I’ve got the head of a crocodile
Body of a duck
and when I move my webbed feet
I just really suck
Oh I hate me, I hate me!
Oh I hate myself!
I’ve got the “I’m disproof of evolution” bluuuuueees!
Atheists vs theists? That’s no fun. They needed to throw in some other religions to mix it up.
Kirk: “All things have makers.”
Abdul: “I agree.”
Kirk: “The human conscience is evidence of a higher moral power.”
Abdul: “Again, I agree.”
Kirk: “And if you-”
Abdul: “If I may interrupt for a second, I just want to add that if you read the Koran, then Allah will be revealed to you. Now what where you saying, Kirk?”
Kirk: “Well, it’s going to sound a lot less convincing now…”
Y’know what’s really funny? The only people I know who have read the entire Bible, are all atheists.
It’s not a bad read if you can get past all the begatting.
This is to the serious ontological arguments as The Chewbacca Defense is to serious law.
And I’ve never heard an ontological argument that I’ve found at all convincing.
“LOOK AT THE MONKEY! LOOK AT THE SILLY MONKEY!”
“Know” people IRL, I presume, as there are a number of Christian posters on this board who have read the whole thing (along with several Jewish posters who have read the entire Tanakh.)
tomndebb,
OK, this may be a silly question, but it’s not like I haven’t asked those before. But I’m really curious about this. When Christians make poor arguments like the ones that Kirk Cameron made, how does it make you feel as a Christian? I think that if I called myself a Christian, I might feel embarrassed that other people thought that my position was so poorly supported. Oddly, I don’t have that same feeling if I called myself an atheist/agnostic. But what are your thoughts (or any other Christian’s) about this?
Obviously I’m not tomndebb but I was just off looking at some of these types of videos on youtube. One of them was an atheist rebuttal, and they claimed that the big bad was when two giants “things” hit each other. :smack: So yeah, I was kind of embarrassed about it.
Up until this thread, I thought I was an atheist.
Now after reading all this incontrovertible “proof” I better get myself to a church right away!!! :eek:
Well, if you had watched the debate on TV, you might not want to be either. 
As, presumably, a supporter of representative democracy, how do you feel that over half of the people who bothered to vote in the last presidential election chose GWB, (or, alternatively, that nearly half of those who bothered to vote opposed him)?
The label “Christian” conveys a the idea of membership in a huge group based on a very limited number of criteria–at its broadest, simply thinking that a purported itenerant preacher in the first century Levant was a nice guy with some good thoughts about how people should live.
If I were going to be embarrased by someone else’s behavior, I might decide that Bill Donohue, a college educated lay Catholic (as am I), casts a shadow on my life by his relentless foolishness in running the Catholic League (into the ground) making a profession of taking umbrage at jokes and irrelevant comments by other people. In point of fact, however, I have no control over the thoughts or actions of other persons who may share a few or even many of the same beliefs I do on particular topics. In the case of Cameron, our points of agreement are pretty narrow in scope (and we disagree pretty strongly regarding the meaning of even many of the beliefs that we purportedly share). If you look at the last three times I was Pitted, (coincidentally, I am sure, by unbelievers), you will find a significant number of posters who hold no religious beliefs distancing themselves from the people who launched the attacks. While i certainly appreciated those comments that supported me, it would have never occurred to me to presume that everyone whose belief was more similar to the Pitters also shared any deficits of character or intelligence with those posters who were angry at me.
Christians have been squabbling over belief since the time of Paul. Humans like to parse their beliefs (or lack) in hundreds of ways. I am not responsible for the beliefs held by another and I do not lump together as though they operated with Borg-like unity those who share beliefs that I do not.
Cameron’s status as a Christian has no bearing on my beliefs (and, I suspect, his brand of Christianity may be one of those that claims I, as a Catholic, am not Christian, anyway), so his beliefs are pretty much irrelevant to me.
Mind Boggles
How are catholics not considered christians? Am I missing something? I know you have Mary down pat…did ya’ll some how lose Jesus at the local Wal-mart?
Thanks for your answer.
That’s a great analogy because I’ve noticed over the past several years that many Americans on message boards have apologized to people of other countries for the embarrassment they felt over the actions of GWB.
And yet regardless of how outrageous the actions of some Christians ostensibly based on their beliefs (for instance, some Christians killing abortion doctors), almost every Christian that I’ve spoken with has this same reaction that you’re expressing below.
Are there any groups which you belong to in which you’d be embarrassed if some member of your group did something you felt was wrong?
Does this feeling that you have extend to all groups or just your status as being a Christian? And is that just because membership is so open based on a potentially broad belief?
Do you feel embarrassment if someone of your race does something to someone of another race because of prejudice? Oddly, I do and that’s not even a matter of choice.
Assuming that “big bad” is a typo for “big bang”, one model of the Big Bang which is currently in vogue does, in fact, involve a collision between two branes. There are still plenty of non-brane models out there, though, and I’m not sure what the relevance of the brane models is to metaphysical cosmogeny.
And I should have specified folks I know to have read the entire Bible. There are several folks I know, both here and offline, of whom I would not be surprised to learn that they’ve read the whole thing, but there are none of whom I specifically know that to be the case. Regardless, the point is that it’s quite possible to read it without being convinced.
There are some fundamentalist Christians who will openly state that they do not consider Roman Catholics to be Christians. It’s a doctrinal dispute - these Christians feel that only people who accept Jesus directly as their personal savior are true Christians. Catholics, who believe that there are intermediaries between God and most people (ie the Pope, the priesthood, saints, etc), are therefore not true Christians.
But bananas do have a handy pull tab! I can’t imagine any other explanation for it.
I just watched it. I’ll bet that Kirk and Ray are going to report back to their viewers and proclaim that they “trounced” the atheists, making mincemeat out of their shallow arguments, or if they don’t want to flat out lie, play the persecution card and state that the debate was rigged against them somehow.
The highlight was when Kirk pulled out the graphic of the duck with the crocodile head, and the atheist saying something like “Oh my god…”.
Another eye rolling moment is when Ray told the atheist not to put so much faith in history books and more faith in God. And all the times Kirk said to just open your heart to God. Isn’t the existence of God what they were there to establish?
:dubious: Then explain coconuts.
Universe means ‘one spoken sentence’, and that proves God spoke the universe into existence, because as everyone knows, God speaks English.