What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Utahraptor--A Different One

Posted by Utahraptor on 11 February 1999 at 08:59:35:

In Reply to: Re: Who was it again who started this whole prove/DISPROVE thing??? posted by The Imp on 11 February 1999 at 04:58:32:

: Gremlin seems to me that Utahraptor asked for some abuse after posting that nonsensical, yet supposedly logical, arguement that positively, somehow, didn't quite, disprove a damn thing. Oh yeah... what about your shared experience with Shadowcat? A certain repeated dream, to paraphrase you "that was more than a dream", that the both of you had..... Can you prove that it was more than just a dream or do you just believe it was?

Actually I proved that withotu an all powerful God, msot of what si suppsoedly fatc isn't. No Noah's Ark, no Adam and Eve and no proof Jesus is the Savior. And sicne eveyrbody insists thta GOd si all powerful, well, they have no proof for that at all. Actually, there's plenty of proof that God sin't all knowing and all powerful A) dinso exticnt B) humans exist. C)humans exist becasue of dinos extinction. Seems to em peopels eemed to ahve misse dthe point that what is suppsoedly history isn't possible in relaity, least fo all in a world that is nto viewed as flat, and in the universe's center, and isn't the only planet with sapient life on it.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 11 February 1999 at 08:53:08:

In Reply to: Body of Evidence posted by Gremlin on 11 February 1999 at 04:38:53:

Well, techncially, if you prove YHWH to exist, you prove all other gods null and void, as He proved Himself to be the one true god. And YHWH is the Jewish God, who became the Christian God and subsequently the Catholic God. I'm not sure about Prodestants. I know Allah si basically suppsoed to be YHWH but under another name, and as for Ganeeshu (The Hindu dude, wiht all the arms), thatc na jolyl well be YHWH under anothe rname and ina diff form (and I'll buyt hat voer God amking HUamn in His image, afetr not making so amny creatures, even if just on Earth like Him. As for proof He exists outside of my faith alone, all I have is too may coincendeces hapenign too close togtehr tot hemsleves and in conjunction wiht other fatcs to be nothign mroe than the results of random actions. Soembody somewhere did all this. Or maybe more. Not necessarily God, though,a s any old alien coudl ahev decided to read my thoughts and be nice, or do soem other thigns.
And I think Darth VAder simply forgot where Obe Wan was. I emna, he's in thsi iron lung liek suit, obviously badly damaged. Couldn't hsi brain be damaged as well? And if the Emproer didn't knwo hwere evrybody was, there's a serious alck of info to reteach Vader with.

: There are enough different replies branching out from Reality, on the main board now, that it might be simpler to just post a new thread regarding this, since it's the common denominator.

: With any hypothesis, the burden of proof is going to fall on whomever makes the claim. It's not a matter of current laws, it's simple logic. If I were to claim that I had an Alligator mississippiensis, I'd be expected to prove it, assuming anyone cared either way. If I were to claim that I had a Velociraptor mongoliensis, the same rules would apply. The thing is, I actually have an A.mississippiensis--two, actually. And that's easy enough to prove. And, in various senses, I have a V.mongoliensis. The velo isn't alive, in the strictest sense. I have velos in things I've written, but that doesn't make them real. I have a skeleton, at 1:6 scale, of a velo, but that doesn't make it real. I've had the fossilised leg of a velo in my hand, which nether makes it mine, nor alive. Still, the evidence suggests that the velo was once alive, back in the Maastrichtian epoch of the Cretaceous, because we have fossil evidence supporting the hypothesis.

: When it comes to gods, I've never met anyone who happened to have one handy which they could prove to exist. I've also never seen any fossil evidence to suggest that one ever has. I've seen books in which gods exist, but that's the same as having a velo in a book and trying to claim that it's a real entity. Books are generally fictional accounts. A few are documents of actual events, but without corrosponding evidence from other sources, they're treated as fiction. Titanic, as a film, described the actual event of a ship that sank; the plot was fictional, centring on two characters who never existed.

: What the aggressively religious tend to forget is that it's not up to the rest of us to disprove their claims. If I claim to have a velo, and leave it at that, you'd say 'I'll believe it when I see it'. Or, you'd simply say 'he's mad; he's making this up'. The same goes for an alligator, of course, except that I can effectively prove the existences of Trin and Rex.

: While Trin and Rex exist, I know of no living velos on the planet. If one exists out there, and someone can prove it to me, then things will change. Until then, velos probably existed up until about seventy million years ago, but don't exist anymore. That velos and alligators are related animals is irrelevant to any of this.

: There's a point to this.

: Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that I were a Here Krishna for a moment. The god Krishna predates the god YHWH. What christians would have me believe is that Krishna, believed to have existed long before YHWH was invented, is a fable, yet the christian god exists because some people got together and put him in a book. That's absurd. That's the same as telling me that Victor Frankenstein, who predates Darth Vader, never existed, but Vader does, because he was mentioned in Star Wars. The reality of it all is that neither Frankenstein nor Vader ever existed, and were merely purported to exist in books, and later in films. Dave Prowse exists; Vader doesn't. George Burns existed; YHWH, outside of the bible, doesn't exist.

