love and believed when I was confirmed. Just search for truth. Dont draw conclusions.

I would rather live thinking that there was a God and die to find that he doesnt exist than live a life as if there was no God and die to find out that there is.
There is happiness and joty of being a Catholic Christian that no textbook a=can explain.

I would rather live thinking that there was a God and die to find that he doesnt exist than live a life as if there was no God and die to find out that there is.
There is happiness and joty of being a Catholic Christian that no textbook a=can explain.

The Pascal's Wager topic is thattaway (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481569)

I dont agree with all they say or do but they do make some points absolute statements. When did they stuff religion down peoples throats. I dont know about church leaders forcing people to convert but I do know that I beleieve in a loving God. NOone forced me or brainwashed me. I just saw the effects of his love and believed when I was confirmed. Just search for truth. Dont draw conclusions.

As an evolutionary biologist, searching for the truth is exactly what I am doing, and I'm not going to accept any conclusions without substantial evidance. Disagreements aside, however, you are convincing me of one thing: you do seem quite happy to be a christian. From a purely utilitarian perspective, that's gotta have it's merits.

I will NOT, however, stand by when I see how awesomely destructive religion can be. Perhaps it's not you is trying to force jesus into our science textbooks, into our government, into our laws, and into the minds of absolutely defenseless kids. But it is the people who you identify with. That's what I take issue with. Not you, but the organization that you follow.

Anyone else notice the by-line above the vid?
It says:
Viewer discretion: Douchebags on camera
Personally, I can't think of a better way to put it.

I would rather live thinking that there was a God and die to find that he doesnt exist than live a life as if there was no God and die to find out that there is.
There is happiness and joty of being a Catholic Christian that no textbook a=can explain.

Actually, I HAVE read just that, and in a science textbook. It talks about why people enjoy spirituality, and what it has to do with evolution and psychology. I would be happy to explain it, if you'd like, but I'm guessing not...

I would rather live thinking that there was a God and die to find that he doesnt exist than live a life as if there was no God and die to find out that there is.
There is happiness and joty of being a Catholic Christian that no textbook a=can explain.


I would take your statement to mean that you would rather be happy even if people think you're nuts rather than be considered sane only to find out you passed up the opportunity to be happy. That's pretty much any religion though.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I find this guy more annoying than funny. Am I missing something?

Haha, I got a good laugh out of that. Some of the logic reminded me of this kid from the Faulkner novel As I Lay Dying, where he decides his mother must be a fish.

Creationists aren't dumbass's. They have their own justifyable opinion.

Yes they do. To bad they present them as undenialble truth. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs and opinions. That does not make the opinions or beliefs truth.

Please note: myself included.

But the most important, and hitherto unanswered, question remains:

How does the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) fit into all this?

*sigh* And to think I had a crush on Kirk Cameron in the fifth grade...

*hides face in deep, incurable shame*

There is no such thing as an atheist. People are just as religious today as they are five hundred years ago. They just have different gods. What is your god? Money, TV, Videogames, sex, the computer? Or do you believe in the one true God who created you and loves you no matter what you say about him or to him. A god can be anything you dedicate your life to. Its called neopaganism.
well ya know, i love my computer but i dont think its gonna give me eternal life in puter heaven. same with any of my other passtimes. i dont read "the joy of sex" and memorize passages as keys to gaining favor with the sex gods.

if god loved me half as much as my mother does he wouldnt send me to hell for not getting the message.

I do know that I beleieve in a loving God. NOone forced me or brainwashed me. I just saw the effects of his love and believed when I was confirmed. Just search for truth. Dont draw conclusions.

Ah the loving creator of all things... brimming with compassion and architect of a perfect world...

Made these little bastards? with not only the ability to do what they do, but endowed them with the instincts that make it positively likely under the right circumstances.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/animals1/catfish/candiru.html

also if they arent casually cruel enough for you try a little research on the life cycle of the ichneumonidae (parasitic wasps that I believe provided the inspiration for the "Alien" chest bursting scenes).

Mmmm i'd feel comfortable with the sentience who "designed" those little beauties looking after the universe in all its love and compassion.

I would rather live thinking that there was a God and die to find that he doesnt exist than live a life as if there was no God and die to find out that there is.
There is happiness and joty of being a Catholic Christian that no textbook a=can explain.Ah, but you're forgetting the possibility that Allah or Odin might be the true God.

