Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: Nope, the devil is responsible for atheists. Atheists are just people that are suffering from demonic possession and while they are a danger to themselves and others - and should be locked up for protection - they can't help that they are broken people (just like gays).

So humans have no control over themselves? It's either God making us do good, or Satan making us do evil? All we are is powerless puppets held by the strings of dickish supreme beings? And everyone who doesn't think like you do and act like you do and believe what you do are the puppets of Satan? Are you sure God is the one holding your strings?

Well, people had free will and control until they engaged in actions that allowed themselves to controlled by Satan. Activities such as Oujii boards, smoking marijuanna, dancing, etc. So, it was their choice to have this happen to them. The Scriptures tell us that our bodies our Temples and evil can't come in to us just like vampires can't go into a church. By doing evil things it makes us not Temples anymore so the demons crawl in and control people after that.

So you admit that the idea of free will is a lie and humans are merely playthings of petty beings?

You can't choose to give up free will without having free will to begin with. These people HAD free will but chose to invite the devil into their lives. Atheists don't have free will because they are infested with demons, but Christians and other religious types who are moral have free will. Make sense?

MrEricSir: Even if Darwin was a Nazi (and he wasn't) that wouldn't mean he's wrong about evolution.

i agree, however being wrong about evolution, does make him wrong about evolution

though i definitely concur that creating yet another troll evolution-godwin thread to sucker the IB into a giant butthurt outragefest is not the best use of everyone's time, but ya know [welcometofark.jpg]

Oh good it's the daily attention whore thread by the dumbest person on fark.

abb3w: It's an inaccurate correction. It's the intelligent people who are best able to come up with "philosophically sophisticated" complex chains of reasoning to patch over the logical holes, which often takes quite a bit of thought.

what?!? what?!? YOU DARE QUESTION THE IDW????!!!

*looks again*

ah yes, hence the irrational, but not stupid set

fine, I stand corrected

at first i was thinking that we agreed not to discuss those morans anymore, but then i just remembered that i am constantly surrounded by idiots, and that you actually do encounter them on a frequent basis

*sigh*

is the bipolar disorder war over yet? i'm beginning to lose patience

vactech: I drunk what: how old do you think the earth is?

6,000 - 5,000,000,000 years

give or take a billion

In understanding Gods work IDW, we're going to have to settle the "ground work" so to speak. If you want me to help you with this, you're going to have tell me the the truth about what you think. How am I going to explain any biological theory to you if we don't know where you stand on the age of the earth? Can anyone in the class help him out? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Look IDW, buck up! Don't be afraid to speak God's Truth (TM). Bevets wasn't.

The Earth is:

a. 6000 years old
b. 100 000 years old
c. 4.54 billion years
d. I'm to afraid to say. Someone might make fun of me for what I believe.

It's a simple test, IDW. Even a child could answer this one.

But selection bias troll won't.

friday13: But selection bias troll won't.

and this^ is why i label them Idiot Brigade

not worth the time/effort

/srsly if 5th grade reading = magic
//[howdomagnetswork.jpg]

but for bonus lulz:

I drunk what: hey guys is this the echo chamber? where we prove our tough guy street cred by circle jerking telling everyone about our proud accomplishment of ignoring anyone who disagrees with us?

which is TOTALLY not a selection bias thing, at all, nope

thanks for playing skippy



full speed ahead

Khellendros: Deriving an "ought" from an "is"?

that ought to be left up to the bridge builders

has anyone seen one lately?

Pants full of macaroni!!


Count on it being the thread where we learn that all of history's dictators were Libbylib Leftist Libtards.

No, we already know that. This is the thread you try to deny it and distance yourselves from reality.

vactech: Don't be afraid to speak God's Truth

I'd be happy to discuss Religion

What would you like to know?

OnlyM3: Hitler believed all the Jesus religions were crazy cults.







OnlyM3: No, we already know that. This is the thread you try to deny it and distance yourselves from reality.