: If you want YHWH to exist, there's already a very long line you'll have to step into. Not only have you got to prove that your god is the one true god, and that Krishna and Quetzocoatl and Zeus and Odin and Apollo and all of the other thousands of gods are, in fact, fiction, but you've still got to prove that gods in any form exist at all. Not only is there zero evidence to support the existence of gods at all, there's evidence that, in fact, gods have never existed--and a lot of that evidence comes from exactly the books in which the gods appear.

: That's where most atheists go wrong. They're so busy asking why gods do these things, that they inadvertantly give substance to the myths. Ask any idiot why Vader, who used to be Anakin Skywalker--a slave on Tatooine, wasn't still upset at Jabba the Hutt in The Empire Strikes Back, or why he didn't remember Tatooine as being the home of Kenobi in A New Hope. Some will try to rationalise it all out; others will ask what difference it makes, since it's just a story, and Vader is just a character. You've got to prove that Darth Vader existed before you can start wondering why he did so many dumb things. And you've got to prove that gods existed before you can start questioning their agendas. Until someone can capture one of these gods and prove that it's not just some hoax, everything in the bible, and the torah, and every other book in which a god is a character, the rest of the story is largely irrelevant fiction.

: It's not my responsibility to disprove the existence of gods. It's the godites' to prove that one ever existed at all, let alone still lurks about the cosmos, quietly laughing at the chaos its created.

: --Gremlin
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 15 February 1999 at 08:01:20:

In Reply to: For information only... posted by Flower on 14 February 1999 at 21:08:48:

:
: How many arms does Ganesha have? I was under the impression that he is depicted as having two along with the elephant head. I know that Shiva and Vishnu have four arms apiece and Perusha has 1000. From what I read above, I'm going to assume that you were talking about Shiva because Ganesha is his son and a lot of Hindus worship Shiva as the most power god out of the whole lot.

I think 6. I'll ahve to watch the Simpsons again when they show Apu's statue of him. And they jsuts howe dhim a couple of weeks ago. Dran the luck. Darn, Darn it.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 12 February 1999 at 08:43:01:

In Reply to: What's New posted by Gremlin on 11 February 1999 at 09:54:06:

: I'm still waiting on Lightwave to show up. I did reshoot the Wasted logo on the Amiga in Cinema4D tonight. It looks a lot better, but it came in at 1.4 megs, animgiffed. So I'm trying to figure out how to cut down the filesize without ruining the animation. As it is, it's sixty frames at 640*270. I don't want to cut out any frames, or make it smaller, so I'm not sure what the options are now. You'll see it at wastedinc.com, if you've got a few minutes to download 1400k at an average of 28,800kbps. Might take about ten minutes.

I use www.girfcruncher.com tos hrink my fiel sizes. Soemtiems quality is sacrificed other tiems it's not. I also sue Gif Movie Gera and Animagic before gifcruncher, to give me the least amount of file size.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 11 February 1999 at 09:58:34:

OK, thsi'll be fun, ciosndiering how many peopelc an;t ahndle certain "truths" being challenged *htough no own compalined how I was quetsioning my relgion in their.) God spelled backwards is dog. MAn's bets friend yes, but also an ugly girl. The Devil speleld backwards is lived. Interesting. Lived as in Heaven. Lived as in was one alive? Lived as in he relaly knew how to live it up big time in Heaven? Seems a little weird to call the Supreme good we all worship the backwards name of a dog.
NOw for soemthign new, sinc emy last posta ssumed you knew to do so:
Theories? I'd be interested in eharing anyhting ratioanl and non degrading on the subject at hand.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 12 February 1999 at 09:06:52:

In Reply to: Okay posted by The Imp on 12 February 1999 at 01:57:18:

: Though I'm not sure I am totally done degrading you, here it goes. There is a school of thought out there that says that the bible should not be taken as a literal history. Rather it uses metaphors for teaching. Maybe that school of thought is on to something.... The ark question..... hmmmmm... Okay assume God is really powerful, not all powerful, but real damn close. Is it possible that God created a temporary rift in Space/Time, centered in the ark, there by making it possible to fit all the animals in there? As for all the shit clean up, I thought Noah had a pretty big family... The ark didn't require any sailors if I remember correctly, so they would have had time to do it. I'll grant that it would have been hard, but possible. Another plausible theory could be that God in his/her near infinate power just stopped some biological needs for awhile, Food intake and excrement might have been a couple that got froze.

