Here is somewhat of a parody that some of you might get a chuckle from... i know i got a few. Some i just found plain humorous, others i've actually seen happen (or forms of), some either went over my head (mostly the current event section) or havent seen anything comparable.

Some, regretfully, i have been guilty of the obverse...

I hope you all enjoy... and maybe even learn from.

http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html

quote:9. You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.

quote:20. You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.

The charge being made in #20, proves that an atheist's position that there is a difference between "without a belief in God " and "belief that there is no god", is an important one.



quote:10. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

I've never spoken to an atheist that denies the existence of God because he hasn't "seen Him", and I've spoken to a lot of them.

quote:11. You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.

It can come in handy when the theist makes the argument, "You can't prove that God doesn't exist".

quote:19. You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".

Again, I've never heard an atheist make that claim. What we claim is that if there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists, never that it must not exist.



quote:21. While you don't believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness!

Arguing that there is no reason to believe in mythical beings is a symptom of mental illness? I think someone's got that one backwards.

quote: 22. You complain when Christians appeal to their emotions when justifying their belief in God yet you feel justified on appealing to your emotions for lack of belief in God.

And again, I've never met an atheist who is one based on emotion.

quote:23. You blame God for the starvation, sickness, pain and suffering in the world...when, indeed, it is MAN's greed, politics, selfishness and apathy that not only causes, but also ignores the sick and the starving masses. We aren't our brothers' keepers....but we should be.

MAN has always had the capability to feed the starving of the world? We're responsible for kids who die of cancer, and all of the "pain and suffering in the world"? Wow!

quote:25. You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?

This one is painfully sad. Does the author really think the Big Bang and Evolution are not entirely separate theories and that they don't explain different aspects of the universe? I might as well stop right here.

I'm all for being able to poke fun at myself, but this list seems to be less tongue and cheek and real accusations that are just plain ridiculous.

I'm not defending or proclaiming any of the list. I did say i've seen some, either in form or "exactness".

The guy's site that i found this on, does visit Tweb, and some of the ones that i've seen, i saw there.... my seeing them doesnt make them valid or false. I've even seen some here on Totse... same thing applies.

Some of the ones on Tweb that i saw, are slightly exagerated on the parody list, in emphasis but downplayed in content (i assume, for brevity).

I shared the list mainly because i thought many were funny/ironic, and thought some of the members here might get alittle chuckle.

God Bless,

johnny

I wasn't admonishing you for anything, johnny. There were a few, especially at the end of the list, that were genuinely funny. But it is sad what some Christians think of atheists and know about science.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

25. You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?

This one is painfully sad. Does the author really think the Big Bang and Evolution are not entirely separate theories and that they don't explain different aspects of the universe? I might as well stop right here.

I'm all for being able to poke fun at myself, but this list seems to be less tongue and cheek and real accusations that are just plain ridiculous.[/B]

Hi Martini,

Ok, just this one..

Actually, from the POV of the Bible, molecules to man evolution and big bang are directly opposed to Creation.

Yes, there are many Christians that attempt to harmonize, but the harmonization leads to other theological difficulties.

The implication of big bang and evolution imply natural origins (or, a deistic god that doesnt care)... because of implied natural origins, abiogenisis is also implied.

I know that i've nutshelled all three, but that's all i got desire to post.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Actually, from the POV of the Bible, molecules to man evolution and big bang are directly opposed to Creation.

Whether or not you make a relationship between the two Biblically is not the issue.

The author stated that claiming that Big Bang theory and evolution are "two entirely separate theories" (which they most certainly are) is a fundamental atheist claim, and therefore, something to make fun of. It's just plain fact! The two theories are from two entirely different branches of science, and aren't related in the least!

He then asks "in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?" You don't find that incredibly ignorant? Would you want to attend an institution of higher learning that didn't find fundamental differences between totally unrelated theories in Cosmology and Biology?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Again, I've never heard an atheist make that claim. What we claim is that if there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists, never that it must not exist.

I'm an atheist and I make that claim.

Then again, that's a product of my being a solipsist, and I don't often use arguments derived from my core philosophy since it complicates things exponentially and very few people understand the logic behind it.

My problem is that i don't feel this to be a parody or satire, it's just a bitter lash based on trivializing certain concepts.

On a related note, am I stupid for seeing nothing wrong with these few?

# When a Christian tells you that in order to fully understand The Word of God you need to open up your heart and allow The Bible to speak to you and to read The Bible by placing confidence in God, you say that the Bible is just a book and that why you don't have to do the same with Harry Potter.

Also a lot of the "parody" is based on Hitler and eugenics as attack on atheism. Few sensible atheists use Charles Manson as an attack on Christianity as a whole.

Edit: Gotta love the ending

You may be a fundy atheist if....

# You have your own list of how to tell who is a Christian that itself runs on Fundy Atheist principles.

# You get apoplectic about being called a Fundy Atheist for believing all those self-evidently true propositions above. And you label all theists as "fundies".

# Last of all -- you write this website a letter which includes a rebuttal to the above listing! (While giving the link http: //www.tekt onics.org/ qt/tenton. html to the their own "rebuttal to a listing"



[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 01-07-2007).]

"When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it."

This.....makes no sense.

"You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)"

Darwinian theory of evolution is the exact opposite of so called "chance"

If youre an atheist then you dont believe in a god, so, you cant blame the worlds ills on him....the guy who wrote this is a moron.

[This message has been edited by among_the_living (edited 01-07-2007).]

Interesting.

quote:The guy who wrote this is a moron.

23. You blame God for the starvation, sickness, pain and suffering in the world...when, indeed, it is MAN's greed, politics, selfishness and apathy that not only causes, but also ignores the sick and the starving masses. We aren't our brothers' keepers....but we should be.

If God existed it would be his fault because he's always in control of and aware of anything and everything that goes on in the universe.

Since he doesn't it's also MAN's effort that helps millions of sick, starving, and dying individuals each day.

Since God does nothing about it except cast the majority of them into Hell...



128. (no i didn't go THAT far, just happened to notice) You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.

This is just another one of the MASSIVE assumptions and/or stereotypes that whole list uses to diss athiests. And these Christian propoganda bastards continue to piss me off...



