This is the epitome of You Rage You Lose. You won't make it to part seven. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcvBSsJJVYI&feature=related

File: 17 KB, 300x300, wendywright.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:45:02 2010 No.1903021 [Reply] [Original]

This is the epitome of You Rage You Lose.

You won't make it to part seven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcvBSsJJVYI&feature=related

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:47:02 2010 No.1903027 >>1903021 Not even going to open this. I remember this bitch from her debate with Richard Dawkins. Superficial, condescendingly nice bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:48:34 2010 No.1903029 >>1903027 this is that video

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:49:02 2010 No.1903030 I made it 1 minute 40 seconds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:51:02 2010 No.1903034 >>1903029 Well then you win OP, this is certainly the epitome of you rage you lose. Fuck I raged before you even made this post.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:51:02 2010 No.1903035
File: 131 KB, 290x295, What the hell bitch.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is his face during that debate. I'm no good at reading faces, but I like to interpret that as bewilderment at her arguments and a mild disbelief at her pronunciation of "creator."

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:52:02 2010 No.1903041 >>1903035 you mean "cre-A-TOR"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:52:02 2010 No.1903042 >>1903035 I_can't_believe_she_said_that.png

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:55:02 2010 No.1903049 File: 16 KB, 281x211, chaunceywhat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903035 A-WIGGITY WIGGITY WUUUUUUUUT

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:55:02 2010 No.1903050 wow, I am raging. I'm gonna try for all 7 though.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 02:59:34 2010 No.1903059 [DELETED]

>wendy asks for evidence
>dawkins presents evidence
>wendy refutes evidence
>dawkins shits his pants and changes the subject
>wendy keeps trying to bring up evidence issue
>dawkins can't come up with anything so he says "LOL theres tons of evidence read a book"

seriously, richard dawkins lost that debate regardless of whether or not he was right

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:01:02 2010 No.1903068 >>1903021 You cannot win, unless you're theist, or really, really cynical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:01:02 2010 No.1903071 File: 178 KB, 250x182, 1285110911462.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903059

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:02:02 2010 No.1903073 >>1903059 He actually states lots of evidence over the course of all of these. Just not right away on the first one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:05:02 2010 No.1903082 i quit when i heard her say the word "censor"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:07:30 2010 No.1903090 >>1903071 not a troll, just an objective observer

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:09:02 2010 No.1903097 Half way through all 7. About ready to put my fist through my screen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:09:02 2010 No.1903098 what's richard dawkins major?

>>	Implying Sat Oct 16 03:12:02 2010 No.1903107 >>1903021 >a pig's tooth, previously thought to belong to a prehistoric man, contradicts evolution! What the fuck is this woman thinking?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:13:48 2010 No.1903112 >>1903107 she's a master troll. It's the only logical explanation

>>	Implying Sat Oct 16 03:14:02 2010 No.1903118 Haha oh man I LOVE the way Dawkins says "oh really?" after Right (what a misnomer of a last name...) claims there is no evidence for macro-evolution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:14:02 2010 No.1903120 Oh fuck this. Not epitome or rage but damn close.

>>	Implying Sat Oct 16 03:16:02 2010 No.1903129 ...and I lost when she started talking about DNA. Godfuckingdammit

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:26:02 2010 No.1903156 i haven't studied biology much, so i really don't understand what he's saying, but if he says it's fact then i guess it's fact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:27:02 2010 No.1903161 >>1903156 Not to sound like a bitch, but it's that kind of reasoning that makes religious types so idiotic. You shouldn't just assume Dawkins is correct; confirm for yourself!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:30:02 2010 No.1903172 >>1903098 >PhD. in evolution >Any geuss he wants >Any meme he want

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:33:02 2010 No.1903192 love it when he says evilution

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:43:02 2010 No.1903239 >>1903156 yes, please. take all science says with a pinch of salt. See the data for yourself!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:48:02 2010 No.1903254 File: 49 KB, 447x380, 1270480783890.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm just halfway part 3. Fists clenced in rage, this woman just WONT LISTEN.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:51:02 2010 No.1903263 I love how he calls him close-minded, and his reaction to it. "Uh-huhh...." ahahaha... What a dumb whore man, fuck her.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:53:02 2010 No.1903271 File: 9 KB, 328x229, ofo5g4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] She telling Richard fucking Dawkins to "Open his eyes to the truth" made me rage harder than I did all month. GEORGE IS GETTING UPSET

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:54:02 2010 No.1903273 >>1903021 Richard Dawkins is a gentleman and scholar.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 03:58:02 2010 No.1903282 I raged when I saw her face.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:02:02 2010 No.1903287 Somebody get her in my house and I would murder her in cold blood.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:04:02 2010 No.1903304 I can't even fucking watch it. I get 15 seconds in (before the "debate" even begins) but I just can't go any further.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:07:02 2010 No.1903312 :18 seconds. Fuck, just the way she looks pisses me off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:14:02 2010 No.1903333 I had to shut it off around 1:30. I am weak.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:21:02 2010 No.1903345 I could only last 90 seconds before I started getting acid reflux.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:22:02 2010 No.1903349 woah She went full retard around 3:10

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:26:02 2010 No.1903363 FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:27:02 2010 No.1903366 I remember popping 5 diphenhydramine pills and watching the whole fucking thing in one sitting a few months ago. I now pronounce evolution as "ee-voh-lu-shun". LIMBS FELT HEAVY MAN

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:31:02 2010 No.1903378 oh no she didn't. Today i shat rage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:32:02 2010 No.1903380 I want to punch her. I want to punch her so bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:36:02 2010 No.1903388 >>1903021 This should have been a you laugh you lose 'cause I'm rolling. She just called this man of reason closed minded. She also talks incessantly, and without evidence while also talking over her opponents' evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:40:02 2010 No.1903390 >>1903021 I accept your challenge. Been meditating lately so I might make it. Wish me luck. I'm goin' in...

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:43:02 2010 No.1903392 >>1903390 NOOO! COME BACK! THERE IS STILL TIME!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:44:02 2010 No.1903396 Went through all 7 parts. Holy shit this women is a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:45:02 2010 No.1903397 >>1903390 I'm with you on this. I doubt I'll rage, the outcome is pre-determined here. One cannot convince this type of person. She well studied is winning a losing argument. It's basically troll science here.

>>	L !!619LGdsXINO Sat Oct 16 04:45:02 2010 No.1903400 I can only imagine Richard's rage during this interview...

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:47:02 2010 No.1903401 >>1903400 I would have liked it if, after one of her idiotic responses, he just stared at her for a while and then walked out without saying a word, with maybe a quiet chuckle.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:51:02 2010 No.1903403

>>1903400
Idk I think I agree with the other anon, it's bewilderment.
Perhaps he has a hard time believing that this person thinks as she does.

She relies on emotional arguments when the evidence does not support her position and cherry-picks evidence when faced with a pseudo-emotional counter argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 04:56:02 2010 No.1903406 File: 47 KB, 480x352, TacticalFacepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Watch Part 1 >Get to 2:50 >Stop watching >Rage >Lose Can I get the tl;dr version from the individuals brave enough to watch the entire interview?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:00:02 2010 No.1903412

OK, I'm not really raging, but if smugness could strip the paint off the walls, the two of them would be standing in a barren ruin by the end of the video. I was disappointed that Dawkins didn't rattle off a list of transitional forms (such as the very nice sequence available for whales and horses) and just said "it's in the DNA". As for her, she seems to believe that the fact that scientists can sometimes be wrong is some sort of fatal weakness. She has no concept of the importance of falsifiability in science. I don't think science would actually be possible if it had to meet her standards.

>>	FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs Sat Oct 16 05:01:02 2010 No.1903413 I would totally rip that woman's vagina a new one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:05:02 2010 No.1903421 wow part 2 gets like really REALLY bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:06:02 2010 No.1903422 File: 16 KB, 290x295, cre_a-tor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903042 >>1903041 >>1903035 You mean like this

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:07:02 2010 No.1903423

>>1903401
Yea, she's just a pre-programmed talking head.
She has clearly memorized her arguments and counters, how to get out of tight spots and such.

