Strife767

Yeah, it didn't work, as I'm sure you noticed. However, this works--edited it down myself to just Matthew's part. It's a much smaller file as a result, and also can be saved to the hard drive. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7TAKL2S1

Yeah, seriously. This country would sooner elect a black Jewish lesbian (three of the minority groups with higher percentages in polls of "would you vote for a qualified candidate that was X") than an atheist.

You mean the same Jefferson that was so put off by all of the supernatural stuff in the Bible that he wrote his own version that omitted every last miracle and instance of divine intervention? The same Jefferson who said this? Why, exactly, do you think he would cringe?

Which is why he always makes stupid comments.

Hahaha, "Start with naturalistic presuppositions" indeed. Bryan's too lost in his own world to realize that "nature" is all we know, and all we can perceive; it is literally synonymous with "reality" as far as we are concerned. Even entertaining any supernatural concept leads us straight into a dead end, because we can't do anything or learn anything with assumptions like that. Leaps like this are why I have him on ignore (I can still see what he writes if someone else quotes it, though, which explains this post).

That's because you're an imbecile.

Do you honestly think there would be any chance that Paszkiewicz would not be found 'guilty' of proselytizing with those recordings readily available as evidence? It might be that way in Kearny, but the fact is that overall, it's been quite the opposite--even a group whose primary goal is to reinstate state-sanctioned prayer refused to defend Paszkiewicz's actions.

Yes, using the emotes on a forum as a replacement for actual facial expressions clearly completely negates the validity of anything and everything I write! No, wait, that's absurd. Define "constructive" in the context of a forum like this. What could I type here that you would regard as "constructive," in other words? Wonder no more; I don't. I ridicule the ridiculous--that is all.

What part of "be specific" do you not understand?

Forgiveness only matters if there is remorse. Paszkiewicz has no remorse for what he did at all. Regardless, what "dogs" are you referring to, exactly?

In other words, "drop the special pleading nonsense, no one's falling for it."

And baseless accusations are all 2dim can muster when he knows he's got no answer, no counter-argument, no nothing.

Well, for one, because they grow up to be people that hold stances like this: "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand." --James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan And mentalities like that harm everyone, especially when a joker like that manages to get into a position of power, riding on the votes of people like you. Also: People are not equivalent to their beliefs. If someone thinks their beliefs are absurd, they should have every right to say so. And it's not like most Christians aren't aware of that--they'd quickly mock Scientology or Sun Myung Moon's religion, but out comes the persecution card if someone says anything negative about Christian beliefs. The beliefs themselves have had a free ride for far too long, and they deserve no more automatic respect than any other baseless idea (and to restate, denouncing or ridiculing a religion is not equivalent to ridiculing the entire body of its members--atheists especially tend to know that most people are indoctrinated into this religion or that while they're too young to do or say anything about it, and most people can't recover from that). Let's try and keep the standards down to one, yes? Why do you equate disagreeing with a religion with such an exaggerated level of arrogance? Do I detect a tone of "how dare you not agree" in there? But he's the one not gambling his life away in hopes of hitting the ethereal jackpot. Perhaps it is you who is scared. So scared of death that you have to invent an afterlife just to reassure yourself. Ever consider that? I wonder why you are so mad at Zeus. Why do you hate him so? Clearly, the only reason one would not devoutly worship him would be anger, right? So what do you think he has done to anger you? People can't hate entities they don't believe in, goofball. Atheists don't hate God any more than Christians hate Ra.

That's actually not even the worst part of the comparison. The Big Bang is not an "explosion" at all. It is a rapid expansion of space itself and time--there is no present-day analogue to that. Also, Paszkiewicz makes the common (for creationists and 'laypeople' who have been misled by them, anyway) mistake of saying that the Big Bang posits 'something coming from nothing.' The actual singularity in the model is the exact opposite of nothing--it is everything, condensed to an unimaginable degree, and the expansion is literally that. "Something coming from nothing," ironically enough, is something inherent to creationism as a concept. The word create itself means to bring something into existence, and I've never heard a creationist talking about where God got the materials for the creation job.

Let's try this again: cite me lying, and prove the alleged lie is indeed a lie. Come on, put up or shut up. Are you going to run and hide at the challenge too? How laughably weak.

...what? Let me get this straight, you're getting on his case for name calling? Don't pretend to speak for others. "To us here" indeed. Yup, don't bother straying from the manner that's become typical of the Paszkiewicz apologist. Still sickening, though.

You have no idea how ironic that last comment is, do you?

Sure, if the person saying it enjoys lying. The school could use more people like Matthew.

Just because one thinks it's obvious that the Abrahamic religions are nonsensical doesn't mean that one considers oneself divine. In fact, even considering how many more theists are around than atheists, I've still met more atheists who are willing to admit a possibility of error. Why do you suppose that is?

1. It's a forum. 2. As opposed to the wealth of information contributed by the poster I responded to? Psst, your bias is showing. You need more guessing practice.

No, they both scream unintelligibly to drown it out whenever the other talks. Obviously. Whaaaat? The Big Bang model is not a religious belief. Congratulations on your successful brainwashing? Yes--it made Kearny the laughingstock of the tri-state area. The fact that only one student took Paszkiewicz to task is shocking, and says a lot (all bad) about the state of this school system. 0.5. Actually, it's a cosmological model. 1. You know what else is "just a theory?" GRAVITY. Read this, and save yourself the shame of making this extremely old, extremely weak creationist argument again: www.notjustatheory.com Psst--taking everything we know and putting it into a coherent unit, one that can only be refined by newer, better evidence, and continually adapts to our knowledge base, is infinitely more useful than a baseless assumption that isn't even falsifiable! People like you act like hot shit talking about that, but you don't even realize how ridiculous your statements are. First of all, you wouldn't even know about any of the corrections scientists make if they didn't correct themselves with (their) new findings--in other words, no creationist has ever corrected a scientist--ever. Secondly, you pretend your silly belief is better because it's never been corrected--well, it's easy to have that when it's unfalsifiable. How about you make a claim that can actually be tested--then we'll see just how strong your arguments are. In science, all 'truth' is provisional--minds are always open to new evidence and new ideas. You've got some nerve accusing anyone else of being closed-minded.

So far, it's the concept that creates the fewest 'tough questions.' In other words, Occam's Razor favors it. Assuming there's a supremely (or any kind of) intelligent creater mixed in there somewhere creates more problems than it solves, not the least of which is the infinite regression thing.

Do you have working eyes in that thick head of yours? How many of the hijackers were Iraqi, and/or was their leader Iraqi? Answer the question, coward.

Well, I found the link you're referring to, I believe: http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2007/...wicz-first.html

Exactly! This is precisely why no one in the scientific community takes creationism seriously. Now do you get it? Do creationists account for the origin of God? No, they just say "He always was/is eternal/etc." What? There had to be a first being? Why is it impossible to you that there were/are ZERO such beings? There is nothing to suggest that anything else is the case--any such beings are totally baselessly assumed, and it's obvious Matthew is lampooning exactly that with his 'idea.'