Dave wins dumbass blog of day then deletes blog...

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Dave wins dumbass blog of day then deletes blog...

Earlier today we alerted Dave in Australia he had won the dumbass of the day award. Myself along with several others left comments for Dave the dumbass. Just several hours after receiving the award Dave decided to remove his blog. Here is what it said...

Here's his page: http://www.myspace.com/thejetboy (is it Dave or Doug?)

dave the dumbass wrote:

Blasphemy challenge: where atheists are forming their own religion/cult
Current mood: thirsty
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Earlier this year on youtube, this thing called the "blasphemy challenge" was taking place where atheists would upload videos of themselves denouncing God and the Holy Spirit - apparently the most unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible. The people that weren't merely trying to be "hip" and "cool" would also include some of their own "reasoning" as to why they did not believe. I think it was part of the little speech to state something such as "just as I know there is no Santa Claus, I can use my rational mind and observe the world around me and realize there is no God".

The group responsible for this goes by the name "Rational Response Squad".

I know! I know! It has the word "rational" in it!

Visiting their website or looking into any of the activities of the members who run this organization, you will soon discover what are some truly disturbing and lost people.

What these idiots do not realize - or do realize, but choose to ignore and pretend doesn't apply to them - is that they have formed their own religion. Actually I think "cult" is a better word to describe these people.

Also, I find it particularly ironic that they use the word "rational" in both their organizations name and blasphemy challege as the key proponent of their rejection of God and the Holy Spirit. Why is this?

Well, it's very simple. What these people do not understand, or ardently choose to reject/ignore/find ways to argue around using rhetoric and pride filled pseudo-intellectualism is that "rationality" is actually better evidence for God's existence than His non-existence. Why is this? Consider a simple argument proposed by my favourite pastor Cliff Knechtle of Grace Commnity Church USA, who is also an excellent theologian and philosopher:

If there is no God, then there is no mind prior to the human mind.

If there is no God, and we are merely the product of evolution and natural selection. If this is the case then we can strongly argue that rationality and free-will do not exist. Rather, Determinism sounds far more accurate because everything we do, think or feel is already determined to happen. If evolution and natural selection are true, then every thought, feeling, emotion, decision - every impulse we have is the result of pre-determined biological processes. After all, we are merely animals that evolved from slime right?

So what is this bullshit about "rationality", "reason" and "logic" that these atheists love to refer to?

Atheist: one who practices rejecting the notion of God due to pride, while insisting that the rejection is the result of a "lack of evidence" for the existence of God.

Lack of evidence? Science has revealed more evidence FOR the existence of a Creator and the events of the Bible. But that is another discussion.

Many atheists and agnostics love telling people like me that I am brainwashed. O rly? Brainwashed you say? What exactly am I brainwashed into NOT believing? What is this ultimate truth that I do not see?

In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God. -- Psalm 10:4

Let their lying lips be silenced, for with pride and contempt they speak arrogantly against the righteous. -- Psalm 31:18

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. -- Proverbs 11:2

The proud and arrogant man-"Mocker" is his name; he behaves with overweening pride. -- Proverbs 21:24

A man's pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor. -- Proverbs 29:23

The Good Book. It is a good book, the greatest book of all. The Book of Proverbs contains wiser words than any philosopher of man.

Anyway, the point is: rationalism, free-will and logic are greater evidence for God's existance. The fools of the blasphemy challenge are arrogantly using that which they have received from God to reject the Holy Spirit. Now there is no greater sin than that!

If reason is to have any force at all, it cannot be a set of conventions or culturally agreed upon rules of thought because they would simply be arbitrary and therefore could not be imperative. There could be no laws of logic. And if reason was simply a plutonic form - a piece of furniture of the universe - then it could not impose its rules onto thinking beings. Only a person exercising their will - a powerful person - could do such a thing. For reason to be intelligble it must find its source in a transcendant, personal, perfectly ordered non-contigent being who has revealed Himself to us. If reason can not be accounted for a source outside of itself, then you end up trying to ground reason by using reason, and that is a logical fallacy begging the question: an addition notion such as 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad' etc have no real meaning or oughtness if they are conventions or societal norms. They too must find their source in a transcendant personal non-contigent omni-benevolent being. And again the same is true regarding 'universals'. Without a God in which all ideas are grounded, all we can speak of are 'particulars' - individual things that bear no relation to one another despite the appearance to the contrary. And with only particulars there can be no language or communication whatsoever since language is predicated on the existence of universals, on categories.

