Comments by Frankus1122

Comment #178948 by Frankus1122 on May 12, 2008 at 9:42 am

If anyone needs any more proof txpiper is not here to seriously discuss evolution then check out his posts here: http://www.christianinformant.com/index.php?board=12.0

I read some of his other postings. And hence my point about the futility of trying to use reasoned argument and evidence and proofs to convince this person.
He needs to leave the bubble in order to hear. Right now, because he is in the bubble, all he hears is Charlie Brown's teacher: "Mwah mwaah mwhamm wah mwhaah."

A paradigm shift is required

302. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178941 by Frankus1122 on May 12, 2008 at 9:15 am

The point is the tax exempt status has allowed U.S. churches to become, in some cases, enormously profitable.

I have often thought of establishing my own religion. I figure I could make up anything at all and claim divine revalation. Has anyone in the Church of the FSM formally registered for tax-exempt status?
Does anyone know why this would not work?

303. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178929 by Frankus1122 on May 12, 2008 at 8:36 am

Evidence of 'young' fossils:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604

Maybe txpiper is onto something.

304. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178634 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm

I have a brother who is working for his Deacon title and he admits that even he has been told that when a personal opinion differs from church doctrine, he must always yield to church doctrine because that is the right answer (and policy).

An excellent policy. Who does your brother think he is to challenge the wisdom of centuries of theological thought? What arrogance!
It is reasonable to bow before the accumulated wisdom of the church.
It is also reasonable to expect satisfactory answers to questions that might arise. The accumulated wisdom should lead to reasonable answers.

Alas, it is not so.

It is hard to get a solid answer to a question about something that is completely made up.
Theologians come to conclusions about non-existent things. "How many angels can dance o the head of a pin' indeed!

305. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178628 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Diacanu,
I love your little dramatizations.

Arty should be aware that he loses old Beelzebub as well as Jesus.

Jesus may be nice and robey and sandaly and have really nice flowing long hair and all, but the devil is red and pointy and smelly and really mean.

And he can still have all the good Jesus stuff. You can be a good guy -all peaceful and loving and what-not if you want to. But you don't have all the hell-fire and guilt.

It really is very nice outside the bubble.

306. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178615 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Yeah, I do put a lot of confidence in common sense

Bwahahahahaaa!!

Noah's Ark?

Bwahahahahaaa!!

307. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178614 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Laughing boy, you already look like a prat.

I'll let anyone who is following the exchange decide if that is the case.

Show of hands readers.

Txpiper, you lost at the Flood thing.

You need to step back for a moment and ask yourself, "What if I am wrong?"
I know you are committed to your beliefs. I think because of this your good sense is being clouded. Every point you have tried to make has been answered. Doesn't Calilasseia's post, where s/he (?) indicates that thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers are published yearly that contradict your beliefs, say anything to you?
I think I know your response.
It probably has something to do with secular scientists following the herd, not looking at evidence in a fresh, non-Darwinian manner. They don't see the holes that are glaring at them if they see the evidence through your eyes.
When the Rev. asks what your alternative is, it is relevant. You see errors where none exist because of your creationist/intelligent design viewpoint. You do not want to accept ToE because it does not need God.

As Quine pointed out ToE is an extremely robust theory. It explains; it predicts; it works.

I can appreciate you fighting for something that you believe in. You need to be honest with yourself.
It may be a bit scary. But try to step outside your belief system and look at it with honest eyes. Look at the enormous mound of evidence against you. Thousands upon thousands of scientists in a wide variety of fields, over decades, discovering evidence all pointing to the same conclusions.
And then you have the story of Noah's Ark from the Bible. A story about a man with a large boat and two of every animal on the planet on board.
The only way that that could be true is if God did it. You need magical intervention.
And yet you are trying to convince with reasoned argument.

If you want to hold onto our beliefs that the stories in the Bible are true that is fine. Just don't try to enter the realm of reasoned rational thought.

Try my little thought experiment: step outside your bubble.
God does not have you in the palm of his hand; you are on your own. But there are other people out here. They are not so bad. Many of them are very good people who do good things because they want to.
The world is not such a bad place. You don't have to be afraid.

308. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178574 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Arty,
Try listening to this podcast:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/marc_hauser_moral_minds/

Here is an introduction:

In this interview with D.J. Grothe, Marc Hauser expounds his theory that morality has biological origins while challenging the common view that morality comes from God. He compares the human capacity for morality with Noam Chomsky's notion of a universal grammar, arguing that there is a "morality module" in the brain. He explains how his theory accounts for differences in morality across cultures, and discusses how morality could have evolved and what genetic benefit it might have afforded. He also explores the implications of his theory for the legal system, and for cultural institutions like religion and the family.

309. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178570 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:56 pm

"Naruredidit, just wait and see". "Nature of the gaps".

Nice analogy except that 'Nature' DOES provide explanations all the time. Our knowledge and understanding of he world is increasing daily because of the natural explanations of science.
'Nature' IS replacing 'godddiit' and the god of the gaps.
The need for God as an explanation is increasingly diminishing because answers ARE provided by science.

310. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178565 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Dr. Benway and Cartomancer,
I just want to take this opportunity to say I love you guys.
By guys I mean people, and by love I mean I like.
I am afraid that your brilliance may be lost on Arty and his ilk, but the genius of your subtle wit is greatly appreciated by me.

311. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178550 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Dr. Benway says:

There you have it, folks. No answer to the question: "How does one know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphoric?"

But AD has said:

Comment #148107 by Artful_Dodger on March 22, 2008 at 5:11 am

Re "metaphorical" v "Literal" and the difference between the two, one knows by being familiar with the genre, and by not mistaking one genre for another. The book of Job does not read like history, it reads like epic poetry. Anyone who is familiar with epic poetry will be guarded against the danger (a minor danger mind you) of taking it as a historical biographical account of the life of a man called Job.

The books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Esther read like history - and the events can be substantiated in many cases by reference to contemporary Mesopotamian (for example) historiography.

So, there you have it.
You know which parts are metaphorical because they look metaphorical and the parts which don't seem metaphorical are not.
That is his answer.
Perfectly simple.

Swing and a miss!

312. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178300 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 5:50 am

lozzer:

It's like the fall of the Magesterium in Phillip Pullmans Golden Compass series :D

Good one.

313. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178128 by Frankus1122 on May 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Ok, I think it's clear there's no answer coming here today

You are a joke.
You will be treated as such by me in all future encounters.

You say the above after accusing Diacanu of

avoidance techniques

.

I tell you that you have avoided answering questions and direct you to the questions I have asked that where left unanswered.
Your reply is sorry.
Then rather than answer the questions you ask me a question. I am going to suggest that this is an avoidance technique.
I reply to your question with a request that you answer my questions first.
Then you say you have to go.
I wish I had the skill of the Rev. to point out your deception in all its pink nakedness.
However, I think that anyone who reads this will see you for what you are: an obstinant, obtuse, obfuscating, obdurate mooncalf.
And a coward.

314. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178120 by Frankus1122 on May 10, 2008 at 2:31 pm

fides_et_ratio:

You answer my questions first.

315. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178117 by Frankus1122 on May 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm

It's a conclusion based on you not being able to provide an answer to the question just a series of avoidance techniques and fallacies

Are you talking about yourself here?
I have asked you questions and then you disappear; and never answer the questions.

I posted some more questions and repeats on the thread where you said Paula suggested that the cardinal not be allowed to speak. This was clearly not said by her and you were shown this by me and several other posters. And yet you kept saying the same thing, despite being shown you were wrong.
I agree with Diacanu.

316. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178113 by Frankus1122 on May 10, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Fides_et_ratio:

Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL?

Clearly an admission that the Cardinal's response to Richard Dawkins et al should not be given a public forum. As I've said before, what is really being said is, I disagree with what you say, AND your right to say it.This has more than a hint of the totalitarian about it.