Edit: Martini hit most of this shit on the head.

It was funny as hell but these tears are of sadness.

We all laugh at this but can you guys just imagine how many people are swallowing all this shit as irrefutable and are going to use it in their next debate with an athiest?



Edit 2: $50 says there is a post in this forum later with one of those items on the list in the OP.





[This message has been edited by One Kill Wonder (edited 01-07-2007).]

QUOTE Originally posted by One Kill Wonder:

128. (no i didn't go THAT far, just happened to notice) You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.

******************

This is just another one of the MASSIVE assumptions and/or stereotypes that whole list uses to diss athiests. And these Christian propoganda bastards continue to piss me off...

Hi One Kill Wonder,

Although my intention to lay back and just watch still stands, i guess i'm easily baited into participation. lol :shrugs:

Why does it piss you off? I've seen something to the effect of "you must be a fundy Christian if.." list. And i dont recall being pissed about that.

Although i can not speak for J.P. Holding (the person who's site this list was on), i can say that many of the things on the list have happened in one form or another (and, like i said in the OP, "Some, regretfully, i have been guilty of the obverse...").

Some of the ones on the list, i've actually seen happen when J.P. was conversing with atheists on Tweb (IIRC).... maybe that's why i thought many were funny, since i've actually seen, in one form or another, many on that list. (and i have seen several here in Totse, too). Like i said, the fact that i've seen them does not make them valid arguements or not.... and Christians have done many of the same kinds of things (which might explain the "fundy Christian list". ya think?).



I dont really need to defend Holding, and some of his style of apologetics, i think, is counter-productive (atleast, to the lengths that he takes... IMO).

If you have major problems w/ the list, there are a few ways you can reach Holding:

1. from his website http://www.tektonics.org/

(either directly or by e-mail)

2. or by going to:

http://www.theologyweb.com

(the style of this site is much different than Totse, in that it is dominated by academics -- you know, persons w/ degrees -- and professionals ... and in the fact that it is owned and run by Christians... so using "foul language" is not tollerated and disrespect is only tolerated so far)

BTW, In Tweb, Holding can be reached via private message, or by posting in the "Apologetics" section or the "Tektonics.org section".

I'm only pointing this out because it is not my job to defend Holding or his comments/lists, but he can be reached... and he seems to enjoy most challenges that non-believers toss his way. But beware, if you are not on top of your "game" (since a few people in this thread have called him a moron), he may include you in the "Screwball of the Month" section (which i think is wrong but entertaining to read).

If you do decide to challenge him, feel free to explain how you got directions to find him... or not... it's up to you.



Edit: Martini hit most of this shit on the head.

What, by him saying that he has never seen atheist make comments like those?



We all laugh at this but can you guys just imagine how many people are swallowing all this shit as irrefutable and are going to use it in their next debate with an athiest?



Edit 2: $50 says there is a post in this forum later with one of those items on the list in the OP.

Good thing i didnt take you up on the $50 bet, since i claimed that i've seen a few of these... IOW, you are already set up to win that bet, since it happened before and most likely will happen again (which might be part of the reason that i get burnt out from time to time).

God Bless,

johnny

[QUOTE]Originally posted by among_the_living:



This.....makes no sense.

"You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)"

Darwinian theory of evolution is the exact opposite of so called "chance"

Hi among_the_living,

Let me get this straight, if it is the exact opposite as "chance", then you are saying that 'natural selection' is guided by some sort of purpose?

I guess i was under the impression that the mutations just "happen" and they only get "selected" if the organism survives and reproduces. Which could actually happen whether or not it is benificial (IOW, the mutation is not beneficial, in and of itself)... it only is beneficial after the fact.... sounds like "chance" to me.

If youre an atheist then you dont believe in a god, so, you cant blame the worlds ills on him....the guy who wrote this is a moron.

Again, it was a parody and many of the things on the list, i have seen (in one form or another).

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by among_the_living:



This.....makes no sense.

"You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)"

Darwinian theory of evolution is the exact opposite of so called "chance"

Hi among_the_living,

Let me get this straight, if it is the exact opposite as "chance", then you are saying that 'natural selection' is guided by some sort of purpose?

I guess i was under the impression that the mutations just "happen" and they only get "selected" if the organism survives and reproduces. Which could actually happen whether or not it is benificial (IOW, the mutation is not beneficial, in and of itself)... it only is beneficial after the fact.... sounds like "chance" to me.

If youre an atheist then you dont believe in a god, so, you cant blame the worlds ills on him....the guy who wrote this is a moron.

Again, it was a parody and many of the things on the list, i have seen (in one form or another).

Imagine I bought a 500 pack of paintballs and spilled them onto my front yard in the sun. A couple hours later I notice and pick up those that are still useful, while throwing out the leaked and deformed ones. Thus I now have a bunch of paintballs more resistant to heat than the original factory ones. The variations between individuals are random (due to mutations for organisms or factory defects for paintballs) but the method of selection and the general trend in the population is anything but

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

Imagine I bought a 500 pack of paintballs and spilled them onto my front yard in the sun. A couple hours later I notice and pick up those that are still useful, while throwing out the leaked and deformed ones. Thus I now have a bunch of paintballs more resistant to heat than the original factory ones. The variations between individuals are random (due to mutations for organisms or factory defects for paintballs) but the method of selection and the general trend in the population is anything but



Hi again, Lamabot;

Stop baiting me... i already told yoozeguyz i'm easily suckered in.. lol

Sorry, your analogy fails for a few reasons.

1. In your analogy, you are doing the selection.. iow, intelligent selection... based on what you know will work in the paintball gun.

2. It is not necessarily true that the ones that "survived" were more 'heat resistant'... there is the possibility that they were "protected" by a) a cooler part of the ground b)shade of something.. even for a while c) other paintballs covering them, thus the sunlight had to go through one or more paintballs before it was sufficiently warmed (or "saved" by you). .. if any of these possibilities were the reason that the pb "survived", then for all practical purposes, it survived due to chance.

3. your paintball "survivors" will not reproduce.... which actually is the best part of your analogy, except that it defeats the purpose of the analogy and supports what i said, "they only get "selected" if the organism survives and reproduces."

