Gay Marriage

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I merely attempted to point out that because nobody can disprove the existance of God, it is perfectly valid -logically, I believe - to think that the world is 6000 years old.

God, or the lack of, is an irrelevance to that. The fact is, there is a sound basis on which we can soundly disprove the idea that the world is 6000 years old. Whether the concept of Mr God wishes to intrude upon that fact cannot alter it.

To be honest I don't follow your reasoning one bit here, but hey ho.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

JonnyBGood, can you prove to me that you are not the Almighty God?

Hah!

I am god you idiot. The aliens came from another universe and they're trying to destroy my creations

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

God, or the lack of, is an irrelevance to that. The fact is, there is a sound basis on which we can soundly disprove the idea that the world is 6000 years old. Whether the concept of Mr God wishes to intrude upon that fact cannot alter it.

To be honest I don't follow your reasoning one bit here, but hey ho.

Can you accept that (the concept of) Mr God can (and should) exist outside of time?

Think again, my dear.

[Marilyn Manson]

Can someone disprove to me the idea that I am not Walter Mondale's right buttock?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Can you accept that (the concept of) Mr God can (and should) exist outside of time?

Think again, my dear.

What.

Can you please, please, just tell me what your argument here is?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Can someone disprove to me the idea that I am not Walter Mondale's right buttock?

Yes. I know for sure that Mr Walter Mondale's right buttock would be better looking than you.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Which God?

edit : Even if God does exist I don't see what that's going to do with basic geology.

n e hoo, geology does absolutely nothing to disprove creationist's arguments.

If I'm an omnipotent being, slapping a planet together atom by atom overnight, why not put the rock formations together in such a way that they appear to be billions of years old?

why not stick a random skeleton here or there, 'fossilized', to fool unbelievers?

why not choose certain otherwise rarely used carbon atoms for certain skeletons?

i don't want to make it easy to believe in me. gotta separate the wheat as they say.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

What.

Argh. Not a philisophical man, are we? Damn, gimme a minute to look up some books.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

n e hoo, geology does absolutely nothing to disprove creationist's arguments..

Oh, absolutley on that level. But the 6000 years thing is still nonsense, even if you accept all of the creationist science.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Argh. Not a philisophical man, are we? Damn, gimme a minute to look up some books.

Again, can you please, please tell me what your argument in favour of the idea that because God is outside of time, the world can possibly be 6000 years old is?

[JonnyBGood]

Creationism is a great example of the fact that if you randomly accept some premises for no real reason some fairly strange results can follow.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Again, can you please, please tell me what your argument in favour of the idea that because God is outside of time, the world can possibly be 6000 years old is?

Oh. Because 6000 years need not be 6000 years to Him.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Oh. Because 6000 years need not be 6000 years to Him.

Where did you get the 6000 at all, is a fairly important question.

The October 23rd 4004BC thing (mentioned by Jonny) was "calculated" by adding up the dates of various events in the Bible. If you think this is an appropriate way of working out the age of anything (especially the Earth) then fine, but you might want to accept other people might have a problem with it.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Oh. Because 6000 years need not be 6000 years to Him.

Again, I'm not sure what the fact that God is conceptually beyond the limits of time and space has to do with the basic point that all the evidence points to the fact that in terms of our accepted notion of time, the world was clearly not made 6000 years ago.

[Boogster]

The 6000 years originates from an MM post. Blame him.

http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm - I thought this might be thought (flame) provoking.

PS. I'm lolling here.

[JonnyBGood]

Creationism is one of those great topics in which people are too busy being angry to worry about being right.

[Boogster]

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

This is also provoking, perhaps.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Yes. I know for sure that Mr Walter Mondale's right buttock would be better looking than you.

I know for a fact that a huge pink volluminous rotating dildo would be a better shag than you, but I made no mention of that.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I know for a fact that a huge pink volluminous rotating dildo would be a better shag than you, but I made no mention of that.

I don't doubt it. I'm not sure I could bring myself to put any effort into shagging somebody that is uglier than Walter Mondale's right buttock.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

This is also provoking, perhaps.

"There are actually several different versions of what is called "creation science." Some creationists bend strongly towards accepting most of the evolutionary interpretations but stop at the point of life falling together all by itself in the first place. These creationists argue for an "initial cause" (or "First Cause"), i.e. that "Someone" ... catalyzed early events and then evolution was the process used by this "God" after that. From www.creationism.org we link to a few of those sites, if you're interested. But other creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued learning ... and have come to the understanding (or belief, if one prefers) that there really is no good scientific evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. This is complicated, but many of these "young earth creationists" really do believe that 4004 B.C. is probably pretty close to the original creation date. I know that this sounds utterly laughable to those who believe that the radioactive dating methods actually work, sorry. "

I'm still no closer to understanding this 4000/6000 year argument, other than the idea that some people don't accept the methods involved. There still isn't a sound philosophical argument given at any point, as far as I can tell.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I don't doubt it.

Excellent. Then we have come to an understanding.

[Marilyn Manson]

P.S Pissing off me by being a boorish shit is not the best way to go about ensuring the continuance of your account.

