What PBS doesn't want you to see

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,863
31,354
146
I still see evidence for Zeus, year in, year out. (lightening, the smiting of fools, the existence of people like Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansen, George Clooney, Robert Johnson, etc-- obviously the spawn of divine love/rape)

In all my years, though, I've yet to see solid evidence for this Jew God, let alone his supposed loudmouth son, Jesus.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
I still see evidence for Zeus, year in, year out. (lightening, the smiting of fools, the existence of people like Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansen, George Clooney, Robert Johnson, etc-- obviously the spawn of divine love/rape)

In all my years, though, I've yet to see solid evidence for this Jew God, let alone his supposed loudmouth son, Jesus.

I'll pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that one day you are touched by his noodly appendage. RAmen. ():)
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
I've thought that we ought to have a dedicated troll forum which is only seen by those logged in. As soon as we get into the hate or troll mode it goes there. That way people can flay each other as much as they like and the rest of us don't have to wade through it.

My favorite idea was to "mute" all of the trolls. Instead of banning them, you let them post but do not let any of the regular members see their posts. They'll just make their posts and think that they are completely ignored except by the other trolls that have been downgraded to the same classification. I'd be like an automatic move to TFNN.

That would kill the Off Topic, P&N, and Video Cards and Graphics subforums....

....

....

I think we might have a "Sixth Sense" level of revelation here about that...

What if Hayabusa Rider already created the forums...
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,581
984
126
If questions from "religious people" are so easy to handle, then why do evolutionists routinely duck debates with creationists?

World atheist convention rejects Australian creationist debate challenge

http://creation.com/global-atheists-reject-debate-challenge

Since this is about as public an anti-God pretension as there could be, and one based on a claim to rational argument, we sent an open letter of invitation/challenge to the convention organisers. This was for a public creation-evolution debate, offering for it to be formally videotaped with each side freely able to distribute it, regardless of the outcome. They were to be permitted to have a panel of their choice of atheists (preferably including Dawkins) formally debate the issue—of whether the evidence best supports creation or evolution—against our choice of CMI staff scientists.

Global atheists turn down debate

We got a rejection back the same day—which didn’t surprise us, except for possibly the speed.

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
32,043
32,538
146
That video is a crack up, unintentionally funny is always the best funny.

This visually rich, full production reveals conclusive evidence that the universe and all life were created by a Supernatural Being, and that the God of the Bible is that Creator.

Features widely-traveled Creationist speaker, Roger Oakland, who makes the issues easy-to-understand for laypeople. Various scientific experts share evidence and proofs.
"Conclusive evidence that the god of the bible is that creator" Perhaps if the viewer is lobotomized it is.
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,101
3
56
I'm still waiting for anyone to post links to or a valid explanation of evidence ever found to support creationism...
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
That video is a crack up, unintentionally funny is always the best funny.

"Conclusive evidence that the god of the bible is that creator" Perhaps if the viewer is lobotomized it is.
It is quite literally nonsensical to talk about "evidence" when dealing with purportedly supernatural phenomena. All observational inference goes out the window, because it becomes impossible to independently discern true observations from false ones.

Think about it: how would you tell the difference between seeing a person actually rise from the dead, and a magical being creating false memories in people to make them think that a person rose from the dead? There is no way to independently rule out the latter condition, so all claims of "evidence" become arbitrary.

In order to make reliable obsevations, we must be able to trust that the chain of natural interactions which connects reality to our senses has not been tampered with. To suppose that supernatural beings exist which can tamper with the regularities of the universe immediately undermines that trust. How could we trust our eyes if we supposed there might be some magical fairy rearraging all the photons before they reached our retinas?
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,057
10,547
126
It is quite literally nonsensical to talk about "evidence" when dealing with purportedly supernatural phenomena. All observational inference goes out the window, because it becomes impossible to independently discern true observations from false ones.

Think about it: how would you tell the difference between seeing a person actually rise from the dead, and a magical being creating false memories in people to make them think that a person rose from the dead? There is no way to independently rule out the latter condition, so all claims of "evidence" become arbitrary.

In order to make reliable obsevations, we must be able to trust that the chain of natural interactions which connects reality to our senses has not been tampered with. To suppose that supernatural beings exist which can tamper with the regularities of the universe immediately undermines that trust. How could we trust our eyes if we supposed there might be some magical fairy rearraging all the photons before they reached our retinas?