I need to add somethings that i forgot to mention in the earlier post:

It's more than just natural selection.. genetic drift also plays into the ToE... which is more "chance".

Also, Darwinian evolution "says" that all these mutations accumulate over time, until enough mutations occur for an actual change, and those changes accumulate until speciation (well, something like that.. close enough)... but it implies that some of the accumulated mutations can be unbeneficial or even harmful... but it takes time before it matters one way or another. (i think this is pretty close, atleast close enough for the purpose of this thread)

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Why does it piss you off?

Because it is filled with total nonsense and idiocy about what atheists believe, such as "You're convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do."

It's really not cute, funny or accurate, either is most of the rest of the bullshit on that list.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Edit: Martini hit most of this shit on the head.

[b]What, by him saying that he has never seen atheist make comments like those?

Is that all you got from what I wrote?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Let me get this straight, if it is the exact opposite as "chance", then you are saying that 'natural selection' is guided by some sort of purpose?

No. "By chance" is not the opposite of "having a purpose". "By chance" simply means either that multiple results are more-or-less equally likely, or that we cannot predict the outcomes of multiple trials. The opposite of "by chance" is "predictable".

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I guess i was under the impression that the mutations just "happen" and they only get "selected" if the organism survives and reproduces. Which could actually happen whether or not it is benificial (IOW, the mutation is not beneficial, in and of itself)... it only is beneficial after the fact.... sounds like "chance" to me.

Mutations occur when there is an error in DNA transcription. These mutations can result in a change in the phenotype of an organism, and that change could be advantageous to the organism, detrimental, or neutral. If the mutation is advantageous (based on the circumstances in which the organism finds itself), then the organism will likely have a greater than average chance to pass on that mutation to the next generation. As a greater percentage of the population acquires that beneficial mutation, the population is said to "adapt".

If the mutation is detrimental, then the organism will likewise have a less than average chance to pass on that mutation. If the mutation is neutral, then its frequency in the population will vary more or less randomly.

Note, however, that all mutations are not equally likely. Some have a higher than average chance of occurring, some lower. There can also be constraints which limit the number of ways in which a trait can vary. For example, the number of fingers we currently have is likely limited by a constraint within a suite of homeobox genes, which control development. Because these genes represent a suite of developmental master genes, even a minor mutation could prove detrimental.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Also, Darwinian evolution "says" that all these mutations accumulate over time, until enough mutations occur for an actual change, and those changes accumulate until speciation (well, something like that.. close enough)... but it implies that some of the accumulated mutations can be unbeneficial or even harmful... but it takes time before it matters one way or another. (i think this is pretty close, atleast close enough for the purpose of this thread).

Really, what Darwin talked about was variation, not mutation. Variation was only later linked to mutations in the genome. The idea was that a slightly faster, stronger, smarter, whatever critter would have a slight advantage over its kin, and thus would be more likely to survive and reproduce. If that variation could then be passed onto its offspring, they would then also be slightly faster, stronger, smarter, etc., and likewise have an advantage. Eventually, that variation becomes present in a high enough percentage of the population that it becomes the norm, rather than an oddity. Given enough time, then, even these small changes can add up to large effects.

Possibly the stupidest quote on the list:

quote:203. You think Secular Humanism actually promotes religious tolerance. Secular Humanism only tolerates religion; it doesn't accept it.

Tektonics is run by one of the biggest assholes on the web. He's an incredibly pompous, supercilious and woefully incompetent amateur apologist and defender of Biblical literalism (including YEC) who goes by the pseudonym, J.P. Holding. He's insulting, abrasive, smug, evasive and abusive in his debate tactics, turning any attempt at dialogue into a personal attack on the opponent. I think he now refuses to even engage in debates or post any rebuttals to his website. He's a complete wanker.

If you know ANYTHING about Darwinian theory then you would know it is anything BUT random chance.

if however you havent even read up on the subject then obviously it wont make any sense, most people just hear what evolution is, make their own ideas up about it and dont bother to read up about it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martini:

[B] The charge being made in #20, proves that an atheist's position that there is a difference between "without a belief in God " and "belief that there is no god", is an important one.

I have two atheist friends. One has no belief in a God. He is a good guy, one of my two best friends, and a very amiable fellow. The other holds the belief that there is no God. He is the most annoying and sanctimonious piece of shit I've ever met. He constantly castigates religion and anyone who follows it. He's not my friend, he's an asshole.

Hi Martini,

Just a quick couple before bed.

QUOTE Originally posted by Martini:

Because it is filled with total nonsense and idiocy about what atheists believe,

I think that might be the point of the whole list... broad brushstrokes paralleling similar broad brushstrokes "fundy Christian" lists... amazing that so many people run in to MGCBtSOoYG claiming Christians to be idiots, often just for the effect of getting a rise outta Christians, but when the foot is on the other shoe [sic], it's a huge burr in the britches.... Which is the exact reason that i asked, "Why does it piss you off? "

And that's not all, Martini. I have seen similar statements as on the list, in both this forum and on Tweb, made by atheists. And since Holding has been doing apologetics longer than i have, i'm quite sure that he has probably seen a few of these himself... quite possibly most of them. Does it make those statements any less stupid? No.

If they have been said, then what is your beef?

If they haven't been said, then you really still have nothing to beef about... unless they haven't been said but i claim that that is what all or most atheists say or think.

Just because a person is an atheist, does not mean that person is smart... and even smart people do and say some dumb things at times.

Just because a person is Christian (or any other theist) does not mean that person has given his brain to science for experiments.

The nature of these discussions tend to rub many people's noetic structure at some very core beliefs, so i suppose getting pissed off is going to happen more often than not (i'm not going to develope this part of the post any further, as i hope the picture is finally painted).

such as "You're convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do."

It's really not cute, funny or accurate, either is most of the rest of the bullshit on that list.

Since i still have the tektonics site up and since i'm not the person that claims the holocaust was or was not a Christian war, start at the site that made the claim that you take offense to... check under Hitler. (BTW, i didnt read it, so it might actually be self-refuting... )

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html

(I dont know for sure, never read much about the holocaust or Hitler...never really cared enough to find out)

Like i said, argue with the source of the claim (Holding).

