Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Saturday, July 19, 2008

#$%@ No!! What the #$*&%? You are going to #$*&*($*#**$*#@@*#!

This is what I said in the comments a few posts back-the one that Ray quotes:

You all, You will break him. I would argue, never go back, other than to get other skeptics/atheists to come over here. Just post over here in response. Hell, draw the Rayniacs away from Ray's blog to argue with us over here instead!
July 18, 2008 7:51 PM


I was wondering what he had bleeped out:

"You will break him. I would argue, never go back, other than to get other skeptics/atheists to come over here. Just post over here in response. !@$!&*, draw the Rayniacs away from Ray's blog to argue with us over here instead!"

Ray felt the need to bleep out "hell"? HAAAAHAAAHAAAA!!! He will do anything to make me look foul (which I am among friends or when talking about religion or religious leaders). In this case, I really wasn't. He only needed three symbols, such as "$#%, draw the.." but he added several more so his fragile Christians probably think I said "Fuck" or "Shit". Why not just do many more so it sounds like I said "Jesus Titty Fucking Christ"? Oh, Ray, you might be an asshole, but you...well, your just an asshole.

23 comments:

  1. Fuck a dick, suck a shit, lick cunty fucky ass. Ass fuck dick shit shit ass.

    That's what I have to say about that.

    P.S. jesus (in vain - note, no capital).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lance,

    That was beautiful *wipes tear*

    ReplyDelete
  3. How DO you fucking do it?

    Can you please not cuss? It really offends me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good job Dan. But, cuss words just aren't a big deal when you no longer care about a sky daddy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shit, I'm sorry Lance.

    Damn, I did it again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. cuss words just aren't a big deal when you no longer care about a sky daddy.

    But it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is the truth.

    [opening Pandora's box]

    Visit my blog over at Debunking Atheists

    ReplyDelete

  7. But it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is the truth.


    Ha ha ha ha. Ironic.

    I've already seen your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan,

    I checked out your website, and you arent' debunking anything. The articles I read where anything but rational. On the Mars landing you write:

    "One important question would be, Why would we spend many, many millions of dollars trying to prove life exists knowing that the planet is inhospitable? Mars has an average temperature of -50° to -80°F compared to earth's average of 57°F. Mar's atmosphere contains 96% Co2 and only .2% of Oxygen in stark contrast to earth's .04% Co2 and 20% Oxygen. There is nothing on Mars in comparison with earth's sustaining life's atmospheric attributes. Mars's radiation alone is so intense on the surface that it would suffice to destroy the very molecules of life. (This is why they are trying to dig deeper to find life.)

    Plainly reading Genesis we understand the life is on earth only."

    Too bad you aren't a microbiologist...like I am. If you had read a few of the articles in Nature in the past couple of years you would know that microbes on earth have been found up to a mile below the surface. Extremophiles on earth can live at extremes of temperature and pressure. You also misunderstand evolution...life evolves to the environment, not the other way around. The interest of life on mars is due to the fact that the planet has quite a bit of ice. Many of us feel that if we are to find life, which we may not, this will be found below the surface.

    Also, your invocation of Genesis is laughable. Which Genesis account? Genesis 1 gets everything wrong.

    Claim CH801:
    The creation account in Genesis 1 lists ten major events in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man. The odds of getting that order correct by chance are one in 3,628,800.

    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 37.


    Response:
    The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants. That is nothing like the order endorsed by Jehova's Witnesses.


    The odds of choosing that particular order are not one in 3,628,800. Much of the order is constrained. For example, the beginning must have been first, and land had to exist before land animals and plants. When these are taken into account, the chance of getting that order are one in 5,760 at worst.


    The claim contradicts what Genesis says. Genesis does not say when the sun and moon became visible (which would not have been until after eyes were created in any event); it tells when they were created. Genesis also refers to fruiting plants, which came after the first sea and land animals.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH801.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Too bad you aren't a microbiologist...like I am

    Elitist!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan wrote:

    You need to add Cuss-O-Meter to your blog.