What happiness and joy could possibly be found in a religion that tells you that you are a sinner and damned the moment you are born, and the only way out of it, is through a guy whos death is personally your fault?

I fail to see the enrapturement.

one link was all it took.. i am now a proud gospel thumping member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... yes praise be to all Pastafarians.. we even have online games.i HAVE been touched by his noodly appendage.

Ah the loving creator of all things... brimming with compassion and architect of a perfect world...

Made these little bastards? with not only the ability to do what they do, but endowed them with the instincts that make it positively likely under the right circumstances.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/animals1/catfish/candiru.html

also if they arent casually cruel enough for you try a little research on the life cycle of the ichneumonidae (parasitic wasps that I believe provided the inspiration for the "Alien" chest bursting scenes).

Mmmm i'd feel comfortable with the sentience who "designed" those little beauties looking after the universe in all its love and compassion.


Oh fun critters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumon_wasp

What happiness and joy could possibly be found in a religion that tells you that you are a sinner and damned the moment you are born, and the only way out of it, is through a guy whos death is personally your fault?


Isaiah 30:9 For it is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of Yahweh;10 who tell the seers, "Don't see!" and to the prophets, "Don't prophesy to us right things. Tell us pleasant things. Prophesy deceits.


sorry, I really couldn't help it.

I watched another one of these guys videos before-they "proved" that humans and monkeys aren't related by phoning an airline and asking to take a relative on board(a monkey).

There is no such thing as an atheist. People are just as religious today as they are five hundred years ago. They just have different gods. What is your god? Money, TV, Videogames, sex, the computer? Or do you believe in the one true God who created you and loves you no matter what you say about him or to him. A god can be anything you dedicate your life to. Its called neopaganism.
Yes, because all humans are sheeple who need to worship something.

Or, you know, not.

I would rather live thinking that there was a God and die to find that he doesnt exist than live a life as if there was no God and die to find out that there is.

Mmm, Pascalicious!


There is happiness and joty of being a Catholic Christian that no textbook a=can explain.
Sure there is. It's called the DSMIV. :)

That video wont play for me.

And i wanted a laugh

trying to force jesus into our science textbooks, into our government, into our laws, and into the minds of absolutely defenseless kids.


This is just one of the reasons that our education system is flawed. I am a Christian creationist. That is what I want to teach my children. You are not, you want to teach your children something else. In a country designed for free expression and belief, there is no possible way to have a one-size-fits-all school system that pleases everyone. I don't care what the issue is, the government should not be the decider of truth for everyone.

If I were to try to convert you, it would not be for my personal gain. I have no need of high recruitment numbers. I have no fear of your personal behavior choices. It would be, instead, concern for your eternal soul. You can choose not to believe in income tax, that won't stop the IRS from having you arrested and selling all your assets.

As for evolution, there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It has been pointed out that bananas, among other things, have evolved over time. At no point has a banana ever turned into a pineapple. There is observable evolution where some part of creation adapts to a changing environment. Then there is non-observable, how-can-we-explain-the-universe-without-God evolution. The two are not the same nor does the existence of one prove the other.

The existence of predatory and parasitic creatures as well as human illness and death, is not proof of a flaw in God's creation, but, rather, proof that creation was indeed broken when sin entered the world. I am no different from you in the most basic idea that we are all sinful. What I am is forgiven. The knowledge of Christ's sacrifice for me makes me desire to live in accordance with his will. It does not, however, mean I never fail. I am still a sinner.

I may not agree with your beliefs, but I do not believe I, or anyone else, should force you to change. (Of course, that doesn't mean I won't try to talk you out of it :D) But, I firmly believe that the government has no right to a role in education. Just as you do not want me presenting creationism as truth to your children, I do not want macro-evolution taught as truth to mine. The same can be said for any numer of other issues.

I also think that we should practice mutual respect for each other. Not tolerance by the current definition. Respect. That means that I believe you are wrong and you believe I am wrong. But, that I don't call you names and you will return the favor. We cannot both be right. We can however both be polite.

Sir Darwin, I used your quote as a springboard, but this is not aimed at you personally. The "you" in my post is universal.

hahahahahahahaha, that video was hilarious! i wonder if they watch it back and think "what was i doing, i've made myself and my religion look even more moronic than we already are!" i honestly couldn't stop laughing and i had to turn it off after 7 mins when my headache started to get worse.

