51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198321 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 2:54 pm

In a free and open forum such as this anyone should be allowed to post whatever they feel is semi-reasonable. tIMEx p is only violating common sense, not common decency. He thinks he is being reasonable. He is annoying because he is not. That guy , richard_dawkins from a few days ago, was just a goofy ass with nothing to contribute but silliness. He was rightfully sent away.
tIMEx p contributes nonsense that we can bounce our own ideas off.
Or you can choose to ignore posts from those people who have in the past posted nothing but nonsense. (Is anyone still reading this?)
I do not like the idea of people being banned because they are hard of understanding. Treat their posts with the respect you think they deserve. Engage them, ridicule them, ignore them. The choice is yours to respond as you see fit.
It should be anyone's choice to post as they see fit.
That's my 2 cents.
Respond, ridicule, or ignore.

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198281 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 1:37 pm

decius,
I am all for personal anecdotes about female asses.

Speaking of personal anecdotes, here is a link to a not scientific, but interesting none-the-less article on the topic of animal emotion:
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3702

53. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #198270 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm

ksskidude

I will introduce George to my newborn daughter in about 18 years

CONGRATULATIONS

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198261 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I could throw in a lot of anecdotal (and worthless) evidence, but let's just say that some people are better inter-specie communicators and the almost unanimous impression which they derive from experience is one of wonder as to how much science appears to lag behind in this field, failing to provide adequate explanations.

Anecdotal often leads to science of worth.
'There seems to be something here. Let's investigate.'
But if you have a dog you know it gets happy and depressed over the same kinds of things that you do. There may be some amount of anthropomorphization going on, but not entirely, perhaps.

55. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198242 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Comment #198128 by mordacious1

This is the BEST article I have ever read. The research is brilliant. The money was well spent. These guys should get the Nobel Prize.

And the above is the BEST post I have ever read. Keep up the good work mordacious1 !

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198205 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 11:24 am

Quine,
I appreciate your posts. I do learn so much from you and others.
(BTW- I got depressed over your jesus camp link the other day. I had seen many clips of the movie but not ones where there were so many children crying and 'speaking in tongues').
I actually get excited when the likes of tIMExpiper posts because I know there will be a Rev. Dark response.

There seems to be nothing to be learned from tIMEx-p but we can't let drivel stand. We have to be the Anti-Jesus Camp Camp.

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198195 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 10:52 am

Let's make him answer some of ours for a change :)

The smiley is key.

Do you have any ideas about how to confront this creationist attitude?

I think I may treat him as I have been treating clearwooter for the past while: with sympathy. Treat him as you would a drooling, slobbering mentally retarded person. I may be wrong about the drool and slobber but as for the rest of it his posts speak for themselves.
He is retarded in his thinking. Or perhaps I should say he has an intellectual disability.

tIMEx piper, you are a specimen to be studied. Your thoughts are of the same value as the lab rat.

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198142 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 9:21 am

tIMExpiper,

You are still permanently stuck with the ridiculous idea that mutations produced this sensitivity.

And your not ridiculous idea is ....... drum roll....... goddidit.


Thank you and good night.

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198117 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 8:38 am

tIMExpiper,

No, actually you guys are very encouraging with the things you say and the pulp you quote from your apologists.

The 'pulp' you are referring to is the peer reviewed papers of the 'apologists', also known as the best scientific minds in the world. To whom you are somehow able to claim superior knowledge.

But what you are saying here is that you have to believe in something untenable if that is the only thing available.

No. I am saying that this Theory is a robust one that explains the way the world actually works amazingly well.

You are saying that you don't like it because it does not fit into preconceived notions.
If you do not like the explanations that the Theory of Evolution provides you need to provide an alternative which will be subject to peer review.