: Please keep in mind that those are only theories I've heard.... Not what I believe. In fact, I don't subscribe to Christianity, Hebrew, or any other religious affiliation. I go my own demented way.....
Now this is what I wanted. Expalnations. Yes an all powerful God cna just say, ALl abaord, and lo and behold, plenty fo elg room for oen and all. BUt that's not proof for this thigns happening. So saying GOd altered sapce is good. Liek Dr. Who's TARDIS. WHat about shrinking? Surely God can do that? And suspending bilogicla functions would guarnatee survival for ove r amonth with no food water, and no waste. IT keeps tress and fishes alive. Ditto with tiem travel. God sends them forward in tiem. Believabel, maybe not. BUt at leats it attemmpts to expalin how relaity is altered.
TEchncially, I'm a freee lancer rigilious dude basing stuff of the Jewsih faith, with extra stuff from all around thrown in. And I don't care if I'm right or not. I try for believable thigns in reality. What we're told make snos ens egiven what we now know. BUt it coudl ahev ahppened. JSut nto s we were told. Couldn't God have saved many fols, and given them their wona rks? And sicne God liked Noah best, coudl eh not say, 'YOu may all live, but only Noah shall be credite dwiht beign good,a nd surviving. You amy nto tell your family or otehrs the truth EVER!" Sur eHE coudl of. Did HE? WHo knwos? I'm here for some explanations, not the real answer.

: As for your dog/god observation, G O D is not the original spelling I'm sure as the oldest bibles seem to be in Hebrew. Don't you think that maybe the spelling is merely a coincidence, and one that occurs only in English. Universally, in all languages you wouldn't get the same results.... so coincidence.

: As for D E V I L, see that last bit...

DOesn't matetr origin of names, or what langauge it's in. Point is, peopel who love GOD and hate the Devil seem perectly fine with those names. Sure it might ahve been a coincidence. Buts urely i'm ntot eh first to see this? Even if others did, surely they weren't years afetr the anems wee permanent. MAybe dogs were nbamed backwards of God cause God is our provider,a dn dogs are man's bets friends. But who knwos? That's why I ask, tog et soem theories thrown out. And especially to encourage thinking, nto just blindly aceptng what our reliigous eladers tell us. Seems my mistake came from that. I actaulylt ried to make beings with no brians, and who therefore can't think, actualyl try to think. After confusingthem and hurting their ehads, I really shoudl ahve expected as much form them as I got. Well, from Wyvern. MR. MEsp/Scratchiepoo was totally off base deceiding that he didn't liek how a resposne wa sgiven,a nd decided to throw it back in their face. IF he didn;t like my original psot, he coudl have repleid to it and told em so. Isneatd, he accepted it, hated Wyvern's psot,t hen got mixed up and thought what I di was wrong,a nd decided to take action, getting amd at em for doing what eh did, replying in kind. Vryr weird. Very stoopid.

: Now for your questioning of truths, I've hit this one already, but here it is again because you might have missed it. Your questioning was styled more like a bunch of cheap shots. Had you stuck with a logical arguement, none of the heated response would have happened. Instead you took off into denoucing the intelligence of any opposed to your disbelief right in your first post. The implication in your writing is what was attacked by wyvern, not your disbelief. Are you with me so far? I'm giving you some facts on how your post sounded to other people. It doesn't matter that you made your claim of ''no offense'' when you so strongly presented quite the opposite.
Actaully, they took it all wrong. Tehre fault. Their esposnes were uncalled for. IF it came off as cheap shots, it wa scasue yuo feared what you elanred was wrong. The only two shots I ever took were as God si all powerful, so of course relaity is altere,d and God beign Himself, His Son,a dn His Son's Spirit. Relly, onyl the firts 2 is needed, as God as His SOn is God as Hsi Son's Spirit. That's knocking the counting, not the belief.
And even if ym psot truely wa satatcking, who agev them to right to atatck me? It's their opinion I'm atatcking. Others have looke dta it and saw no atatck. Erego, they should have responded calmly and freidnly, sayign I did indeed offend them,a nd I seem to be knocking their beliefs, nto quetsionign them. Perhaps I woudl see their point and hence tyr to rephrase it. BUt by vicuously attacking me with intent to hurt (Of which I clearly had none,a nd you even say I mad eit coem off as hurt, which iss till not intentional), they only proved em rgith in saying there's soemhtignw rong with what we're told. ONly those with soemthing to lose will defend it viciously to the detah. Liek they did. IF they truly thoguht Iw a sworng, they woudl have told me, and we coudl ahev settled it calmly and rationalyl, as is the only wya. Instead, they decide dto bringt hsi down to a 2 year old slevel, and seem tog et upset that I followed suit, and didn't cry to my Mommy for comfort.
SO if I offended them by seeming to be giving offesne, I am sorry for your msiunderstanding it. But I did not delibertaley atatck you, erego why msut you deliberately atatck me? I even said I eman no offense. Whetehr I did give soem si irrelevant,a s intent was not there. Tehy replied with intent to hurt, and they did the msit graviets thign of all, intentionally atatcked soemoen with desire to hurt. And tot hem I offe rno appologies, for they do not seem to wnat to offer me any. They coem up with diea thta I wnat to impres speopela nd prove myself smarter than all, when all I did was aks them to thinka botu soemhting,a dn explain why. MY psot clearly saiid, reply back and prove me wrong. FI they missed thta point,t henthye don't belong on the internet, for many will ask them these things, and won't spell it out word for word and beg them to prove them wrong. S oem simpel inferrenc eis required to read betwen the lines. If I said I am the smartest ebign ever, you would reply bakc that Iw asn't, or
prove it. Why, casue it clealry requires a response. Sur,e soem idiots would ahve to degrade me and hurt me, but ther'ed be soem who would simply deny it or come bakc wiht a sharp wit (Then ehyc na't you spell so good?)

