3,004 Forum Posts by "Peter-II"
At 12/29/06 03:22 PM, Dre-Man wrote: I'm sorry you dumbasses don't have any facts to back up any non-religious ways the world could have been created. "God created the heavens and the earth" is the only line we need to tell us how the world was created, but you, you need a lot more, and you still don't have it all yet, and you never will.
I want to see if I can corner you on this one.
There are facts to back up "secular" ways in which the earth formed. Dust and gas from a nebula are attracted to each other because of gravity, and pull towards one another, until a planet, such as earth, is formed. The facts to back this up is that we see it happening all the time, and stars form in a similar way.
No, "God created the heavens and the earth" is NOT the only line you need to tell you how the world was created. You have absolutely no idea how the world was created whatsoever, except who did it and the stages at which it was created.
As if an appeal to convenience should be a basis for Biblical literalism anyway. Oh wow, your beliefs are simpler to understand than mine? I suppose that makes your beliefs more valid. Well the truth doesn't come that easily, sorry.
Fucking hell you're arrogant! Do you really think there's no proof for how the planets and galaxies formed, and even that it's impossible to find evidence for it? I mean Jesus Christ, you really don't know anything about Physics do you.
You sir, are an idiot, with no FACTS (not theories) to back up what you've just said. You have nothing, absolutely nothing, that can prove any kind of religion wrong, whatsoever.
Actually that's not what he said. There are a number of instances in which Science has proved mainstream religion wrong, such as Copernicus' model of heliocentricism contradicting what the Church believed in the 17th century.
Political correctness doesn't actually exist to any meaningful extent, at least not an extent at which it's worth complaining about. Essentially, the whole idea of it has been blown vastly out of proportion.
For instance, nobody really wants to ban Christmas. That's total bullshit.
However, it does exist in that people will be offended if you call a mentally disabled person a "retard" or something similar. At that level, political correctness has a purpose, namely, so that people or minority groups aren't offended. Although, I do agree that calling mentally disabled people "special" is...retarded, so to speak.
At 12/27/06 06:52 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I see it as a challenge of faith and good will.
A test of humanity so to speak.
Well how is that in context of your theory that all the miseries in the world are a result of people's own "cause and effect"? Saying that all suffering in the world happens because of free will is gross oversimplification.
What insightful commentary.
At 12/27/06 08:42 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:At 12/25/06 04:04 PM, Peter-II wrote: How do you account for natural disasters?Uncontrollable enviromental changes.
Oh well wasn't that witty.
I meant in terms of God and suffering, fool. Free will has nothing to do with suffering as a result of natural disasters. So how do you account for them in terms of God and suffering?
At 12/26/06 10:50 PM, Xyklon-B wrote:At 12/26/06 10:47 PM, Peter-II wrote:Fuck you, noob.At 12/26/06 10:43 PM, Xyklon-B wrote:Fuck you, alt.At 12/10/06 07:32 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: I hope this topic starter gets raped. Twice. Then murdered by an office worker named jimFuck you, homophobe.
What an odd thing to say.
At 12/26/06 10:43 PM, Xyklon-B wrote:At 12/10/06 07:32 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: I hope this topic starter gets raped. Twice. Then murdered by an office worker named jimFuck you, homophobe.
Fuck you, alt.
At 12/26/06 08:02 PM, Earfetish wrote: I read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins recently. It makes the premise of religion seem rather unfounded, tbh. But we all know the good arguments; Dawkins articulates them well and throws in a few I hadn't heard too.
I agree with a lot of Dawkins' points. However, he fails to realise, on a number of accounts, the social importance of religion.
"People need to believe in things that aren't there." -poorly veiled quote of Terry Pratchett
Plus, I think he's better suited to Biology, myself. Anti-religion crusades aren't really his thing. I hear The God Delusion is his worst book.
This has been revived so...
First of all, your assertion that the anti-emo crusade is a form a racism is, quite frankly, wrong. Racism is discrimination based on race, not on looks.
Secondly, you're right about the MySpace thing. However, MySpace still fucking sucks.
Thirdly, I agree with you that the fact that hating emos has become a trend is just fucking sad. As much as emos are annoying, 13-year-old "anti" emos who have no personal experience with the subculture and just hate emos because it's the trendy thing to do are quite possibly worse.
Fourthly, the only damn reason you're defending them is because you're friends with so many of them. Yes, you're right that emoness has become a stereotype and a caricature to the extent at which it's no longer funny, and that it's not even true anymore. However, your rant constantly implies that they're therefore tolerable people, which simply isn't true to any extent. Sure, a select few of them are pleasant to maybe talk to, but the fact is, the reason they're stereotyped is because being an emo pretty much encompasses being a whiny, pseudo intellectual and generally intolerable arsebag. I have never really met an emo who didn't fit into this category having known them for more than a few hours. The fact is, the music they listen to is total shit, and in general, having a shit taste in music is a result of being a generally shit person.