One of the most common claims of the 'blasphemy challenge' video so far is the examination of how the world is and that it 'shows' that there is no God. To do this however is to use inductive reasoning. Induction looks at the particulars and extrapolates that 'this is how the world is' without exception. The problem with using induction is that in an atheistic world view it is fallacious. Just because something is true in a given instance does not prove it is that way in every instance. For an atheist to make a claim about how the universe 'is' would require exhaustive knowledge of the universe in all its states of development. And no one can claim such a thing and be taken seriously. For induction to work requires that nature is uniform and that there are patterns of causation. But that uniformity must be accounted for in some way. And again that way can only be in a cause outside of the universe that is acting in it by establishing the laws that govern these patterns and provide uniformity.

Finally there is the problem of the atheistic mind. If there is no soul, then the mind is simply a property of the brain. No brain, no mind. If this is true, then we're just physical entities - flesh machines. And if this is true then we are entirely determined by chemical and biological processes, meaning there is no such thing as free-will and therefore no one can be truly held responsible for anything they do. After all, we'd just be doing what we're programmed to do - such as believing in God or being an atheist. That would mean there would be nothing wrong with rape, murder, theft, lying etc. And of course there could be no such thing as wrong in the first place. In the end, every tool an atheist uses can only be accounted for by the God of the Bible - a transcendant non-contigent personal being who imposes His image on us so that we can use our minds to make free moral choices, think rationally, employ induction and use language. As a Christian I challenge all atheists to stop borrowing all their tools from the God of the Bible and make your case without using logic, universals, induction, morality or your mind. When you can do that, I'll take your claim seriously. Until then every protest you make only proves what you are trying to deny.

I'm Doug Powell and I'm proud to fail the 'blasphemy challenge'.

Doug Powell - a Christian intellectual (and former atheist) who certainly failed the blasphemy challenge.

I plan on going over this dudes arguments and discussing how I understand them because he mentions some really good and interesting stuff. It has been claimed that his arguments follow circular logic - where the premises' implicitly and explicitly assume the conclusion. I am unsure yet, anyway it is the topic of another blog entry when I am in the mood for torturing my mind again due to lack of ability to sleep or general procrastination...

Here is RRS response:

Quote:

Congratulations! You win the dumbass of the day award. Your entire post will be the topic of conversation on Thursday nights Rational Response Squad show 8-11pm EST. You're welcome to join us on the show to talk about it on the phone. Just come by our chatroom a few minutes before we're set to begin: http://www.rationalresponders.com/rrs_webcam_room

Here are some bullet points... (Dumbass in quotes, RRS followed by "-")

"What these idiots do not realize - or do realize, but choose to ignore and pretend doesn't apply to them - is that they have formed their own religion. Actually I think "cult" is a better word to describe these people."

- I'd love to address this, but could you first provide your evidence for your claim? I notice you call us idiots, I hope you don't take offense to being the "dumbass" of the day.

"If there is no God, then there is no mind prior to the human mind.

If there is no God, and we are merely the product of evolution and natural selection. If this is the case then we can strongly argue that rationality and free-will do not exist. Rather, Determinism sounds far more accurate because everything we do, think or feel is already determined to happen. If evolution and natural selection are true, then every thought, feeling, emotion, decision - every impulse we have is the result of pre-determined biological processes. After all, we are merely animals that evolved from slime right?"

- I have a better idea... Let's flip reality on it's head and presuppose the upside down reality is actual reality. Oh wait... you already did that. We'll address this one at length in the show.

"Atheist: one who practices rejecting the notion of God due to pride, while insisting that the rejection is the result of a "lack of evidence" for the existence of God."

- Not only are you the dumbass of the day, but you also receive the honor of winning: "The most made up definition of atheist" award. Seriously, what dictionary or source did you pull that from? Don't tell me it was your dumbass favorite Pastor Cliff Knechtle of Grace Community Church.

