Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

[8 bit orgy]

I never said I sided with astrologist and people of the like. But I will side people who go against it using obvious atheist logic to disprove it. People like Dawkins ARE here to steal my food and rape my women. They're simply preaching crap because they have emo tears that there isn't an afterlife and that they can't molest little boys in the middle of times square. Whether it be astrology, god, or UFO debunkery, it's always the same crap, coming from the same crap source: "Humans need a reason, it gives the comfort, it's all a fantasy, come with me to hell!"


Everything doesn't go back to my UFO experience but THE EXPERIENCES I HAD DESCRIBING IT TO PEOPLE AND SEEING HOW THEY (and me) RATIONALIZE IT. I've only told it to a handful of people, and it only felt I was seperating from them telling it. Everytime I described it to someone, it felt there was this great fog of shit called rational in the room. It's a disgusting feeling beyond belief. I feel it when people like Dawkins and Thel spew this fog to validate their feelings of emo tears.

But I understand where you're coming from. You think I don't respect skeptism and incredulity are wrong. I admit I do give that aura out. But you can ask Pat, that in reality, I'm really the biggest fucking skeptic of everything. I can't even count how many times I has some long rant to Pat about gay and retarded people are and why they believe them.

"The predictions of dismissal come true" really actually hits the nail on the head. This is what I described about the part oneself plays in oneself's head when describing an unpopular belief to you peers. I see this view as thick as polack soup. But the difference is, I'm not talking about some stupid Chris Psaros conspiracy, I was merely describing a simple fucking eyewitnessing. Instead, I get the response that "this person is crazy and has been watching too much X-Files" (my least favorite show of all time!).

But as I did some serious UFO studies, I realized that there's an army of people with similar experience. Just as people dismiss my sighting, the millions of others will be as well. This is illogical by the sheer amount of witnesses and colaborating evidence. The debunkery logic is poisonous to the truth.

[Big Fagot]

[Theldorrin]

You're wrong, Chris.

A sound argument is one in which the argument is valid and the premises are true. You can't refute a sound argument. To refute an argument you have to point out that the premises are false, or the argument isn't valid.

Chris, your argument is bullshit. I actually picked out something that was specifically logically sound, because I knew you wouldn't be able to refute it. Instead you started to go off on your own nonsense and ignored the irreducibly complex thing entirely. His argument isn't that there can't be a god, in this case, his argument is that irreducible complexity is nonsense.

You basically just created a straw man of the whole argument, and changed it from something about irreducible complexity to something about whether we can know anything about god. That's really irrelevant since this argument is based totally on definitions (it defines a creator as being more complex than a creation, for example). It doesn't require any knowledge of the world, since it's purely deductive.

[Theldorrin]

I guess I should have explained the ideas behind irreducible complexity some more. I figured you would have read it in the news, or looked it up.

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

What Frank is saying about the smugness and condescendingness of "rational" people is so fucking good and true, and is the reason why I am so skeptical of pseudo-skeptics. It simply comes down to their non-humility and jealous, hoarding mentality about "knowledge."

You'll have an experience, and they'll tell you that you're wrong, and this is how, and this is the "psychological need" that made you THINK you had the experience.

Not that true believers don't have their faults.

There REALLY ARE two "teams" when it comes to this kind of shit, and each in their own irritating ways, are gay.

[Theldorrin]

That's why you're not a rational person. Rational people judge facts on their own, and don't care about the personality of the person espousing the fact.

[Theldorrin]

I don't like being associated with Sam Harris, either.

[Ryoko's Biatch]

This thread is so stupid and gay.

[Ryoko's Biatch]

I'm sorry, I didn't read the first two words of that post, were you talking about Chris Psaros?

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

[GimpMask]

http://drewpickles.com/files/jesusinhell.gif

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

If people would just stick to shit where evidence can actually be examined, like UFOs and ghosts and psi, and not bother with abstract, ill-definable garbage like God, things would be a lot simpler. Who cares about God. Fuck God.

People who have boners for arguing like the God debate though exactly BECAUSE of its abstractness. It's a "purer" argument because it ultimately comes down to gay little logic maneuverings, not evidence.

Basically the Christian God is horseshit of course, among many others I could name, but ultimately conceptions of God really have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and that's the important thing. I don't really have a God or a construction of it or a belief in it myself, because I have been given no reason to, but hey, maybe other people have data that I don't.

[GimpMask]

This thread should've ended with my link Chris

[GimpMask]

Someone move this argument to my forum

[8 bit orgy]

Don't lie to yourself, BF. You're only non-human in the words you type.

Also, Chris, it's not a lack of positive character that determines an atheist. It's the idea of that logic only predetermines that there is no God. And it is from that psuedo-logic that creates that character (or of a "part" as I call it).

Ideas are more powerful than the human comprehending and projecting it. Obviously, none of us created a giant mathematical formula and a large, highly analytical spreadsheet of the possibility of the existence of divine presence. You can't pretend for a second that you can truly grasp all the possible influences in a pure, super-logical way.
And yet we play the role that there is at least other people out there that do. So we look towards champions like Richard Dawkins. Or highly technical publications that are always hilariously disproved by critical realists. But one picks and chooses what best fits into our pink assholes but publicly deny that one enjoys a firm, fleshy, hot dick slamming one's ass.

[GimpMask]

gwee hee hee

Are you ever coming back to Holiday?

[8 bit orgy]

Take cover Pat. At the moment you're an air traffic controller during multiple super hurricanes smashing into each other.

[GimpMask]

*instant transmission*

[Big Fagot]

I think I've said everything I care about, and I have to go rape babies in Times Square.

[Theldorrin]

Chris, Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. It being nonsense is a big part of his position.

If you have any actual familiarity with what he's said then you'd have familiarity with his thoughts on evolutionary biology and how it relates to the god of the gaps.

Anyway, I gave you too much credit in having actually read his opinions on things, when you've almost certainly only heard him mentioned as being a radical atheist by people that are almost certainly retarded and/or Christian fundamentalists.