I am thinking of a few methods to use in a small chat bot app. There would be a large set of escape arguments in a mix file to combine with the points she anchors on. So we start with a routine that states the anchor then waits for a response. We will need a broad set of keys that point to mix arguments. The routine will read the response for a keyword or two and select a mix argument, state it, then restate the anchor.
Finally, we set another routine going that reads for appeals to logic or emotion and interrupts the main to switch the table to emotional mix arguments or logical mix arguments; whichever is the opposite of the detected.
Sounds doable I think. I'll post this if I tap anything out. If I can model her behavior accurately, this may be useful for side by side comparison.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:09:02 2010 No.1903425 >>1903422 Needs to say O RLY? He says that several times when she states some new nonsense.

>>	★★★★☆ Wendy Wright Sat Oct 16 05:10:02 2010 No.1903427 I like this woman, she's a fantastic debater, she's alright.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:12:02 2010 No.1903431 Lmfao! Part 5 - 5:30 "would hate to suggest that you take orders from authority" ..."Read a book". Too funny man, too funny.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:12:02 2010 No.1903432 File: 14 KB, 290x295, dawkins_orly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903425 Better?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:13:02 2010 No.1903435

<span class="math">Yea, she's just a pre-programmed talking head.
She has clearly memorized her arguments and counters, how to get out of tight spots and such.

I am thinking of a few methods to use in a small chat bot app. There would be a large set of escape arguments in a mix file to combine with the points she anchors on. So we start with a routine that states the anchor then waits for a response. We will need a broad set of keys that point to mix arguments. The routine will read the response for a keyword or two and select a mix argument, state it, then restate the anchor.
Finally, we set another routine going that reads for appeals to logic or emotion and interrupts the main to switch the table to emotional mix arguments or logical mix arguments; whichever is the opposite of the detected.
Sounds doable I think. I'll post this if I tap anything out. If I can model her behavior accurately, this may be useful for side by side comparison.[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:13:02 2010 No.1903436 >>1903427 bit of a moron but yes. Great at debate, at least in the public eye. She would have made the tobacco companies proud. In the public eye, she cannot lose.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:14:02 2010 No.1903438 Her name should be Wendy WRONG, not Wendy Wright! HAR HAR HAR

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:14:02 2010 No.1903440 Actually her point about teaching controversy is correct. Science requires the consideration of alternative theories. The problem is her alternative theories are bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:14:02 2010 No.1903441 >>1903435 lol anyone else see this as italics on one line? I typed it but how it turned out like that, I do not know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:16:02 2010 No.1903446 >>1903435 What the fuck

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:17:02 2010 No.1903448 >>1903441 OMG YOU SEE IT TOO! It... says you used a <span class="math"> tag. Unrelated, but my captcha is "away, macephey". "Away, McAfee?" I just uninstalled McAfee today.[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:18:02 2010 No.1903450 >>1903448 Oh right. If I spell out [math\|], it will think I'm using the math tag too.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:18:02 2010 No.1903451

>>1903440
Yes, except that she will use that to make it look like She is right and He is wrong and therefore you should believe everything she says and disregard what he says.

This is in essence, the form of debate demonstrated during the argument over tobacco in the US. I'm not sure what we call that but her methods bring it to mind.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:20:02 2010 No.1903458

OMFG the part where she claims that communism is the result of atheist darwanistic thinking and claims that communism itself is responsible for more deaths than all of human history combined. Communism doesn't kill people bitch. Communist dictators kill people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:21:02 2010 No.1903460 >>1903448 >>1903450 That's cool but I didn't bracket anything. Not sure how tags work here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:22:02 2010 No.1903463 >>1903458 Lol he rage. Anyone else make it to part 6? Still going here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:24:02 2010 No.1903466 what a cunt she can[t evn oherent argumentsl id jut cant just shut her donw unntillllll ie dakkkrins fuck these benzos are ardcore. my point is that ive never made it past part 1.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:28:02 2010 No.1903474 .... How can she... fuck it I'm done. The only thing that can break this woman is a brick. To the face. Preferably by me.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:28:02 2010 No.1903475

>>1903440
In my opinion, here's where her idea of "teaching the controversy" fails:

1) She claims that science has become the cloistered discipline where only scientists are allowed to contribute (derp).

2) She then claims that there is a scientific controversy to be taught.

These two points are *mutually exclusive*. If Point 1 is true, then the controversy clearly doesn't belong in a science class (perhaps a civics class or something), because scientists themselves aren't in substantial disagreement when it comes to evolution, by her own apparent admission.

Moreover, I'd like to ask her where would you stop "teaching the controversy"? Should any alternate theory be taught in a science course? Electric Universe? Timecube? Where would the crackpottery end?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:31:02 2010 No.1903482

>>1903466
lol on part 7 here.
He does shut her down a couple few times.
She laughs and restates her programed response routine.
When faced with facts she appeals to emotions.

I could not do this with someone like her. I'd rage hard IRL, but this is kinda lulzy in just how clear her methods are. There's no way she can actually believe what she spouts.

I wonder how much she gets paid for this.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:36:02 2010 No.1903495

Part 7 6:25 - shows exactly what shes getting at.

We want everyone to believe that evolution did not happen because if they think God instantly created them they are more likely to unquestioningly follow our moral laws.

Made it to the end. Kinda lold a few times.

9/10 for a decent IRL troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:36:02 2010 No.1903496 Guys, hit pause at 6:08. Her face is so derp. Still haven't lost control, gonna try for all the parts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:39:02 2010 No.1903502 >>1903482 >I wonder how much she gets paid for this. Probably somewhere in the upper 6 figures or low 7 figures. In other words way more than pretty much any academic researcher.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:46:02 2010 No.1903516 File: 54 KB, 263x232, ohgod1287147057244.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903502 OK, now rage mode has been activated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 05:50:02 2010 No.1903519 Wow. I raged instantly. Teach the fucking controversy??? Sure. The Stephen Jay Gould club vs Richard Dawkins club debate. That's the only controversy. RAGE.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:00:02 2010 No.1903533 saw every part. At first i was FUUUUUUUU RAGEEEEEEEE Then i was ...r-r..age faint And then i was lol animals can talk :D

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:00:02 2010 No.1903534 Now normally when I see Richard "Dick" Dawkins. I immediately side with his opponent but as soon as this woman opened her mouth the world went white with rage and I heard sweet music as a defense mechanism against the stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:01:02 2010 No.1903536 >>1903427 -99/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:01:02 2010 No.1903538 >>1903534 why hate dawkings?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:03:02 2010 No.1903539 FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU- I HATE IGNORANCE SO MUCH!

>>	Some guy !!ol+h8NWQmI+ Sat Oct 16 06:03:02 2010 No.1903540 >>1903412 He talked about evilutionarily links in part 7.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:14:02 2010 No.1903555 70 minutes she talks about how the evidence for both sides needs to be presented and she never does say what any of that evidence is. what is wrong with people?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:15:02 2010 No.1903556

>>1903538
He comes off as very intelligent but not very wise. He knows what he is talking about and his ideas are sound but he wields them like a club and only reaches the ears that are already receptive to the message. He lacks the ability to land the single strike that breaks through the defenses and liberates one to take in new ideas. So when he talks I feel like a lot of people who might agree if they really listed just have their shell of rhetoric and dogma hardened.

As a scientist he's fine.
As an author and public figure he inspires rage for only widening the gap that already exists between two camps that don't need any help fostering mutual hostility.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:22:02 2010 No.1903563 >>1903556 Huge fan of Dawkins but I agree with this. Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:25:02 2010 No.1903571
File: 34 KB, 350x294, 1240026057350.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1903536
valid, deal w/it

>>1903436
She is very responsive to Richard's debate, elaborate in explanation, robust in elaboration and concise in being contrary. Her skill exposes not only flaws in evolution but also flaws in 'evolutionist's' character (instantaneous identifies Dawkin's shortcomings i.e. the <span class="math">argumentum[/spoiler] <span class="math">ad[/spoiler] <span class="math">hominem[/spoiler]).