The same reality where Romney was going to win in a landslide.

lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: Keizer_Ghidorah: lordaction: Nope, the devil is responsible for atheists. Atheists are just people that are suffering from demonic possession and while they are a danger to themselves and others - and should be locked up for protection - they can't help that they are broken people (just like gays).

So humans have no control over themselves? It's either God making us do good, or Satan making us do evil? All we are is powerless puppets held by the strings of dickish supreme beings? And everyone who doesn't think like you do and act like you do and believe what you do are the puppets of Satan? Are you sure God is the one holding your strings?

Well, people had free will and control until they engaged in actions that allowed themselves to controlled by Satan. Activities such as Oujii boards, smoking marijuanna, dancing, etc. So, it was their choice to have this happen to them. The Scriptures tell us that our bodies our Temples and evil can't come in to us just like vampires can't go into a church. By doing evil things it makes us not Temples anymore so the demons crawl in and control people after that.

So you admit that the idea of free will is a lie and humans are merely playthings of petty beings?

You can't choose to give up free will without having free will to begin with. These people HAD free will but chose to invite the devil into their lives. Atheists don't have free will because they are infested with demons, but Christians and other religious types who are moral have free will. Make sense?

So it's free will until you decide to kowtow to something, and then you lose your free will to that something. In that case, atheists still have their free will because they decided not to blindly follow a petty being who says he loves everything and created everything out of his love, yet will send nearly all of creation to an everlasting indescribable torment instead of simply exercising his infinite love and power to fix it.

I drunk what: Dimensio: Creationists frequently recycle bad arguments because they refuse to acknowledge error.

except atheistic evolutionists like yourself frequently lie, because they refuse to acknowledge Truth

/but nevermind the little things

Yaaaaaaaaaaaay! Look, everbody! It's Bevets!

/relieved

Darwin was responsible for what people did long after he was dead? Yeah that makes sense.

But if you want to talk about people who used war and torture on the premise that their race is superior and therefore it's OK, be sure to include Teddy Roosevelt. He was just more careful about preserving his image.

RicosRoughnecks: Summer Glau's Love Slave: Galton was also the first person to use the word "normal" to describe those human beings that were unremarkable and lacking of any sort of potential to change the world in any way.

I think that's an unfair view of it. You can still educate people that don't have diabetes, peanut allergies, glasses, deafness, schizophrenia, pompe, etc. It's just much cheaper and easier that having legions of special ed or special needs kids. People will still be pretty much the same, except everyone won't need expensive surgeries or medicines to be 'normal'. I needed expensive LASIK to get good eyesite and not have to wear contacts. My brothers have diabetes; it would be nice to have kids some day knowing they wouldn't have any of those problems. If the answer is I can't have kids or only with certain people, I'd be down with that.

I'm in agreement with you. I just put up the info; I don't advocate any of Galton's ideas. After all, if Lord Sir Galton had his way Hawking would have never been allowed to live.

/FYI: Galton has been called, "The man who tried to make racism scientific."
//Among other things.
///The big problem with eugenics is who decides who breeds and who doesn't?
////Who gets to play God?

wambu: I fell asleep while reading TFA. What happened?

Darth Vader is Luke's father, Soylent Green is people, and the Planet of the Apes was Earth all along.

Diagonal: I drunk what: Dimensio: Creationists frequently recycle bad arguments because they refuse to acknowledge error.

except atheistic evolutionists like yourself frequently lie, because they refuse to acknowledge Truth

/but nevermind the little things

Yaaaaaaaaaaaay! Look, everbody! It's Bevets!

/relieved

He's much worse than Bevets.

I was surprised that Paul Johnson was still alive.

TheMysteriousStranger: I was surprised that Paul Johnson was still alive.

Or rather is still alive. Not to self: don't post comments after midnight.
/Will forget promise in the morning.

Sorry chap. I got busy with work last night. Thanks for answering though. I didn't think you had it in you.

I drunk what: The Earth is:

b.

100 000 years old?

Nice. How moderate of you. A little bit of sciency atom dating stuff mixed in with some Genisis thinking. Good, good! Ion OK, Yahweh's OK.
You are sure not to offend anyone with this Earth age guess. Plus it's Hobbit cute.