The same can be said for any numer of other issues.Holocaust denial, for one. I would be loathe to let anyone teach "their truth" of what happened in Germany during that era.

This is just one of the reasons that our education system is flawed. I am a Christian creationist. That is what I want to teach my children. You are not, you want to teach your children something else.

So you are saying that public schools should use taxpayer money to teach your kids whatever YOU want them to learn?

Cool! Then public schools should be required to teach children that Christians are baby-eating cyborgs from the moon! Because, see, that's what I believe, and that's what I want to teach my kids.


In a country designed for free expression and belief, there is no possible way to have a one-size-fits-all school system that pleases everyone.

Well, not if there are crybabies who refuse to let schools stick to things like "facts" and "reality."


I don't care what the issue is, the government should not be the decider of truth for everyone.

Schools don't teach "truth," they teach facts. Christian Creationism is taught in history classes, in comparative religion classes, and is often covered in history or social studies courses. Creationism is not science, and therefore does not belong in the science classroom. If you want to lie to your children, do it on your own time.


If I were to try to convert you, it would not be for my personal gain. I have no need of high recruitment numbers. I have no fear of your personal behavior choices. It would be, instead, concern for your eternal soul. You can choose not to believe in income tax, that won't stop the IRS from having you arrested and selling all your assets.

Wow, you just compared your God to the IRS. And they say atheists are the ones who bad-mouth God.


As for evolution, there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It has been pointed out that bananas, among other things, have evolved over time. At no point has a banana ever turned into a pineapple. There is observable evolution where some part of creation adapts to a changing environment. Then there is non-observable, how-can-we-explain-the-universe-without-God evolution. The two are not the same nor does the existence of one prove the other.

Wrong. So we've now established that you don't even know what evolutionary theory is. Wouldn't it be better for your kids to be taught about evolution by somebody who knows what that word means? You can still teach the little rugrats to disbelieve evolution, but that way they would at least know what "evolution" is before they reject it.


The existence of predatory and parasitic creatures as well as human illness and death, is not proof of a flaw in God's creation, but, rather, proof that creation was indeed broken when sin entered the world.

Once again, you appear to be using words without understanding what they mean. "Proof" does not mean what you seem to think it means.


I am no different from you in the most basic idea that we are all sinful. What I am is forgiven. The knowledge of Christ's sacrifice for me makes me desire to live in accordance with his will. It does not, however, mean I never fail. I am still a sinner.

Yes, yes, we've all heard the self-flagellating routine before. It's nice how you get to be both morally superior and yet superficially humble at the same time. However, none of it has the slightest importance in this discussion.


I may not agree with your beliefs, but I do not believe I, or anyone else, should force you to change. (Of course, that doesn't mean I won't try to talk you out of it :D) But, I firmly believe that the government has no right to a role in education.

If you don't want your kids in public schools, you don't have to send them to public schools. You can send them to a nice Christian private school, or home school them, and then they won't have to encounter all the icky science and facts.


Just as you do not want me presenting creationism as truth to your children, I do not want macro-evolution taught as truth to mine. The same can be said for any numer of other issues.

There are people who don't want their kids to be taught that black people are as human as white people. We don't allow those dingbats to dictate public school programs.

If you don't like how public school would educate your kids, then you can school them elsewhere. What's your problem?


I also think that we should practice mutual respect for each other. Not tolerance by the current definition. Respect. That means that I believe you are wrong and you believe I am wrong. But, that I don't call you names and you will return the favor. We cannot both be right. We can however both be polite.

I'd rather people just quit beating around the bush. Creationism isn't science, no matter how polite you are when you insist that it is. Your interpretation of evolutionary theory is wrong, no matter how nice you are when you say it. Your desire to have your misconceptions forced into school programs is selfish and harmful, no matter how many times you say "pretty please."

Actually, you missed alot of my point. I have no desire to force my ideas on your school program. I think that government should not be in the school business. They should not be government run nor publicly funded. I do teach my children at home. We have severly differing ideas on what is truth. I have no desire to pay to have anyone's children learning your ideas. Since I can guess you would say the same about me, it makes little sense to waste time and money arguing what should be taught to all children when there will never be a consenus reached. Schools should be private enterprises so that parents can have a direct impact on curriculum choices.

