Title: SMACKDOWN
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 07:01:58 pm
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 07:01:58 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo&feature=sub (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo&feature=sub)
Title:
Post by: Kokojo on October 10, 2009, 07:02:38 pm
Post by: Kokojo on October 10, 2009, 07:02:38 pm
/boring 46 minute talk to try to decide me on some thing I don't care about.
FAIL
FAIL
Title:
Post by: Dome on October 10, 2009, 07:09:06 pm
Post by: Dome on October 10, 2009, 07:09:06 pm
Smackdown...HURRAY! (I open the video)
Boring man instead of wrestlers (Mmm)
46 minutes of boring talk (ARGH!!!)
Runs away from the pc
Boring man instead of wrestlers (Mmm)
46 minutes of boring talk (ARGH!!!)
Runs away from the pc
Title:
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 07:27:13 pm
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 07:27:13 pm
well I just imagine him smacking people upside the head
Title:
Post by: philsov on October 10, 2009, 08:09:54 pm
Post by: philsov on October 10, 2009, 08:09:54 pm
I would pay to see Dawkins do the DX "suck it."
Title:
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 09:10:08 pm
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 09:10:08 pm
Quote from: "philsov"I would pay to see Dawkins do the DX "suck it."
what is that?
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 10, 2009, 09:34:40 pm
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 10, 2009, 09:34:40 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwYeY7HB2Gg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwYeY7HB2Gg)
Whenever they make the X handmotion over thier DX, that's what he's talking about.
Whenever they make the X handmotion over thier DX, that's what he's talking about.
Title:
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 09:51:56 pm
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 09:51:56 pm
(http://i34.tinypic.com/20p4w7b.jpg)
Title:
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on October 10, 2009, 10:07:02 pm
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on October 10, 2009, 10:07:02 pm
see what I mean by Voldemort always bring up religion? SHUT THE FUCK UP DICK, KEEP YOUR BELIEFS TO YOURSELF
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 10, 2009, 10:13:08 pm
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 10, 2009, 10:13:08 pm
Just finished watching. He's not very good at arguing against design. Francis Collins, a theist scientist, does a better job of arguing against the design argument. The design argument will never prove anything.
Title:
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 10:16:59 pm
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 10:16:59 pm
link to francis collins video
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/bspcn.com/SMgCW-YK0sI/AAAAAAAAC90/yO8bgvZj7ok/s800/2843905157_3abe047f44.jpg)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/bspcn.com/SMgCW-YK0sI/AAAAAAAAC90/yO8bgvZj7ok/s800/2843905157_3abe047f44.jpg)
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 10, 2009, 10:39:53 pm
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 10, 2009, 10:39:53 pm
Link to book: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scie ... 0743286391 (http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391)
Theist media will tell you that his book supports design arguments. I disagree; He presents several design arguments, then destroys them. One of his main points is that no matter how statistically improbable a designed universe may make a chance happening, it only makes it improbable, not impossible. Therefore, no matter how designed the universe is, it does not and cannot prove existence of God or any sort of intelligent designer.
Theist media will tell you that his book supports design arguments. I disagree; He presents several design arguments, then destroys them. One of his main points is that no matter how statistically improbable a designed universe may make a chance happening, it only makes it improbable, not impossible. Therefore, no matter how designed the universe is, it does not and cannot prove existence of God or any sort of intelligent designer.
Title:
Post by: AngrySurprisedFace on October 10, 2009, 10:48:32 pm
Post by: AngrySurprisedFace on October 10, 2009, 10:48:32 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"link to francis collins video
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/bspcn.com/SMgCW-YK0sI/AAAAAAAAC90/yO8bgvZj7ok/s800/2843905157_3abe047f44.jpg)
Yes.
Yes.
Yes...
Title:
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 10:54:11 pm
Post by: Archael on October 10, 2009, 10:54:11 pm
Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"One of his main points is that no matter how statistically improbable a designed universe may make a chance happening, it only makes it improbable, not impossible. Therefore, no matter how designed the universe is, it does not and cannot prove existence of St. Ajora or any sort of intelligent designer.