Just so you know.

Ta.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

P.S Pissing off me by being a boorish shit is not the best way to go about ensuring the continuance of your account.

Just so you know.

Ta.

More boorish than you?

Ta.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

More boorish than you?

Ta.

Buh bye.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Argh. Where did all of this come from?

Don't ask... I had a beer and was starting to get bored and then was just about to go out to a party.
Which we ended up not going to but hey ho.

Interesting how Gay marriage has started to turn into a Creationism discussion... I think I remember arguing against evolution in a thread on here not too long ago...

What MM quoted is pretty amusing. "We don't believe it so therefore it didn't happen. I know that this sounds utterly laughable, Sorry." Great argument there.
The initial cause argument is the one that strikes the best chord with my personal beliefs but hey, can never rule anything out ay...

EDIT - that was a bit harsh MM!
Fancy deleting the spammy posts instead of banning him?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Ste

I had a beer

Top Ten Reasons Why Beer Is Better Than Jesus

10. No one will kill you for not drinking beer.
9. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
8. Beer has never caused a major war.
7. They don't force beer on minors who can't think for themselves.
6. When you have beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
5. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured to death over his brand of beer.
4. You don't have to wait 2,000+ years for a second beer.
3. There are laws saying that beer labels can't lie to you.
2. You can prove you have a beer.
1. If you have devoted your life to beer, there are groups to help you stop.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Top Ten Reasons Why Beer Is Better Than Jesus
5. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured to death over his brand of beer.

People who drink some beers should though.
Anyway

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Buh bye.

Hello.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Ste

EDIT - that was a bit harsh MM!
Fancy deleting the spammy posts instead of banning him?

He's only gone for a day. It's not like we'll keel over and die without the benefit of his insightful commentary, anyway.

Serves the silly sod right.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Floobster

Hello.

You can't beat my trigger finger.

[LHC]

I don't think he should be banned.

[Dante Hicks]

Well definitely not banned permanently but it was amusing nonetheless.

(p.s. I half think he's trolling anyway. Still a Bush/Tory supporter who believes the world is only 6000 years old is certainly conceivable.)

[JonnyBGood]

He's only banned for a day. Don't complain or I'll introduce it as a measure to improve everyone's social lives and then where will be?


THAT'S RIGHT


COMMUNIST RUSSIA.

[Burbank]

or current day USA, whatever.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Burbank

or current day USA, whatever.

No, no. Communist Russia. I'm sure that's where we'd be because I said it and when I say something I'm never wrong. You can accept this as true because I said it and as I have already said I'm never wrong.

It's all very simple really.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Dear Osama Bin Laden.

Next time you hit the U.S, please hit the freaking reactionary rednecks of Texas instead of the progressive northerners!

I hope your mother is changing airplanes at DFW airport when the attack comes, and that she dies a slow and agonizing death, ashole.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Texan

I hope your mother is changing airplanes at DFW airport when the attack comes, and that she dies a slow and agonizing death, ashole.

Excuse me but this is utterly offensive and totally out of order, there are 2 S's in asshole.



Manson and jonny in Bad mod/ worse mod shocker

[Marilyn Manson]

Well, he was trolling. And he was warned.

When you add to this the fact that he was a bit shit to begin with, I personally find the evidence overwhelming.

[mist]

out of interest.

taking the theory that god created everything, etc etc about 4000 BC to mean that god could create a world, fill it full of old, middle aged and young people (wouldn't giving these people prejudices etc be a contravention of free will, but anyhoo) and then leave the thing to run for itself for 6000 years, is it not more believable that god created the world and all your previous memories thismorning?

if you accept that god created everything, and off it went, what's to say that you were born?

-mist

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Well, he was trolling. And he was warned.

When you add to this the fact that he was a bit shit to begin with, I personally find the evidence overwhelming.

This is ridiculous. How come when you (I refer to the moderators/ 'patrons' of the boards) take the piss it is hilarious, and when I do, it is trolling.
Hey, I don't care about the ban - I laughed, but let's be honest, hypocrisy sucks. And for heaven's sake, I was just-having-a-laugh.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

This is ridiculous. How come when you (I refer to the moderators/ 'patrons' of the boards) take the piss it is hilarious, and when I do, it is trolling.

If you find a specific instance of someone else seriously misrepresenting their own beliefs to wind up other users, you should probably make a comment about it in the threat and/or report to JJ or something. Actual instances of trolling are fairly rare here among the regular users (except for Sunday obviously).

Also, to quote a former user :

Originally Posted by W

Consistency is overrated. Favourism rocks, and in the long run causes a polarisation of good posters who get favoured, and shit posters who get more and more annoyed and starts getting banned for being more and more shit.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If you find a specific instance of someone else seriously misrepresenting their own beliefs to wind up other users, you should probably make a comment about it in the threat and/or report to JJ or something. Actual instances of trolling are fairly rare here among the regular users (except for Sunday obviously).

Also, to quote a former user :

I didn't get the ban for 'misrepresenting my own beliefs' - I got the ban for pissing off MM. He insulted (though I assumed it was sarcasm) me, I insulted (definately sarcasm) back - I got banned. Then he seemed serious about it when questioned.