As an aside, i do challenge you or anyone else to take on Holding on the subject of Jesus being a rip-off from other religions or from Myths (since i've seen that claim many times in this forum).

Is that all you got from what I wrote?

That's all i cared to comment on... if i wished to comment on your actual claims, i would have addressed you. I was commenting on the person that made the claim that you hit the nail on the head.

In fact, i dont even feel much desire to make these comments... I am burnt out and need to recharge my batteries, so to speak.

One of the many reasons that i'm burnt out is that i do try to see the other persons point of view, but since most of the discussions tend toward many of the same things, over and over and over.. often started by the same people, it atleast appears to me that many do not try to see the otherside and it does get tiresome (i'm not sick and tired of it, i just need to step back and relax... if you havent noticed, i do take this very serious--- if Christianity is correct, then it is your (plural) very souls at stake... it aint just fun and games to me... it's not just mental masterbation or just a means to attack other worldviews... it's not even for my own self-confidence or gratification--proving to myself that i have worth or that my worldview is correct--- it is because Christians are commanded to spread the gospel and because i dont want ones that i care about to go to Hell.

If i see a particular discussion or argument going in the wrong direction, i am going to try something different... which is the case with Rust more than anyother person i've conversed with... i have had discussions w/ people w/ degrees and feel less intimidated by them, than by Rust. He's good. But that adds to the burnt outness.

Ok, nuff said on that.



No. "By chance" is not the opposite of "having a purpose". "By chance" simply means either that multiple results are more-or-less equally likely, or that we cannot predict the outcomes of multiple trials. The opposite of "by chance" is "predictable".

And your point is??

Let's put this in perspective...among_the_living

wrote, "Darwinian theory of evolution is the exact opposite of so called "chance"".

And you say that the exact opposite of 'chance' is 'predictible'... So what you are saying is that Darwinian ToE is predictible, but when i look at Wikipedia, it says:

quote:Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.[1][2]

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation caused by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Through genetic drift, the frequency of heritable traits changes randomly. Through natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce will have more offspring, passing these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer.[1][3][4] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[5]

Natural Selection is random in that you can not accurately predict the changes in nature.. although that is getting easier the more that humans tamper w/ nature.. IOW, humans are causing more of an effect, but that does not help the case of Evolutionary origins.

Genetic drift is also 'chance'. As are copying errors, especially in light of the fact that the DNA has coding to "correct for mistakes".



Mutations occur when there is an error in DNA transcription. These mutations can result in a change in the phenotype of an organism, and that change could be advantageous to the organism, detrimental, or neutral. If the mutation is advantageous (based on the circumstances in which the organism finds itself), then the organism will likely have a greater than average chance to pass on that mutation to the next generation. As a greater percentage of the population acquires that beneficial mutation, the population is said to "adapt".

You say all this to refute what i said, but you just said the same thing as what i said:

"(IOW, the mutation is not beneficial, in and of itself)... it only is beneficial after the fact"

And we both could have used less words (since i had to say it twice)and said the same thing, had we copy/pasted the first sentence on the "selection" link in wikipedia:

quote:Whether or not selection takes place depends on the conditions in which the individuals of a species find themselves.

quote:If the mutation is detrimental, then the organism will likewise have a less than average chance to pass on that mutation. If the mutation is neutral, then its frequency in the population will vary more or less randomly.

How is "more or less randomly" not chance?

even a minor mutation could prove detrimental.

Again, this is, by effect, chance.

Really, what Darwin talked about was variation, not mutation. Variation was only later linked to mutations in the genome.

Irrelevant. Since Darwin was on the same track, it is saying basically the same thing.

The idea was that a slightly faster, stronger, smarter, whatever critter would have a slight advantage over its kin, and thus would be more likely to survive and reproduce. If that variation could then be passed onto its offspring, they would then also be slightly faster, stronger, smarter, etc.,

I get the concept... i just dont buy it.

One thing that i havent seen someone explain(and it's possible that it has been, i just havent seen it) is that if mutations have roughly an equal chance of occuring, then along with the faster,stronger etc. genes, it would also mean that many undesirable traits get passed along... so in effect, also become more heritible.

Have a good night,

johnny

PS Maybe one of the reasons i am burnt out is the fact that i get long winded. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) lol

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

If you know ANYTHING about Darwinian theory then you would know it is anything BUT random chance.

if however you havent even read up on the subject then obviously it wont make any sense, most people just hear what evolution is, make their own ideas up about it and dont bother to read up about it.



Gee, kinda like what happens in reguards to many who make claims of God or Christianity.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

He's an incredibly pompous, supercilious and woefully incompetent amateur apologist and defender of Biblical literalism (including YEC) who goes by the pseudonym, J.P. Holding. He's insulting, abrasive, smug, evasive and abusive in his debate tactics, turning any attempt at dialogue into a personal attack on the opponent. I think he now refuses to even engage in debates or post any rebuttals to his website. He's a complete wanker.

I agree that i dont like his style or arrogance. As to your claim that he doesnt reply to posts on his site anylonger, i'm not sure... but i do know that he still participates in discussions on Tweb... and many of his opponents that i've seen, are either of equal arrogence or tend to be thick and dont seem to understand unless they are hit over the head w/ something... i've also seen times when he was curtious and tolerant (albeit very seldom) w/ the opposition was honestly questioning, instead of taking a position of attack... atleast that's my opinion on what i've seen.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I think that might be the point of the whole list... broad brushstrokes paralleling similar broad brushstrokes "fundy Christian" lists... amazing that so many people run in to MGCBtSOoYG claiming Christians to be idiots, often just for the effect of getting a rise outta Christians, but when the foot is on the other shoe [sic], it's a huge burr in the britches.... Which is the exact reason that i asked, "Why does it piss you off? "

So, you've witnessed atheists make fun of Christians, so it's fine and dandy to come here as kind and sweet Mr. "God Bless, johnny" and link to a highly offensive list that is full of such horseshit claims of what atheists say, and claim that you did this for ‘comedy relief’?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

If they have been said, then what is your beef?

It doesn't matter if 'someone' once claimed that we came from monkeys. Listing that as a fundy atheist claim is just a backhanded way to dismiss what science really say about origins, to sucker in more young converts to dismiss valid and incredibly strong scientific evidence.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

If they haven't been said, then you really still have nothing to beef about...