I think you lost me
- Statistically improbable designed universe may happen via a method
- Statistically improbable designed universe is improbable
- Statistically improbable designed universe is not impossible
- Therefor, statistically improbable designed universe does not and cannot prove existence of g0d?
that's what I'm getting, but I don't understand it
Title:
Post by: RavenOfRazgriz on October 10, 2009, 11:16:19 pm
Post by: RavenOfRazgriz on October 10, 2009, 11:16:19 pm
Quote from: "Voldemort"I think you lost me
- Statistically improbable designed universe may happen via a method
- Statistically improbable designed universe is improbable
- Statistically improbable designed universe is not impossible
- Therefor, statistically improbable designed universe does not and cannot prove existence of g0d?
that's what I'm getting, but I don't understand it
TL;DR: Just because our universe had say, a .0000001% chance of forming the way it needed to in order to support life, and then have intelligent life evolve from it, does not prove or disprove the existence of any higher being because statistically improbable != impossible and requiring intelligent design of that caliber, simply because it is possible on a technical level for it to happen without said intelligent design.
Clearer?
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 10, 2009, 11:25:53 pm
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 10, 2009, 11:25:53 pm
You seemed to get it, as your bullet points summed it up pretty well. What specifically don't you understand?
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on October 10, 2009, 11:28:20 pm
Post by: DarthPaul on October 10, 2009, 11:28:20 pm
Quote from: "RavenOfRazgriz"TL;DR: Just because our universe had say, a .0000001% chance of forming the way it needed to in order to support life, and then have intelligent life evolve from it, does not prove or disprove the existence of any higher being because statistically improbable != impossible and requiring intelligent design of that caliber, simply because it is possible on a technical level for it to happen without said intelligent design.
Clearer?
No, I understood it before and now your wording has confused me.
Title:
Post by: Asmo X on October 11, 2009, 12:04:19 am
Post by: Asmo X on October 11, 2009, 12:04:19 am
Came into this thread expecting wrestling, left disappointed.
Title:
Post by: Dome on October 11, 2009, 03:58:37 am
Post by: Dome on October 11, 2009, 03:58:37 am
Quote from: "Asmo X"Came into this thread expecting wrestling, left disappointed.
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on October 11, 2009, 05:17:33 am
Post by: Mental_Gear on October 11, 2009, 05:17:33 am
I loaded that page on my PS3 and the browser froze.
Arch, you bastard.
Arch, you bastard.
Title:
Post by: Archael on October 11, 2009, 10:10:15 am
Post by: Archael on October 11, 2009, 10:10:15 am
Quote from: "RavenOfRazgriz"Quote from: "Voldemort"I think you lost me
- Statistically improbable designed universe may happen via a method
- Statistically improbable designed universe is improbable
- Statistically improbable designed universe is not impossible
- Therefor, statistically improbable designed universe does not and cannot prove existence of g0d?
that's what I'm getting, but I don't understand it
TL;DR: Just because our universe had say, a .0000001% chance of forming the way it needed to in order to support life, and then have intelligent life evolve from it, does not prove or disprove the existence of any higher being because statistically improbable != impossible and requiring intelligent design of that caliber, simply because it is possible on a technical level for it to happen without said intelligent design.
Clearer?
yeah I think I get it now, I just felt like there was a rather big leap from this
- Statistically improbable designed universe may happen via a method
- Statistically improbable designed universe is improbable
- Statistically improbable designed universe is not impossible
to this
- Therefor, statistically improbable designed universe does not and cannot prove existence of g0d
the conclusion should be something like
- Therefor, statistically improbable designed universe does not necessarily prove existence of any designer
I guess
Title:
Post by: philsov on October 11, 2009, 10:19:51 am
Post by: philsov on October 11, 2009, 10:19:51 am
nor does statistically improbable universe necessitate a designer. And if a designer is not necessitated, then for the purpose of thought clarity he can be removed from the picture since it is both irrelevant and excessive. It's like asking if the designer had a designer.
Most designer pundits say that the universe crossed over the coincidence threshold, saying certain events/outcomes are "too complex" to have happened by chance, but then again for some people the same thing can be said about a microwave oven.... HOT POCKET IS DONE! THANK $DEITY! IT'S A MAGICAL MIRACLE.
btw every time I hear the clock analogy I throw up a little.
Most designer pundits say that the universe crossed over the coincidence threshold, saying certain events/outcomes are "too complex" to have happened by chance, but then again for some people the same thing can be said about a microwave oven.... HOT POCKET IS DONE! THANK $DEITY! IT'S A MAGICAL MIRACLE.
btw every time I hear the clock analogy I throw up a little.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 11, 2009, 11:01:16 am
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 11, 2009, 11:01:16 am
Quote from: "Voldemort"- Therefore, statistically improbable designed universe does not and cannot prove existence of g0d
- Therefore, statistically improbable designed universe does not necessarily prove existence of any designer
The bottom line is that since it could have all happen by chance, design can prove nothing. Perhaps, it could imply but it cannot prove. Because there is another option readily available, it cannot and will not prove existence of God. I don't see the jump here that you speak of. To use philsov's loathed example of Paley's watch in a perverted form, if a watch could be explained to have been made by random chance (no matter how small that chance), then we cannot say with complete certainty that a watchmaker exists. I guess we should note that this random chance does not say with any certainty that a watchmaker doesn't exist, either.
