Yeah, I know, we just did this. But I’m in a pissy mood, and better I yell at kanicbird that the admin.
Inspired by an exchange beginning around post 42 of this thread, and specifically this remark:
Are you posting this via telepathy, or are you using a computer with internet access?
Are you horribly disfigured by smallpox, or were vaccinated as a child and thus spared that?
Have you ever ridden in a car or airplane, or do does the Holy Ghost teleport you from place to place for witnessing purposes?
You’re an idiot, kanicbird. And not the good kind of idiot, like Cosmo Kramer, who’s amusing to look at, or Paris Hilton, who has the good grace to show off her comely naked flesh. You’re the kind of idiot who embarrasses other idiots. Every argument you make to depend your position has the reverse effect. If Satan actually existed, you would be doing his work, for by your willful ignorance, your breathtaking stupidity, your arragant, bullheaded, insipid, inane imitation of humility, you make your faith look like no more than the addled ramblings of demented goat-herders who lost their sanity after catching syphilis from coupling with the aforementioned ungulates.
Please note that I don’t think all that badly of Christians. I am not Der Trihs. I know many Christians and like many of them. It’s not our philosophical differences that annoy me; it’s your smug assurance in your own righteousness and intelligence. The only reason I refrain from telling you to fuck yourself is that fucking is a good thing, and the only reason I do not call you a silly twat is because twats are useful and frequently beautiful. So go unfuck yourself, and as an encore, lance the boil that has taken the place of your brain.
Ah, but that’s all actually the work of god! (Or perhaps Al Gore, I’m still awaiting clarification on the subject. Also, nobody appreciated my ‘Al-Gore-ism’-joke, so I’m just bringing it up again.)
I was just venting. I have to do something at work I don’t want to do and rather than yell at the department admin, which I really want to do, I’m yelling at a different idiot.
Well, he’s absolutely correct in his assertion that science can’t discover the truth, assuming that your definition of truth is a 2000-year-old book written by ignorant shepherds who praise a mean, vindictive, jealous god who loves nothing better than smiting.
I believe it was Albert Einstein who defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Skald, I’m afraid you’re slipping into the abyss. Take some deep breaths, wrap yourself up in a snuggie or something, repeat to yourself, “there’s no place like reality, there’s no place like reality,” and just be happy that **kanicbird **doesn’t live there with you.
Nothing, if you don’t imply that by contrast, religion is. (And it could also be argued that science is indeed capable of discovering the truth, however not capable of deciding that it has discovered the truth.)
I vacillated between hope and disappointment for a while in the Ouija board thread, where it looked like there might be a fight brewing between kanicbird and lekatt. Were I religious, I might pray for such a thing.
Sadly, kanicbird didn’t bite and lekatt went away:(
The truth of a negative cannot generally be decided – ‘there are no black sheep’ can be falsified by the observation of a black sheep, but can never be verified by any finite amount of sheep-observation (i.e. even if you only ever observe white sheep, this might mean that black sheep are just really good at hide & seek, and not necessarily that they don’t exist). Conversely, the truth of the generality ‘all sheep are white’ similarly can’t be ascertained. Strictly speaking, though, this only means – as I said earlier – that science can never be certain of knowing the absolute truth, while in fact, it does (for instance, if there really are only white sheep). This doesn’t pose any great problem, however, and certainly not one that is eliminated by turning to religion (which defines truth as opposed to discovering it – in this way, its axiomatic truths are true allright, yet they have no connection to reality other than a merely coincidental one).
If you consider science in a vacuum, then you’re absolutely right. However, the unspoken subtext to kanicbird’s statement was, “but The Bible/My Very Specific God can.”
Completely agreed, and I actually included the disclaimer that even granting that ‘science can’t discover truth’ (which I think needs to be qualified somewhat) can’t be used to imply that religion by contrast can further upthread in my response to Liberal’s statement.
Well, technically the one written 2000 years ago was written by a physician, a publican, a fisherman, a waiter and a merchant. Plus their god wasn’t particularly smitey… in fact, he was a pretty turn-the-other-cheek kind of dude most of the time.
The really mean, nasty, smite-small-children-for-mocking-my-prophets and ask-my-followers-to-sacrifice-their-sons-but-not-really god is in the 3000 year old book written by ignorant shepherds.
Except that “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, & forever.” And in the minds of Trinitarians he is identical in nature, will, and substance to the God of the Old Testament, yet distinct from his person.