"Lack of evidence? Science has revealed more evidence FOR the existence of a Creator and the events of the Bible. But that is another discussion."

- I can only imagine why that is another discussion.

"One of the most common claims of the 'blasphemy challenge' video so far is the examination of how the world is and that it 'shows' that there is no God."

- Actually in this case the claim is to show that the chance that the Christian God exists is so small that it's as existent as the tooth fairy, and thousands are so sure... they're willing to take their chances so you learn a lesson. A lesson that you choose to ignore, that is your choice, it's just not a sane one.

"To do this however is to use inductive reasoning."

- You mean like you?

I left out much of your retardation, we'll address it in full detail on our show, Thursday 8-11pm EST. http://www.rationalresponders.com/rrs_webcam_room

2 Kudos to you dumbass! I'll be telling my friends about the show topic, expect a visitor or two.

Best Wishes,

The Squad

Todangst will join Rook and Sapient in the chat room 8-11 pm Thursday (tonight) as we try to sort out the drivel from above. Feel free to comment about his original blog and maybe we'll include your views in the live broadcast. Additionally in this show on Thursday we'll talk to Robby59 a 14 year old who recently left religion behind after researching RationalResponders.com for several months.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


DORE
DORE's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-07-31
User is offlineOffline
ah, rationality

I wish more people could feel the pleasure of being rational.  This Doug fellow might never know...its a shame.  
A LOT could be cleared up if more people took a simple anthropology class--
i cant WAIT for thursday. I wish wish wish that he would show up to discuss, however, I really doubt he will.

peace


Jonas
Jonas's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
Dumbass of the day (Doug/Dave)

I wrote to this guy and asked him why he deleted the blog, as he should stand behind his position if he really believes it.  This was his reply:

"Hello, I never in a million years thought you people would find my blog entry and go nuts over it. It was never put with the intent of provoking public debate. I mean, yeah I support free speech and all, but that was never its intent. It was merely a reflection of my own personal thoughts I am having at this particular time. I am sorry if I offended you with it, that was not my intention because I never thought you'd find it! I am still very much a n00b to myspace, I realize now that I should have listed it privately.

Good day."


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
This is so entertaining.

This is so entertaining. With almost each passing day I find the theist claims increasingly more remarkable.

A co-worker was commenting a few days ago about how he'd prayed and God blessed him with a couple of sales on new accounts. He had gone a week or so without closing a deal. He was concerned about covering his Benz payments. God sure is great.

I wonder how children in Africa with HIV feel about that God when their prayers go unanswered. Maybe he's just testing them.

And they just can't fathom how I could deny the existance of their God.

If only I had a Cliff Knechtle, excellent theologian and philosopher, to explain it.

Rationality and free-will do not exist without a God? I double dog dare him to try and explain that one.

It's so easy to blame the victim, like Dave. The real problem is people like Cliff Knechtle, making shit up, creating his religion as he goes along, conning the simple, like Dave.

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: This

Eric Ferguson wrote:

This is so entertaining. With almost each passing day I find the theist claims increasingly more remarkable.

A co-worker was commenting a few days ago about how he'd prayed and God blessed him with a couple of sales on new accounts. He had gone a week or so without closing a deal. He was concerned about covering his Benz payments. God sure is great.

I wonder how children in Africa with HIV feel about that God when their prayers go unanswered. Maybe he's just testing them.

And they just can't fathom how I could deny the existance of their God.

If only I had a Cliff Knechtle, excellent theologian and philosopher, to explain it.

Rationality and free-will do not exist without a God? I double dog dare him to try and explain that one.

It's so easy to blame the victim, like Dave. The real problem is people like Cliff Knechtle, making shit up, creating his religion as he goes along, conning the simple, like Dave.

Nonononononono.. it's to test our faith, remember? How could we possibly believe in "him" if he wasn't torturing brown people, both now and for all eternity, for our personal benefit?