I hope I was clearer this time around. If not, oh well.
For those of our audience that don't know the Paley's watch analogy:
Watch = Universe
Watchmaker = God (or whatever higher being/reality/intelligence you want call it)
Title:
Post by: philsov on October 11, 2009, 11:21:33 am
Post by: philsov on October 11, 2009, 11:21:33 am
my shoes 
Title:
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on October 12, 2009, 12:05:00 am
Post by: Samuraiblackbelt on October 12, 2009, 12:05:00 am
Quote from: "Asmo X"Came into this thread expecting wrestling, left disappointed.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on October 12, 2009, 10:04:34 am
Post by: DarthPaul on October 12, 2009, 10:04:34 am
QuoteThe bottom line is that since it could have all happen by chance, design can prove nothing. Perhaps, it could imply but it cannot prove.
I would just like to interject this. A wise man once said that the chances of anything that has happened are 100%. Meaning religions "there was a low probability" argument can go to metaphorical hell.
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 12, 2009, 10:39:44 am
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 12, 2009, 10:39:44 am
Creationist argument against that would be that the low probabilty event didn't happen, therefore the 100% would mean nothing to them.
Title:
Post by: DarthPaul on October 12, 2009, 10:46:42 am
Post by: DarthPaul on October 12, 2009, 10:46:42 am
Quote from: "Kuraudo Sutoraifu"Creationist argument against that would be that the low probabilty event didn't happen, therefore the 100% means nothing.
Hence the "metaphorical hell" part. I make sure to cover my bases.
Title:
Post by: Asmo X on October 12, 2009, 01:46:14 pm
Post by: Asmo X on October 12, 2009, 01:46:14 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6fWoXIh-k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6fWoXIh-k)
Title:
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 14, 2009, 07:26:56 pm
Post by: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on October 14, 2009, 07:26:56 pm
Quote from: "darthpaul"Hence the "metaphorical hell" part. I make sure to cover my bases.Gotcha. I overlooked that. My Bad.
Title:
Post by: Kaijyuu on October 14, 2009, 09:28:08 pm
Post by: Kaijyuu on October 14, 2009, 09:28:08 pm
hai guyz i liekz talking bout religion how bout u
Title:
Post by: Mental_Gear on October 15, 2009, 02:20:21 am
Post by: Mental_Gear on October 15, 2009, 02:20:21 am
Atheist reassurance topic #351...
Title:
Post by: Luiakyn on October 15, 2009, 06:39:18 am
Post by: Luiakyn on October 15, 2009, 06:39:18 am
I was hoping Asmo's post was awesome enough to make everyone wary about posting
Title:
Post by: Dome on October 15, 2009, 06:44:11 am
Post by: Dome on October 15, 2009, 06:44:11 am
These discussion of religion are worse than a fat ugly bitch that roped you and want to suck your cock on sunday morning after you drunk too much
P.s: Thanks Asmo that you actually posted something related to wrestling...
P.s: Thanks Asmo that you actually posted something related to wrestling...
Title:
Post by: Archael on October 15, 2009, 09:21:55 am
Post by: Archael on October 15, 2009, 09:21:55 am
Quote from: "Mental_Gear"Atheist reassurance topic #351...
no
ID debunking topic #1
once again, atheism is not a belief that requires "reassurance" of faith in it
atheism is the lack of belief in theistic claims, more specifically, the g0d claims
the only "reassurance" in the atheist position (especially the agnostic atheist like myself) is the complete lack of evidence for theistic claims (ID) presented so far
evidence for theistic claims would make me re-consider my lack of belief
Title:
Post by: Aquilae on October 15, 2009, 09:43:49 am
Post by: Aquilae on October 15, 2009, 09:43:49 am
Quote from: "Asmo X"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6fWoXIh-k
Title:
Post by: Archael on October 15, 2009, 10:12:39 am
Post by: Archael on October 15, 2009, 10:12:39 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkEl_R0dTfY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkEl_R0dTfY)
(http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/pictures/u/ultimatewarrior/01.jpg)
(http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/pictures/u/ultimatewarrior/01.jpg)
Title:
Post by: Kokojo on October 15, 2009, 10:26:36 am
Post by: Kokojo on October 15, 2009, 10:26:36 am
Dance dance rocket baby slim shady is here with you in his teeths wee!