: So here is a calm, rational response, so if you feel like attacking it, we can start again.
Yes, it was calm and rational, though caps were not needed at all.


:Let's just not have any more name calling, okay?

:--Gremlin

:PS: Sorry for the intrusion =)

:--G
You cna do this Gremlin? (Well, obviosuly.) But COOL! : )
 
Posted by UTahraptor on 14 February 1999 at 08:19:25:

In Reply to: Re: Supreme Names posted by Jurassosaurus on 14 February 1999 at 06:34:17:

: : : OK, thsi'll be fun, ciosndiering how many peopelc an;t ahndle certain "truths" being challenged *htough no own compalined how I was quetsioning my relgion in their.) God spelled backwards is dog. MAn's bets friend yes, but also an ugly girl. The Devil speleld backwards is lived. Interesting. Lived as in Heaven. Lived as in was one alive? Lived as in he relaly knew how to live it up big time in Heaven? Seems a little weird to call the Supreme good we all worship the backwards name of a dog.
: : : NOw for soemthign new, sinc emy last posta ssumed you knew to do so:
: : : Theories? I'd be interested in eharing anyhting ratioanl and non degrading on the subject at hand.

: : you need to learn how to spell and why don't you believe in god. explain how we got here.

: Ambitious apes of course.

I like how Mr. Jurassosaurus thinks.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 14 February 1999 at 08:18:14:

In Reply to: Re: Supreme Names posted by Executioner on 12 February 1999 at 20:00:49:

: : OK, thsi'll be fun, ciosndiering how many peopelc an;t ahndle certain "truths" being challenged *htough no own compalined how I was quetsioning my relgion in their.) God spelled backwards is dog. MAn's bets friend yes, but also an ugly girl. The Devil speleld backwards is lived. Interesting. Lived as in Heaven. Lived as in was one alive? Lived as in he relaly knew how to live it up big time in Heaven? Seems a little weird to call the Supreme good we all worship the backwards name of a dog.
: : NOw for soemthign new, sinc emy last posta ssumed you knew to do so:
: : Theories? I'd be interested in eharing anyhting ratioanl and non degrading on the subject at hand.

: you need to learn how to spell

I can't. I already graduated college, and this is the best I can do. Help me before I misspell again. TROZ!

:and why don't you believe in god.

Where did I ever say I didn't believe in God? If you have read nay of my posts prior to thsi oen, you'd ahve been able tog rok that by now. The Caps on His anme and pronouns are a dead giveaway.

:explain how we got here.

Big genetic boo boo. Total accidnet. Big blunder on God's part. Etc.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 14 February 1999 at 09:14:07:

Here's a total theory on my aprt, whcih emans you may disagree with it, so any offense taken is your own fault, as you'r enot suppsoed to believe in this:
After the fllod, Noah reformed civilization exactly as Adma and Eve did (outside of Eden). So, naturally, by doing everything the same, we get the same results as last time. ehcne the end of humanity's reign on Earth in the new Millennium. Think about it. If Noah did do everyhtign the same again, then it's his fault humans will go extinct very soon. Firts we are born with original sin form Adam and eve. Then we get a second helping from Noah. We are victims of our ancetsor's mistakes,a dn are suffering much like we are from their anti-environmentlaist ways.
Once again, this si all my theory (except for the anti-environmentlaist part, whcih has alreayd been proven true, even if noobdy knew the consequences at the tiem.) So anybody wth half the rbian of a dead ameoba will know that offense is purely subjective, and therefore your own bloody stoopid fault for taking it in the first place.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 15 February 1999 at 08:10:53:

In Reply to: Re: Noah's Mistake? posted by Gremlin on 14 February 1999 at 09:25:28:

: hecne the end of humanity's reign on Earth in the new Millennium.

: Hence? As in 'from that, so will be'? I haven't seen any proof of homosapien extinction in the third millenium yet; it's still nearly two years away.

Yeah, wierd part is, it take spalce anywhen from 1998-2002 the evnts. Nostraduamas says May 5 2000, and i believe him. IT also seems to eb that the signs are very small, until around April 2000 when WW3 breaks out. A sfor the signs, the weird weatehr in the US for isnatcne, the big earthquakes startign to hit. SOme say the Y2K and the Presidentaial ex crisis are all signs too.
: Firts we are born with original sin form Adam and eve. Then we get a second helping from Noah. We are victims of our ancetsor's mistakes,a dn are suffering much like we are from their anti-environmentlaist ways.

: Are we? I ahven't seen any reason to believe in that, either.
I don't buy it. Who eve rherad of punsihing someone millenia down the line for another's mistakes.

: : Once again, this si all my theory (except for the anti-environmentlaist part, whcih has alreayd been proven true, even if noobdy knew the consequences at the tiem.)