Fifthly, I don't even think it was a great rant. You had an okay idea, but it's pretty much just an unstructured streaming of consciousness. It wasn't that well written.
Good day to you.
At 12/26/06 04:45 PM, Fim wrote:Good job. You're officially wasting your life and money on drugs.You're wasting you're life by conforming to the system.
I agree with you but dude, shut the fuck up.
Kaabi, I'm sorry but you're an embarrassment to atheism. Get a grip.
Well, paedophilia itself I don't see anything wrong with. Which isn't to say that child molestation is okay.
At 12/25/06 04:35 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 12/25/06 03:58 PM, Peter-II wrote: Except I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the fact that you said any points he may have had are essentially invalid, just because you didn't like the source he cited.No, I was talking about how his points were so plausible they seemed to be all true, except until he linked me to the ACLU.
So your reasoning for his points suddenly becoming inplausible is the fact that he linked you to a source you don't like.
I'm not saying this is an absolute hypocrisy. However, it does strike me as slightly ironic that you once criticized me for essentially doing the same thing.
I doubt you would take someone seriously after they try and pass a neo-nazi site as an impartial source.
You're correct there. I don't actually know anything about the ACLU, so could you please elaborate on your comparison of it to a neo-nazi resource?
At 12/25/06 01:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Why, Why should he have to remove the pain, misery and failrue in the world, when all of these things are on our own cause and effect. God gave us the power to create these miseries, and he also gave us the power to fix them.
How do you account for natural disasters?
At 12/25/06 01:36 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 12/25/06 01:15 PM, Peter-II wrote: "Don't worry about, the guy couldn't refute my post, so he had to try and discredit my source."I love how you ignored everything else I said in my post about how everything he wrote was convincing me up until that point.
Your words.
Except I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the fact that you said any points he may have had are essentially invalid, just because you didn't like the source he cited.
Look at the topics.
What kind of fucking horrible interface is that?
Just to pass the time while I rip a few new CDs.
I'll probably go back to them in a while.
At 12/25/06 11:30 AM, BanditByte wrote: Anyone who tries to link me to the ACLU as a legitimate source is not worth my time, and thus, every other point you've made is invalid now.
"Don't worry about, the guy couldn't refute my post, so he had to try and discredit my source."
Your words.
Happy winter solstice and all that.
At 12/24/06 09:43 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: Awww, has the big logical atheist gone in a huff because the stupid "fucktard" Catholic has beaten him in debate countless times? Well, that's okay champ - you're right! Why should you be challenged?!?! You should be free to spout alot of intolerant crap about banning people from choosing their way of life, because you like My Chemical Romance! You don't have to take this! Hurroo for you!
The rest of your post was fine, but this is just a poorly veiled ad-hominem attack. You can do better than that.
At 12/23/06 04:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Someone seems to have problems with other people believing what they want
And yet, as a professed theist, you continue to post in a club called "The Atheist Army".
At 12/23/06 02:58 PM, qygibo wrote:At 12/23/06 03:54 AM, stafffighter wrote:Actually it's been noted that homosexuality tends to occure in the younger sons of families with many sons. The possibility that this suggests is that homosexuality might be a natural occurance of population control. That would make it make it both natural and nessesary.Sounds pretty interesting. Do you have a source for that to read?
Somewhat relevant.
At 12/23/06 12:07 PM, ashley wrote: Welcome to nerd central, the xbox 360 club.
I'm sorry but my words are true.
Then why do you feel the need to even post?
Go fuck yourself ashley.
The word random, when used in its true context, is fine. For instance, a random number generator.
However, the word as a description for something odd and / or funny is definitely overused. It's pretty much become a filler word for tossers to show that they don't know how to express themselves in any case.
At 12/22/06 01:47 PM, BanditByte wrote: You know what I really hate? People who pretend to be offended by racism, sexism, xenophobia, bigotry etc to boost their egos of how they're morally superior and looking out for everyone. That means you, topic starter.
Well, everyone who doesn't live a completely sheltered existence should be desensitised to those kind of things by now.
At 12/21/06 03:18 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Oh, you're a female? Great, I can rape you with a spiked dildo next time I see you in public.
You're a walking contradiction. What kind of Christian makes fun of fat people and threatens rape?
At 12/19/06 11:17 PM, StealthSteve wrote: And remember everyone, this isn't necessarily about "God" (whatever it is that word means to you)...
Heh, well that's how I interpreted it anyway.
Actually that's rather clever.
At 12/12/06 01:30 AM, Peter-II wrote: If you seriously think that saying "the big bang theory is just a theory" then you have a lot of catching up to do.
Ouch!
That's meant to say If you seriously think that saying "the big bang theory is just a theory" is in any way a valid argument, then you have a lot of catching up to do.
