Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Learn something, you dolts.


[youtube][/youtube]

Sounds like one of those guys who gives the high-velocity disclaimers at the end of various types of commercials.

More to the point, he sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist.

I don't beleive that Atheists exist.

89Hen wrote:

Just wanted it to be clear, Brother Hen. No ghosts allowed!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

89Hen wrote:

Just wanted it to be clear, Brother Hen. No ghosts allowed!

Like most folks, he makes a lot of good points, then inserts opinion as fact and ruins any arguement he has.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:I don't beleive that Atheists exist.

Ivytalk wrote:Sounds like one of those guys who gives the high-velocity disclaimers at the end of various types of commercials.

More to the point, he sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist.

Just for clarity sake, asking if someone is an agnostic or an atheist are 2 different questions.

Agnosticism=believing the knowledge of a transcendent being is unknowable
Gnosticism=believing the knowledge of a transcendent being is knowable
theism=believing in a transcendent being that interferes actively with the universe
atheism=not believing in transcendent being that interferes actively with the universe.

Thomas Huxley "Darwin's Bulldog/Pit Bull" championed the term agnostic that way he could educate his audience without turning them off by describing himself as an atheist, and Darwin's wife's family (who was very wealthy) did not like the term "atheist."

Of course, I'm not even bring up the term deism, which is essentially a position of "I can't lose," because it is impossible to disprove, but that's neither here nor there.

The more you know

89Hen wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Just wanted it to be clear, Brother Hen. No ghosts allowed!

Like most folks, he makes a lot of good points, then inserts opinion as fact and ruins any arguement he has.

He did not, you idiot. He was exactly factual.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

89Hen wrote: Like most folks, he makes a lot of good points, then inserts opinion as fact and ruins any arguement he has.

He did not, you idiot. He was exactly factual.

In your opinion....

To each his own

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

He did not, you idiot. He was exactly factual.

In your opinion....

No opinion about it, Old Man.

It hurts to hear someone logically bring down your lifetime of ghost chasing in 60 seconds, Mr. Magoo. I understand.

[youtube][/youtube]

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
In your opinion....

No opinion about it, Old Man.

It hurts to hear someone logically bring down your lifetime of ghost chasing in 60 seconds, Mr. Magoo. I understand.

Your opinion of yourself and that video is pretty large...

Can you see your toes yet????

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
In your opinion....

No opinion about it, Old Man.

It hurts to hear someone logically bring down your lifetime of ghost chasing in 60 seconds, Mr. Magoo. I understand.

And here I was thinking that you'd be embarrassed that atheism is so intellectually shallow that the sum total of atheism can be covered in 60 seconds.

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
No opinion about it, Old Man.

It hurts to hear someone logically bring down your lifetime of ghost chasing in 60 seconds, Mr. Magoo. I understand.

Your opinion of yourself and that video is pretty large...

Can you see your toes yet????

Meh, it's a so-so video. The reason I posted it here, Schlomo, is for educational purposes, especially for younger posters who aren't ruined like you. It's quick, just the facts, perfect for their attention span.

My toes? Yeah, I watched 'em slip up your daughter-in-law's bunger last week. Tighter than a fist full of rubber bands, that gal.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
No opinion about it, Old Man.

It hurts to hear someone logically bring down your lifetime of ghost chasing in 60 seconds, Mr. Magoo. I understand.

And here I was thinking that you'd be embarrassed that atheism is so intellectually shallow that the sum total of atheism can be covered in 60 seconds.

Read above, Jose'.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Your opinion of yourself and that video is pretty large...

Can you see your toes yet????

Meh, it's a so-so video. The reason I posted it here, Schlomo, is for educational purposes, especially for younger posters who aren't ruined like you. It's quick, just the facts, perfect for their attention span.

My toes? Yeah, I watched 'em slip up your daughter-in-law's bunger last week. Tighter than a fist full of rubber bands, that gal.

She's beat the shit out of you if you even got close to that spot...

Fear the Mexican...

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Meh, it's a so-so video. The reason I posted it here, Schlomo, is for educational purposes, especially for younger posters who aren't ruined like you. It's quick, just the facts, perfect for their attention span.

My toes? Yeah, I watched 'em slip up your daughter-in-law's bunger last week. Tighter than a fist full of rubber bands, that gal.

She's beat the shit out of you if you even got close to that spot...

Fear the Mexican...

JoltinJoe wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
No opinion about it, Old Man.

It hurts to hear someone logically bring down your lifetime of ghost chasing in 60 seconds, Mr. Magoo. I understand.

And here I was thinking that you'd be embarrassed that atheism is so intellectually shallow that the sum total of atheism can be covered in 60 seconds.

Shallow?

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

Joe, your "ism" absolutely relies on the most ridiculous of assumptions. Please refrain from confusing its volumes of dogma with intelligence.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
And here I was thinking that you'd be embarrassed that atheism is so intellectually shallow that the sum total of atheism can be covered in 60 seconds.

Shallow?

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

Joe, your "ism" absolutely relies on the most ridiculous of assumptions. Please refrain from confusing its volumes of dogma with intelligence.

Occam's Razor hardly advocates making the dumbest assumption, i.e., creation came from nothing.

In fact, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is that creation was made by a Creator.

If you had only really gone to college ...

Please refrain from addressing me on these boards anymore. I am imposing an IQ minimum and you fall significantly below it.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
Shallow?



Joe, your "ism" absolutely relies on the most ridiculous of assumptions. Please refrain from confusing its volumes of dogma with intelligence.

Occam's Razor hardly advocates making the dumbest assumption, i.e., creation came from nothing.

In fact, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is that creation was made by a Creator.

If you had only really gone to college ...

Please refrain from addressing me on these boards anymore. I am imposing an IQ minimum and you fall significantly below it.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
Shallow?



Joe, your "ism" absolutely relies on the most ridiculous of assumptions. Please refrain from confusing its volumes of dogma with intelligence.

Occam's Razor hardly advocates making the dumbest assumption, i.e., creation came from nothing.

In fact, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is that creation was made by a Creator.

If you had only really gone to college ...

Please refrain from addressing me on these boards anymore. I am imposing an IQ minimum and you fall significantly below it.

Doesn't prove Theism and creation? come on.....

It's always funny (and obvious) when someone who has never read a word written by William of Ockham invokes Occam's Razor. A bunch of internet dumb-dumbs try to deflate serious philosophical and theological thought by invoking poor old William of Ockham, a Franciscan philosopher who firmly believed that God was the only necessary ontological truth. Those of us who have actually studied and read William of Ockham find it extremely ironic that internet atheists cite to this Franciscan friar in support of their claim that there is no God. But that is what the era of google scholarship has brought us: a lot of know-nothings distorting what little they've heard.

My advice is to avoid citing Occam's Razor until you really understand it.

JoltinJoe wrote:It's always funny (and obvious) when someone who has never read a word written by William of Ockham invokes Occam's Razor. A bunch of internet dumb-dumbs try to deflate serious philosophical and theological thought by invoking poor old William of Ockham, a Franciscan philosopher who firmly believed that God was the only necessary ontological truth. Those of us who have actually studied and read William of Ockham find it extremely ironic that internet atheists cite to this Franciscan friar in support of their claim that there is no God. But that is what the era of google scholarship has brought us: a lot of know-nothings distorting what little they've heard.

My advice is to avoid citing Occam's Razor until you really understand it.

NOTE that this thread did not impugn the Catholic Church.