She IS NOT a moron. Her prowess spills out from her encounter with Dawkins and also overwhelms this group of repliers/posters who prioritize desperate attempts to associate her being and character with 'trolldom' by repeated indulgence in ridicule when they could just let 'haters hate' and actually learn some science.

I think the real truth in this case is self evident despite the immature redundant idiosyncrasies provided here and, more than likely, elsewhere.

come at me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:31:02 2010 No.1903579 Hah, Dawkins got owned. He couldn't show any evidence when asked. And this was not the only time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG4Kji-u28

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:33:02 2010 No.1903587 File: 56 KB, 512x512, trollface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903579

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:35:02 2010 No.1903589 >>1903021 I lost 5:00 in

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:40:02 2010 No.1903596 File: 7 KB, 400x259, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I hate people like this dumb bitch. Too bad they are the majority of humans...

Master Debater !!jAFwbRQvInm Sat Oct 16 06:40:02 2010 No.1903597
File: 40 KB, 499x444, roflbot-9otP[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"I find it quite demeaning to claim that we don't know about evolution when we've all been to the museums"

How can....I mean what....how does she even.....
FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:42:02 2010 No.1903602 File: 108 KB, 255x256, Herp wendy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I think epitome of derp works better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:49:02 2010 No.1903615 >>1903082 this. when she pulls out the conspiracy card, you should know she is batshit insane.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:52:02 2010 No.1903626 i lost SOOO hard when she started talking about how she values worthless people that contribute nothing(such as blacks) at 9:00

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:52:02 2010 No.1903627 File: 36 KB, 430x311, 1215386319781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903587

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 06:58:02 2010 No.1903642 File: 98 KB, 1053x594, chrome - 20101016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903615 why is that? recaptcha: government yeasou

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:01:02 2010 No.1903656

>>1903579
Dawking lost like anyone would lose arguing with a theist.
Sometimes i think that am being unreasonable when arguing with theists cause they are being so sure,and i question myself.
Then i see Dawkins doing no better than me or any rational person,then i was convinced that theists =/= logic,in any form.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:03:02 2010 No.1903665

>>1903563
I also think some people have picked him out as a role model and while he can't control that his bad habits sometimes rub off on people. Rather than one very public sub-par (I'm calling as I see it) guru you have many students of that guru who are bad representatives of atheism but without the scientific background behind what they say that Dawkins has. (There is a reason the student of the zen master got his hand chopped off when he taught in his masters fashion without understanding the lesson his master was teaching)

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:04:02 2010 No.1903666 Dawkins sucks as arguing.I agree with him but seriously, he should probably let someone else do the talking.

>>	「柊つかさ」 Hiiragi Tsukasa Fanatic !WAIFU/dHfg Sat Oct 16 07:06:02 2010 No.1903672 File: 88 KB, 405x340, 1277490810476.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I was only able to make it to 2:50 in part one. Fucking Bullshit

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:09:02 2010 No.1903679

>>1903556
Have ever argued personally with a theist?
It DOESNT matter who you are or HOW much evidence you've got,An adult theist has already established his mindset,no turning back.
No matter how WELL he presented things it wouldn't make a difference to a theist.
He was saying the most simple stuff and she was being an animal,nothing more to say.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:10:02 2010 No.1903681 >>1903563 Dawkins is a bro. I agree with that sensible negro as well.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:11:02 2010 No.1903682

>>1903642
Because instead of providing facts for her statement, she launches into "my facts are being suppressed by a vast pro-Darwin conspiracy." Anyone who plays the I am a victim of a conspiracy card that early in an argument is not worth listening to.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:13:02 2010 No.1903685

Wow ppl actually say that now dawkins sucks at arguing o.O
Am not saying he's the best but...
i think you all missed the part in all the seven videos that a woman was being a FUCKING MORON,like LITERARY.
Its like saying X is not good at arguing because he can't explain quantum mechanics to a fish.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:16:02 2010 No.1903689

>>1903679
You need to listen better.
Watch the videos again and take very detailed notes in order to form a more matured argument or else you can subtract "dult " from your sentence here:
>It DOESNT matter who you are or HOW much evidence you've got,An adult theist has already established his mindset,no turning back.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:18:02 2010 No.1903696 File: 135 KB, 1024x768, 1287227123300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Had to share this it came from /b/urp iloled

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:19:02 2010 No.1903697 >>1903682 Conspiracies depend on subtle and secretive intentions therefore they need to be addressed upfront just as you have done but minus the dismissive part. So yeah, she's not stupid.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sat Oct 16 07:23:02 2010 No.1903704 File: 2.63 MB, 265x208, 1277595683595.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903696 >my face when I almost followed this exactly Minus /adv/

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:25:02 2010 No.1903707 >>1903696 My normal home is nowhere on there

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:26:02 2010 No.1903710 >>1903689 >>1903689 >>1903689 Whats your point. Listen again? Have you ever had a serious debate with a theist?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:27:02 2010 No.1903714 were the fuck is part 2

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:28:02 2010 No.1903716 >>1903697 >>1903697 She is stupid. Either you're a theist or a moron pick one. inb4 "sciencefags arrogant blah" ,go elementary again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:29:02 2010 No.1903720 >>1903710 I have. It is not an impossible task it's just requires a heavy amount of lateral thinking and a subtle touch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:32:02 2010 No.1903724 >>1903710 no, not seriously as in challenging or competitive-like, either they are too misguided to present sophisticated information to or they are too sensible and reasonable that it makes no sense to debate them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:36:02 2010 No.1903733 >>1903697 And the fact that she doesn't provide evidence for a conspiracy...is that an extension of the pro-Darwin conspiracy's power or is it a wholly different conspiracy? maybe we should take this over to /new/

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:38:02 2010 No.1903738 >>1903720 never worked. >>1903724 If you are too reasonable and that is being the problem then the opposing debater has no place in a debate but rather in a zoo.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:40:02 2010 No.1903741

>>1903720
here
>>1903724
neither have I, that would defeat the point of talking to them. If you go out to fight theism you might as well just not bother, argument is not a debate or a fight it is a fluid conversation. I you are antagonistic you just get hostility back, you need to engage them in a way where they do not raise their defenses.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:42:02 2010 No.1903749 >>1903021 its a fucking shame these retards make true conservatives(logical thinking, non-religious) look bad.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:45:02 2010 No.1903755

>>1903741
In a way they dont raise defenses?
You must realize that from the moment a person decides to debate there isn't the slightest possibility of rethinking anything especially if that person is an adult,who already has built his family,his life,his philosophy of life/universe on a religion which he also shares with his community that has a place in it,and all his life which mentioned is built upon.
No matter HOW,WHAT evidence,WHAT debate technique you try its I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:51:02 2010 No.1903775 >>1903716 Well you see that's where your ability to understand gets deformed; I don't have to pick from your imposed limitations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:52:02 2010 No.1903777 >>1903755 On the contrary, it's been known to happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLbTE56HqLE

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:56:02 2010 No.1903788 >>1903755 We define ourselves by that which we bind to. You have made fast to something strong but brittle. Also, I do not debate, I talk to people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 07:58:02 2010 No.1903792 >>1903777 >was he a debater?was he a respected member of Christian community like Wright bitch? He didn't had anything to lose to begin with. Plus he's young.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 08:01:02 2010 No.1903795 >>1903788 Your point?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 08:08:02 2010 No.1903807 I think she is quite attractive

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 08:15:02 2010 No.1903816 >show me the evidence alright, here are evidences x and y >no, show me the evidence uh, again, there's evidence x and y, even z. >no, show me the real evidence i just told you the evidence >no, show me the real evidence

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 08:16:02 2010 No.1903817 A douche arguing with a cunt. both are equally annoying.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 08:23:02 2010 No.1903833