There are a few problems with your approach. You want to attack the ToE on scientific grounds, using scientific evidence. However, you have none. You say things such as, 'I just can't believe it.' Not scientific evidence.
All the science points to the truth of the ToE. If there is evidence which is contrary to some currently understood aspect of the theory, the theory changes to fit the evidence. That is how the science works.
You use half-truths or misunderstood ideas to back up your claims. Example: Alluvial flood plains have silt deposits therefore there was a world-wide flood.
That is one way of misinterpreting the data if you have a preconceived notion to defend. Or you could conclude that alluvial flood plains have silt deposits because that is how you define an alluvial flood plain.
You claim (without evidence) that the ToE is a bad theory and doesn't stand up. This is wrong as evidenced by the 'mountains of evidence'.
You will not put up your own theories to the same scrutiny because you know they do not stand up under any circumstances.
With the same validity that your personal incredulity carries I can say of your Flood theory, "I just don't believe it."
You have Nothing versus Nothing.
However, I can attack the Flood theory on scientific grounds. There you have Something versus Nothing.
All the scientific evidence (and even historic evidence) points away from the idea of a global flood.
To conclude: you are wrong on so many levels.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198081 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 7:02 am

As I was reading through the last few pages of posts regarding natural/unnatural selection the free-will/determinism dualism popped into my head.
Is that relevant in this discussion?

Then BE said:

Free will means the will is free, it doesn't mean that the will is free to will without a cause. :D

61. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #198052 by Frankus1122 on June 23, 2008 at 5:43 am

I heard on the radio this morning a snippet of an interview with Carlin. He was asked how he would like to be remembered.
His reply: "He's dead? He was here just a minute ago."

With all respect:


Shit.
Fuck.
Piss.
Cunt.
Cocksucker.
Motherfucker.
Tits.

Tits? That last one shouldn't even be on there. Sounds like a snack. Tater-tits.


One of my students gave me a box of tissues this morning as a year end present (I cried during a movie we watched in class). They may come in handy.
:( and :)

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197792 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Steve,
I was thinking of exactly this TED talk but I could not remember the name of the man who gave it.
Thank you.

EDIT: Interesting how the great and not-so-great minds can arrive at the same place. :)

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197780 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Goldy and Quine,
Was it you guys that talked about 'transcending' our natural selves a while back?

I think that generally speaking we cannot get out of the fact that we are a part of the evolutionary process. Our self-awareness of that process however, is unique as far as we can tell. We can indeed direct the path of our species to a certain extent. Is that part of the process itself? Are we able to intelligently design ourselves?
Does the genetic manipulation of other species -something we have been doing for millennia- count as rising above Natural Selection? What difference does it make if we do it to other species or ourselves?

I was at a kids' party all afternoon so my brain is a bit frazzled. I hope I am making sense.

64. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197773 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 4:38 pm

And perhaps we could have the broadway show of Cartomancer's book done up by Diacanu.

65. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197772 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Richard Dawkins wrote:

There are no testimonials from Oprah and Deepak. The testimonials are from Woprah Onfray, Chopak Deeprah, Onchel Milfray, Frolic Crancis and Archbishop Osmond Tupu.

Sorry about that chief.
The image on my screen is not all that clear. I had to zoom in and it became even fuzzier.
The book is a joke. And as I said a true flea.
Cartomancer's proposed book looks far funnier. Then again he is a man of true intelligence and great wit.

66. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197596 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 11:08 am

is it a condition that the interface between my faith and science is a no go area that I'm not allowed to talk to you about?

That is what we talk about here.

We think it is unjustified and untenable to bring supernatural beliefs into a discussion about science.
You have said God is beyond your comprehension, and yet you believe. Quine asked 'Why?'

There was talk around this subject before somewhere. If you have Faith, you believe without evidence. But why do you believe in Yahweh over Allah or Krishna?
In order to answer that you need to provide reasons. If you are providing reasons you are using reason and logic to answer a question of faith which is beyond reason.

It is a conundrum.

Either you go with reason and logic consistently and forgo claims of the supernatural or you revert to completely arbitrary unsubstantiated faith where there is no reason to choose one god over an other.

Let's talk. Fart away! :)

67. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197568 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 10:35 am

So, my question is, how do I and the people on this thread share the same community, or are we destined to be forever enemies?

I think this has been answered by me and by Steve: believe what you want but keep it private if it comes from a 'supernatural' source.