: What anti-enviromentalist theory has been proven true? That, regardless what we do to the planet, we can't actually hurt it? I'm not sure that's been proven yet, though I tend to agree with it.

That CFC's destroy OZone,a nd the whole got bigger caus eof use of spray cans and such 20 years prior to the hole. And our garabge is piling up in dumps too mcuh, form alck fo recycling, and all the air/water pollution. Stuff nobodyc ared baoutt he ahs proven to be deadly now. IE Exxon disaster.
: So anybody wth half the rbian of a dead ameoba will know that offense is purely subjective, and therefore your own bloody stoopid fault for taking it in the first place.

: I'll agree with that. The part about offence, I mean. I wasn't aware that dead amoebae had brains in any fractional amount =)
Well, that's the point. ameobas have no brains. SO, if you have even les shttan a fraction fo a none xistant brain, then you'd be really stoopid, now wouldn't you.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 16 February 1999 at 07:58:52:

In Reply to: Ecology posted by Gremlin on 15 February 1999 at 13:33:39:

: There's a funny thought: how much longer until people start worrying that homosapiens crossing over into the Next Realm will carry along their terrible habits--like tossing styrofoam out the window and killing ninety percent of Brasilian life, or whatever their delusions explode litter into. It doesn't matter. It never really has.
I think it's impossible to litter in Heaven. They stuff just dispappear on impact, providing you need styrafoamcups for drinsk or soup, sicne you really don't need food anymore. As for Hell, would litter really amtetr/ As for any palce elde, ie, Neitherworld, then you'd have a point.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 15 February 1999 at 09:07:34:

In Reply to: Re: Logic, and lack thereof. posted by Gremlin on 14 February 1999 at 18:05:25:

:
: True. Moreover, there's a prove-me-wrong metality to it, though any attempt seems to be met with something about primitive Earthers

Actaully the prove me worng was answered with immaturity,a dn compalints abotu hwo I handed the logic fo my post, and the degrading abse don thta (and soem obssession with me tyrign to prove my superior intellect in that post.) When thsoe tried to prove em wrong with actual answers (Ie, Vigo saying alot of people fit on small boats, why ntoa niamsl too), was responded with why thatw as wrong (by me and Jurassosaurus), and contained no insults abotu how primitive and dumb those Earthers were being.

Abnothe rproblemw ith my psots is thta peopels eem tio msis my angry replies. Tehy're isnultign fro insulting em about psoitng soemthign, or hwo I poste dit. NOt about the speciifcs of my psot. Sayign that I jsut mad esoemone drop their faith si nto proving em wrong. It's atatcking me, to whcih I attack back in same juvinile fashion (insults.)

So the baord's problems seem to ebt eh belief that I'm saying God doesn't exist, and thta I' upset with how you complain abut ym loicless posts. Perhaps now you see why I reply wiht Primitive Erather Dummy Boy's all the itme (sexist, yes. sorry all you Primitive Eratehr Dumym Girls. Dman male domianted society. You see how it affetcs us all.)

Now, when people here are ready to prove em worng (Aboutt he subjetc, nto the overlalnes,s or logcial structure, or alck thereof), I'll happily accept your disagreement, and not reply back insultingly. Until you insult first.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 15 February 1999 at 09:00:20:

In Reply to: Well. . . posted by The Host on 15 February 1999 at 00:35:52:

: Well, um, thank you. Very much. I suppose that, thanks to my course in thought and logic, I can easily pick out fallacies and respond with more logic than I used to be able to. I can be somewhat of a hot-head myself, but this time I tried to remain calm. The fact that I, to an extent, agree with Utahraptor certainly helps. As I've stated repeatedly, it was simply the way he handled this; his lack of logic, his hypocracy, etc., etc.

Yes, you handle yourself in proper fashion. You disagreed with me, and clamly and ratioanlyl provided points to prove why you disagree. Very surprising, basedon this board's lurker's maturity levels.

: As for you: I actually found that you seemed to handle yourself quite well, calmly, and, well, you insulted with subtlty. >;) I think you only started to visit here with regularity around about the time I effectively left the board, which is perhaps a shame. Now that I'm back -- I look forward to conversing -- and debating -- with you.
You seem to eb slipping. You started out so nice, and slowly slid to more immature levels. NOt as bad as others, though, so put yoursle fin check nwo before you get too hot headed. )I aslo hope you noticed htta I reply comcially now, instead of constant returned hate. Don't need to refuel the flame wars.)
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 16 February 1999 at 08:02:45:

In Reply to: You have no idea... posted by Gremlin on 15 February 1999 at 11:52:10:

: : Yes, you handle yourself in proper fashion. You disagreed with me, and clamly and ratioanlyl provided points to prove why you disagree. Very surprising, basedon this board's lurker's maturity levels.