>>1903788
Nobody likes to be debated on their core assumptions about the whole of it all and when they do it's from a position of stalwart defense, people only change radically when they have their world view shattered. So if your looking for that, well too bad because you will never combine words in a way as to slay someone's view of the works with a phrase. What can be done is weakening the dogmatic defenses they build around themselves by engaging them as people not something to be scraped off the bottom of your shoe. When you recognize that their view is not, without merit and respect their opinions you can actually talk about the differences between your views and come to a deeper understanding of the ideas and forces at opposition. This is ultimately more important than trying to brow beat a person into submission with a constant stream of rhetoric and an inflexible mind. That is the point,. Debate is effective for framing the divide but not bridging it, and you must bridge it. It is necessary to reach out to pull someone across.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 08:25:02 2010 No.1903838 I got to 'loving creaTOR' and closed it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 08:51:02 2010 No.1903878 I raged at 2:50 >"There is no evidence of evolution" HURP DE FUCKING DERP

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 08:54:02 2010 No.1903882 File: 90 KB, 589x375, 1274004036083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >my face when nobody takes creationism seriously in my country

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 09:03:02 2010 No.1903885 >>1903882 >>1903882 But takes homoeopathy seriously.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 09:05:02 2010 No.1903887 File: 32 KB, 600x450, Baww.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903885 How do you know?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 09:24:02 2010 No.1903918 File: 16 KB, 400x300, house_religion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Isn't it the proof ? I would love to see her having her teeth crused. :o

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 09:27:02 2010 No.1903922 >Laugh at evidence >Dodge questions and misinterpret fact > Accuse Dawkin's of being aggressive >Lie I'm speechless /sci/. I really am.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 09:28:02 2010 No.1903923 File: 27 KB, 548x422, nurse_ratched1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] cold bitch. that fucking smile. rage. reminds me of nurse ratched from one flew over the cuckoos nest. wow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 09:30:02 2010 No.1903929 >>1903887 Fellow Britfag. I felt like punching the screen whenever she did her "god is amazing, ignore argument smile/smerk".

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 09:55:02 2010 No.1903959 File: 62 KB, 453x603, 1284238635501.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY KREE-AY-TOR!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:03:02 2010 No.1903977 I want to believe that she's trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:10:02 2010 No.1903987 File: 56 KB, 1024x576, ONE_FLEW_OVER_THE_CUCKOOS_NEST-170.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903923 You cold fucking cunt. We just wanna watch the game.

Master Debater !!jAFwbRQvInm Sat Oct 16 10:11:02 2010 No.1903990
File: 48 KB, 225x225, 1266171794067.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

On the other hand, imagine just how hot she must have been at 18.
And also imagine how easy it must have been to get her into bed with something along the lines of: "Isn't it wonderful that we have a loving creator by our side that gives us morals and good values and our *insert other typical American liberal sensibilities here*".
Question is, would you be willing to betray your scientific integrity for a few hours with DAT ASS?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:11:02 2010 No.1903991 >>1903021 >>1903021 >>1903021 lost

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:14:02 2010 No.1903995 >>1903990 >Kill her >Have sex with corpse >win-win

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:21:02 2010 No.1904009 >>1903990 Sleezy Sagan says: "She must have had billions and billions of dicks." "Her vagina is finite, but unbounded."

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:24:02 2010 No.1904013 >Concerned women Stopped there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:25:02 2010 No.1904018 Every thing she does or says is fucking annoying. Crea-TOR

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:30:02 2010 No.1904024 lol Dawkins sure loves the Darwin cock... mind you evolution not a FACT, it is a THEORY hence the title "the theory of evolution" it would be a fact if he could observe the whole of evolution thru time and document every single step of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:35:02 2010 No.1904032 File: 18 KB, 225x309, 225px-GodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1904024 Theory of Universal Gravitation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:38:02 2010 No.1904037 >>1904032 Proved wrong so many times, on technicalities yes but it was proved wrong...

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:42:02 2010 No.1904044

Last night i was drafting (in my head) a paper on how, as a scientist, I feel that Dawkins misses the point completely and just pretends to not understand different points of view just for the sake of his very lucrative trolling business.
This man gives science a bad name and I quite hate him. He is no scientist as he uses the word "FACT" when science is actually "very likely stuff" there is no way to be a 100% certain of anything, every decent scientist knows this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 10:48:02 2010 No.1904054 File: 25 KB, 378x260, 1269447342864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1904037 >>1904024

>>	sluglife !!ZJ1SmZdFA5o Sat Oct 16 11:00:02 2010 No.1904079 >>1904037 >>1904037 9/10 Good rage I'd do it again

>>	Indexer !t1.kaRtHUs Sat Oct 16 11:03:02 2010 No.1904082 >>1904037 >Proven Wrong >Still used and teached

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 11:06:02 2010 No.1904091
File: 13 KB, 363x364, 1282238405767.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1904037
So how about Theory of General Relativity? Never proven wrong. I used Newton's because it's called theory of universal gravitation, gravitation being a FACT everyone is familiar with. Relativity is also a FACT, but it's less obvious.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 11:11:02 2010 No.1904103

>>1904091

The problem with people with you is that you think theories in science are just "lol mass makes gravity lol".

It is the MATHS int he theory that isn't fact. And in fact over the years the formulas become more and more accurate, but NEVER perfect. There is always a marginal error.

Hell, in astrophysics an error margin of under 1000% of a mass is good.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 11:20:02 2010 No.1904127

>>1904103
Wait wait WHAT. I'm very aware that scientific theories are very mathematical. I do realize that the math could be "wrong". But in the domain of applicability it is satisfyingly correct. Newton's theory of gravitation is only wrong for very strong gravitational fields. His laws of motion are only wrong for very high velocities. (NASA still uses Newtonian mechanics.)

Gravitation is a FACT: stuff with mass attracts other stuff with mass. Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a THEORY that provides description and prediction of this FACT. It turns out to agree well the observed facts as long as the gravitation is not too strong. Relativity is a FACT. The theory of relativity is a THEORY about this FACT.

Fact: magnets exists.
Theory: fucking magnets, how do they work?

Fact: evolution.
Theory: fucking evolution, how does it work?

I don't see what your point is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 12:36:02 2010 No.1904288 Part 2. Lost. Period. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 12:46:02 2010 No.1904318 File: 19 KB, 400x297, 1273720531253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903458 ...Wait what? I didn't even see this.... Well. Fuck. Just. Fuck. Shit just went full on retard.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 12:54:02 2010 No.1904348 File: 14 KB, 258x304, roflbot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] FUCK

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:02:02 2010 No.1904382 >>1903412 He did, actually. Watch the second part. The problem is she's batshit crazy and is basically saying if she can't see them, in sequence and in a museum, it's not evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:05:02 2010 No.1904388 File: 256 KB, 630x340, roflbot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] "All you need is to read an elementary textbook of biology, its all there"

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:08:02 2010 No.1904396

>>1904382
To which Dawkins tells her to actually go to a museum and look.

It's like she wants the fossils of every single direct parent lined up with headstones labeling them with that individual animal's name wrapping around the world several times. And even then she'd bitch about the millions of gaps.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:33:02 2010 No.1904468

>>1904382
>>1904396
I actually gather she wants to stare at a monkey until it pops into a human. Anything sort of that is not evidence to her group.

But that's not even the concern here, she doesn't actually believe this shit and she doesn't have to. She gets paid to be right. If you watch how she argues through the whole thing you can see pretty quickly that is will dodge anything that leads the argument into factual grounds.
Her only goal is to never appear to be wrong in front of a camera.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:40:02 2010 No.1904495 >>1904024 Evolution is a FACT The Theory of Evolution is a THEORY know the difference

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:43:02 2010 No.1904503

>>1903435
You could singlehandedly put the Discovery Institute out of business!

I think that Dawkins deserves much credit for not going on a brutal killing spree here. Even Jesus couldn't have sat through what he did and still forgiven her.