I stand by the fact that the word evolution is used interchangeably to refer to two different things. Only one of which can be proven. This may not have been deliberatly misleading, but it is still misleading. You cannot use genetic mutation within a species to prove that one species can change into another. On top of that, mutation always involves the loss of genetic material. A change to a higher thinking species would require a gain.

While I will admit that there are many people who claim Christianity but behave abominably, I have never met any that were baby-eaters or cyborgs.

You cannot use genetic mutation within a species to prove that one species can change into another. On top of that, mutation always involves the loss of genetic material. A change to a higher thinking species would require a gain.

You may be glad to know that the use of genetic changes to interchange specific characteristics of one species to another does exist. Wholesale transformation of one species into another is conceptually possible, but technically tough. It may be achievable for simpler organisms though, sooner than you think.

Mutations that involve the gain of genetic material also exist, at lower levels, single base insertions, to copy number polymorphisms, gene duplications to chromosomal duplications all the way up to genomic duplications.

Change to more complex organisms does not require more genetic material, sometimes less. A grasshopper species for example has four times more protein coding genes than human.

snip
wow! that was awesome!

i disagree with you on one point tho. schools don't teach facts they teach the 'truth' that the government or school owners want you to believe. that doesn't mean it's all lies (i'm no conspiracy theorist) just that education is and always will be a process of indoctrination. it cannot be anything else. especially in the humanities.

Actually, you missed alot of my point. I have no desire to force my ideas on your school program. I think that government should not be in the school business. They should not be government run nor publicly funded. I do teach my children at home.

Then what's your bitch? We all pay taxes for things we don't personally agree with. That's the price of admission.


We have severly differing ideas on what is truth.

No, we have differing ideas about how relevant "truth" is to this discussion. I think children should be given the facts at school, and then should be free to evaluate "truth" based on their own cultural, familial, and personal belief structures.


I have no desire to pay to have anyone's children learning your ideas. Since I can guess you would say the same about me, it makes little sense to waste time and money arguing what should be taught to all children when there will never be a consenus reached. Schools should be private enterprises so that parents can have a direct impact on curriculum choices.

That's a whole other discussion.


I stand by the fact that the word evolution is used interchangeably to refer to two different things. Only one of which can be proven.

Nope.


This may not have been deliberatly misleading, but it is still misleading. You cannot use genetic mutation within a species to prove that one species can change into another.

You can't use any scientific observation to "prove" any hypothesis, because science doesn't work that way. We can't "prove" that gravity exists, or that the sun rises each morning, or that you are posting on this forum.


On top of that, mutation always involves the loss of genetic material. A change to a higher thinking species would require a gain.

Wrong.


While I will admit that there are many people who claim Christianity but behave abominably, I have never met any that were baby-eaters or cyborgs.
But that isn't really important, is it? I mean, you want your children to be taught your beliefs about evolution, even though your beliefs are (so far) totally inconsistent with reality. So why should we bother determining whether or not Christians are baby-eating cyborgs, when I could just state that this is what I believe and therefore it's the only thing my kids should learn?

wow! that was awesome!

i disagree with you on one point tho. schools don't teach facts they teach the 'truth' that the government or school owners want you to believe.

As somebody who attended public schools for 12 years, I can personally assure you that schools do teach facts. An almost annoyingly large number of them, in fact :P. There also is obviously some propaganda thrown in, but this is where critical thinking skills become useful. Kids are going to encounter propaganda no matter what, so they might as well learn how to deal with it.


that doesn't mean it's all lies (i'm no conspiracy theorist) just that education is and always will be a process of indoctrination. it cannot be anything else. especially in the humanities.
Well, I guess you could say that kids are "indoctrinated" into facts and critical thinking skills. In that regard, I would agree with you.

I do believe there are many schools at which differing agendas take over the educational process. That sucks. But I don't think that is anything inherent in education itself.

On top of that, mutation always involves the loss of genetic material. No it does not. There are several types of mutation, deletion is just one. There are also point mutations (where one base is replaced by another), and repeat-mutations, where the copying mechanism redoes copying (part) of a gene.
Aside from mutation there's also crossovers, where two DNA strand exchange a part of their sequence. Occasionally the exchanged part is not (roughly) equal in size and allels may be doubled or removed.

A change to a higher thinking species would require a gain. Actually, I think a few years ago they found a gene wherein two point mutations, seem to have been enough to account for a quadrupling of brain capacity.