That’s a pretty warped view. When someone lies about what someone or a group says, it’s called slander. That’s quite a valid reason to have a beef.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

unless they haven't been said but i claim that that is what [b]all or most atheists say or think.

You’re either being disingenuous, or you’re dealing with 3rd graders that claim:

“You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.”

“You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.”

“when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.” etc.

These are not fundamentalist atheist claims.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Since i still have the tektonics site up and since i'm not the person that claims the holocaust was or was not a Christian war, start at the site that made the claim that you take offense to... check under Hitler. (BTW, i didnt read it, so it might actually be self-refuting... )

Listing that a fundy atheist might think that "Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do." is an asshole move.



I'll stop here and let Martini finish you off on your misunderstandings and twisting of what evolutionary theory really says (he knows a lot more about the subject than I do).

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

And your point is??



Let's put this in perspective...among_the_living

wrote, "Darwinian theory of evolution is the exact opposite of so called "chance"".

And you say that the exact opposite of 'chance' is 'predictible'... So what you are saying is that Darwinian ToE is predictible, but when i look at Wikipedia, it says:

My point is exactly as I stated it: the opposite of chance is not "purpose", it's "predictability". Evolution has a significant random component to it, as well as a predictable process (in terms of mechanism) underlying population changes. However, the process is in no way "purposeful".

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Natural Selection is random in that you can not accurately predict the changes in nature.. although that is getting easier the more that humans tamper w/ nature.. IOW, humans are causing more of an effect, but that does not help the case of Evolutionary origins.

Natural selection is not "random" in any statistical sense. It is the process whereby those individuals within a population who, by virtue of their particular traits, have an edge -- even if it is but a very slight edge -- over their fellows in the competition for resources (e.g., food, territory, mates, etc.). That edge gives them a higher-than-average chance of mating. If their advantage is heritable, then their offspring will likewise posses that advantage. Note that there is still a lot of probability in play here; NS is not a guarantee of anything. It's a stacking of the odds in favor of those with traits which assist one in a particular environment, and against those with traits which are harmful given their environment. Even the bestest and smartest and fastest can still get crushed by a falling tree in their sleep.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Genetic drift is also 'chance'. As are copying errors, especially in light of the fact that the DNA has coding to "correct for mistakes".

Genetic drift is, indeed, effectively random. But it is not the primary mechanism of evolutionary change. Mutations and variation are also largely random, but they simply provide the pool upon which NS operates. Each possible variation does not have an equal chance of appearing, nor does each appearing variant have an equal probability of being selected for or against.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

You say all this to refute what i said, but you just said the same thing as what i said:

"(IOW, the mutation is not beneficial, in and of itself)... it only is beneficial after the fact"

Well, no, it's not beneficial "after the fact", it's beneficial (or not) in the here and now. A given variation may appear regardless of the environment, but it is the environment which determines whether that variation is beneficial or detrimental. Some mutations are detrimental no matter what, in that they may prevent the organism from developing properly.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

How is "more or less randomly" not chance?

I don't believe I implied anything otherwise.... Again, my point is not that there is no chance or random component to evolution; it's that "purpose" is not the opposite of "chance". Evolution has elements of chance, of randomness, of predictability, but none whatsoever of "purpose". But keep in mind also that NS is not solely random; it's a stacking of the odds in favor of or against certain possible outcomes. Change can directional and guided in a sense, but it is still without purpose.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Irrelevant. Since Darwin was on the same track, it is saying basically the same thing.

Not really. Variation can come from multiple sources. Mutations and variation are not interchangeable; natural selection technically acts upon variation, not mutation, and mutation is but one source of variation.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

One thing that i havent seen someone explain(and it's possible that it has been, I just havent seen it) is that if mutations have roughly an equal chance of occuring, then along with the faster,stronger etc. genes, it would also mean that many undesirable traits get passed along... so in effect, also become more heritible.

Well, as I mentioned, all mutations don't have a roughly equal chance of occurring. And, some undesirable mutations will persist in the population, sometimes for many generations; no individual organism is perfect. As I mentioned, NS is not a guarantee of anything. Furthermore, the agent of selection as I see it is the organism itself (many of course, will disagree...). As a result, you either keep or lose the whole genetic package. So, one may well be faster and stronger and smarter, but also have an immune deficiency or some such. Whether that organism winds up passing on its genes will depend on how big a deal the particular detriments are relative to the benefits. A slight change in the environment can turn a previously minor detriment into a major one, or a previous advantage into a disadvantage, or a previous detriment into a benefit, or.... You get the idea.

So, to sum up: evolution has random components, and not-so-random components. The process of natural selection is not itself random, and the results are that populations adjust to better "fit" the environment over time. Other mechanisms, such as genetic drift, are effectively random. Variation can be random, random with constraints, or so constrained as to be very limited.

Evolution is not the "exact opposite of chance" (whatever that really means...). It does have some elements of predictability, and is, in a sense, guided by the ever-watchful, overly-anthropomorphic eye of natural selection. But it is not directed toward, or by, any purpose.

Anyone in this thread refuting that Darwinian theory isn't random chance needs to go read about Darwinian theory.

Seriously, a short wikipeda isn't exactly going to be the be all and end all of knowledge on a fucking theory, go read Darwins books, go read research papers done ON Darwinism, don't come to this thread with NO knowledge in his theory trying to outline what it is and isn't.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Hi again, Lamabot;

Stop baiting me... i already told yoozeguyz i'm easily suckered in.. lol

Sorry, your analogy fails for a few reasons.

1. In your analogy, you are doing the selection.. iow, intelligent selection... based on what you know will work in the paintball gun.

The point I was trying to make is the fact that environment is what determines natural (or artificial selection) based on minor variations. What I was communicating is the survivability based on variation and that it is bound to happen. More suited subjects will survive, be it paintballs, bacteria or humans.

quote:[/B]

2. It is not necessarily true that the ones that "survived" were more 'heat resistant'... there is the possibility that they were "protected" by a) a cooler part of the ground b)shade of something.. even for a while c) other paintballs covering them, thus the sunlight had to go through one or more paintballs before it was sufficiently warmed (or "saved" by you). .. if any of these possibilities were the reason that the pb "survived", then for all practical purposes, it survived due to chance.