> captcha: Aspegren irates
You got it, captcha.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:45:02 2010 No.1904510 >>1904127 This is a good summary of much of science. Fact: X happens. Theory: Fucking X, how does it work?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:52:02 2010 No.1904525 File: 44 KB, 330x281, fauxnews_450.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1903021 FUCK NO I AINT WATCHING THAT SHIT! ID RATHER FUCKING POKE MY EYES OUT THEN WATCH FAUX NEWS. JUST WATCHING THAT NONSENSE LOWERS YOUR IQ!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:54:02 2010 No.1904531 File: 180 KB, 750x600, motivator8540663.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 13:58:02 2010 No.1904538 File: 579 KB, 255x1091, dawkinswrightvertical.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] vertical time guys

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:00:02 2010 No.1904543 3:01 "Where did you study science?" "WELL THATS THE PROBLEM ONLY SCIENTISTS CAN TALK ABOUT EVOLUTION"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:03:02 2010 No.1904552 File: 2.95 MB, 3128x4676, 1286820147928.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] did anybody say fox news?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:03:02 2010 No.1904555 File: 309 KB, 664x507, dawkinstroll.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Problem, creationists?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:04:02 2010 No.1904556 File: 346 KB, 255x1091, dawkinswrightvertical1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OC ftw.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:05:02 2010 No.1904560

>>1904543
"Where did you study math"
"WELL THATS THE PROBLEM ONLY SCIENTISTS CAN TALK ABOUT PI"
"And you want us to give your theory credence because?"
"Because there is legitimate controversy, pi is equal to exactly 3 and most people in the United States prefer to go by the Bible in this convention"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:09:02 2010 No.1904573 NO DAWKINS DON'T DO IT RUN AWAY RIGHT NOW

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:09:02 2010 No.1904574 >>1904552 need one of those for a liberal channel as well, that way I can post both any time someone sources a comment from the media.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:13:02 2010 No.1904588

I jumped ahead about 4:30 in.
"Where is the evidence of evolution from one species to another species? The macroevolution."
"It's in the DNA."
"What you're talking about are commonalities."
I'm pretty sure I ragequit at this point, because my brain has mercifully blocked the rest of the response and replaced it by a thick buzzing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:15:02 2010 No.1904599 >>1904560 *MATHEMATICIANS rather

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:16:02 2010 No.1904603 File: 604 KB, 400x514, 1925_kurt_gödel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1904599 >implying we aren't scientists

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:21:24 2010 No.1904620 File: 32 KB, 255x1091, p7xtpjua.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Should I consider changing my name to Master Debator?

>>	Master Debater !!jAFwbRQvInm Sat Oct 16 14:22:02 2010 No.1904624 File: 32 KB, 255x1091, p7xtpjua.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Should I consider changing my name to Master Debator?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:28:02 2010 No.1904647 I got to her first mention of "creeAY-TORE" and closed the video

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:31:02 2010 No.1904664 >>1904624 lol I like that one. Sums up her whole argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:42:02 2010 No.1904693 EXCUSE ME

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:45:02 2010 No.1904705 Seriously. The way Dawkins fighs and remains calm towards this colossus of a troll.. he is my idol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:47:02 2010 No.1904713 >>1904705 You have to give her credit, trolling someone that hard for that long takes serious endurance and commitment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:49:02 2010 No.1904723 >>1904693 You are excused.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:50:02 2010 No.1904726 File: 414 KB, 616x1024, what-trolls-want-you-to-believe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1904713

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:50:02 2010 No.1904727 >>1904713 Or really really really believe in the shit she does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:50:02 2010 No.1904728 I've made it to six. . . Think I'm going to make it to the end. That lady is very confusing. x_x

Doctor Marmalade Sat Oct 16 14:51:02 2010 No.1904729
File: 28 KB, 640x480, Craazyknuckles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

n't even fucking auwoackuagh
GU-WAU-YIH-GT
I've made the fucking noises
The only thing that has made me madder is the Fox news vs. Mr. Rogers and the Police Brutality videos I've seen
IF IT WEREN'T FOR DAWKIN'S SOOTHING BRITISH NICE MAN VOICE I WOULD'VE BROKEN MY COMPUTER AND BITTEN MY MONITOR

SHE FUCKING LAUGHED AT MY HERO
FUCK THAT WOMAN OO-AU-GIGIT-FA-NANGILG-NNNN

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:52:02 2010 No.1904737 >>1904727 >>1904726 Come on guys, that's stupid. No one could possibly that willfully ignorant. She's an epic troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:54:02 2010 No.1904753 >>1904729Fox news vs. Mr. Rogers Just looked that up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29lmR_357rA OH MY GOD

>>	Master Debater !!jAFwbRQvInm Sat Oct 16 14:54:02 2010 No.1904754 File: 33 KB, 255x1091, 7jl86guc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Another one. Also, I nominate "Read a book" to be an official /sci/ meme.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:55:02 2010 No.1904756

>>1904737

Willfully ignorant?

Look at all the religious people in the world, dude...

This is why I sort of hate people in this world. Two types of people annoy me more than any other: people living in bubbles and naivety, and the other is people who are willfully ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 14:56:02 2010 No.1904760 >>1904754 Billions upon billions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:03:02 2010 No.1904801 >>1904754 I second this

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:08:02 2010 No.1904821 File: 134 KB, 640x2770, Wendy Wright.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Vertical already done.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:08:02 2010 No.1904822

Here's another way I see it;

>My skin, to the majority of people's eyes, is white.
>Show me the evidence.
>Are you blind?
>Show me the evidence your skin is white to our eyes.
>Look at it. If you're colorblind, ask others. If the majority of people see my skin as white, then what else is there to show you, besides going into scientific evidence that you fail to comprehend because the only fucking response I'm going to get is,
>Show me the evidence.

I failed at the end of the first part.

>>	Master Debater !!jAFwbRQvInm Sat Oct 16 15:12:02 2010 No.1904841 File: 56 KB, 255x1091, k8xogfhf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Not enough.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:14:02 2010 No.1904845

>she thinks that because [insertabrahamicreligion] has a book about God, means it proves it is the only God viable due to the scriptures within it.
>doesn't understand that God existed, or rather was created or thought of, before the year 5000 BCE and after the year 1000 CE.
>nothing new.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:18:02 2010 No.1904865 File: 167 KB, 1000x862, 1282501558780.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >she thinks there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to hide evidence against evolution >"surely there must be at least ONE evidence!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:23:02 2010 No.1904882 YOU CAN'T NAME EVEN ONE EVIDENCE, DAWKINS. JUST NAME ONE!!!! This is humorous.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:24:02 2010 No.1904883
File: 22 KB, 124x126, 1286913975927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>lacking material evidence.
>doesn't specify what material evidence to support evolution in her perception is.
>a book written by mankind thousands of years ago is material evidence to her.
>a book written by mankind hundreds to about five years ago is not considered material evidence.

>mfw.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:24:02 2010 No.1904887 File: 63 KB, 400x350, rage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] these religious faggots are either full retards or master trolls pic related, i mad

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:25:02 2010 No.1904891 >>1904821 WOW

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:26:02 2010 No.1904897 >>1904883 Then they bring up the Dead Sea scrolls and shit. Because HERP DERP IT WAS THERE A LONG TIME AGO LETS BELIEVE IT

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:26:02 2010 No.1904898 >>1904821 I like how Part 4 is where Dawkins suddenly realizes he's talking to the intellectual equivalent of a voice mail system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:27:02 2010 No.1904902 Old news. and I did make it to seven. Her maniacal laugh just kills me. Dawkins has so much self-reserve. I would've smacked a bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:28:02 2010 No.1904904 >>1904887 Someone gives her lots of money to troll everyday. There's certainly appeals to me, though I'd probably be disgusted with myself pretty quickly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:28:02 2010 No.1904906 They know we're smarter than them. They know we've studied more. There would be no real loss on their part if they started believing us. WHY CAN'T THEY GET IT

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:31:02 2010 No.1904916 >>1904904Someone gives her lots of money to troll everyday. How do I become a professional troll? Is there a troll school I have to go to or can I just sign up?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:31:02 2010 No.1904917
File: 64 KB, 1072x648, comment.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

For some reason 4chan won't let me post my comment ("Some parts of your comment can't be posted" is the error I get), so please read the pic.

