I apologize for hurting your feelings. I don't understand what it's like to have the passions of normal people. So I easily offend normal people such as yourself. In fact, I'm guessing that you're offended that I mentioned that you're offended. And you're probably offended that I mentioned that you're offended that I mentioned you're offended. Etc... Again I apologize. If it makes you feel better, neurotypical people like yourself beat me up throughout grade school. Something I deserve for not thinking like you or acting like you or dressing like you or liking your kind of "music".
I don't understand other humans, so I don't understand how you are able to derive "I'm not saying if they're correct or incorrect in their assessment." into "joking about how these people being disenfranchised are a bunch of whiners." I guess there's nothing for me to do but repent of my unintentionally "evil" ways. Perhaps I should petition my government to put people in jail who do not vote like you do? Perhaps I should have them flogged like I was for being different? Everyone has the right to believe and think like you and if they don't; if they're objective; they're heretics. Perhaps you should write a book about your struggles? That would be an interesting read.
You assume I have a side which is a fair to do, but inaccurate. To make the joke less funny, since I have to explain it, the reason I chose Romney as the supposed cause of the storm and cries of disenfranchisement coming from the left is that it is more common to hear the left make arguments that the right somehow prevents the left from voting rather than the other way around. I'm not saying if they're correct or incorrect in their assessment, but they do make that complaint more. Combine that with the fact that states on the East Coast generally do vote left more than right and it all makes sense in a Huff Post kinda way.
So if you're somehow offended that I made fun of your religion/political party/value system/whatever, then I apologize. I was just trying to be funny. (Something I don't exactly excel at).
We all know this is a sneaky plot from the Romney camp to disenfranchise liberal voters by sending a massive 1000 mile storm in their path. Huff Post and Daily KOS told me so!
In all seriousness, if a storm does do significant damage to an area right before/at an election, what do we do? Is this a constitutional crises?
In order to be detected, something must escape a black hole. Since my understanding is that not even photons could escape a black hole, how does these X-Rays manage to do it?
I acknowledge this excuse, I'm just not buying it. For him to say that it is because Dr. Craig is "evil", he would have to apply that to all Christians he's debated since they all believe in the same thing in regards to the book of Joshua. Perhaps if neoathiests weren't so emotionally attached to their belief systems, they wouldn't buy Dawkin's excuse either.
Let's be honest, he only debates nominal Christians and politicians. He then pretends that these folks are "leaders". I'm not swayed by anything a Pope or Cardinal or TBN talking head has to say. I find people like Dr. Craig, Hugh Ross, and others far more credible. So it would be like someone refusing to debate Paul of Tarsus and then make the excuse that they debated the head of the Sanhedrin instead.
So awhile back you refused to debate world famous theologian, apologist, and debater Dr. William Lane Craig and gave the reasoning being that he believes that God was justified in instructing the Jews to kill the Canaanites (something ALL Jews and Christians believe for the record). You also bragged about debating a bunch of political heads such as Cardinals, Popes and other non scholarly "Christians". This resulted in Dr. Craig "eastwooding" you (before it became a meme). So I'm just wondering, is the real reason you won't debate Dr. Craig is because you find him annoying or is it because of your embarrassing performance in Mexico where he completely schooled you?
You must be new here. Your answer is not only "not helpful", but it plays to the Slashdot crowd. Your intent was to look intelligent and enlightened, but in reality you look intolerant and ignorant.
That being said, I'll take the bait. As a rebuttal to "not showing anything of actual import or meaning."(sic), a Christian would argue that its importance is that they are no longer damned by their sins. The historian would argue that its importance is that it provides historical context for various periods of time. The anthropologist would argue that its importance is that it provides insight into the culture and traditions of early Jewish people. And so on...
But being that you're an average twelve year old neoatheist, your intolerance causes you to spew out this garbage when it wasn't asked for. Specifically, nobody answered "The Bible", but you provided a preemptive "rebuttal" anyway.
Money is not condemned in Christianity, but the love of money. There is a difference. Take the "Good Samaritan" for example. Would he have been able to pay for the man's room had he not had money? So if money can be used as a tool, it can be a blessing. To say that owning lots of money means that one idolizes money is like saying that owning lots of bricks means that you throw bricks at windows.