: If you knew Imp IRL, you'd understand that he takes things about as seriously as I do. This is a guy who walks into a crowded public place and annouces that he's on his way to assassinate the president, just to seeif anyone from the secret service is lurking about =)

: --Gremlin

Um, that was for Host. Imp's was down further, but got lost when my return didn't make it.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 15 February 1999 at 08:32:48:

In Reply to: i love insulting people imp posted by Vigo on 15 February 1999 at 07:28:26:

: : I have been busy with school and insulting a couple of people here on the board.
: : Flower has been doing the same.

: : Host, my thanks for the compliment. I will try to keep up.

: :::tell flower i said hi,
: i was up in ames tonight to see aband, I felt like the only black guy at adavid duke convention....
: dont be astranger impy.
: -v-

: ps Utah.... if your ever bored enough go climb mount aarat,

Love too, but do to moeny/time constriants (plus I'm neve rbaor denough to go bothe rpalnnign and climbing mts), thta cna enevr happen. Thanx for the suggetsion to kill time with, though.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 15 February 1999 at 08:30:55:

In Reply to: Re: If only you would have gotten here sooner... posted by The Imp on 14 February 1999 at 20:56:18:

: First let me kiss a litttle butt here and say that is the most astute dissection of a post I have ever seen. If only you would have posted this sooner... You have explained in essense what my own gripe about Utah's post was. Unfortunately, my need to be a smart ass intrudes to much. I get to busy trying to be an insulting prick that I forget to stick to the arguement...

: Host, your approach was excellent. 'Nuff said.

actaully, if Wyvernie and hsi multipersonalities could eb mature posters, none fo thsi woudl ahve happened. Even if Host si right, there's still no excuse for Wyvernie's language/tones. Or is it now right to rpely to illogic in an insulting fahsion?
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 15 February 1999 at 08:28:35:

In Reply to: Logic, and lack thereof. posted by The Host on 14 February 1999 at 17:13:51:

: Told you I'd come back were I so compelled.

: I've read pretty much the entire theological debate, stemmed by Utahraptor, and have come to several conclusions. Before I begin, I would like to remind you that I *am* an atheist; however, I have an open mind: and I despise fanatical, illogical arguments.

: Now, Utah, I'm sorry, but you really haven't a proverbial leg to stand on. I don't want to sound cocky, but I have taken (well, actually, am taking) a course in logic, rhetoric and argumentation, and so I can easily spot fallicious statements. And your entire argument, your entire stance, your entire logical mode is based upon a single fallacy: that of petitio principii, or 'question begging.' This simply means that your arguments and conclusion are one in the same. You are, ironically (perhaps somewhat fittingly), making the same mistake that most fundamentalists make. You are stating that something is because it is.

: Simply reduced, your argument is, 'An all-powerful creator cannot exist because an all-powerful creator cannot exist.' This assumptative statement renders all of your supporting 'evidence,' indeed, your entire position, moot. You have presented absolutely no logical proof or clear evidence to support your case, because you have not structured your case in a logical way. You're saying that these things can't exist because they can't, and this is logically invalid. You have to show why they can't exist, which you haven't successfully done.

Actually, the point I'm making si to provide reaosn that they cna ro cna't. I'm saying that withotu an all powerufl God, most of this stuff cna't really happen. whether God si or sin't all powerful isn;t the point. The point si these people assume He is, has no proof except that HE said He was, and hence when asked baout thes ehtigns, they insist that eys a small ark cna hold a lot if God so wishes it. BUt wihtout proof God is all powerful, and there's more evidence to the contrary (ie, God cna't control certain events, ie the detah fo a world elader, which launched WW1, or keeping humans form constantly going evil, or even letting theme xist if He kenw htey'd be so evil.) SO withotu an all powerful God, there's no basis for these htigns. UNless I'm missing somehtign, whcih si what the readers ahd a chance to do. Show em hwo God coudl do these things without jsut wnating it. NOne of that Let tehr ebe light and there si stuff. I eman, how. Did eh wave a hand, shrink the animals,a dn when you take the rib of soemoen,a dn amek aniother of them, even if a different sex, it's called cloning. Same wiht a virgin birht. IF no man proves his love to ehr, then a kid msut coem from the cloning process of the egg cell.
I htink youa ll were expectign soemthign different for my post,a nd hen you couldn't find it, got all upset and stuff. IT wa snever God cna't be casue HE cna't be, it's if God isn't, then how did this all happen, or are the stories clealry wrong. And ehck, I even agve reasons supporitng hwo these thigns cna happen inr eality. BUt I think you poepel are reading too much onto what I worte, then nto udnerstanding hwo could not do what you thought I was trying to do.
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 16 February 1999 at 08:05:26:

In Reply to: Re: Logic, and lack thereof. Vigo style posted by utahs unused half of his brain on 15 February 1999 at 17:32:57:

Um, if you ht return between line,s I might fidn mroe of your moronic ramblings, Moronic Little Sape! Anywya, glad tos ee you noticed my extra half brian. Jealous. You're jealous.
: Actually, the point I'm making si to provide reaosn that they cna ro cna't.
: :And i thought it was because you lack any proof or spelling skills.
: I'm saying that withotu an all powerufl God, most of this stuff cna't really happen.
: :its called a basis of faith, i can explain what faith is if you really want me to
: whether God si or sin't all powerful isn;t the point.
: :you just contradicted your self what a suprise
: The point si these people assume He is, has no proof except that HE said He was, and hence when asked baout thes ehtigns,
: :I looked up in the dictionary what "ehtigns" ment but i couldnt find it. It must be some sort of smart talk yuk yuk
: they insist that eys a small ark cna hold a lot if God so wishes it.
: :Proof what are the dementions of the ark? 450 cubits by what???? more on that later
: BUt wihtout proof God is all powerful,
: :You just said it was irrelevant
: and there's more evidence to the contrary (ie, God cna't control certain events, ie the detah fo a world elader, which launched WW1, or keeping humans form constantly going evil, or even letting theme xist if He kenw htey'd be so evil.)
: : and who are you that you have insight into Gods plans? gee and i thought God also gave us something calleda free will, That is so those who choose to worship him do so not because they are mindless autmotons but centient.
: SO withotu an all powerful God, there's no basis for these htigns.
: : Yet in your opening statement you said an all powerfull God isnt importnat.....wich is it, pick a point and stick with it
: UNless I'm missing somehtign,
: :You are , a few iq points, maybe a chromosome
: whcih si what the readers ahd a chance to do.
: : hablas a rational thought?
: Show em hwo God coudl do these things without jsut wnating it. NOne of that Let tehr ebe light and there si stuff. I eman, how. Did eh wave a hand, shrink the animals,
: : he didnt there was enough room on the ark for them
: a dn when you take the rib of soemoen,a dn amek aniother of them, even if a different sex, it's called cloning.
: : its called creation of a mate, and to answer your inbreeding question they started out with teh complete DNA. anfter a few thousand generations it has watered down abit more. so it is theoretically possible that adam and eve contained the dna make up for every type of human, Ie different colours different sizes..
: Same wiht a virgin birht. IF no man proves his love to ehr,
: : prove your love to her by how? two tickles a jerk and a squirt? please read utah and then go and learn how to spell, after that read alittle more.
: then a kid msut coem from the cloning process of the egg cell.
: : because Utah said so and thats that, he was there he knows it happened to him before.

: : I htink youa ll were expectign soemthign different for my post,a nd hen you couldn't find it, got all upset and stuff.
: : yeah intellegence
: IT wa snever God cna't be casue HE cna't be,
: :why prove to me God doenst exist, i want a three page double spaced paper, and use spell check.
: it's if God isn't, then how did this all happen, or are the stories clealry wrong.
: if God isnt what? the chances that we evolved from some primordial soup of polypeptides and proteins is about the same of a tornado blowing thru a homedespot and throwing together a apartment complex.
: And ehck, I even agve reasons supporitng hwo these thigns cna happen inr eality.
: : Oh so God was doing this in all hypothetical situatuions?
: BUt I think you poepel are reading too much onto what I worte,
: : silly us we were looking for intellect
: then nto udnerstanding hwo could not do what you thought I was trying to do.
: : rephrase that please.... it lacks sentence structre plus spelling.

: : utah stop before you post again, realize that dennis miller did it before you, Gremlin does it better than you, and we all dont care. You have proven to me at least that you have no semblance of a original thought in your posts, your posts tend to mimic grem for some ass kissing reason.
: I think alot of your hatred to God stems from the fact that you were probally abused sexually in your youth. maybe by your local clergy? Yes utah Some clergy go bad, its part of that free will thing. I would go into more depth about free will and the differences between christianity and religon but i do not want to bore anyone else. besides my main point is to make fun of you. or in typing you will understand "akem ufno f uoy"
: truly better than you,
: -v-
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 16 February 1999 at 08:09:25:

In Reply to: Random posted by Jurassosaurus on 16 February 1999 at 05:01:00:

: Well, I wasn't going to get involved, but then you had to go and paraphrase from Fred Hoyle.

:

" the chances that we evolved from some primordial soup of polypeptides and proteins is about
: the same of a tornado blowing thru a homedespot and throwing together a apartment complex."
: The original (albeit possibly paraphrased) quote went something like this:

:


: "Believing that evolution can happen is like believing that a hurricane can blow through a junkyard and create a Boeing 747." (Hoyle 1981)
: Mr. Hoyle, had no idea what the hell he was talking about. His basis was on the claim that life was created through a series of chance, random acts (abiogenesis). The problem was that Mr. Hoyle was using a general randomness as his example, but abiogenesis doesn't work on that principle, nor does evolution.

: So before you can go knocking evolution and abiogenesis you must first define random.

: In science random is simply a series of actions that have no apparent order and/or a process that we are as of yet unfamiliar of.

: In the Hoyle quote, a 747 could easily be made through randomness. Assume that there is a junkyard full of old parts. Also in this junkyard we find robots. Each robot is programmed for a specific task (i.e. build a wing, a propeller, a jet engine, etc.) and then connect it to part X. The randomness comes in when the hurricane strikes. The 400 mph winds power a turbine which creates the power for the robots. Given enough time and enough windstorms, the 747 would eventually be built.