Listen, you obstinant, obtuse, obfuscating, obdurate mooncalf: You are wrong.
You have been answered by myself, Paula, epeeist, Dr. Benway and perhaps others. This conclusion of yours has been shown to be incorrect and yet you continue to draw the same wrong conclusion.
To repeat an assertion that has been demonstrated to be false is not reasonable. But you are not using reason are you? Your feelings are the arbiter of truth for you.
Why do you post here at all?
You see, that question is similar to Paula's question about the cardinal. Why should anyone who spouts nonsense and is immune to reason be given a PROMINENT forum to speak?
You will also notice that no one is banning you or saying you can't speak your nonsense. I am calling into question the validity of your comments. Why do you post if no matter what is said in response is ignored? Why should we listen to you when you do not listen to us? It has been demonstrated again and again that you and your cardinal are nonsense speakers. Why do we need to provide a forum for this at public expense? Why is the nonsense of the cardinal afforded such respect?
Those are the questions that are being asked and need to be answered.

BTW: Will you answer my question as to why you assume Richard wanted to be treated differently from a politician by the interviewer when there was no evidence of this whatsoever?

317. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178100 by Frankus1122 on May 10, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I can't speak for others but when I said, "Thanks for the summary," I was joking.
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I'm not a spoon.
I'm not sure that many posters actually thought the article was real. It was semi-funny. To treat it as though it was an actual recount of what the cardinal said can be a form of humour. To treat the absurd as actual can be funny.
I do not know for sure if that was the case with all posters but it is a possibility.

Now, I've heard that hell is just an absence of God. If that is the case then we don't have to worry about warm beer and cold coffee. I think we need to kick the party planning into high gear.
We have lots of roasted meat and booze and someone mentioned potato salad. I make a wicked (ha ha) Greek salad. The secret ingredient is honey. I add a little bit to the dressing.
Is anyone bring dessert?

318. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177832 by Frankus1122 on May 9, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Comment #177820 by chuckgoecke

Far-out man!

319. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177813 by Frankus1122 on May 9, 2008 at 6:39 pm

I'm going to start off with a pork loin with orange sauce.

Could we have one just plain and have a variety of sauces into which we could dip our meat?
If we all get tridents we could try 3 different sauces at once.

Oooh! This sounds good. I can hardly wait.

320. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177791 by Frankus1122 on May 9, 2008 at 5:45 pm

I didn't read the 5000 word speech so I appreciate this summary.
Thanks Daily Mash!
And thank you Nick.

321. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177758 by Frankus1122 on May 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm

listening to RD this morning asking John Humphries to treat Cardinal Cormac like a politician, whilst expecting John Humphries to treat him anything like a politician. It showed a peculiar grasp on logic from a slef-proclaimed champion of reason.

Do you mean anything but like a politician?

If so, how do you come to this belief?
What was it that Dawkins said that enabled you to see into his mind and discover what his personal feelings were?
Is this mere projection on your part?
I'll listen to the interview again but I don't remember Richard indicating that he did or didn't want to be treated as a politician.
Do you always make stuff up like this?
(Last question was retorical; you can answer the others I've posed, but I'm guessing you won't).

322. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177753 by Frankus1122 on May 9, 2008 at 3:47 pm

fides:

You are being the slippery one here.
Paula addressed your point.
I've been watching you for a while and you are a goal post shifting guy.

I'm sorry if this sounds mean but you remind me of D. Robertson in that you refuse to see the points being made.

Why do you avoid the points that have been made?
Why do you run away and not answer questions?

323. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177740 by Frankus1122 on May 9, 2008 at 3:16 pm

fides_et_ratio

You interpret this from Paula:

Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such
prominent billing
on a national news programme

as this:

The Cardinal (speaking on behalf of millions of people whose faith Dawkins has made lots of money criticising) should not be given a platform to respond.

There is a difference.
I'll explain it for you.
It has to do with the words I bolded. Why is the cardinal given such respect? Why are his views not questioned as would the views of any other guest? Why is the cardinal allowed to spout nonsense and not be called on it?
No one is saying his views should be censored. People here are questioning why they are given such respect.
As I suggested earlier, his views are as substantiated as those of an astrologer. Many people look to their daily horoscope for guidance during the day. Many people feel comforted by the assurance that the daily horoscope brings to their lives.
The astrologer is not given a prominent spot on the morning news programme. The astrologer's views are not given the weighty respect afforded the cardinal.The astrologer's views are as substantiated by evidence as are the cardinal's.

324. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177712 by Frankus1122 on May 9, 2008 at 2:26 pm

the great teapot

Belief Works?

As well as astrology.

325. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177706 by Frankus1122 on May 9, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Fides et Ratio:

shouldn't he be given a public forum to respond to the man who was given a public forum to criticise his beliefs?

Yes and he should be subject to criticism of his beliefs, as Paula has stated.
However, once it has been demonstrated again and again that claims are being made which have no evidence whatsoever to back them up, we may begin to question whether or not he should be given a forum to speak publically.
I mean you might have an astrologer on a national radio program for a bit of fun but not to be taken seriously.

326. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177236 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Sorry again. I am not in bed.

Then they say evil influences must have been working.

Like the devil? Because he doesn't exist.
Their interpretation of the Bible may be under evil influences. How can they tell? Specifically what mechanism is at work that allows them to determine how the Bible is to be interpreted?

If slaves are paid then they are not slaves, they are employees. If they have to do everything the master/boss says then they are not being treated respectfully.

327. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177232 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Sorry to all falsely accused of Flood denial.
I am just getting fed up with nonsense.
I love the responses. They are funny and informative.
I am just upset that they are necessary.
Perhaps I'll go to bed now.

328. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177220 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm

I wasn't talking 'bout no flood.

Okay then. Carry on.

329. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177216 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Goldy, Rev. Dark, raindouglas, BE, Quine, and everyone else who is arguing with txpiper about the Flood.
You are arguing about the Flood.

The Flood.

The Flood and Noah's Ark.

Seriously, step back for a moment.

Who do you need to convince? Do you think that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills would not see the story of Noah's Ark as just plain silly?
Anyone who believes this has to make such mental contortions that it becomes clear that it is not reason that it driving the person.
Do you really think there is any evidence that would convince someone who has decided that the story of Noah's Ark is real, that it is not?
The fucking Flood!?

You know you may be able to convince someone that they don't have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to believe in God. Maybe that's it.
txpiper, look at it as a metaphor, okay?
The evidence is not on your side. Francis Collins and the Pope and a lot of other believers in God do not take the Bible as literal. That is just silly. You can still believe in God; just not literally.
Baby steps.

330. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177092 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #177066 by Richard Dawkins

So he gets the last word! And probably a much longer interview.

Perhaps you should leave off by asking some questions for Mr. Murphy O'Connor to answer.

331. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177046 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Richard, I would do the show, but unlike AllanW's suggestion, I would answer specific points made by the Archbisop. I am aware that politicians take a question asked and manipulate it to make whatever point they wish. This infuriates me.

Address the points made by the Archbisop directly.

You cannot use reason and logic to say that faith is beyond reason and logic and that therefore it is something in which we should put our trust.
There is a great deal of fuzzy thinking that needs to be brought into the light.
If there is no good reason to believe something then the obvious answer is not to believe it.
Morality, good works, social cohesion can all be seen as pluses for religion in some circumstances (if you ignore a lot of bad stuff). However, it does not make God any more believable. This is a point that needs to be made.

I say take every opportunity to get the truth out there.

332. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #177023 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 1:24 pm

I do find it funny that Stein has done out did Michael Moore concerning this film of his.

?

Uh, Max, you aren't turning into wooter here are you? :)

333. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #176985 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Comment #176975 by mordacious1

Like I said, Science maches on!

Yes. It maRches on too! :)

There were a lot of really good projects which I won't describe. I will just say that you are right. You can't stop people from thinking and being curious and trying to figure things out for real.

334. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #176974 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Okay.
I just got back from viewing all the projects.
I am in a bit of a better mood.
Two guys built a bicycle that will purify water. The idea is that you go to a water source a few kilometers from where you live and fill up the container on the front of the bike. As you pedal back home the water is pumped through a filtration device and fills up a container on the back of the bike.
Two more of my girls did a project on colour degradation. They wanted to determine which colour will fade the fastest under which light source. They had a log book that was 125 pages long. They tested the colour degradation by scanning the coloured paper and measuring its colour value using Photoshop every 2 hours for 10 days.
If you want to keep the colour of artwork or photographs don't expose them to a lot of sunlight; especially if the art predominantly black or blue. Although this is something that we sort of know already, these girls now have some hard statisical data as to the rate of colour degradation for particular coloured papers under specific light sources.