As for the second part, being blessed does not mean "God's approval". In fact it has the opposite meaning. When one says that they are blessed they indicate that they have been benefited through no fault of their own. So if I say, "I'm blessed because I have a great career, a wonderful family, and a nice place to live" I'm not saying, "I'm the best Christian ever so God's given me all these cool things!" I'm saying, "I sure don't deserve my wonderful life, but I've been given one anyway despite being a flawed human. I'm grateful."
Finally, what does Richard Dawkins has to do with theology? He's a biologist, not a philosopher or theologian. So the idea of "his theology is wrong, that's why we need a biologist" doesn't make sense.
Don't worry preteen modders, I already know you're going to mod me (-1 offended atheists with logic), so don't rejoice that you're "hurting my feelings" or whatever.
"Several researchers took issue with ENCODE’s suggestion that its wobbly 80% number in any way disproves that some DNA is junk. Larry Moran, a biochemist at the University of Toronto in Ontario argued on his blog that claims about disproving the existence of junk gives ammunition to creationists who like a tidy view of every letter in the genome having some sort of divine purpose."
Translation: I don't believe it because it conflicts with my beliefs. Where have I heard that before?
Seriously? Getting an Associates Degree in "Gender Studies of the 14th Century" does not make you educated or affluent. It makes you a liberal. There's a difference.
No... The ISPs in KC are Time Warner and AT&T. I'm barely outside the "fiberhood", so perhaps the rest of the city is getting some awesome deals. Perhaps I should give AT&T a call and see what they can do for me to prevent me from going Google (despite the fact that I'm a few blocks away from the fiberhood).
I don't care how it gets to me. I just wish they offered it NORTH OF THE RIVER! It doesn't make sense to not offer it north of the MO where there is a major tech company in the area who employs nerds who are all drooling over this.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? Or should I even ask.
I apologize for hurting your feelings. I don't understand what it's like to have the passions of normal people. So I easily offend normal people such as yourself. In fact, I'm guessing that you're offended that I mentioned that you're offended. And you're probably offended that I mentioned that you're offended that I mentioned you're offended. Etc... Again I apologize. If it makes you feel better, neurotypical people like yourself beat me up throughout grade school. Something I deserve for not thinking like you or acting like you or dressing like you or liking your kind of "music".
I don't understand other humans, so I don't understand how you are able to derive "I'm not saying if they're correct or incorrect in their assessment." into "joking about how these people being disenfranchised are a bunch of whiners." I guess there's nothing for me to do but repent of my unintentionally "evil" ways. Perhaps I should petition my government to put people in jail who do not vote like you do? Perhaps I should have them flogged like I was for being different? Everyone has the right to believe and think like you and if they don't; if they're objective; they're heretics. Perhaps you should write a book about your struggles? That would be an interesting read.
You assume I have a side which is a fair to do, but inaccurate. To make the joke less funny, since I have to explain it, the reason I chose Romney as the supposed cause of the storm and cries of disenfranchisement coming from the left is that it is more common to hear the left make arguments that the right somehow prevents the left from voting rather than the other way around. I'm not saying if they're correct or incorrect in their assessment, but they do make that complaint more. Combine that with the fact that states on the East Coast generally do vote left more than right and it all makes sense in a Huff Post kinda way.
So if you're somehow offended that I made fun of your religion/political party/value system/whatever, then I apologize. I was just trying to be funny. (Something I don't exactly excel at).
We all know this is a sneaky plot from the Romney camp to disenfranchise liberal voters by sending a massive 1000 mile storm in their path. Huff Post and Daily KOS told me so!
In all seriousness, if a storm does do significant damage to an area right before/at an election, what do we do? Is this a constitutional crises?
Buddhism.
In order to be detected, something must escape a black hole. Since my understanding is that not even photons could escape a black hole, how does these X-Rays manage to do it?
I acknowledge this excuse, I'm just not buying it. For him to say that it is because Dr. Craig is "evil", he would have to apply that to all Christians he's debated since they all believe in the same thing in regards to the book of Joshua. Perhaps if neoathiests weren't so emotionally attached to their belief systems, they wouldn't buy Dawkin's excuse either.
Let's be honest, he only debates nominal Christians and politicians. He then pretends that these folks are "leaders". I'm not swayed by anything a Pope or Cardinal or TBN talking head has to say. I find people like Dr. Craig, Hugh Ross, and others far more credible. So it would be like someone refusing to debate Paul of Tarsus and then make the excuse that they debated the head of the Sanhedrin instead.
Hi Dawkins,
Thanks for answering our questions!