    I have one on my personal blog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lance,

    Is elitism a sin? I was trying more to be a pretentious cocksucker. Now, I think we can both agree that is a sin ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fuck the fucking fuckers. Ah, shit, we don't have the meter yet.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Dan

    I took a look at you blog, and in the 'Parable of the Sower' blog, you said it made you feel good that the commentor had been contemplating the Bible.

    I to contemplate Bible - in fact, I often masterbate while reading the avengers of Lot. You know offering his virgin daughters up to be ganged banged by a hotny mob. Or getting it on with those same daughters in cave. Hot!!!

    Hey maybe we can get a bible study/circle jerk going sometime.

    Oh, btw Lance, Clos, RS, I'm pretty offened by the cursing too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shit, I offend MYSELF!! DAMN IT!
    Thanks for revealing the truth NaFa. My happy hour is while reading Songs of Songs/Solomon.

    But, you did bring up a good idea. What if we have a Heathen/Skeptic Bible Study. We get a passage, and review it critically...

    I don't know. Maybe not. It'll be cool doing it on sundays. :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I to contemplate Bible - in fact, I often masterbate while reading the avengers of Lot. You know offering his virgin daughters up to be ganged banged by a hotny mob. Or getting it on with those same daughters in cave. Hot!!!

    Hey maybe we can get a bible study/circle jerk going sometime."

    Nafa, I don't know you - but I think I'm in love.

    ReplyDelete
  16. nafa,

    Hello! I'll tell you, I am offended that Dan thinks that Lot having sex with his young daughters is moral. In one of his posts he claims the bible is inerrant and divinely inspired. I suppose that slavery is ok as well...provided we don't damage our slaves' eyes or teeth. We shouldn't worry about genocide either. The Bible is offensive. I got fucking rid of mine (Ah, shit I just cussed)!

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Maragon

    LOL. Oh you, I bet you say that to all the heathens :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. This Dan guy has to rely on others to do his debunking for him, at least when it comes to resolving biblical contradictions.

    The only real interesting link he gives there is the one to Robert Turkels/James Holding's site.

    He seems to be the most well read apologist out there. Mind you, other people have different opinions of Turkel's abilities.

    ReplyDelete
  19. hey clos,
    have you seen dan's latest response to tiktaalik? It's so hilarious. He quotes a statement (out of context, of course) that debunks the inanely relentless whining about missing links and transitional fossils, and he thinks that it means the opposite. Is it possible to assign a negative value to reading comprehension?

    ReplyDelete
  20. felix,

    Yeah, I just responded...here is what I said:

    Dan,

    What the authors are saying is that the evolutionary process has been mistakenly viewed as a principle of 'progress' where one form turns into another in a single linear strand. This gave rise to the whole cartoon of "the march of progress" showing an ape becoming more human in a deceptively linear process. What we actually see is more like a bushing, in which nodes split giving rise to two or more populations, many of which die off. Therefore, when we find "missing links" in terms of fish to amphibians, we are probably not seeing a single progression of a fish giving rise to intermediate A which gives rise to B and to C in a linear progression. We might have a fish that gives rise to A and B, A gives rise to A1 and A2, A1 goes extinct, A2 gives rise to A3 and A4, both go extinct. B gives rise to B1 and B2, which gives rise to B3/4 and B4/5, respectively. It is likely that this "experiment" was tried by several fish species. I am not saying the lungfish gave rise to Tiktaalik, this is a totally unrelated branch.

    I recommend you read Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life about the Burgess Shale. Basically, if you look at the evidence, most of what we see today is due simply to chance. Afterall, if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out by a catastrophe...what would life look like today? If you replay the tape of life, Gould argues, the results will almost certainly change each time you wind the tape back. He points out that no matter how adapted a fish is to it's environment, it will not survive if the lake dries up in a season. We see several instances of mass extinction followed by rapid diversification of the surviving lineages, followed again by catastrophe. If you look objectively at the data, humans could not have been intended.

    Oh, by the way, Gould's postulate of 'historical contingency' has been tested with E. coli recently and has been confirmed. I can explain...

    ReplyDelete
  21. "!@$!&*, draw the..."
    ...So, 6 'letters'. What sort of fucking cuss word has 6 letters? Jesus, Ray, they're called "4 letter words" for a reason.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.