As somebody who attended public schools for 12 years, I can personally assure you that schools do teach facts. An almost annoyingly large number of them, in fact :P. There also is obviously some propaganda thrown in, but this is where critical thinking skills become useful. Kids are going to encounter propaganda no matter what, so they might as well learn how to deal with it.

As someone who also attended public school... no they don't.

Saying that something is ubiquitous doesn't justify it.


Well, I guess you could say that kids are "indoctrinated" into facts and critical thinking skills. In that regard, I would agree with you.

Except by "facts" you mean lies and by "critical reasoning skills" you mean the lack thereof.

I do believe there are many schools at which differing agendas take over the educational process. That sucks. But I don't think that is anything inherent in education itself.

No, just in every school in this country.

Isaiah 30:9 For it is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of Yahweh;10 who tell the seers, "Don't see!" and to the prophets, "Don't prophesy to us right things. Tell us pleasant things. Prophesy deceits.


sorry, I really couldn't help it.

Yeah, they'd put that in wouldn't they?

I remember reading about that gene...didn't they splice it into some mice and the poor thing's head popped like popcorn? umm...they forgot to code for the gene to stop growth...eh?
FGF2 i think it was

I couldn't locate the article but this is a related abstract...
Pretty nifty eh?

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v2/n3/abs/nn0399_246.html




No it does not. There are several types of mutation, deletion is just one. There are also point mutations (where one base is replaced by another), and repeat-mutations, where the copying mechanism redoes copying (part) of a gene.
Aside from mutation there's also crossovers, where two DNA strand exchange a part of their sequence. Occasionally the exchanged part is not (roughly) equal in size and allels may be doubled or removed.

Actually, I think a few years ago they found a gene wherein two point mutations, seem to have been enough to account for a quadrupling of brain capacity.

You seem to be realitively liberated freethinker, and yet you attended public shools...so maybe THEY designed it to fuck with your head eh? Your education is your own damn responsibility...if you look to the manon some mountain to feed you facts and knowledge then your just likely to get pissed in the eye.

As someone who also attended public school... no they don't.

Saying that something is ubiquitous doesn't justify it.




Except by "facts" you mean lies and by "critical reasoning skills" you mean the lack thereof.



No, just in every school in this country.

If I were to try to convert you, it would not be for my personal gain. I have no need of high recruitment numbers. I have no fear of your personal behavior choices. It would be, instead, concern for your eternal soul. You can choose not to believe in income tax, that won't stop the IRS from having you arrested and selling all your assets.If I go to the offices of the IRS (or, perhaps more feasibly, the Inland Revenue, to avoid the jaunt across the Atlantic) I could plainly see people there who are actively judging my income and related financial details. If I don't pay my taxes (difficult, under the Pay-As-You-Earn mechanism, but I'm sure I could get myself in trouble if I really tried), I get nice little letters from people who say I need to resolve the problem, and probably end up with a visit from people with determined attitudes (and possibly uniforms).

On the other hand, I go to the local offices of God, I get to see the receptionist (or maybe middle-management) that is the vicar, imam, rabii, yogi, whatever... He (or she, where possible) can tell me that they'll pass on my concerns, or tell me to fill out Psalm number 23 and send it off to the POBox in the sky and I may get a reply. Or not.

I don't want to denigrate anyone who has felt they have received a response from their deity of choice, by this method, but I've never really been convinced that anyone has. I can verify the existence of a tax-man and can observe the effects of ignoring his existence. I can see what problems people who don't believe in tax have. On the other hand, I cannot see any adverse effects to not believing in any particular variety of deity, and it might well be do for your soul much as tossing your spare change into a untended wishing well is for your financial future, i.e. no practical benefit to you, could be done excessively and to your runination if done to extremes and there turns out to be no benefit to you or anyone else for doing so.


Don't let me stop you tossing coins into wishing wells, especially ones where you are sure your contribution is going towards helping others. I'm not entirely sure that the taxman will credit you with such arbitray donations, but if he's an omniscient taxman then I'm sure He will. Meanwhile I'll pay my taxes as normal, give my spare change to the charities and causes I have resonnance with and even give my time freely to those who I am able to help with it. All I'm saying is that there's a difference between the IRS and God, whereupon I can see benefits to sowing social harmony but have not the spiritual convictions you have. As long as you don't forget the existence of the IRS while attending to the possible needs of the latter, you'll probably get along fine, though.


(I won't join in the chorus arguing over the other points, but I thought this bit needed a bit more coverage.)