[/B]

I don't see this as a flaw. A mutation in the creatinine transcription control factor allows tigers to produce more creatinine and thus build thicker muscle fibers. Those tigers have more chance of slaying some prey. Other factors such as water, population density, temperature, availability of prey will also affect which tigers will reproduce. But since those characteristics aren't heritable that does not have an affect on the genotype. Over a large population, the advantageous mutation will cause lesser chance of death and thus more chance of some offspring.

quote:

3. your paintball "survivors" will not reproduce.... which actually is the best part of your analogy, except that it defeats the purpose of the analogy and supports what i said, "they only get "selected" if the organism survives and reproduces."



I like to draw inanimate objects as analogies to represent the basic principles. I assumed that you will catch my implication that if these were real animals they'd reproduce (which you did). I tried to illustrate that random variations are bound to produce change in a population whether the population are animals or paintballs.

quote:

Also, Darwinian evolution "says" that all these mutations accumulate over time, until enough mutations occur for an actual change, and those changes accumulate until speciation (well, something like that.. close enough)... but it implies that some of the accumulated mutations can be unbeneficial or even harmful... but it takes time before it matters one way or another. (i think this is pretty close, atleast close enough for the purpose of this thread)



Unbeneficial mutations have a lesser chance of being passed on. Some mutations, such as PKU and Cystic Fibrosis will often cause the death of the offspring before being able to reproduce (less radical example would be higher lactic acid accumulation causing fatigue and inability to run away from predator). Other mutations will cause undesirable characterics that are tied to reproduction. Animals lacking phermones or humans with an unattractive appereance are less likely to have intercourse and therefore to leave offspring. Some mutations are sexually tied, such as XXY chromosome or Down syndrome, causing the offspring to be sterile. Thus unadvantegous mutations are less likely to pass on than neutral or advantegeous ones. Think of this, in a population of 300 chupacabras 1/3rd has a negative mutation trend, 1/3rd has neutral mutation trend and 1/3rd has advantageous mutation trend (mutation trend meaning a complex of mutations with a net effect). In unadvantageous mutations only 30% leave an offspring (i explained such reasons). In neutral mutations 50% leave offpring. In advantageous 70% do. Assume when leaving offspring each animals leaves 2.

Next generation has 60 with unadvantageous, 100 with neutral and 140 with advantageous mutations. If you keep running this mathematical model over and over with the new numbers (add new mutation to every offspring, 20 have double negative mutations, 46 have double positive etc, It gets too complicated that way, but you get what i'm talking about) you will see that unadvantegeous mutations are NOT passed down as frequently as others, therefore unadvantegeous traits decline as positive traits accumulate. It's bound to happen, because of the selection. Not because of chance

quote:Originally posted by xray:

So, you've witnessed atheists make fun of Christians, so it's fine and dandy to come here as kind and sweet Mr. "God Bless, johnny" and link to a highly offensive list that is full of such horseshit claims of what atheists say, and claim that you did this for ‘comedy relief’?

quote:

It doesn't matter if 'someone' once claimed that we came from monkeys. Listing that as a fundy atheist claim is just a backhanded way to dismiss what science really say about origins, to sucker in more young converts to dismiss valid and incredibly strong scientific evidence.

quote:That’s a pretty warped view. When someone lies about what someone or a group says, it’s called slander. That’s quite a valid reason to have a beef.

quote:You’re either being disingenuous, or you’re dealing with 3rd graders that claim:

“You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.”

“You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.”

“when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.” etc.

These are not fundamentalist atheist claims.

quote:Listing that a fundy atheist might think that "Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do." is an asshole move.

Hi xray,

Seems as though i struck a nerve.

While that was not my intention, i do find it humorous. Humorous that this is even an issue.... How often is there a scathing attack on threads that have posted a joke or picture that makes fun of any religion? Seldom.. however, it does occasionally recieve somesort of "repremand" from various members, but atleast as often it also gets comments like 'ftw' or 'lol' or whatever.

Again, some of the things on this list have been said by atheists (and others)... in fact, there have even been lists to the effect of "you might be a fundy christian if.." and maybe you might have seen one that says, "you might be a redneck if...(you think jokes and parodies are slander)".

i think it was George Carlin that said something to the effect that the reason some things are funny is because some things are seen true (i think he was talking about bodily functions, but the generality holds.)



quote:I'll stop here and let Martini finish you off on your misunderstandings and twisting of what evolutionary theory really says (he knows a lot more about the subject than I do).

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

okee dokee

johnny

I do find it humorous myself, but it is also poorly written. Sure, I have to agree with some ridiculous stuff on that list that you actually hear from atheists, well placed. However some of those bullets are simple trivialization of an ideology. It has the same ethical and logical merit as me saying "YOO KRISSTENS THINX VIRGEN GAV BERT OLOLOLOL". Some of the things are radical atheism rather than fundamental atheism, and like I've stated have the same merit as me bringing Charles Manson as an example of Christian faith. Some of the things are made up and childish that you never hear from atheists. This has the equivalence of me having a atheist v Christian debate and quoting a 10 year old Christian as "the general Christian arguments. There are only two reasons why this list would include such gross negligence and slander. First one would be that the author is incompetent and/or never encountered enlightened atheists. Because we all know it isn't true the second answer seems obvious - the author had malicious and bitter intent to deface and defame an ideology based on personal hate rather than reason

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Anyone in this thread refuting that Darwinian theory isn't random chance needs to go read about Darwinian theory.

Seriously, a short wikipeda isn't exactly going to be the be all and end all of knowledge on a fucking theory, go read Darwins books, go read research papers done ON Darwinism, don't come to this thread with NO knowledge in his theory trying to outline what it is and isn't.

Hi among_the_living and Martini,

I'm curious, am i misunderstanding the bolded part of this post or did i misunderstand your (among_the_living's) comment here:

quote:Darwinian theory of evolution is the exact opposite of so called "chance"

to which i replied,

quote: Let me get this straight, if it is the exact opposite as "chance", then you are saying that 'natural selection' is guided by some sort of purpose?