I am sort of happy now.
There is some hope.

335. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #176951 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 11:31 am

I'm guessing they didn't do it either of those ways though, did they?

Nope.

They provided a list (Christianity, Buddhism, Hindism, Scientology, and Islam) and then asked the question.
Then they provided 'facts' about each religion, including what they believed was true (humans are sinful -just look at the world today) and false (to their credit the virgin birth was called into question). Then they asked the question again. The sample size was about 20 people.
Uncomfortably for them, Buddhism was found to have the slight edge over Christianity.

336. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #176938 by Frankus1122 on May 8, 2008 at 11:15 am

Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science.

He is not alone.
I do not teach science but my students brought in their science fair projects today. Two very religious girls brought in their 'science' project. What was their 'scientific' problem to solve?

Which religion is the most believable?

I am not sure if they are antithetical toward science or perhaps just lazy.
I have been shaking my head all day about this.
It really bothers me.
I am angry and depressed.

337. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176644 by Frankus1122 on May 7, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Long ago for me did clearwooter overstep the line.
You took it a step too far, Andy Kaufman, with your giant man.

Who is the laughing boy now Reverend Dark?

Or I am completely wrong and he is below the stupidity of earwax as The Reverend so eloquently reiterates.

338. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176641 by Frankus1122 on May 7, 2008 at 8:20 pm

I think maybe Wooter is just pulling our legs in order to provide some entertainment. No one can be that stupid.

Bonzai, do you have your ticket for the wooter train? Woot! Woot! Woooot!
Do you sign up?
Do you use LOGIC to swim in the ocean?
No. The salt would get in your eyes designed by evolution in the salt water. No again.

Get it?

339. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176633 by Frankus1122 on May 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm

I suggest you stop the denial and sign up for the ID train.
It goes: Woot! woot!

340. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176623 by Frankus1122 on May 7, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Let's see how tall the first human being as it was stated in Bible?

I'm guessing 25-30 feet tall.
I have seen the evidence and now I am convinced.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_11.htm
Thank you for the link my good friend.
Where, where, where do I sign up?
Don't be the coy boy.

341. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176618 by Frankus1122 on May 7, 2008 at 7:33 pm

What can i say?
Truth always HURTS.

You HURT me funny guy. My laughing tears fall out of my EYES designed to make laugh tears.
My sides HURT from the laughing (Not from the missing woman rib). Ha! I too am funny LOGIC man.

342. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176615 by Frankus1122 on May 7, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Comment #176600 by Chato

imagine the outcry there would have been if he had depicted Jesus as a peadophile raping altar boys!

Outcry - yes.
Burning of embassies and over a hundred dead -no.

This sort of pathetic anti-religious propaganda is no better than pro-religious propaganda - they both fail to offer humanity anything useful.

Speaking out against dangerous nuttiness in an attempt to eliminate it does offer something useful to humanity. It is a call for people to break the bonds of faith when that faith leads them to behave in a manner counter to all sense and rationality.

About the Spirit:

but no religion adequately describes it and all modern religions have been corrupted.

And yet all religions claim to know the absolute truth of God. When your faith in things unknowable trumps common sense and scientific facts you will have problems. We live in a world in which there is no evidence of any god whatsoever. To insert a god into the picture and claim to know what the imagined being wants leaves the door wide open for anything to enter. Nothing can be crazy or unsound or unreasonable because you have inserted something that is outside the realm of reason.
To have faith is to believe something without evidence. Therefore anything can be believed.
You say all modern religions are corrupted. How do you come to this knowledge? Did the Spirit tell you? Do you 'feel' it?
I think the Spirit told the Pope he is doing a great job. I think the Spirit makes the imams feel all warm and toasty when they issue death sentences on guys who draw cartoons.
I think it is all made up.
I think Sam Harris is saying the same thing.
We have to stop letting people make things up out of nothing and forcing other people, through violence and intimidation and coersion, to adhere to the same beliefs or 'respect' them.

343. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176537 by Frankus1122 on May 7, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I am okay with casting out the demons of astrology and handwriting analysis, but this:

"In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, I cast out the demon of the intellect!"

He seems to have been successful.

Perhaps I was wrong about the casting out of demons.

"In the name of Jesus, I cast out the demon of anal fissures!"

Oh, yes please.

344. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176420 by Frankus1122 on May 7, 2008 at 9:45 am

Hey clearwoot!
Glad to see you back old buddy.
Nothing makes me smile (laugh out loud) more than your posts.
Keep them coming!
Other bad atheists are bad to you LOGIC but not Frankus1122. How to sign up for ID before the Rapture?

"beaching" as in "Son of a Beach!" - funny guy too funny for bad atheist no LOGIC.

345. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176027 by Frankus1122 on May 6, 2008 at 11:52 am

Comment #175985 by Star Spangled Eagle

Regarding the ghosts and daemons that haunted your mind when you were a child: Yes. I had similar fears. I am an adult now and I know there is nothing to be afraid of.
Imagine that someone like David Robertson or the Pope, people who actually believe in the reality of the Devil, still harbour the fears of childhood.
They have their faith to protect them from non-existent beings whereas we have simply outgrown such foolish notions.
I don't mean to sound all superior but thinking about these men in this light does make me feel ..., I don't know, more mature (?).
I understand the fears of childhood. My 6 year old son will not go downstairs by himself. I tell him that monsters do not exist. He tells me that monsters do not exist. He still won't go into the basement by himself.

What is the difference between the Pope and my 6 year old son in this regard?

We are witnessing the foolishness of childhood. Some have not outgrown this.

346. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175950 by Frankus1122 on May 6, 2008 at 9:17 am

Of course, that throws up a whole gamut of thorny philosophical and theological problems, such as what happens to the disembodied accidents of the body of christ

Was it on this site where the discussion of the theological ruminations of what happens when one poos out the body of Christ came up?

Holy shit! Literally.

As I am typing this I a song came on my web radio:
'dumber than god' by LITTERBUG.

347. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175855 by Frankus1122 on May 6, 2008 at 6:50 am

When I was a child I was afraid to go down into the basement of our house. I thought there were monsters down there. When I got a bit older I was afraid that the devil or other demonic angels were real and that they could get me.(That was part of my religious upbringing).
Then the Exorcist came out and I was scared beyond measure of dark places.

Today, I would walk through a graveyard at midnight on Halloween. My only fear would be that I would trip over something in the dark.

I suppose it is all part of growing up.

348. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175834 by Frankus1122 on May 6, 2008 at 6:18 am

Hey! Dr. Bradshaw:
Fuck you!
Stupid asshole.
How can you be so stupid?
The devil. Yeah, right.

Sorry, I don't know what came over me.

349. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175830 by Frankus1122 on May 6, 2008 at 6:12 am

He had continually refused blood transfusions that would have saved his life after a simple dental procedure to remove teeth went wrong.

All the JW blood transfusion refusal is because of some Biblical passage, correct?
Because of something that was written millenium ago by some guys in the desert, people are refusing life saving blood transfusions. Once you take that first step off the reason boat you really are subject to all sorts of absurdities.
It is interesting that even the instinct for self preservation can be overcome by indoctrination.
Of course the Catholics (following the one true religion) are not prone to such nonsense. They believe in evolution and transubstantiation. For Catholics, the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Only it still looks like bread and wine. Why? Not exactly sure. It could be to test the faith of the faithful.
Or it could be because the Holy Spirit did not actually come down from heaven to do his magic and what the priest holds up is still bread and wine.
I wonder which is actually true?
I suppose that depends if I have left the reason boat or not.

Sorry if this seems off topic a bit. I am musing on a comment by fides-et-ratio from another thread. He said that only the most ridiculous religious topics are dealt with. He claimed there are far more rational religious sects.

I don't think so.

350. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175381 by Frankus1122 on May 5, 2008 at 10:31 am