So awhile back you refused to debate world famous theologian, apologist, and debater Dr. William Lane Craig and gave the reasoning being that he believes that God was justified in instructing the Jews to kill the Canaanites (something ALL Jews and Christians believe for the record). You also bragged about debating a bunch of political heads such as Cardinals, Popes and other non scholarly "Christians". This resulted in Dr. Craig "eastwooding" you (before it became a meme). So I'm just wondering, is the real reason you won't debate Dr. Craig is because you find him annoying or is it because of your embarrassing performance in Mexico where he completely schooled you?
AC argues that answering "The Bible" plays to the crowd.
I then replied:
Your answer ... plays to the Slashdot crowd.
You children do realize that marking me as troll and marking flamebait as insightful plays directly into my argument, right? Just sayin
With logic like that, ubergeek90210, how can I argue?
(And yes, I understand the meaning behind 0x10000, but 90210 seems to suit you better)
You must be new here. Your answer is not only "not helpful", but it plays to the Slashdot crowd. Your intent was to look intelligent and enlightened, but in reality you look intolerant and ignorant.
That being said, I'll take the bait. As a rebuttal to "not showing anything of actual import or meaning."(sic), a Christian would argue that its importance is that they are no longer damned by their sins. The historian would argue that its importance is that it provides historical context for various periods of time. The anthropologist would argue that its importance is that it provides insight into the culture and traditions of early Jewish people. And so on...
But being that you're an average twelve year old neoatheist, your intolerance causes you to spew out this garbage when it wasn't asked for. Specifically, nobody answered "The Bible", but you provided a preemptive "rebuttal" anyway.
I'll be impressed when scientists can make life from nonlife.
It hasn't been rolled out yet. But I can't wait!!! I'm glad they picked a civilized city like Kansas City.
Money is not condemned in Christianity, but the love of money. There is a difference. Take the "Good Samaritan" for example. Would he have been able to pay for the man's room had he not had money? So if money can be used as a tool, it can be a blessing. To say that owning lots of money means that one idolizes money is like saying that owning lots of bricks means that you throw bricks at windows.
As for the second part, being blessed does not mean "God's approval". In fact it has the opposite meaning. When one says that they are blessed they indicate that they have been benefited through no fault of their own. So if I say, "I'm blessed because I have a great career, a wonderful family, and a nice place to live" I'm not saying, "I'm the best Christian ever so God's given me all these cool things!" I'm saying, "I sure don't deserve my wonderful life, but I've been given one anyway despite being a flawed human. I'm grateful."
Finally, what does Richard Dawkins has to do with theology? He's a biologist, not a philosopher or theologian. So the idea of "his theology is wrong, that's why we need a biologist" doesn't make sense.
Don't worry preteen modders, I already know you're going to mod me (-1 offended atheists with logic), so don't rejoice that you're "hurting my feelings" or whatever.
"Several researchers took issue with ENCODE’s suggestion that its wobbly 80% number in any way disproves that some DNA is junk. Larry Moran, a biochemist at the University of Toronto in Ontario argued on his blog that claims about disproving the existence of junk gives ammunition to creationists who like a tidy view of every letter in the genome having some sort of divine purpose."
Translation: I don't believe it because it conflicts with my beliefs. Where have I heard that before?
http://xkcd.com/768/
Seriously? Getting an Associates Degree in "Gender Studies of the 14th Century" does not make you educated or affluent. It makes you a liberal. There's a difference.
No... The ISPs in KC are Time Warner and AT&T. I'm barely outside the "fiberhood", so perhaps the rest of the city is getting some awesome deals. Perhaps I should give AT&T a call and see what they can do for me to prevent me from going Google (despite the fact that I'm a few blocks away from the fiberhood).
I don't care how it gets to me. I just wish they offered it NORTH OF THE RIVER! It doesn't make sense to not offer it north of the MO where there is a major tech company in the area who employs nerds who are all drooling over this.
Last year everybody was like, "teh nintendoz 3ds iz teh doomz. vita will pown 3ds". Now the 3DS is doing fairly well and the Vita isn't.
Sorry, I don't speak "grandpa".
Each one of the first three films should have been a trilogy if a book shorter than any of the three Lord of the Rings novels gets three films.
I just leave it out in the middle of a rain storm and it comes out shiny and clean!
So rocks carrying massive amounts of water magically came to the Earth?
You could just stop tailgating people. Just a thought.