Because of which, Martini seems to think that it was i who claimed that ToE is guided by purpose and that i claimed that the exact opposite of chance was purpose (which, in all fairness, i did imply and intend... but i dont think i claimed).

When in fact, in the very next paragraph to you (among_the_living), i said,

quote:sounds like "chance" to me

I'm going to bed..

Good night and God Bless,

johnny

p.s. had i known that the fundy list would have been so offensive, i would not have posted it... although, i still can not fathom why it is taken as so offensive.

quote:p.s. had i known that the fundy list would have been so offensive, i would not have posted it... although, i still can not fathom why it is taken as so offensive.



it's offensive because it was designed to be offensive. It grossly misinterprets, trivializes and sometimes blatantly lies in order to defame. I play a computer game called starcraft and a genuine list of good natured satire and humor looks like this

"

You know you play too much StarCraft when...

· You call your house your "Nexus."

· You play basketball and ask your friends if the game is melee or UMS.

· You are poor and you tell your dad to harvest more minerals.

· You realize that you're broke and ask your parents to borrow some minerals.

· You decide to blow yourself up as a suicide bomber and shout "here's for the Swarm!"

· You inject steroids into your arm on the way home to get there faster.

· You pretend that a box is an SCV and you sit in it and pick your nose.

· You send siblings out to scout neighbors' yards.

· Your solution for Iraq is "Battlecruisers. Mass Battlecruisers."

· Your only fear when massing Battlecruisers against Iraq is that they may have cloaked Wraiths waiting.

· You sit in a traffic jam and wonder if your car has a Siege mode.

· Laser pointers are now weapons of mass destruction - avoid them at all costs.

· The Bunsen burner in chemistry looks deliciously inviting as a splash damage weapon."

As you can see this is clearly designed to be non-offensive and funny (even if to a limited audience) The Fudny atheist list is designed to be a bitter assault. It as the merit of this list:

You are stupid if

·You think virgin gave birth

·You worship something you can't proves exists

·You spend your life on a fairy tale

see? this list distorts fundamental views and its purpose is to assault. If it's an assault, especially such a poorly constructed and "low blow" one disguised as humor, how do you expect people not to be offended? Think of "You might be a redneck" jokes. They are funny because they are designed to be humorous and people on both sides of the fence can appreciate them. For some reason "You might be a redneck if you fuck your sister while smoking meth" doesn't get the same welcome as Jeff's jokes

[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 01-09-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

I do find it humorous myself, but it is also poorly written. Sure, I have to agree with some ridiculous stuff on that list that you actually hear from atheists, well placed. However some of those bullets are simple trivialization of an ideology. It has the same ethical and logical merit as me saying "YOO KRISSTENS THINX VIRGEN GAV BERT OLOLOLOL". Some of the things are radical atheism rather than fundamental atheism, and like I've stated have the same merit as me bringing Charles Manson as an example of Christian faith. Some of the things are made up and childish that you never hear from atheists. This has the equivalence of me having a atheist v Christian debate and quoting a 10 year old Christian as "the general Christian arguments. There are only two reasons why this list would include such gross negligence and slander. First one would be that the author is incompetent and/or never encountered enlightened atheists. Because we all know it isn't true the second answer seems obvious - the author had malicious and bitter intent to deface and defame an ideology based on personal hate rather than reason

Hi Lamabot,

This was a pretty fair accessment. thumbs up.

Although i can not vouch for the intent of the author of that list. I do know that i had no bad intent for sharing... i seldom do things with zero purpose (and in the title of the thread, i did write "sorta" meaning that i did have more purpose than comedy), but the purpose for posting was not malicious.... i'm always trying to use different things to try to make somesort of point. It usually does not happen quite as planned... the evolution derail was far outside of the "plan", didnt quite see that one coming.

I actually thought that there would be no comments.

Anyway, thanks for your responses.

Good night,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

p.s. had i known that the fundy list would have been so offensive, i would not have posted it... although, i still can not fathom why it is taken as so offensive.



it's offensive because it was designed to be offensive. It grossly misinterprets, trivializes and sometimes blatantly lies in order to defame. I play a computer game called starcraft and a genuine list of good natured satire and humor looks like this

"

You know you play too much StarCraft when...

· You call your house your "Nexus."

· You play basketball and ask your friends if the game is melee or UMS.

· You are poor and you tell your dad to harvest more minerals.

· You realize that you're broke and ask your parents to borrow some minerals.

· You decide to blow yourself up as a suicide bomber and shout "here's for the Swarm!"

· You inject steroids into your arm on the way home to get there faster.

· You pretend that a box is an SCV and you sit in it and pick your nose.

· You send siblings out to scout neighbors' yards.

· Your solution for Iraq is "Battlecruisers. Mass Battlecruisers."

· Your only fear when massing Battlecruisers against Iraq is that they may have cloaked Wraiths waiting.

· You sit in a traffic jam and wonder if your car has a Siege mode.

· Laser pointers are now weapons of mass destruction - avoid them at all costs.

· The Bunsen burner in chemistry looks deliciously inviting as a splash damage weapon."

As you can see this is clearly designed to be non-offensive and funny (even if to a limited audience) The Fudny atheist list is designed to be a bitter assault. It as the merit of this list:

You are stupid if

·You think virgin gave birth

·You worship something you can't proves exists

·You spend your life on a fairy tale

see? this list distorts fundamental views and its purpose is to assault. If it's an assault, especially such a poorly constructed and "low blow" one disguised as humor, how do you expect people not to be offended? Think of "You might be a redneck" jokes. They are funny because they are designed to be humorous and people on both sides of the fence can appreciate them. For some reason "You might be a redneck if you fuck your sister while smoking meth" doesn't get the same welcome as Jeff's jokes





Although this isnt the list i've seen before, it does have a few that were on that list:

http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

And although i can not speak for other Christians' opinions, i was not offended by it... i took it for humor.

OK, this time i mean it... good night.

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Because of which, Martini seems to think that it was i who claimed that ToE is guided by purpose and that i claimed that the exact opposite of chance was purpose (which, in all fairness, i did imply and intend... but i dont think i claimed).