Now, can we be friends? :)

68. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197565 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 10:30 am

From what I was able to read from the back cover (testimonials from Oprah and Deepak) it does not look like a serious book. There are many references to it being extremely funny.
It looks like a true flea; exploiting the title of Dawkins' book to make a quick buck.

69. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197561 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 10:23 am

Jethro,
As I said here: 8381. Comment #196644 by Frankus1122,
There is no problem with you believing in God as long as your God stays outside the universe.

He can create it and sit back and watch.

If you think He starts tinkering after that you need to show how you know this and how He goes about doing this.
If you think God wants you to behave decently (and what is decent is generally agreed upon by civilized society - slavery is bad; stoning people for adultery is bad, etc.), then okay.
If you think God wrote down rules for behaviour (slavery is okay; stoning people for adultery is good, etc.) then we have problems.

For the most part we do share in community and share the planet. We only run into problems when you claim supernatural knowledge and then try to impose the consequences of that knowledge on the rest of us.

I think this last point is crucial.

Science tries to discover the nature of things. The results of scientific inquiry is generally open to refutation. Anyone can come along and say, "No, this is not so." But they need to provide an alternative theory. They need to show where the methodology was incorrect and provide a better alternative.

You can't really say the same thing about religion.

So, as long as your God remains outside the universe we are okay.
Do you have objections to this?

70. Christianity 'could die out within a century'

Comment #197483 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #197372 by Stacey

Yeah, maybe. But how many people will look at this film and say, "WTF? These people are crazy!" as opposed to those who will say, "It's about time we had this type of educational camp for our children."?

On the other hand I do agree thee is a danger that stupids will win out. Maybe I just don't want to believe it is so. :)

71. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197463 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 6:36 am

Irate,

Does this mean Bishop Nazir-Ali won't be attending the Pride Parade in Toronto either?



And bugaboo, I like it.

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197360 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Comment #197353 by Quine
Ouch!
It must really start to sting. Getting spanked by real science again and again and again.

But txp is our TIMEX watch.

I just had a bunch of popcorn myself. I took my kids to see 'Get Smart". Hence the "Sorry about that chief" remark earlier.

73. Who Owns the Argument from Improbability?

Comment #197356 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 8:43 pm

It's obvious: as more scientific information comes to light, the more people like Richard panic

I was thinking just the exact opposite.
It is the religious world view that is crashing down in front of your eyes. You are making valiant efforts to save a view of the world that just doesn't fit any more.

But the truth will win out.

The Theory of Evolution and science in general get stronger and stronger. They become more and more accurate models of the structure of the universe. There are some areas of disagreement. They are investigated and argued about and science progresses. We rewrite our books as new knowledge comes to the fore.

This does not happen in the religious world view. You have a book that has all the truth and it never changes. Ha! You have a book riddled with errors that never changes. The errors get bigger and there are more of them as time goes by. But you keep publishing the same book with the same errors. Is that any way to live your life? Really?

74. Christianity 'could die out within a century'

Comment #197351 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 8:22 pm

I was just thinking that the current wave of creationist/ID nonsense is the death rattle of the particular brand of religion from which it comes.
Creationism and ID is nonsense. Neither proposes anything worthwhile in terms of the advancement of science or knowledge. I believe truth will win out.
What happens to all those who so vehemently believe that the Bible is the literal word of God when it is proven not to be? I mean if we survive for another hundred years we will have progressed so much further scientifically (hopefully). Those that claim the Earth is 6000 years old and that God created all life as it is now will be seen as flat-earthers even more than they are now. Won't that crumble their faith even further? How could you believe any of what the Bible says if it is demonstrably so false?

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197350 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 8:07 pm

txp,

At the theory level, mutations and selection are supposed to work hand in hand. But when you really try to apply that idea, it looks stupid. Doesn't it?

Um, no.