If someone can shed some light on WHY it won't let me post it, I'd appreciate it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:33:02 2010 No.1904922 File: 102 KB, 795x596, oh my.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Where is the evidence? haha got you there, atheists! Pic related, my face when I just realized how evolution sucks!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:34:02 2010 No.1904926 >>1904917 Oh shit moot fucked up the servers again. Has something to do with not liking a specific character, "-" or something

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:36:02 2010 No.1904932

>>1904887
I'd say 99% of them actually believe what they're saying. The other 1% are the people in positions of power within the religious community, and they're using people's faith to do what all good dictators know: mislead the people, teach them only what YOU want them to believe, because true knowledge is power, and you don't want your subject people to have any power now do you?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:38:02 2010 No.1904936
File: 126 KB, 402x500, 234142124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Fucking hell...people were more receptive and open minded when Darwin lived. Our society is clearly devolving.

High ranking members of the Church of England admitted a few years after Darwin published, that it was possible that God could've designed creatures that would eventually evolve into what they are today.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:49:02 2010 No.1904971 File: 8 KB, 263x306, Dr Hovind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] U mad, evolutionists?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:50:02 2010 No.1904973 >>1904916 Get elected.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:52:02 2010 No.1904985
File: 23 KB, 750x599, 1273388767373.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I loved the last part when Dawkins took just a little step back and said evolution would be a beautiful pro-god argument.

These religious people don't see these fascinating things going on everywhere..

OMGOMG PHOTONS ARE CRAZY, PARTICLE OR WAVE WHAT?! THIS IS ACTUALLY REALLY COOL!
-"Bawh its just God"
So boring

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 15:59:02 2010 No.1905017 File: 8 KB, 208x199, 1286099939465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] a bit over 3 minutes.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:00:02 2010 No.1905021

>>1904985
This is why I come down harshly on fellow Christians on this board. I firmly believe God exists, but one cannot argue for it with flawed logic.

Science refines our understanding of the universe, if that does not jive with what I think I know about an infinite, all powerful being then I need to refine what I think.
It is entirely possible for God to exist with our current understanding of the universe and if he does exist then he can take a bit of honest criticism. Nothing is worth believing in if you have to protect it from criticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:11:02 2010 No.1905064 THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN AN ID ACTIVIST IS AN ID ACTIVIST WHO ALSO A FEMINIST. FUCKING KILL YOURSELF YOU USELESS CUNTS. raged @ 1:20

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:13:02 2010 No.1905081
File: 4 KB, 140x134, 1286965127296.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>teach all the controversies and fraudulent information on evolution, but not just that, but also other controversial topics.
>alright then, let's have churches teach the controversial and frauds of the Bible and Christianity, from both points of view and opinions within and outside of Christianity.
>that has nothing to do with teaching the frauds of evolution, and it is also an aggressive tactic to us, and other people's beliefs.

I CAN'T FUCKING STAND THIS SHIT ANYMORE.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:17:02 2010 No.1905096

>>1904985

http://ibastudent.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/100-greatest-quotes-from-fundamentalist-christian-chat-ro
oms/

So much win.

>>1905021

Isn't the role of a deity getting narrower as science progresses? Much like what Dawkins calls the 'God of the Gaps'? Why even hang onto the notion of the existence of a god then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:20:02 2010 No.1905108 File: 8 KB, 304x264, 1278698169755.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Watch part 1 >I have these arguments with noobs all the time >Click part 2 >Look at ops post >You won't make it to part seven. >mfw

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:20:28 2010 No.1905107 If you there is a god is he is the ultimate troll because he lets stupid shit like this happen.

>>	Samefag Sat Oct 16 16:22:02 2010 No.1905119 File: 56 KB, 500x412, 3qo437sQqlee1t54LL5mR7Qso1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Ah. Yes. Well, where did you study science?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:22:02 2010 No.1905123 Did Dawkins ever ask her to present evidence for ID? She was pressing him to present evidence for evolution, Dawkins did so, she said she has not seen it and passed onto the next retarded point. I quit there.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:24:02 2010 No.1905131

>>1905021It is entirely possible for God to exist with our current understanding of the universe and if he does exist then he can take a bit of honest criticism.

You have to admit, it does put a lot of requirements on what "God" is NOT.

>Nothing is worth believing in if you have to protect it from criticism.

WTF is this shit. New ideas always have to stand up to criticism. If Darwin and Wallace thought like that they'd have shelved evolution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:25:02 2010 No.1905134 >>1905123Did Dawkins ever ask her to present evidence for ID? He knows better. If he asked that she'd have pulled out a Bible and not shut up about how wonderful it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:27:02 2010 No.1905141 >>1905119 I actually found that a weak question. You don't have to be a scientist to understand evolution.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:29:02 2010 No.1905148
File: 7 KB, 259x195, super retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1905096
>I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don’t really care how God did what He did. I know He did it.

>If you don't believe exactly what this book says you are closed minded!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:29:02 2010 No.1905150 >>1905141 On the other hand, you have to understand evolution to be a scientist

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:30:02 2010 No.1905153

>>1905131

>WTF is this shit. New ideas always have to stand up to criticism. If Darwin and Wallace thought like that they'd have shelved evolution.

The problem here is that the criticisms of evolution presented by the "evolution is wrong and evil" crowed are retarded, fail basic logic, fail the scientific method and violate the way the observed universe behaves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:31:02 2010 No.1905158 >>1905141 It was in response to her claim that she understood all about evolution, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:33:02 2010 No.1905174 Fucking lost as soon as he met her, rude woman didn't even offer him a seat and made them do the interview standing. WHY

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:33:02 2010 No.1905175 >>1905150 Only scientists should be allowed to teach science, yes. That's what he probably meant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:35:02 2010 No.1905190 >>1905150 That's a very broad, and general statement.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:36:02 2010 No.1905193 >>1905153 ID is fail because it fails to use the scientific method, not because of criticism. Criticism itself shouldn't stop you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:38:02 2010 No.1905202 >>1905134 That would've been the last nail in her coffin. Dawkins could've just said: "You just lost the argument because you're seriously saying bible is a proof of ID. Have a nice day, you retarded fuck." and walked the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:40:02 2010 No.1905209 File: 11 KB, 213x202, 1252891043317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Part 3 8:40 that speech actually made me drop my drink

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:43:02 2010 No.1905220 >>1905209 were you drinking......ice-tea?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:46:02 2010 No.1905242 So uh..... When are we going to build the robots that will eliminate them? I mean, everyone realizes that's the plan, right? Everyone got that memo?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:47:02 2010 No.1905244 >>1905220 iced tea with cranberry juice, thank the Cre A TOR i'm on tile cuz that shit would have stained carpet

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:47:02 2010 No.1905247 >>1905242 Already have plans for a stupid seeking missile.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:48:02 2010 No.1905252 shit, i made it all the way through, but shit dude. That lady makes me want to grill a jackal.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:50:02 2010 No.1905257

>>1905096
>Isn't the role of a deity getting narrower as science progresses?
I think the role of a deity is getting more beautiful as science progresses. Any cheap hypothetical magic man can give you stuff and make "miracles" happen.
Only a God could provide for your every need and look after your development into a useful entity before the universe even began.

>>1905131
>You have to admit, it does put a lot of requirements on what "God" is NOT.
I'm okay with this.

>WTF is this shit. New ideas always have to stand up to criticism. If Darwin and Wallace thought like that they'd have shelved evolution.
I think you misread me. I am saying that God does not require me to kill you for questioning his existence.
If my beliefs are correct, they will hold up to your honest criticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:50:02 2010 No.1905260 File: 11 KB, 270x297, 1257532614565.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Part 4 >do you believe you have a soul? >no, i don't believe in souls >and do you believe handicapped people have souls?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:51:02 2010 No.1905262

>>1905247

Just sayin', we have federal databases with everyone's face and declared religion.