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jonas wrote: I wrote to

Jonas wrote:

I wrote to this guy and asked him why he deleted the blog, as he should stand behind his position if he really believes it. This was his reply:

"Hello, I never in a million years thought you people would find my blog entry and go nuts over it. It was never put with the intent of provoking public debate. I mean, yeah I support free speech and all, but that was never its intent. It was merely a reflection of my own personal thoughts I am having at this particular time. I am sorry if I offended you with it, that was not my intention because I never thought you'd find it! I am still very much a n00b to myspace, I realize now that I should have listed it privately.

Good day."

Hehehehe in other words: "I never would have posted it if someone with any intelligence would actually call me on it and ask me to explaaaain it! I just wanted to rant, not to actually have to back up anything I say."

Offended? It was far to rediculous to be offensive. It was a bit painfully embarrasing (sympatheticly) to read, however.

This should be a good show. In all seriousness, I really do hope that he makes an appearance. 


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
dave the dumbass

dave the dumbass wrote:


Blasphemy challenge: where atheists are forming their own religion/cult
Current mood: thirsty
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Earlier this year on youtube, this thing called the "blasphemy challenge" was taking place where atheists would upload videos of themselves denouncing God and the Holy Spirit - apparently the most unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible. The people that weren't merely trying to be "hip" and "cool" would also include some of their own "reasoning" as to why they did not believe. I think it was part of the little speech to state something such as "just as I know there is no Santa Claus, I can use my rational mind and observe the world around me and realize there is no God".

The group responsible for this goes by the name "Rational Response Squad".

I know! I know! It has the word "rational" in it!


Ad Homs from the get go! first sign that this should be a joke of a reply.

Visiting their website or looking into any of the activities of the members who run this organization, you will soon discover what are some truly disturbing and lost people.


Whammo! Ad Hom again! This is building up to be some kinda rebuttal.

What these idiots do not realize - or do realize, but choose to ignore and pretend doesn't apply to them - is that they have formed their own religion. Actually I think "cult" is a better word to describe these people.


I believe we may need to break down the words cult and religion as they are clearly not udnerstood at all. 


RELIGION (Oxford Dictionary) - religion

  • noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.


CULT (Oxford Dictionary) - cult

  • noun 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object



Now, those are both of the original definitions offered by the Oxford Dictionary. 


Also, I find it particularly ironic that they use the word "rational" in both their organizations name and blasphemy challege as the key proponent of their rejection of God and the Holy Spirit. Why is this?

Maybe, because it's the RATIONAL option?!


Well, it's very simple. What these people do not understand, or ardently choose to reject/ignore/find ways to argue around using rhetoric and pride filled pseudo-intellectualism is that "rationality" is actually better evidence for God's existence than His non-existence. Why is this? Consider a simple argument proposed by my favourite pastor Cliff Knechtle of Grace Commnity Church USA, who is also an excellent theologian and philosopher:

If there is no God, then there is no mind prior to the human mind.


This is not true. There is no mind prior to the PHYSICAL mind. There is a major difference as the dinosaurs had "minds"; albeit much simpler ones than ours.


If there is no God, and we are merely the product of evolution and natural selection. If this is the case then we can strongly argue that rationality and free-will do not exist. Rather, Determinism sounds far more accurate because everything we do, think or feel is already determined to happen. If evolution and natural selection are true, then every thought, feeling, emotion, decision - every impulse we have is the result of pre-determined biological processes. After all, we are merely animals that evolved from slime right?

I'm sorry... did I miss something? As far as I am aware, the validity of an argument is in no way disenfranchised by the consequences of said argument. 


I shall explain using a parallel. Gravity is established fact, established just like Evolution mind you Creationists. Now, as a consequence of there being such a thing as gravity I CANNOT fly!.... I'll repeat it again because this consequence completely sucks. I CANNOT fly! I have no ability to leap bounds and suspend myself in mid-air for long periods of time. This has been revoked by gravity. This consequence has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the theory of gravity. It is sound regardless of how much the consequences suck, and they really suck cause I wanna jump really high. But alas, damn you gravity, I cannot.


So what is this bullshit about "rationality", "reason" and "logic" that these atheists love to refer to?

It's not just Atheists who love to talk about rationality, reason, and logic. It is anyone who is interested in discovering facts about reality. They help a lot more than random assertions made without any evidence to back them up.