In fact, the opposite is true. It looks elegant and beautiful. And it works.
What looks stupid is you.
Sorry about that chief.
What worries you is that if you are wrong about this (and you are) your whole world view comes crashing down. There is no authority in the Bible any longer. You are on your own to figure things out. But it is not so bad. There are a lot of people out here who have done a lot of the work for you.
However, if you insist, you need to come up with something that will not only challenge but replace the current theory of how life evolved. It needs to be as good as the Theory of Evolution for explaining and predicting how life came to be as it is and where it may go.
Could your theory predict where Tiktaalik roseae would be found?
Can your theory explain how oil was formed? You posted something about synthetic oil being created in a lab but no detail as to how the oil deposits around the globe were formed.

You have quoted a source that states:

What happened were some major mutations

Good. You, I think, question how those mutations came about. I think you would suggest, although you don't explicitly state this (embarrassed perhaps), that God made the mutations happen so the "Neos" could have corn to eat.
Why would you think that?
What evidence do you have?
It really makes no sense for an all powerful being to go about making what he wants to happen happen in such a way that looks as though he was not there at all.

Your world view is being shattered in front of your eyes.

76. Louisiana's Latest Assault on Darwin

Comment #197121 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 6:49 am

As a rising star on the conservative right, mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, Mr. Jindal may have more than science on his mind.

It is funny that I just posted something saying basically this on another thread.
He doesn't care about the science. He doesn't care about the children in the schools. He doesn't care about the truth. He cares about votes and political power.
Cynicism back on apparently.

77. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #197119 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 6:40 am

Comment #197108 by Steve Zara

It may be, however, that such subtleties would be lost on a politician!

All the talk of the harm to US science and harm to the world of science in general will be lost on the politician. They care about votes and staying in power.
The appeal should be to how this will affect his re-election chances. However, it will probably be good for him to vote for this legislation in terms of staying in power.
Integrity in politics is only seen in the light of how it will affect the retention of power.
Cynicism over.

78. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197115 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 6:25 am

Goldy:

This site is a drug. I'm hooked.

I know what you mean. As I said earlier I will be without Internet access for most of the summer. Although I will most definitely enjoy my time with my children in the wilds of north-eastern Ontario, it may seem a bit like rehab at first.

As to the point of these threads and blogging:
I was thinking it could be like adding straw to a camel's back.
RtG and txp and the like must at some point get overwhelmed by the evidence against their position. And if not them, then the others who silently observe.
If all one hears is the rantings of the preacher on Sunday about the evils of Darwinism they have here an alternate source of information. If they are truly honest with themselves about discovering truth they have a source of it here.
I prefer the "naive optimism" of Steve.

79. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #197111 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 6:09 am

Steve Zara said:

I am nowhere near the volume of others, such as Al-rawandi in full flow.

Other comments by Steve Zara: 5398
Other Comments by Al Rawandi: 4185

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196763 by Frankus1122 on June 20, 2008 at 12:18 pm

txpiper,
You have presented evidence that some areas were flooded in the past.
And...



And someone needs to close a /strong> thingy.

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196644 by Frankus1122 on June 20, 2008 at 9:25 am

Jethro,
I understand what you are trying to say.
We can't know everything, or we don't know everything, and you would like to fill in what we don't know with faith in Something. We don't or can't know what that Something is.
You believe It is something benevolent.(I'm guessing).
Do you also believe It intervenes in the functioning of the universe?
If you do, you have no evidence for this and no real justification for assuming this is so.
If God is something that set everything in motion and now sits back and watches, you are free to believe this. It really does no harm.
It is as if He is not there at all. You can believe that He is and we can believe He isn't. It in no way alters how we go about investigating the universe.
Once people believe god is such and such a way and wants people to behave in such and such a way we run into problems.
If God is unknowable then we can't know what S/he thinks or wants. You can believe that S/he wants us to be good and nice to each other but once you start acting on beliefs that are unfounded you open the door to all sorts of unfounded beliefs.
I think it is better act as though there is nothing judging or desiring us to behave in particular ways. It is tougher, but we are ultimately responsible for how we act during our life.