We also have AI that can recognize an individual in a crowd, developed to pick out known terrorists.

...And we have agile, capable robots like Bigdog. Robots you could put guns on.

Just, you know. Just sayin'.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:52:02 2010 No.1905263

>>1905209
Dawkins: Can you point to any positive scientific evidence in favor of creation?
Wendy: I think the fact that DNA DNA shows that each of us are individuals
Dawkins: Yes but they have to be individuals for evolution to work
Wendy: I don't think that's the case

GODFUCKINGDAMMIT BITCH YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION GRARREWARR

I would have punched her face in right here

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:54:02 2010 No.1905267 >>1905257If my beliefs are correct, they will hold up to your honest criticism. Why do you believe something which is not necessary and has no evidence?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:55:02 2010 No.1905271

>>1905262
Thinking too small again, we have predator drones with Hellfire missiles on them already.

All you need is to close your error gap in targeting.
Use satellite laser sound detectors to listen in on suspected targets, as soon as they spout the stupid, vector in the drones.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:57:02 2010 No.1905279
File: 405 KB, 839x900, hkmech.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

All I'm saying is, these people aren't going to vanish just because we think they're ridiculous.

Federal database of photos and declared religions, plus UGVs like Bigdog and PETMAN, UAVs like the MQ-9 Globalhawk, plus "where's waldo" AI for picking out marked individuals in a crowd.....

Give it some thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:58:02 2010 No.1905290 >>1905271 Aerial drones can't get inside buildings. Destroying entire buildings to get at one or even a few marked individuals represents unacceptable collateral damage. Capable ground robots exist. Why not use them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:58:02 2010 No.1905291 >>1905279 >>1905271 Guys guys guys! You don't need facial recognition software, these guys meet in mass in large buildings weekly. All you need is a little serin gas.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 16:59:02 2010 No.1905294

>>1905257

Why do you need a god for reality to be beautiful though? I find the mechanics of the world as we know it pretty amazing even without acknoledging that a divine being put it there. In fact, it is even more beautiful that this could have happened naturally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:01:02 2010 No.1905299 >>1905271 With some kind of combos, the sunday morning (you know in these buildings with a cross). :o

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:01:02 2010 No.1905301 >>1905290 >>1905279 REV UP THOSE ROBOTS BECAUSE I'M READY TO ABOLISH GENE POOL FROM STUPID.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:07:02 2010 No.1905314 >>1903496 Time to make Memes out of this.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:08:02 2010 No.1905318

>>1905267
>Why do you believe something which is not necessary and has no evidence?

Do I have to list the likely factors? Upbringing, the rationale of what you cannot know?
Aside from these things, I believe God exists partially because it is hard to rationalize a meaningless existence and partially because it is the best theory I have for why such philosophical concepts such as Good and Evil, Knowledge, and meaning exist.
On that note, I am willing to be proven wrong; However, that is unlikely given that God is a philosophical concept and science deals with observable concepts.
The fact remains that Jesus did exist and he made some pretty big claims, I see what he did there and like where this is going. At the same time, I balance my beliefs with a dedication to science and rational thinking so if I am wrong, no biggy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:09:02 2010 No.1905319 >>1905271Hellfire missiles The warhead in Hellfire missiles is designed to penetrate armor. Good against armored vehicles, bad against large buildings. Replace it with napalm or some kind of nerve agent and you're onto something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:10:02 2010 No.1905327 >>1905290 Because you can wait for them to walk outside the building and the drones are already up there.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:14:02 2010 No.1905342

>>1905318it is hard to rationalize a meaningless existence

Read up on existentialism. How would a God be capable of giving life meaning? You have to give your own life meaning.

>philosophical concepts such as Good and Evil, Knowledge

Are designed by humans. The God concept adds nothing to good and evil, and take quite a lot away. Knowledge can not be gained through revelation, religion can make no claims to knowledge.

>I see what he did there and like where this is going.

What does that have to do with a belief in God? Plenty of good things were attributed to Socrates but he doesn't have to have existed for those things to still be good.

This Christianity bullshit, seriously stop it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:15:02 2010 No.1905345 >>1905290Destroying entire buildings to get at one or even a few marked individuals represents unacceptable collateral damage. Have you never heard of a "Church"?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:16:02 2010 No.1905348

>>1905294
True, but then again why not. If I adhere to rational thinking and thereby balance by philosophical beliefs such that I do not ignore science and do not force others to believe what I believe then I'm good to go. What we believe about the end should have little effect on how we live day to day. The factors that dictate our behavior in life are there and must be adhered to regardless.
We both are not inclined to believe everything in the a book and as such it makes little difference whether a Deity created the universe or the universe created itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:17:02 2010 No.1905356 >>1905348 Please, just shut up. The video was bad enough.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:19:02 2010 No.1905360 >>1905348 but then again why not >>1905348If I adhere to rational thinking You've already failed to adhere to rational thinking.

>>	Samefag Sat Oct 16 17:28:02 2010 No.1905402 File: 187 KB, 407x393, mfw.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This about sums it up.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:31:02 2010 No.1905424

>>1905342
>seriously stop it.
Stop what answering your questions? You asked, I am responding.
I said from the onset that this is a philosophical manner and as such it is unlikely that we can reach a completely rational conclusion since we lack empirical evidence.
>Read up on existentialism. How would a God be capable of giving life meaning? You have to give your own life meaning.
I have. A deity gives life meaning by anchoring the goals which an individual works toward in life. IE - I create meaning in my life by working to please my god.
>Are designed by humans
From your personally held perspective. From theist's perspective Good and Evil cannot help but to be recognized by humans where good constitutes anything that pleases God and Evil constitutes anything that displeases God.
>Plenty of good things were attributed to Socrates
He never claimed to be God. Had he made such a claim I might have to consider believing in him rather than Jesus.
Additionally, If Jesus existed and If his claims were true then I will have to realize this at some point anyway be it now or after I am dead. At this point i must admit the emotional component inherent in any belief system, I feel that there is a relationship to be had with this Jesus character given that his claims are true I act in pursuit of such a relationship.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:34:02 2010 No.1905435 >>1905360 >>1905356 Leave this thread now if this bothers you. I made an aside which seems to have brought questions upon my belief system. I intend to answer as best I can. This does not, however, imply that I want you to believe as I do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:35:02 2010 No.1905441 I HATE how condescendingly nice she is to him.She talks to him like he's a child.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:38:02 2010 No.1905449

>>1905360
>You've already failed to adhere to rational thinking.
To address your remark:
You imply that choosing a philosophy to adhere to is irrational. There is a completely logical reasoning to picking one. Aside from the benefits most of them claim to have that may or may not exist, one cannot simply wander aimlessly through life if one intends to give life purpose.
You must choose something for your life to be about.
I have chosen to this.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:39:02 2010 No.1905454

>>1905424

>I create meaning in my life by working to please my god.

Isn't it the way a decerebrated slave would do ?

>From theist's perspective Good and Evil cannot help but to be recognized by humans where good constitutes anything that pleases God and Evil constitutes anything that displeases God.

This is the notice for a weak minded slave's life. How can people accept this ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:40:02 2010 No.1905459 >>1905449You must choose something for your life to be about. I have chosen to this. You could pick anything you want to give your life purpose and out of everything you decided "believe in an invisible sky faerie" was the best option?

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:41:02 2010 No.1905463

>Why are atheists so miserable?

Because they cannot rely on a default propose of living.