Atheist: one who practices rejecting the notion of God due to pride, while insisting that the rejection is the result of a "lack of evidence" for the existence of God.

 

Oh! I see what you did! You gave a little Ad Hom definition of Atheist, quite clever. Let's see what the definition authority has to say.. are they in agreement?


ATHEIST (The American Heritage Dictionary 2000) -  

atheist. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of deities.

FAIL!

 

Lack of evidence? Science has revealed more evidence FOR the existence of a Creator and the events of the Bible. But that is another discussion.


I'm sure you would love to save this for another discussion, as any discussions concerning this as of so far have yielded absolutely NO evidence whatsoever. Interesting.


Many atheists and agnostics love telling people like me that I am brainwashed. O rly? Brainwashed you say? What exactly am I brainwashed into NOT believing? What is this ultimate truth that I do not see?

In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God. -- Psalm 10:4

Let their lying lips be silenced, for with pride and contempt they speak arrogantly against the righteous. -- Psalm 31:18

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. -- Proverbs 11:2

The proud and arrogant man-"Mocker" is his name; he behaves with overweening pride. -- Proverbs 21:24

A man's pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor. -- Proverbs 29:23


LOL


You forgot: 

"The fool hath said in his heart "there is no God."


The Good Book. It is a good book, the greatest book of all. The Book of Proverbs contains wiser words than any philosopher of man.


Wait, no one ever said it isn't a good book. It is incredibly entertaining. It just sucks in its attempts towards moral/political guidance.


I.e.: Homicide, Genocide, Lies, Thievery, Jealousy, Beastiality, Incest, Rape, Torture, Suffering, Diseases, Suicide, Child Abuse, Infanticide, Etc. etc.



Anyway, the point is: rationalism, free-will and logic are greater evidence for God's existance. The fools of the blasphemy challenge are arrogantly using that which they have received from God to reject the Holy Spirit. Now there is no greater sin than that!

Sorry, but you need to establish that there is such a thing as FREE WILL before trying to use it as a basis for an argument. It is neither self-evident nor is it an aspect of a priori knowledge. Try again.



If reason is to have any force at all, it cannot be a set of conventions or culturally agreed upon rules of thought because they would simply be arbitrary and therefore could not be imperative. There could be no laws of logic. And if reason was simply a plutonic form - a piece of furniture of the universe - then it could not impose its rules onto thinking beings. Only a person exercising their will - a powerful person - could do such a thing. For reason to be intelligble it must find its source in a transcendant, personal, perfectly ordered non-contigent being who has revealed Himself to us. If reason can not be accounted for a source outside of itself, then you end up trying to ground reason by using reason, and that is a logical fallacy begging the question: an addition notion such as 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad' etc have no real meaning or oughtness if they are conventions or societal norms. They too must find their source in a transcendant personal non-contigent omni-benevolent being. And again the same is true regarding 'universals'. Without a God in which all ideas are grounded, all we can speak of are 'particulars' - individual things that bear no relation to one another despite the appearance to the contrary. And with only particulars there can be no language or communication whatsoever since language is predicated on the existence of universals, on categories.


Reason is not a set of culturally agreed upon group of aspects that lay out what is rational. Reasoning is the process by which, all of us, regardless of race, creed, gender, family line, economic status, social status, education level, etc determine whether or not a particular belief is justified in being held. The aspects of logical thinking are a priori. It is known without being taught that 2 things cannot co-exist/dwell within the same inference/idea/being, etc. if they are complete oppisites. This should be clear at your age. Either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty plagues you. 


One of the most common claims of the 'blasphemy challenge' video so far is the examination of how the world is and that it 'shows' that there is no God. To do this however is to use inductive reasoning. Induction looks at the particulars and extrapolates that 'this is how the world is' without exception. The problem with using induction is that in an atheistic world view it is fallacious. Just because something is true in a given instance does not prove it is that way in every instance. For an atheist to make a claim about how the universe 'is' would require exhaustive knowledge of the universe in all its states of development. And no one can claim such a thing and be taken seriously. For induction to work requires that nature is uniform and that there are patterns of causation. But that uniformity must be accounted for in some way. And again that way can only be in a cause outside of the universe that is acting in it by establishing the laws that govern these patterns and provide uniformity.