I drunk what: so like i said, give or take a billion years

It probably doesn't matter anyway. As long as we have the main answer to fall back on....God my friend. God.

vactech: It probably doesn't matter anyway.

what bearing does the age of the earth have on the salvation of a Man's soul?

vactech: Nice. How moderate of you.

i'd be happy to update my answer once you've provided sufficient evidence

vactech: A little bit of sciency atom dating stuff mixed in with some Genisis thinking.

the key to philosophy is harmonic balance of Science AND Religion



this shouldn't be confused with the concept of compromise, of course those with the magical understanding above a 5th grader don't need this explained to them 

so then which part is giving you the most trouble? Science ? Religion? both...?

Ishkur: Oh neat, someone posted my IDW disclaimer (thus saving me the trouble. Thank you).

Halli: Oh good it's the daily attention whore thread by the dumbest person on fark.

lulz 

srsly, guys Full Speed Ahead

this pleases IDW, carry on

Fano: crap, I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see that IDW brought up the card game

keep scrolling

Dimensio is with us and he hates liars

vactech: The Earth is:

a. 6000 years old
b. 100 000 years old
c. 4.54 billion years
d. I'm to afraid to say. Someone might make fun of me for what I believe.

which one of these choices most accurately represents the data set we have available to make scientific observations?

do your presumptions-assumptions have any bearing on the inferences you will be making?

have any problems been observed concerning the data set we do have?

perhaps you'd rather discuss this in terms of the candleshop?

or if you'd rather just skip the red herrings and get right to the important stuff, i'm game

fyi, just between you and me, given only the choices of a or c, i'd pick c. since i am easily able to reconcile my beliefs within that parameter, but that gets into concepts that require magical understanding of magnets n' such

however since i am not able to say with a sufficient amount of confidence one way or the other, b is adequately close to my most current theory, that i feel plenty comfortable using it as a placeholder until sufficient evidence were to present itself

vactech: Good, good! Ion OK, Yahweh's OK.
You are sure not to offend anyone with this Earth age guess.

i could care less about hurting anyone's feelings, Truth is Truth

the problem with these debates, resides primarily on the battlefield between The Idiot Brigade vs. The Imbecile Squad, in all of it's bipolar disordered glory

it has many faces (dem vs repub, sciunce vs relujin, herp vs derp), but in the end they resort to same kinds of herpty derp flinging, which i think does more harm than good, but hey what do i know? i'm just the dumbest person on fark

but no worries, everyone knows i'm just trolling

Is Darwin also responsible for Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great? One wiped out people simply as a warning to others, the other wiped out people for the glorification of Alexander. I'm sure that they were both appropriately religious for their time.

Raharu: For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone was wrong.

....he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Kome: Have you figured out how to do the Wason card selection task that was introduced to you like three or four years ago yet?

Fano: Maybe you should give him a card game to solve.

Ishkur: Oh neat, someone posted my IDW disclaimer (thus saving me the trouble. Thank you).

anyone else wanna join the list?



of course i'd be happy to take you off the list once you are able to properly explain the answer to us

how hard could it be?

/unless of course you're too chicken
//buck buck buck
///neva gets old

Ishkur: Oh neat, someone posted my IDW disclaimer (thus saving me the trouble. Thank you).

I have the sneaking suspicion that IDW probably replies to it every time he sees it in a manner that verifies each and every one of its assertions.

Cuz that's just the sort of dumbass thing he would do.

Apparently he did, and now he has replied to something 5 times with no break...

hubiestubert: Marx would have been horrified at what was done with his work by Stalinists. What folks do with ideas is often far and away from the original work. Turning treatise on the origin of species into a raison d'être for the extermination of one's neighbors is not the fault of the author, but rather those who are looking for an excuse, and would like to have someone to back up their reasoning, to appear to be erudite and well considered. Sort of like looking to the Bible to excuse oneself for acting to deny folks rights and even their lives. Should we blame Catholicism for Hitler's rise as well? What about Stalin's own religious views? Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist, and thus we should attribute Teravada Buddhism for his crimes?