You're really in to semantic games aren't you? It is Martini who knows it was you that implied that the opposite of chance is purpose. Why find it necessary to write that I think you claimed it? You readily admit it was your implication and your intent. Isn't an implication enough reason to warrant a correction, especially when you admit to claim so was your intent?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Although this isnt the list i've seen before, it does have a few that were on that list:

htt p://www.ev ilbible.co m/Top_Ten_ List.htm (http: //www.evil bible.com/ Top_Ten_Li st.htm)

And although i can not speak for other Christians' opinions, i was not offended by it... i took it for humor.

OK, this time i mean it... good night.

johnny



While you might not have been offended by that list, the author of your list certainly was [URL=http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tenton.html[/URL]

Notice how that list is also crude and derogatory and how tektoniks didn't actually rebut any of these points, rather than using strawmans or redirects





[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 01-09-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

While you might not have been offended by that list, the author of your list certainly was [URL=http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tenton.html[/URL]

Notice how that list is also crude and derogatory and how tektoniks didn't actually rebut any of these points, rather than using strawmans or redirects



Hi Lamabot,

Whether the author of that list was lashing out or whether it was an attempt at comedy, we dont know...we dont even know if Holding was the author or if he was the sole author.

But, look at any comedy or list like this.. comedy does not refute (ok, except for maybe Bill Mahr or that other guy, i cant even remember his name... he did the monday night football thing for a season or so...Dennis somebody or otherm i think.. i like him, i just cant think of the guys name, OH, I HATE THAT!... Miller-- ya, i think that's it, Dennis Miller. YAY!!).. and even they dont refute.. comedy is usually built on strawmen, generalities or contrasts to generalities.

OK, sorry.. enough of my babbling.



Here is another.. i dont think it was written for the attempt at comedy, but for sarcasm... "making fun of the walking contradictions that we all fall into", as it were.. the reason that i'm putting it in this thread, is because of "religious fervor" that people use to protect or justify or 'explain away' things that contrast the basic beliefs or core beliefs that hang on those basic beliefs (as i think was already shown in this thread, and that i've succumbed to at times in my life).. (p.s. although some is cute, the ending is far from cute, and hits the nail on the head)ok, so here it is..

(i transcribed this from Ravi Zacharias' "Why I'm not an atheist"...in it, he quoted an English journalist, Steve Turner, submitted in a secular paper.. i didnt try to get spelling correct, so please forgive)

The Creed for the Modern Thinker -- Steve Turner

We believe in Marx, Freud, & Darwin.

We believe that everything's ok, as long as you dont hurt anyone..to the best of your def. of hurt & the best of your def. of knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during & after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy's ok.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe everything's getting better, despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated & you can prove anything w/evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes, UFO's, & bent spoons.

Jesus was a good MAN, just like Budha, Mohammed & ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher, although we think basically his good morals were really bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same.. atleast the one's we read were...

They all believe in love & goodness, they only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God & salvation.

We believe that after death comes nothing because when you ask the dead, they say nothing.

If death is not the end and if the dead have lied, then it's compulsory heaven for all... except perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Ghingas Khan.

We believe in Masters&Johnson; what's selected is average, what's average is normal and what's normal is good.

(Ravi then quipped, "that's a 'Salvation by survey syndrom'")

We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.

Americans should beat their guns into tractors & the Russians will be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good-- it's only his behavior that let's him down... this is the fault of society; society is the fault of conditions; and conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that's right for him, and reality will adapt accordingly... the universe will readjust; history will alter.

We believe there's no absolute truth..except the truth that there is no absolute truth (emphasis mine)

We believe in the rejection of Creed's and the flowering of individual thought.

(then Turner puts this P.S. Again, emphasis mine)

p.s. If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky.]/b] And when you hear, "state of emergency; sniper kills 10; troops on rampage; youths go looting; bomb blasts school", [b]it is but the sound of man, worshipping his maker.

johnny

xtreem, sorry a couple q's:

do you have any connecs to richardson, tx?

and

is "johnny" a pseudonym?

you sound like a guy I know

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

xtreem, sorry a couple q's:

do you have any connecs to richardson, tx?

and

is "johnny" a pseudonym?

you sound like a guy I know



nope to both q's.

i'm in wisconsin.

johnny is what a few of my friends call me. My biological dad died a few months before i was born.. his name was 'john' but his family called him 'jack'. my ma remarried to a guy named 'john' and friend used to ask, "why is your name 'john' and your family calls you 'jack'... so some friends called me jack, some john, some johnny, some shithead, etc.

as i got older, 'johnny' sorta stuck with most of 'em.

i always told 'em they could call me whatever they want.. but if i dont answer, throw a shoe at me to get my attention.. i was usually deep in thought about something, but thankfully they never threw the shew. LOL

I can't believe a thread like this is getting so much attention, but my thread has only one serious reply.

Stereotypical anecdotes and various retorts? The hell.

If it was only meant to be a chuckle, what's with the "... sorta" in the title of this thread?

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

If it was only meant to be a chuckle, what's with the "... sorta" in the title of this thread?

i mentioned that in post <posted 01-09-2007 05:53>

Basically the "sorta" entails back-handed comments. In the interest of comedy that he thought he wouldn't have to defend he "purposefully" ejaculated somebody else's nonsensical stereotypes.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Basically the "sorta" entails back-handed comments. In the interest of comedy that he thought he wouldn't have to defend he "purposefully" ejaculated somebody else's nonsensical stereotypes.

No, but nice try.

What?

Can't take an oversimplification of your position crudely expressed in derogatory terms?

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

What?

Can't take an oversimplification of your position crudely expressed in derogatory terms?

Sure i can, if you were expressing my position.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Although i can not vouch for the intent of the author of that list. I do know that i had no bad intent for sharing... i seldom do things with zero purpose (and in the title of the thread, i did write "sorta" meaning that i did have more purpose than comedy), but the purpose for posting was not malicious.... i'm always trying to use different things to try to make somesort of point. It usually does not happen quite as planned... the evolution derail was far outside of the "plan", didnt quite see that one coming.

I actually thought that there would be no comments.

Anyway, thanks for your responses.

Good night,

johnny



I was originally joking, of course, but just thought I'd like to point out that I'm not that far off from this post. Using other people's words in a jesting way, but with a purpose in mind is a textbook definition of backhanded.

I was not trying to be malicious, of course...