Finally there is the problem of the atheistic mind. If there is no soul, then the mind is simply a property of the brain. No brain, no mind. If this is true, then we're just physical entities - flesh machines. And if this is true then we are entirely determined by chemical and biological processes, meaning there is no such thing as free-will and therefore no one can be truly held responsible for anything they do. After all, we'd just be doing what we're programmed to do - such as believing in God or being an atheist. That would mean there would be nothing wrong with rape, murder, theft, lying etc. And of course there could be no such thing as wrong in the first place. In the end, every tool an atheist uses can only be accounted for by the God of the Bible - a transcendant non-contigent personal being who imposes His image on us so that we can use our minds to make free moral choices, think rationally, employ induction and use language. As a Christian I challenge all atheists to stop borrowing all their tools from the God of the Bible and make your case without using logic, universals, induction, morality or your mind. When you can do that, I'll take your claim seriously. Until then every protest you make only proves what you are trying to deny.

I'm Doug Powell and I'm proud to fail the 'blasphemy challenge'.

Doug Powell - a Christian intellectual (and former atheist) who certainly failed the blasphemy challenge.

I plan on going over this dudes arguments and discussing how I understand them because he mentions some really good and interesting stuff. It has been claimed that his arguments follow circular logic - where the premises' implicitly and explicitly assume the conclusion. I am unsure yet, anyway it is the topic of another blog entry when I am in the mood for torturing my mind again due to lack of ability to sleep or general procrastination...



Everything after my final comment was repeated and as such is covered.


You FAIL on so many levels it's actually kind of scary.


goat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I seriously am at a loss

I seriously am at a loss for words. He basically just flipped around any argument against God and said it works for God.

 

What the christ was this stuff about  how evolution results in determinism? What kind of logic is that? 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Hello, I never in a

Quote:
Hello, I never in a million years thought you people would find my blog entry and go nuts over it. ... I am still very much a n00b to myspace, I realize now that I should have listed it privately.

Good thing he learned that the internet is a public place early on. If he hadn't had learned this lesson, who knows what would've happend? Perhaps a picture of him shit-faced drunk and puking in a toilet that he put on myspace never expecting in a million years a potential employer and/or significant other would find?


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: It's

Eric Ferguson wrote:
It's so easy to blame the victim, like Dave. The real problem is people like Cliff Knechtle, making shit up, creating his religion as he goes along, conning the simple, like Dave.

Onfray took the same position in Atheist Manifesto, which I think is absolutely correct. 

While a person is fully responsible for their own belief system, the real problem is that there is a "believe in god" factory out there. This factory is complete with workers, foremen, advertising agents, and the best PR representation the planet has ever known. This factory sells it's wares under threat of torture and is endorsed by the government. You can set up a "believe in god" franchise for a fee. 

People spreading the poison of idiocy are the real problem. They convert children before they are able to defend themselves and Dave is the result; an idiot, as he was trained to be from birth.  


Brandon
Brandon's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
The name calling back and

The name calling back and forth is childish at best.  I feel that rational atheists could come up with something better than "Dumbass of the whatever".  Just my thoughts. 

"We never respect stupidity in our society unless it is Religious Stupidity." -Sam Harris


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Brandon wrote: The name

Brandon wrote:
The name calling back and forth is childish at best.  I feel that rational atheists could come up with something better than "Dumbass of the whatever".  Just my thoughts. 

 

I'm sure the doyens of RRS stand humbled.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
ABx wrote: Nonononononono..

ABx wrote:
Nonononononono.. it's to test our faith, remember? How could we possibly believe in "him" if he wasn't torturing brown people, both now and for all eternity, for our personal benefit?

Being "brown" myself, I got a kick out of this reply. It would be funnier if it weren't for the sheeple who actually believe this. 

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
Brandon wrote: The name

Brandon wrote:
The name calling back and forth is childish at best.  I feel that rational atheists could come up with something better than "Dumbass of the whatever".  Just my thoughts. 