This is the greatest problem with appeal to authority. Others will "borrow" your authority, while twisting what was said into an entirely different end.

Summer Glau's Love Slave: RicosRoughnecks: Summer Glau's Love Slave: Galton was also the first person to use the word "normal" to describe those human beings that were unremarkable and lacking of any sort of potential to change the world in any way.

I think that's an unfair view of it. You can still educate people that don't have diabetes, peanut allergies, glasses, deafness, schizophrenia, pompe, etc. It's just much cheaper and easier that having legions of special ed or special needs kids. People will still be pretty much the same, except everyone won't need expensive surgeries or medicines to be 'normal'. I needed expensive LASIK to get good eyesite and not have to wear contacts. My brothers have diabetes; it would be nice to have kids some day knowing they wouldn't have any of those problems. If the answer is I can't have kids or only with certain people, I'd be down with that.

I'm in agreement with you. I just put up the info; I don't advocate any of Galton's ideas. After all, if Lord Sir Galton had his way Hawking would have never been allowed to live.

/FYI: Galton has been called, "The man who tried to make racism scientific."
//Among other things.
///The big problem with eugenics is who decides who breeds and who doesn't?
////Who gets to play God?

WHO are we to Fark with the mechanism? WHO?

Really, why not let natural selection do it's job, and stop trying to steer it off the tracks?

I drunk what: which one of these choices most accurately represents the data set we have available to make scientific observations?

Why limit yourself to just 1 set? I prefer to have a whole bunch of them. Like 5 to 8 is pretty good.

I drunk what: do your presumptions-assumptions have any bearing on the inferences you will be making?

To avoid controversy, I refer to just inference of symbols that are truthbearers, and advocate either true or false under an interpretation of presumptions. Furthermore, I have not always made it sufficiently clear whether I am using the term assumptions or inference where the concept of a "meaning" is admitted, or its nature(god) is desputed.

I drunk what: have any problems been observed concerning the data set we do have?

Several, but we are not there yet. Is there a problem you would like me to fix? Maybe you just need more proof in the form of evidence for your 100 000 Middle Earth theory?

I drunk what: perhaps you'd rather discuss this in terms of the candleshop?

Ok...but which one?

I drunk what: or if you'd rather just skip the red herrings and get right to the important stuff, i'm game

There is only 1 thing that is important and it is there, and only there that you will find it.

RedVentrue: WHO are we to Fark with the mechanism? WHO?

the stewards of Nature-Physical

to choose freely for Good or Evil

RedVentrue: Really, why not let natural selection do it's job, and stop trying to steer it off the tracks?

Man is part of Nature-Physical

where do you think chiuauas came from? random luck? the same as great danes?

I drunk what: it has many faces (dem vs repub, sciunce vs relujin, herp vs derp), but in the end they resort to same kinds of herpty derp flinging, which i think does more harm than good, but hey what do i know?

I've never understood that arguement. Even if books/speeches on the theory of evolution were responseable for EVERY murder and rape in human history it still has fark all to do with whether or not evolution occurs.

abb3w: It's a design choice.

intelligent even

abb3w: It's less like a train trip and more like a herd of drunken Australians staggering home across the sheep meadow.

those poor sheep

abb3w: I drunk what: those poor sheep

Better Aussies than Kiwis.

Dude, you should know better than to feed this particular troll.

abb3w: RedVentrue: This is the greatest problem with appeal to authority. Others will "borrow" your authority, while twisting what was said into an entirely different end.

A combination of "social validation" and "message distortion", in psychology jargon.

RedVentrue: Really, why not let natural selection do it's job, and stop trying to steer it off the tracks?

It's a design choice.
Also, train tracks are a metaphor that describes the evolutionary process really, really poorly. It's less like a train trip and more like a herd of drunken Australians staggering home across the sheep meadow. Steering turns out to be harder and do less good than you first might think.

I did say trying, not succeeding. This kind of thing tends to come back to bite us in the butt. The best laid plans of mice & sheep... er men, and all that.

abb3w: Never underestimate the value of a bad example.

this^