82. Teen's death blamed on faith healing

Comment #196505 by Frankus1122 on June 20, 2008 at 4:12 am

Barry Pearson,
I just skimmed through your 'religions are hobbies' writings.
High five for Barry Pearson.
I am going to think on this further. It sounds like a promising idea.
I have one not-fully-thought-out thought: hobbies are generally seen as secondary to your main work whereas religion plays a central all-consuming role in the life of some practitioners.
But I know a guy who is consumed by his passion for model trains. It is what he lives for. And many people are only nominally religious.
I like your hobby idea.
Most hobbiest do not believe that everyone in the world should share in their passion. If you are a stamp collector and decide to take up photography the stamp collectors do not label you as an apostate and try to kill you.

83. Teen's death blamed on faith healing

Comment #196500 by Frankus1122 on June 20, 2008 at 3:56 am

The law should be applied equally to all.
The law ought to be based on reality, not made-up beliefs. Generally, the law tries to be reasonable. This precludes a lot of religious belief and practice.

In Canada there was some controversy a while back about Sihks carrying kirpans (ceremonial daggers) in school. The Supreme Court said students were allowed to wear kirpans in school because it was reasonable to accommodate this religious practice.
In Denmark they said the opposite.
I don't think a student should be allowed to carry a knife to school.
I don't care what his made-up beliefs are. They are made-up.
The law should apply equally to all.
Or Rastafarians should be allowed to smoke pot wherever and whenever they want and I start growing dreads tomorrow :)

84. Teen's death blamed on faith healing

Comment #196368 by Frankus1122 on June 19, 2008 at 8:03 pm

their defense attorneys have indicated that they will use a religious freedom defense.

Good. I hope the courts deal with this as it should be dealt with.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer.

Because the idea that prayer works is so incredibly and demonstrably stupid, there is a law against it.
This is significant in my view.
There is a law that basically says, 'prayer does not work'.
I like the law. The law, generally deals with real things. It weeds out bullshit.
If only there could be more laws that prevent the harmful effects of religious belief.

Although I am not quite sure. I am for as much personal freedom as possible. However, I also think that certain laws that curtail my personal freedom benefit society as a whole.

Perhaps joining a religion should be something that you are only allowed to do once you have reached the age of majority. That and mandatory religious studies education ala Dan Dennett.
I like that idea.
(Frankus high fives himself).

Imagine that you have to register your religion when you turn 18 or 21 or whatever. Maybe you would have to write a test of some kind indicating that you are aware that you are willfully leaving the realm of justified rational thought.

85. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196363 by Frankus1122 on June 19, 2008 at 7:41 pm

fizhburn,

Another example is the ways in which we can be aware of what parts of our brains influence decision-making.

Antonio Damasio has written some interesting books on this subject:

Damásio's most recent book, Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain, was published in 2003. In it, Damásio explores philosophy and its relations to neurobiology, suggesting that it might provide guidelines for human ethics.

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

As for all this dieting talk: stop making me feel guilty. Bikini season is fast approaching and I dread it.
Semi-seriously, I am impressed that Shayne Dark has lost 40 lbs.! It is inspiring actually.
School will soon be over and I head out of the city for the summer. No internet access :(
We'll see how I do in the weight dept.

Goldy, I am thinking of brewing my own beer this summer. I know it is not good for the gut (the shape of it anyway).
Chili-chocolate? I like both those things.
Recipes?

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196095 by Frankus1122 on June 19, 2008 at 9:38 am

mixmastergaz,
I also have a few minutes before class starts.
A friend gave me a CD she made called 'Pure Evil'.
I'll PM you the song list later.
It's in my car right now.

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196085 by Frankus1122 on June 19, 2008 at 9:25 am

Jethro,
Type morals and evolution into Google.

Here is an interesting article by Steven Pinker:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?ref=magazine

Replace the {} with <> and your blockquotes will work.

I understand where you are coming from. In some sense there is no harm to believe that there is an intelligence that binds the universe together. Everything was squished together at some point and perhaps there is some mysterious trace of a connection between all things.
If you want to believe this, fine. It could be an area to investigate scientifically. To speculate on the ultimate nature of the universe is cool.
If believing this causes you to behave in a decent manner then, again, I say it's okay. (You now have my official approval :) )
However, if you have no way of knowing what you believe is true there could be serious problems. If your unsubstantiated belief trumps empirical knowledge, you again run into potential serious problems. Sharon's "good religion' question relates to this.
Sorry, I gotta go.

88. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196062 by Frankus1122 on June 19, 2008 at 9:05 am

Podaar,

My friends and I used to use Bible and Book of Mormon pages for rolling paper.

Tobacco of course ;)

Again with the similarities! Stop it. You are freaking me out man.

I actually did not have the Book of Mormon. I did go to a Catholic high school and I had a locker full of Bibles. I would steal them from other students. I figured God couldn't punish me for wanting more of His holy Word. How could God send me to hell for stealing a bible?

89. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195935 by Frankus1122 on June 19, 2008 at 4:19 am

Irate,

That will be £50 please, Used fivers with non-sequential serial numbers for preference.

I don't have any 'fivers'.
Would a sack full of 'loonies' do?

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

90. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195930 by Frankus1122 on June 19, 2008 at 4:00 am

Irate, Styrer, and Brian,

Thanks for giving me a good laugh. A nice way to wake up. Because of you my whole family is up now. Well, my loud laughter because of you is the reason.
Anyhow, Irate, I wish I could have a bout of insomnia and produce such a fine post. (The self-congratulatory praise of atheists is an irksome thing to DR so I like to indulge).

If DR responds at all you can be sure it will be with the shallow picayune nature of all his posts.

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195784 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Fizhburn

probably Sobel's is better technically and more nuanced since it treats many arguments in specific, but more difficult, since it's "addressed to philosophers and theologians"

I took symbolic logic with him. He really knew his stuff but he was difficult to follow. I think he had an accident that damaged a part of his brain. He would begin a proposition and then get caught in a series of "um-um-um-um-um.....". It would go on for a really long time, my mind would wander off and then he'd continue with the rest of the argument while I scrambled to refocus.
I didn't do very well in that class. :-(

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195765 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 7:04 pm

fizhburn,

I teach philosophy, so I see this mistake a lot.

So I guess when I suggested that college primer on logic it wasn't exactly what you were looking for?

2.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.



To try to redeem myself slightly:
I recommended a book to MPhil by my old logic professor. I noticed he suggested David Robertson read it. I have only read parts of it:

Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195749 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Brian,
Don't worry aboot it. (Canadian phonetical spelling).
PM for you.

Fizhburn:
Dunning-Kruger.
Not quite the in your face flame of Diacanu or Rev. Dark but: Ouch!

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195744 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Podaar:
I've taken Brian's advice.
PM for you.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195735 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Before I leave, do any of you have any prayer requests?

You should pray for yourself. Look deep inside and ask some real questions. 'What if all those people are right and I am not living up to the gifts god has given me?''Is this really the best I can do?'"Please god, help me come up with something, anything to help prove you exist."
You may read something that challenges your views and ask honest questions of yourself.

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195729 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Podaar, what the hell are you doing to 'our' face?

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195680 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Frankus1122

Proved my point.

No. I did not.

It seems apparent that this discussion is way over your head.

Could you please outline the logical steps it takes to get to the designer?
I really am that stupid.
Please. For the love of God man! My eternal soul depends on you. Please. Please.

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195667 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 4:50 pm

RtG

"What does it imply, when in a discussion, people resort to critiquing someone on their spelling and grammer."

I think you meant "grammar".

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195665 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 4:49 pm

RtG

You accept an unproven inference to the Evolution of life but refuse to use logical reasoning that a designer exists.

Could you help me with this? Could you take me through the steps because I am not very smart. Outline the argument. Just for me. Pleeease.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195655 by Frankus1122 on June 18, 2008 at 4:37 pm

RtG,
I am on the fence here.
These atheist don't have a leg to stand on but there seems to be a reticence on your part to directly answer the challenge from Brian English.
It makes you look unsure.
Could you make a case for a designer?
As you say there are a lot of people watching here and it would be so good to get a clear answer.