Rational folks also understand that all arguments against or for something are to be judged on the basis of the argument themselves and not in conjuction with the language used for the rebuttal. 
Oh, and by the way, you get what you give.


AReasonableLu
AReasonableLu's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-06-20
User is offlineOffline
Oh man this Knechtle pastor

Oh man this Knechtle pastor is hilarious.

http://www.gracecommunity.info/discus/messages/8/8.html

Check out the link to read his answers to some tough questions such as..

Isn't believing in Jesus irrational?

What's wrong with sex?

(my personal favorite) Why do innocent people suffer?

Doug just might be the dumbass of the day, but dear Knechtle is the dumbfuck of the century.

 

http://www.gracecommunity.info/listen/sermontopic/abcd.html

This is a link to some of his sermons. I can't wait to check out his sermon "Does life stink?" Or how about "Heaven: Comforting Fact or Embarassing Fiction"? Maybe someone should send Doug a link to his best friend's "How to Handle Criticism" sermon...

“The four most over-rated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.”
-Christopher Hitchens

"I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of Him."
-Gabriel Garcia Marquez


Brandon
Brandon's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
AtheistAviB wrote: Brandon

AtheistAviB wrote:
Brandon wrote:
The name calling back and forth is childish at best.  I feel that rational atheists could come up with something better than "Dumbass of the whatever".  Just my thoughts. 

Rational folks also understand that all arguments against or for something are to be judged on the basis of the argument themselves and not in conjuction with the language used for the rebuttal. 
Oh, and by the way, you get what you give.

 

You get what you give?? Is that the same as eye for an eye?

 

"We never respect stupidity in our society unless it is Religious Stupidity." -Sam Harris


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Brandon wrote:   You get

Brandon wrote:
 

You get what you give?? Is that the same as eye for an eye?

I'd say more like, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Brandon wrote: AtheistAviB

Brandon wrote:
AtheistAviB wrote:
Brandon wrote:
The name calling back and forth is childish at best. I feel that rational atheists could come up with something better than "Dumbass of the whatever". Just my thoughts.

Rational folks also understand that all arguments against or for something are to be judged on the basis of the argument themselves and not in conjuction with the language used for the rebuttal.
Oh, and by the way, you get what you give.

 

You get what you give?? Is that the same as eye for an eye?

 

 

Almost.  Would that be a bad thing (sans the violence obviously). 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
Brandon wrote: AtheistAviB

Brandon wrote:
AtheistAviB wrote:
Brandon wrote:
The name calling back and forth is childish at best.  I feel that rational atheists could come up with something better than "Dumbass of the whatever".  Just my thoughts. 

Rational folks also understand that all arguments against or for something are to be judged on the basis of the argument themselves and not in conjuction with the language used for the rebuttal. 
Oh, and by the way, you get what you give.

 

You get what you give?? Is that the same as eye for an eye?

 





So, I'm gonna take a dive off the deep end and assume you don't believe an eye for an eye is useful, EVER.
What should one expect to receive in return for certain physical or verbal actions?
If I punch you in the eye should i be physically handled or spoken to like a gentleman?
If I spew nonsense at you without evidence do I deserve to have things explained to me slowly or to be verbally beaten into submission?
The answer is, different people answer different ways and different respond to different way of being spoken too. It should be no surprise to you at this point that the way the RRS responds, and the way I respond as well, to verbal assaults, is in the same manner in which the assault was received.
You don't like it? Respond differently.
That's all.


gilliam (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Dore's response.

Dore I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with the rest of your conversation, but I have a bachelors degree from Boston College in Antropology, as well as a master's degree from Brown and I'm working on my Phd at BC.  Any educated Antropologist would disagree that a lot would be cleard up with a simple class.  From Ralph Winton to Gary Larson (far side creater)  any antropologist would say that answers to question only create more questions.    


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Rofl. Eventually, people

Rofl. Eventually, people will realize that the internet is not the tame and microscopic beast under the bed that it was 10 years ago. You post something on the net today, and there's a great chance for hundreds of people, a medium chance for thousands of people, and a low chance that millions of people will see it. Blogs are on the news FFS.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.