Hell, I'd be happy discussing "real" supernatural phenomena, but Christians can't even provide that. No photos, no recordings, no nothing. The only reports are thousands of years old, made by people who I honestly don't have a lot of respect for. I've got nothing to go on here :^/
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,101
3
56
I like how PJW either starts threads or derails them and in each one he fails the same way he fails in all the previous threads: talk big, can't back anything up for shit, ends up disappearing from the thread.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,863
31,354
146
I like how PJW either starts threads or derails them and in each one he fails the same way he fails in all the previous threads: talk big, can't back anything up for shit, ends up disappearing from the thread.

he's here to troll--nothing more. I'd say he actually "wins" 98% of the time.
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,101
3
56
The best thing about being baited is taking the bait. I R BAITOSAURUS RAWWWRR
 

hans030390

Diamond Member
Feb 3, 2005
7,326
2
76
What caused you to change your opinion?

You may have missed my original post, so I suggest reading that. But, to reiterate, I consider myself one that follows reason and critical thinking. I spent a couple years doing pretty extensive research into creationism, intelligent design, etc. At the time, I considered myself to be a Christian, so that was the main reason I researched that first. I was very convinced by the arguments that they brought to the table, so I stuck with them and defended them for a while.

Then, one day, I simply decided that if I really was a person of reason, I would research BOTH sides. I'm a fair person, I think, and that's a fair thing to do. I didn't do it originally, because I was afraid it could potentially alter my faith. But, if anything, I figured I'd do research on evolution, atheism, and arguments related to that (or anything countering creationism, intelligent design) so that I could know what I was up against and further strengthen my defense of what I used to believe.

Needless to say, the more I researched into evolution, atheism (and philosophy regarding it), etc., I started to heavily question what I believed. I still had many doubts in my mind about naturalism, so I spent a very long time trying to find answers to all of my questions. For example, what is the purpose of ANYTHING if there's no creator? So, as you can see, my research wasn't just about science...it was also about what that meant for my personal existence IF naturalism was correct.

Well, I can say without a doubt that I no longer support the creationist/ID theories. In that process, I also dropped my religious beliefs. It wasn't easy, but I can say that I no longer have any fear of what I used to think would happen to a non-believer.

To simplify all of the above, I consider myself a fair, reasonable person. To follow that, I researched both "sides" extensively, trying to be as neutral as possible (though there was a bias towards my religion). Once I weighed the arguments on both sides, I decided the more reasonable explanation was one of naturalism rather than creationism.

I'm not saying this to criticize you or be an asshole, because I was in the same boat as you...I understand. However, if you consider yourself to be a fair, reasonable, intelligent person, I encourage you to look at both sides in a completely unbiased way. Once you have done that extensively, maybe you'll at least understand why others might not agree with you. Maybe you'll change your mind...maybe not. I'm only offering this as advice.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,581
984
126
I don't get why creationists want to debate scientists in the first place? Science didn't set out to disprove the existence of God, science set out to explain the world around us using empirical evidence. So, why is it that creationists are so threatened by science that they feel the need to debate?

Honestly, I agree with those who don't want to engage these nutballs...why give them any credibility?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,343
126
I don't get why creationists want to debate scientists in the first place? Science didn't set out to disprove the existence of God, science set out to explain the world around us using empirical evidence. So, why is it that creationists are so threatened by science that they feel the need to debate?

Honestly, I agree with those who don't want to engage these nutballs...why give them any credibility?

The Truth sets them Free, but it has the inconvenience of not being the truth they thought was real.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,863
31,354
146
Aphrodite > Zeus.


I dated a neo-pagan who follows Aphrodite. Sex with a woman who worships a love goddess is unfuckingbelievable. srsly it >*

Aphrodite was born of the semen spilled from the pierced balls of Posieden, after it had mixed with the salty sea water. Popular accounts simply mention that she "springs forth from the sea foam," yet conveniently ignore the event that preceded this.

:thumbsup:
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,784
6,343
126
Aphrodite was born of the semen spilled from the pierced balls of Posieden, after it had mixed with the salty sea water. Popular accounts simply mention that she "springs forth from the sea foam," yet conveniently ignore the event that preceded this.

:thumbsup:

Ooh, gonna go Fap in the Ocean to create the next Cambrian Explosion!