: Now your probably saying: "How can you use preprogrammed robots? Doesn't that imply a creator?" The answer is a flat out no. The robots and programms are irrelevant. This was mearly to explain why chance must be assigned and not simply generalized. If we were to get more biological then replace the junkyard with Precambrian earth, the robots with carbons and other elements and the program with their natural attraction to eachother (especially carbon and silicon). The randomness would be the sun itself.

: See it's not so hard now is it?

: On another note, can't you guys move this flaming over to another board? You know AOL has forums made specifically for this (or at least I think they were made specifically for it).

Actually, I buy inot God controls evolution myself. So rnaodmness is not sue,d but plannign is. Unless God jsut decideds to go Metamorphasis, and sees whta ahppens next. In whcihc ase, you got a point. Afetr all, this guy cna't even use an ' or caps. Ot thta unused briasn cna actaully psot, least fo all without the other half knowing. Sad what happens when you're only half a brain. Why won't Mestopolopalous stop using different names for himself?
 
Posted by Utahraptor on 15 February 1999 at 08:48:37:

In Reply to: Logic, and lack thereof. posted by The Host on 14 February 1999 at 17:13:51:


: I also noticed that Utahraptor used a peculiar combination of circumstantial appeal to man and straw man argument.The latter means that he changed slightly what another was saying and argued that; the former means he attempted to cast doubt on one's testimony because of one's circumstances.

: He did this in response to wyvern. Nowhere did wyvern actually mention his religious beliefs -- like me, he simply attacked Utah's argumentation -- but Utahraptor refuted wyvern's unmentioned (but assumed) beliefs anyway, and essentially said that wyvern was disagreeing with him because iof said beliefs: since his views are obviously biased because of his unmentioned (but assumed) beliefs, wyvern's rebuttal must be ignored! (Just for the record, of course wyvern is biased. So am I. So is Utah. That's why we're debating this. It's called having an opinion. Attacking someone for having an opinion, which I noticed Utahraptor did, is ludicrous!)

Actually, I responded back to his yelling at me. I feh had bene amture enough to say, Soryr, Utah, but I don't agree, and calmly and rationally expalined why, I would have responded back in kind. BUt he didn't so I couldn't. It's imposisble. I'm a miror to your soul. You're good to em, I'm nice back. You're emna to em, I fight back viciosuly.

: I don't think anybody who refuted Utahraptor really brought their own beliefs into battle with them, which is admirable. Most responses seemed to attack his logic and lack of evidence more than anything; however, as I mentioned before, Utahraptor misinterperted this, and created a straw man debate, changing the opposition's argument. This, too, is something fundamentalists do: Utah, in essence, said: 'There is no god, and this is why. . .' To which he received the response: 'That doesn't make sense, and there is little weight to your argument.' To which Utahraptor, in turn, responded: 'You're just saying that 'cause you're a stoopid religious fanatic.'

Actually, I said God ain't all powerful/all knowing. WHy so many peopela re convicned that you either support an all everyhtign God, or no God, is beyond me. BUt the rela problem leis not in how i posted my theories, but how peopel use dhteir own beliefs to misinterrpret it, ie, they believe you eithe rsupport an all everyhtign God, or non at all. You did it, Wyvernie did, what's his ahndle whoasked why I don't belive in God did it. Somone shwo em wehre I said there is no God. I did say forget an all powerufl all knowing God, or you'll lose my point. But alas, you didn't lsiten, or misconscrewed the statement, and thus lost my point entirely. NOw, read it again rememebring I believe in a God capable fo many thigns we cna't do, but cannot say Let there be light and there is.

Hence, I didn't lose the round, for I was nto even a willign apr tof it. And when dragged itnos oemthign entierly different to what you set up, one cnanto expetc to win it at all. It might as well be rigged. No oen drags you into somehtign they know you'll win.
: Who's the fanatic? I thought it was rather amusing to see the (semi-) atheist turn fanatic, while those defending religion remain cool-headed and logical. Go figure.

Screw the Fanatic. Who's the semi-athiest in all of this?
And how did Wyvenrie, Mephistofuckus whoever keep a cool head wiht logic with their replies? Or does cool headed and logical mean in their posts structure? Of which I highly doubt.

In conclusion, if you ead my post with no preassumed notions, you'd see thta my point is based on forgetting the notion of an all everyhtign God (Of which Fundlamentlaists and such insist onw ith no proof),a nd look at those events in the light of relaity, especially when knwoing thta the world si nto jsut a small flat nothign, and othe rlfie exists int eh universe (not saying thta they come ehre necessarily, thoguh perosnally I support that view.) If you actualyl follwo my main point, you'll see the post in a whole new light, providing you're ready to have your beliefs challenged (the main poitn fo my theological posts. Tooc hallenge. IF you believe this stuff happened, tell em how you think ti cna eb doen or what others claim. Don't sit there and say God is all powerfula nd knowing, He cna make it ahppen if He wnats it too. That's an excuse nott o update old beliefs. Much like those who do insist the Earth is flat.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top