It's strange that my beliefs are so rare online that they are misinterpreted as a trolling, and slightly sad.

Consistency is overrated. Favourism rocks, and in the long run causes a polarisation of good posters who get favoured, and shit posters who get more and more annoyed and starts getting banned for being more and more shit.

I really don't think I'm that bad, frankly. You lot really should be pleased that someone with different views bothers to express them relatively coherently, even when they're treated fairly condescendingly. It should make the boards more interesting.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

It's strange that being a Christian is so rare that it is misinterpreted as a trolling, and slightly sad.

I think it's more to do with your style of posting. Your responses are often cryptic and unexplained. If your opinions are rare* then you need to spend some time explaining them. Not just say to people that they're not philosophical becuase they don't get straight off what the hell you're talking about. MM asked you a reasonable question (albeit in extremely silly terms, the one about Walter Mondale) and you responded with a jokey insult. Which is fair enough, but unnecessary.

Many of your posts in this thread are one-liners. Which is not a problem particularly, but if you're trying to represent some complicated views then take some time to explain them. Otherwise it does just seem like you're either trolling or simply engaging in postcount++;.

* = Being a Christian is not rare, but being a fundamentalist is fairly rare, In Northern Europe at least.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

someone with different views bothers to express them relatively coherently,

In response to your edit, I think this part is the problem. Some of your posts here are coherent, but many of them are simply from the "You're wrong, I'm right" school of arguing. Which is fair enough, but not likely to win people over. We're all guilty of it of course, but it helps to sometimes try and soften/alter the tone of your argument so people "get it" more.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think it's more to do with your style of posting. Your responses are often cryptic and unexplained. If your opinions are rare* then you need to spend some time explaining them. Not just say to people that they're not philosophical becuase they don't get straight off what the hell you're talking about. MM asked you a reasonable question (albeit in extremely silly terms, the one about Walter Mondale) and you responded with a jokey insult. Which is fair enough, but unnecessary.

Many of your posts in this thread are one-liners. Which is not a problem particularly, but if you're trying to represent some complicated views then take some time to explain them. Otherwise it does just seem like you're either trolling or simply engaging in postcount++;.

* = Being a Christian is not rare, but being a fundamentalist is fairly rare, In Northern Europe at least.

I hate to quibble, but I beg to differ.

Having looked through the thread, I don't think I posted too many incomprehensible or 'one-liner ' posts.

To address the MM incident, the 'Walter Mondale' post was not really a 'reasonable question', rhetoric at most - which isn't much better than a one-liner in any case.
Furthermore, what really provoked the 'boorish' accusation, and the ban, was this:

I know for a fact that a huge pink volluminous rotating dildo would be a better shag than you, but I made no mention of that.

I wasn't offended, to be honest, but you can't argue that the dildo retort was in any way related to the topic of the thread. I replyed in a similar fashion, and got banned. Now, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but this kind of banter goes on all the time on these forums.

-------------------------

And to address my lack of explanation.

Again, I don't think it's true to blame me of this throughout the thread. Admittedly, I was cryptic concerning the 6000 years thingy. And okay, the 'philisophical' remark was stupid. I blame tiredness.

Originally, my basic premiss was:

If you cannot disprove the existance of God, then you cannot prove that He has not affected the evolution of this World. He could have made 'fake' fossils for instance.
Furthermore, the references I made to God and time were meant to apply to the fact that, because God exists outside the effect of time, a 'day' as recorded in the Bible does not necesarily denote the same period of time as we use it to mean.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

In response to your edit, I think this part is the problem. Some of your posts here are coherent, but many of them are simply from the "You're wrong, I'm right" school of arguing. Which is fair enough, but not likely to win people over. We're all guilty of it of course, but it helps to sometimes try and soften/alter the tone of your argument so people "get it" more.

I appreciate that and I should make more of an effort sometimes. But as you say, I could accuse almost everyone on the board of the same thing, and it does not amount to trolling.

[queball]

Are these God-days in any way meaningful? Do you accept that dinosaurs existed?

http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug04.html#hon

[JonnyBGood]

That's a very good post in qbll's link and I would strongly urge boogster to read it as I'm unsure whether or not he grasped the angle many others were coming from in this thread.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Originally, my basic premiss was:

If you cannot disprove the existance of God, then you cannot prove that He has not affected the evolution of this World. He could have made 'fake' fossils for instance.
Furthermore, the references I made to God and time were meant to apply to the fact that, because God exists outside the effect of time, a 'day' as recorded in the Bible does not necesarily denote the same period of time as we use it to mean.

So it's not a literal day?
A lot of Christians take the "God made the world in seven days" part of the bible to be a metaphor for Evolution. Because obviously telling people 2000 years ago that humans were once monkeys wouldn't have been accepted by anyone. However seeing as now we are much more intelligent we can accept it.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Ste

So it's not a literal day?

did we not already establish that the bible was god's word, and that it's meaning is literal, rather than metephorical?

-mist