Strife767
-
Posts
2,138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Strife767
-
-
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?
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (emphasis added)Why, exactly, do you think he would cringe?
-
Sorry, Strife, but I have to call you on this. 2dumb has never had an answer, a counter-argument, or point.
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).
-
Your last paragraph (freedom, fascism, free society, expression, protest, organize, win, lose ) makes NO sense.
That's because you're an imbecile.
-
I have not seen one post from Mr. Paszkiewicz on this forum. In my opinion and since this forum is just that of peoples opinion, I believe that it would have done Matthew more harm than good if the court had thrown this case out since it being a matter of interpretation as to what Mr. LaClair calls proselytizing may or may not stand up in court despite what his father Paul LaClair claims here.
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 appears to others on the outside looking in that it must be that way because the LaClairs' and a limited others say so.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.
-
This comes from supposedly a man who is grown up, showing all sorts of smiley faces and we are supposed to believe what you say?
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.
I am still waiting for one of your points to be constructive.Define "constructive" in the context of a forum like this. What could I type here that you would regard as "constructive," in other words?
I actually do spend time reading your tripe and rhetorical praise to each of Paul’s posts. I sometimes wonder if you sigh at each one of his posts and hover on each of the words he speaks.Wonder no more; I don't.
I ridicule the ridiculous--that is all.
-
-
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?
-
It would be nonsense if you accept the theistic premise, but the alternative is also nonsense according to the theists' own logic. You can't say that something as complex as a protein molecule couldn't have existed without a creator, unless you are also prepared to explain the existence of the greatest complexity of all, namely the supposed creator.
If you posit that a first being just was, before anything else was, then we can say the same thing about the natural universe: maybe insensible nature just was, before anything else was. If you say that something as complex as a human eye must have had a designed and creator, then by the same logic your hypothetical first being (the most complex thing of all) would also have to have had a creator, which as you point out is illogical. Either way you're just arguing over fairy dust.
In other words, "drop the special pleading nonsense, no one's falling for it."
-
-
Okay, you got me there, "on your pillow!!" Are you happy now? My problem is, why would you actually care what other parents are teaching their children out of the public schools? Really, why?
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:
We shouldn't preach/teach religion in the public schools, and I completely agree with that, but why would you now feel the need to insult the people that actually do believe in god?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 feel the need to be so above and beyond everyone else in this universe?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?
Unfortunately, you seem to be the sad one, and the scared one.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.
-
4. Doofus’ comparison between the big bang and exploding firecracker or building collapse has no merit at all. Those events do not produce bodies large enough to have their own gravitational pull. This is a perfect illustration why someone who knows nothing about science should not presume to teach it.
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.
-
I am sure that award would look well on your trophy case along with the 100's of your other trophys and plaques for incompetence and lying.
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.
-
I started reading this and what came to mind is how many useless breathes of air you had to take to write this.
...what?
Must be nice knowing you have become just a mindless puppet of Paul LaClair. I would tip my hat to you if I had one on, but I do not. Name calling went out in the second grade.Let me get this straight, you're getting on his case for name calling?
To us here, a grade that seems that you did not successfully complete.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.
-
"lemmings over a cliff"?? Are you for real? You must have REALLY hated church as a kid. I could just see you crying in your pillow while your mother screamed at you to get ready for church ("pweeze momma, I don't wanna go to church, it's so borrring"). Meanwhile, your heathen friends are outside playing soccer!! I hope your a young guy, your statement is beyond childish and completely ignorant.
You have no idea how ironic that last comment is, do you?
-
-
Wow. How wonderful it must be to live in your world of intellectual perfection, blissfully ignorant to the possibility that you may be wrong ... equalling ... nay, surpassing ... any potentially greater forces at work in the universe. For whatever God may be or not be ... He, She or It shall always have the comfort of knowing you are there to be worshipped.
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?
-
It’s always nice to know that you are again adding absolutely nothing to this blog.
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.
-
Do you and your father ever listen to each other talk?
No, they both scream unintelligibly to drown it out whenever the other talks. Obviously.
Or for that matter do you ever listen to yourself talk? The theories that you pose and suggest here are the same types of things that your teacher was posing in his class.Whaaaat? The Big Bang model is not a religious belief.
Except as he said it was his belief. The exception is that you got your dad's lawyers involved. I am again having the pleasure of meeting him again today at the parent teacher conference and my child has completely enjoyed his class.Congratulations on your successful brainwashing?
Don't you find it ironic that you were the only one to go on record to complain about him yet he must have taught thousands of students?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.
And for the record the Big Bang theory is just that, a "theory".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:
Science is only as good as someone can disprove the theories. And theories have been disproved hundreds and hundreds of times already. These disproved theories make way for new theories.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.
-
World Trade Center (2), Pentagon and Cole are pretty good reasons.
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
-
Of course you can pose an idea, anyone can. However, just because an idea is posed, doesn't automatically make it a "reasonable" explanation for the origin of the universe.
Exactly! This is precisely why no one in the scientific community takes creationism seriously. Now do you get it?
For example, one weakness of your argument is that you do not account for the origin of the space alien.Do creationists account for the origin of God? No, they just say "He always was/is eternal/etc."
Was his planet created by a space alien from another planet? If you say he had no beginning, then you are on the same page as the Theist, "God created the universe." No need to use Science to disprove this one. Just common sense. You can't have an infinite regress of alien "creator" beings. There had to be a first being.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.'
A message of support for Matthew LaClair
in Kearny
Posted
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