Page 8 of 8

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:36 pm
by thehipcola
i'm not sure who that insults more..me or him? :lol:

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:17 pm
by Leaf
Who the fuck is Tom?

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:02 pm
by sparks
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

http://www.movie-poster.ws/movies/wallp ... h/yugi.jpg

[19:15] <obscurity> sparks: So just don't read it dude.
[19:16] <sparks> obs: that is totally not the way it works
[19:16] <sparks> gosh

This is an inappropriate Nevada-style intrusion, and I am counting down the hours until someone removes it and yells at me. Still, I feel it necessary at this point in the thread. Have your way with me.


EDIT: I feel like being nice. Just pretend it's there, and understand my sentiment.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:47 pm
by j$
Uhmmm, quoting from IRC is bad form, man ... :P

By the by, I also think we should be given back : P and move the nevada emoticon to replace 'roll eyes' - to me, : P is playful teasing, and nevada is more 'shut the fuck up already' ... but I remember less-than-fondly the days of enormo pictures fucking my dial-up connection, so maybe it's just me ... : P

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:05 pm
by roymond
911 operator: calm down and just try and describe what's happening

J$: it's...enormo pictures fucking my dial-up connection, man...arghhhhh!!!!

911: sir...sir...are you there?

J$: N---E-E-E-E-E---V---A-A-A-A---D---A-A-A-A-A-A-A

vox: Your call cannot go through as dialed. Please hang up and try again. If you need help, hang up and dial 0, or stay on the line...Your call cannot go through as dialed. Please hang up and try again. If you need help...

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:42 pm
by deshead
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intel ... index.html

What must it feel like to be told by a judge that you're breathtakingly inane?

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:12 pm
by mico saudad
Probably about the same as it felt to be voted out of office en bloc.

It took me hours and hours but I read through all of the transcripts of this court case - "breathtaking inanity" is an understatement.

What thread on "intelligent design...."

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:24 pm
by anti-m
....would be complete without a link to the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster??

(Apologies if someone already linked here... I didn't exactly rake through the previous posts with a fine-toothed comb before foolishly posting)

http://www.venganza.org/

Creationism! Pirate costumes! Global Warming! "His Noodly Appendage!"

Amen.

Re: What thread on "intelligent design...."

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:52 am
by boltoph
anti-m wrote:....the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster??
His day is coming!

Monkey-men, all the way...

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:28 pm
by jack
i thought this was a pretty fascinating interview with francis collins, founder of the human genome project and hardcore atheist-turned christian.

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:15 pm
by roymond
jack wrote:i thought this was a pretty fascinating interview with francis collins, founder of the human genome project and hardcore atheist-turned christian.
He's a man of pretty convenient faith. Seems he'll take whatever fits his view of the world ("oh, only the obvious is literal, the rest is allegory"). I respect his approach and all, but I don't get how spiritual existence need be separate from nature? Is it not natural to have such spiritual experiences? The super-natural is a label we apply to things we can't grasp. But it is a natural phenomenon. Why does it need to be excused from rational understanding, and given a free pass, thereby justifying "faith based" existence? I don't see why we can't one day achieve significant understanding of spiritual concepts, just as we now understand the human genome (or some of us, anyway).

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:04 pm
by jack
roymond wrote:
jack wrote:i thought this was a pretty fascinating interview with francis collins, founder of the human genome project and hardcore atheist-turned christian.
He's a man of pretty convenient faith. Seems he'll take whatever fits his view of the world ("oh, only the obvious is literal, the rest is allegory"). I respect his approach and all, but I don't get how spiritual existence need be separate from nature? Is it not natural to have such spiritual experiences? The super-natural is a label we apply to things we can't grasp. But it is a natural phenomenon. Why does it need to be excused from rational understanding, and given a free pass, thereby justifying "faith based" existence? I don't see why we can't one day achieve significant understanding of spiritual concepts, just as we now understand the human genome (or some of us, anyway).
while neither advocating or condoning his position, i just thought it was interesting to see how a completely scientific mind comes to accept something so unscientific as religion. pretty convenient faith maybe but i'd say that's true of most of us. i 'd consider faith to be pretty personal and unconventional and as far as i'm concerned fitting of my view of the world, the only one i know. i personally think the bible is a combination of observation and allegory, or fact and fiction if you like, considering the 4 gospels are written from interpretations from 4 different people after the fact. i thought the point he made about humans having this inate sense of right and wrong and wanting to do the right thing, including sacrificing their own life (and their species ability to propagate) has no scientific reasoning in fact.

maybe someday an explanation will be found for this too. at least you seem to have faith that it might happen :)

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:18 am
by Adam!
Dr. Francis S. Collins wrote:..."Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Lewis had been an atheist [and] set out as I did to convince himself of the correctness of his position and accidentally converted himself. I took the book home, and in the first few pages realized that all of my arguments in favor of atheism were quickly reduced to rubble by the simple logic of this clear-thinking Oxford scholar.
The trouble with "Mere Christianity" is it assumes the reader (or listener) believes in the existence of a universal set of ethics. If you don't, the rest of the essays will not do much for you.

And sadly, in trying to prove a universal ethical standard exists he falls for the good ol' argumentum ad nazium:
C. S. Lewis wrote:If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others.

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:31 am
by Sober
This week's Southpark was pretty great, tbc wednesday.

Direct link to entire episode

God I love TV Links.

Perfect episode for this discussion.