They must find their purpose on their own, and in doing so they realize that purpose is relative.
Thus, they shift from one purpose to the next, and what is perceived as a "miserable" state of being is their transition from one purpose of living to the next.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:41:02 2010 No.1905464 wendy is dumb as all fuck but on a lighter note she has a sweet pussy, shawn and smooth and she gets wet as fuck, so aint all bad... naw, ur right, its bad... but i still love that pssy

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:41:02 2010 No.1905467 >>1905424good constitutes anything that pleases God and Evil constitutes anything that displeases God. And you know what pleases God because...?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:42:02 2010 No.1905468 I lost...time for a falcoon punch

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:43:02 2010 No.1905474

>>1905360
>>1905449
Additionally, I adhere to rational thinking at the least in how I go about my life. I do not blindly follow an organized religion, I do not aim to force others to believe the way I do or attempt to "save" them from some hell others of my faith have created, I go about my life with a healthy respect for how little I actually know.
In this I don't see the problem, what is it that you think I am losing by believing that Jesus created the universe, through that which we understand in science, and that the ideals he propagated are worth following?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:43:02 2010 No.1905476 >>1905464 Goddammit you just made me picture her retarded cum face. Normal people look retarded when they cum, how retarded would she look?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:45:02 2010 No.1905480 This thread was about cool verticles and graphics making fun of creationists. Now it's about theism and sex. Well done you horny theist assholes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:46:02 2010 No.1905486 Now we discuss how the genocide of Christianity would cut down on world population by 25%, and how much money would be saved.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:46:02 2010 No.1905489

>>1905467
I don't, I know what pleases the people he created. Given that he designed these people, it stands to reason that what pleases them should also please him on some level.

Not being killed by another person for example, pleases most people and therefore god should likely enjoy seeing his creations get along and not kill each other. There are other basics like this and I can add to those the principles Jesus taught.

You guys are just about as hostile as the lady in the vid.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:47:02 2010 No.1905491

>>1905474what is it that you think I am losing by believing that Jesus created the universe

Rational thought. You are coming to a conclusion without reason.

>the ideals he propagated are worth following

The quality of his ideas stand or fail on their own merits. To base the quality of an idea on its origin is either an ad hominem or appeal to authority, a logical fallacy either way. If God told you to do something wrong, he'd still be wrong. If a retard said something correct he's as correct as anyone.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:49:02 2010 No.1905502

>>1905486Now we discuss how the genocide of Christianity would cut down on world population by 25%, and how much money would be saved.

Killing all the Christians and leaving the Muslims would be a BAD BAD thing.

>>1905489 Given that he designed these people

I won't give you that. Evolution "designed" humans and massive amounts of data confirm this.

>You guys are just about as hostile as the lady in the vid.

Should it be surprising given how wrong you are?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:50:02 2010 No.1905505 >>1905459 I decided that Jesus was the best option. The invisible sky fairy is your creation. This is not a hard leap to make guys. You can be rational and pick a philosophy at the same time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:51:02 2010 No.1905510 >>1905505 What is the difference between a 'sky faerie' and your sky daddy in terms of validity?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:53:02 2010 No.1905515 >>1905505You can be rational and pick a philosophy at the same time. No, in order to be both you need to use logic to arrive at your philosophy. Spinning a big wheel and picking a religion is not logic.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:55:02 2010 No.1905527

>>1905474
Well you wouldn't know what you were losing by not expanding your beliefs. You are bound to your beliefs. Clinging to them hoping what people say in your small group on planet earth is correct. So why not go out and learn every possible way of living and find which one really fits the world you want to know. I hardly expect most people, much less you would be willing to seek knowledge for the sake of doing so. Bad ideas get crossed out, many people sporting your argument fail to see this, then go onto explain their way is right because somebody else said so. While people who explore culture, philosophy and science on a regular basis have a ever maturing mind by principle not bound by a book, not bound by anyone else's beliefs, able to deduct what makes sense to them.

You fail on so many levels that I find it hard to believe sometimes anyone like yourself isn't anything but a liar, a troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:56:02 2010 No.1905536 If I had been Dawkins, I'd have been lol'ing at her face through the whole interview. Captcha: certain marmot

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 17:57:02 2010 No.1905546

>>1905491
>coming to a conclusion without reason.
On a topic that cannot be proven. There is no evidence one way or another, I can no more prove a philosophical concept to you than you can disprove it. It will never fucking happen.
Since there is no way to know, you need only pick one or not. The merits of those choices are in the effect they produce in your life.
>To base the quality of an idea on its origin is either an ad hominem or appeal to authority
I base the quality of his philosophy on the effect it has in my life. AKA fucking try it, if you don't like who you become, move to the next one. This is rational.

By your logic I should disregard anything I have not experimented to verify.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:00:02 2010 No.1905557

>>1905546By your logic I should disregard anything I have not experimented to verify.

You certainly shouldn't claim you have absolute knowledge of it. You can live your life by the same values without pretending there is some sky daddy watching you. The only thing pretending to believe in a sky daddy does is encourage religious fanatics to take over politics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:05:02 2010 No.1905583 Disregarding the pointless theist dabatOR, you all should watch this must-see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:05:02 2010 No.1905584 File: 202 KB, 255x1340, homoerectus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:09:02 2010 No.1905607 >>1905583 reminiscent of the "bananaman" ray comfort captcha: humanity exectont

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:10:02 2010 No.1905617 >>1905583 I just raged harder

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:11:02 2010 No.1905622

>>1905557
You should concern yourself with the fanatics then. I claim no absolute knowledge of anything. I claim only that I have observed positive effects to following Jesus' philosophy and it follows that I should consider his claims if I follow his philosophy.

You on the other hand seem to claim that lacking evidence is absolute knowledge that God does not exist.
I don't care if you believe that my god exists, I just want you to see that one does not have to surrender all rational thought to prescribe to a philosophy.

>>	Samefag Sat Oct 16 18:11:02 2010 No.1905624 File: 721 KB, 381x360, 1285437072043.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I need an antidote. STAT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:14:02 2010 No.1905639

>>1905622
The reason someone doesn't need to come up with concrete evidence on why god doesn't exist is because the only reason to believe in a god in the first place is the claims of religion. There is no rational reason to believe in god outside those claims.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:15:02 2010 No.1905645

>>1905622it follows that I should consider his claims if I follow his philosophy.

It really doesn't. Calculus works but that doesn't give any credence to Newton's theories about alchemy or demons.

The fanatics won't stop controlling elections until moderates stop claiming to be Christians.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:21:02 2010 No.1905677 Watched all 7 parts. You can definitely sum it up in a vertical easily.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:24:02 2010 No.1905692 File: 10 KB, 381x190, 161921.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Lost pretty much right when the crazy hag opened her mouth.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:27:02 2010 No.1905703

>>1905639
So what philosophy do you prescribe to? The one dictated by your own narrow view of what you presume to be facts?

>>1905645
It does actually when concerned with philosophy, which is why we do not consider it a science.
I prescribe to Jesus' philosophy because it produces positive effects in my life. He claims that the reason for this is because he is God and knows what is good for me. I am in the continuing process of discovering this.
I will continue to refine what I understand about God as science progresses, if it turns out I'm wrong and the universe was actually created via quantum fluctuations then I will still have benefited from following a philosophy that produced positive effects in my life.

Surely you can see this?

Finally, it is not my responsibility what fanatics do or don't do. From my perspective rich corporations control my government regardless of who the talking heads are. The ulterior motive is always money but that's a different discussion.
The point is that there are always fanatics, no matter the philosophy. Those are the people who acquire a narrow viewpoint and apply it to a broad spectrum of topics.
That is the mentality that needs redress, not what philosophy they claim to adhere to.
Remove religion and you will have fanatic Darwinists who claim society should run like evolution does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 18:50:02 2010 No.1905787 i'd love to cum on that smug face of hers

>>	anonymous Sat Oct 16 19:09:02 2010 No.1905848 "but when I back to"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 16 19:39:02 2010 No.1905934 >>1905583 This fukken shit ain't logical.

Anonymous Sat Oct 16 21:53:02 2010 No.1906752

Raged so hard. First time i encountered this video, I watched up until he asked his first question and she responds to it. Half way into her first response I closed it. In subsequent attempts, I just closed it before the video began. Raged so fucking hard.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math