Comedy Gold From Another Site
Posted on: April 28, 2009 - 11:30pm
Offline
Comedy Gold From Another Site
K, I admit it. Work is slow right now, so I went on a Christian website and started asking questions about stuff. These guys can come up with some funny shit, let me tell you. Behold:
Dude wrote:
Will wrote:Dude wrote:Jesus had a biological mother and father for his direct royal inheritance from David, but he only needed Mary to be born again through the womb. So there is no need to expect further sexual activity from Mary when she was still a virgin espoused to Joseph before she became pregnant, it is obsoleted.
And that doesn't look like rationalization to you at all?
Not at all, it looks like all the pieces fall into place.
...
So my honest reaction was, in order:
1) Explosive laugh
2) Holy shit, he's serious, even though that line could have been in Anchorman ("60% of the time it works ALL the time" )
3) Who can I show this to?
I mean, holy shit.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
No way, man. All the pieces are falling into place.
...
Hahaha!
No, these guys are seriously crazy. They argue about shit I can't even follow. It's all about which guy has which interpretation of this or that section of scripture.
Un. Hinged.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Hey guy, where did you find this nonsense? (i.e. the URL)
^_^ that was a pretty great line.
I do agree with you, I just count myself lucky to not be crazy myself.
See, it's so easy, even all you atheists should be able to understand.
It breaks down like this: she was a virgin and espoused to her high-school flame, Joseph (voted 'Most likely to be hustled by Hustly McStealfromyou'). For the purposes of conception, Mary fucked someone who had a direct linear descendence from David. So before she was pregnant, she was both espoused to Joseph, and a virgin. After she was pregnant, she was still a virgin, and like a new car that's only been test-driven once, that's essentially a virgin, right? I mean, c'mon! It only lasted the length of Sweet Home Alabama. That can't count for anything, can it?
And so Jesusgod was born to save us all.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Theology Web. I know there's another one, CARM, but their site is difficult to use.
If anyone knows of a place where I could find some people who are at least clued in a bit, that would be great.
Actually, I think I've found the problem: I'm all ready to debate with William Lane Craig. He's pretty much the best the other side has to offer, and a guy who's in school to finish his undergrad degree is ready to take him.
It's an arms race that these people can't win. This week, we made lots more science, and they invented exactly zero apologetics. I mean, holy shit: we now have robots doing automated scientific tests! We can learn things even faster, now. The fact that apologists behave like rationalizing robots (and in certain cases, wouldn't pass the Turing test; I shit you not) doesn't mean they are as useful as scientific robots.
Just in case that slipped by, automated testing robots > apologists.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well yeah. Now imagine how all that rationalization spills over into other aspects of their lives!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well of course.
My favourite exchange on the site is probably the most bizarre, though. I say "probably" because that's what we argued about:
I asked about all the other wild claims that were written down during that period, but taken as natural histories (pre-science). Stuff like throwing frogs in the air and spinning around three times can cure an infection. The guy's response? He said we'd have to evaluate the evidence on its own terms (meaning accept it as provisionally true, despite the fact that it conflicts with natural laws).
So at this point, I'm trying to wrap my mind around how someone gets into that head-space. How is one able to reject what is plainly so, in favour of what seems more pleasant? Dawkins was wrong: it's not a delusion, it's denial.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I tried to join the site but I could not get by the Referer reference; HOW did you do it???????????
I used your name His Willness (Man you got some kind of ego) and a few variation ( even F****** up Canuck) and I couldn't get on so how did you do it?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
But such an arguments are not very satisfying to use if I don't know the quote exactly and I don't know where it is in Bible.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
What
The
Fuck?!?
The Panda disapproves.
I have lines on about 7 people who I'm confident could take WLC out in a debate. Most of them are teenagers in high school.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
On that site, I'm SaintWill. You can do it that way, or you can just put nothing. Nothing is what I put, so that works.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oh man. You seriously need a seal of disapproval. That would be excellent.
My point exactly.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence