Richard Dawkins Funeral Service [trollville]
Posted on: January 29, 2008 - 12:36am
Offline
Richard Dawkins Funeral Service [trollville]
Richard Dawkins memorial service will be held on Friday Febuary 1, 2008. Pilgrim Baptist Church will be officating the funeral service.
Richard Dawkins has proven to be one of the most wicked human beings to ever walk the earth.
Preachingyourfuneral.com plans to have a funeral service for Mr. Dawkins On Friday.
Any requests for an interview should be sent to comment@preachingyourfuneral.com
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Your entire post is an egregious waste of bandwidth.
Er...how do I put this...
Richard Dawkins is not dead. Normally, by virtue of definition, one holds a funeral service for a person post mortem. Doing anything else is...unusual.
What precisely do you mean by "wicked", and if you can articulate the definition you have in mind, what precisely makes that statement anything more than empty rhetoric?
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
Anyone who denies God is wicked!
Christianity, ladies and gentlemen.
As in "previously had a wick placed in them"?
I am not a candle!
But you could argue that I'm a firecracker...if you know what I mean...eh? how you doin'?
From whence did you derive that statement?
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
and a candle burns, and so will the wicked before God, He will destroy them with flaming fire
Yes, Richard Dawkins is wicked smart.
And he's not dead.
And there is no god.
And you're a prick.
Science points to god...and laughs.
wicked, evil, opposite of good, moral, holy
This is simply an assertion without backing.
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
From your own website:
And you burnt Heath Ledger in effigy and you're now threatening Dawkins?
You call this peaceful?
"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec
This is petito principii, you are defining each of these in turn not as antonyms by virtue of how they are normally employed, but rather to mark solely on virtue of whether or not somebody adopts what you believe pertaining to certain metaphysical assertions...and then using that as a premise to assert that anyone who rejects what you believe is evil. This is patent nonsense. It is akin to saying
P1: Only what I believe is good (iff x=>G)
P2: Therefore, those who disagree with me are not good (~x=>~G)
P3: Therefore, only what I believe (x) can be Good (G)
C: THerefore, iff x=>G
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
where exactly do you see the threat?
PYF Mission Statement:
1. Making a handful of illiterate yokels feel vindicated by the agreement of other illiterate yokels.
2. Further marginalizing ourselves and causing mainstream Christians to feel a vague, unarticulated shame for sharing any association with us.
3. Obliviously providing atheist organizations an example to point to of the stupidity of religion.
you are spiritually dead, and foolish
In normal human discourse, between sane and mentally competent individuals, hence yourself excluded, announcing you are going to hold a funeral for someone implies that they are dead, and announcing that you are going to hold a funeral for someone still alive by a predetermined date...usually implies a death threat.
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
Anyone who denies Vishnu is evil! We must burn the heathen! Our holy book is better than yours! Nanny nanny booboo!
See, I can win theist arguments too.
come have male-on-male sex with me you crazy effigy burning psychopath...then we'll have a hot time in the old town tonight...if you catch my drift.
wink wink nudge nudge
i love that southern uneducated fucktard way that you deliver your sermons...that lack of public speaking ability...that "i don't know what I'm doing" video production...gets me all hot and bothered...there are few things sexier than that dangerous boy thing...and you got it going ON!...you look dangerous enough to be total mindless murderers...just straight, burn a cross on your lawn sorta sexy.
I bet you beat your wives like good christians don't you? uhn! I love that shit. Cmere and gimmie a big kiss you sexy beasts.
This is a rather amusing exchange given that our interlocutor could only be described as deranged to the point of being rabid. But I find that rending asunder such vapid idiots is faintly amusing, if not pathetically easy. Now, onto the following matter:
Do you have any evidence for this statement, and evidence for the corollary that zarathrustra's statement necessarily implies the accuracy of your condemnation of him?
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
lol, are you really that clueless, the site clearly says it is not a death threat, we are going to simply make a statement using his wicked life.
Just a theist wanting to go on record as finding "Preaching Your Funeral" appalling. Thanks.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
the pope wont save you, the catholic church wont save you.
Then precisely what is meant by that you intend to hold a funeral for the man?
Furthermore, if you would be so kind as to address what I pointed out above and clarify by what employed definition you define wicked and hence its antonyms. If you cannot, then precisely what is meant by the statement that he is wicked? Furthermore, as I said before, even if you could make such an articulation, there would be no evidence for your claim, short of just defining "wicked" relative to certain things Richard Dawkins believes, in which case, you would just be begging the question.
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
Matthew
7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec
Heath Ledger left behind a wife and a daughter.
You, my friendly christtard, are the sinner!
Exodus
22:22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
22:23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
"Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man, but they don't bite everybody." - Stanislaw J. Lec
LOL, like I said, even the theists want to marginalize you. That's OK, it only tells you how right you are. How persecuted you are! You choose the most repellent, vile, uninspired way to make sense of your alienation and irrelevance. If there's a just god managing things, there must be something making him mad, for your dumb, god-fearing, cracker ass not to have a better station. There must be some reason all those people argue with each other using all those big words, while you're forced to furrow your brow, and beat the ground, uncomprehending in your blue jumpsuit and red-piped name tag. Why, it must be sin! If only there were any enemy that could be attacked, like atheists, or faggots, or Jews, or liberal judges. Anything but sitting down and reading a book or otherwise having to use that useless lump of flesh you call a brain.
deluded, you amaze me. Just because you are right doesn't mean you have to argue with a fencepost.
Atheists are handicapped when it comes to debating with theists. Our handicap is not the disbelief in god, it's logic. You can not beat illogic with logic no matter how hard you try.
these verses are refering to fellow believers, and it says so:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Richard Dawkins is not a fellow believer and certianly not a brother
I love darth josh now. If ever I have seen something deserving of "pwnd" it is this thread. Well quoted my friend, well quoted.
where is sapient? We want to discuss Dawkins mock funeral on his show
Brutally eloquent, a good choice of words for dealing with an interlocutor who exceeded what I imagined was the human capacity of production of vapid, unctuous nonsense. Well done.
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me