The Bathroom Wall

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

40990 Comments

There is a God!

And he is a plumber. The Bathroom has been flushed.

Thank you Reed.

Great!

Course, that still leaves what happens when the new plumbing acquires a big drip…

Wait, what am I saying?

Ingeborg Esbrandt said:

Hey, nice post :) - well, even though I came via Google searching for “justfaces spreadshirt” wondering why this post came up on top??? Greetings xoxo

Spammer alert!

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Kris,

You can’t possibly know what I know.

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn’t deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

We already tried that on Kris. You can only call someone an @$$hole, a bastard and crazy so many times before it gets tiresome. What’s the point of bashing me?

Kris has called me a liar for stating the obvious facts about him. We can all see what he has done, so why would he deny the stunts he has pulled? He is the one who invaded our space to attack the cause of the blog, yet he expects us to be tolerant and respectful of him no matter what he says? There is no law or principle I know that demands any such thing.

Kris said:

What you said about me is a complete lie. I didn’t start the insults and attacks. You and your asshole buddies here did. And trying to con FF with lies about me and that swill about respecting people you and they (“we”) don’t agree with is yet another one of your acts of deliberate dishonesty. You and most others here wouldn’t know what respect is if it hit you like a freight train going 60 miles per hour.

Since the statements you make about me are false, you’re a deliberate liar, according to your own standards for others. Of course your standards for yourself are completely different. How convenient for you.

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

My questions to her are not an attack or a trap. They are sincere. You are grossly misrepresenting me and are just showing yourself to be the hypocritical, dishonest, delusional liar you are.

You are a seriously fucked up lunatic with delusions of godhood who needs a good ass kicking.

By the way, Mr. theological agnostic, unitarian, universalist, dis-honorable, bushido, liberal, un-scientific pseudo-skeptic, what are you going to add to or subtract from your self-created, self-serving, bogus religion tomorrow?

You just keep piling up your lies and hypocrisy Dale. You said “You do what you like, but I’m done with Kris for good.” yet you’re still bashing me and lying about me.

You also said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I went after him anyway.” when you first saw me here. When I first came here I didn’t say anything that warranted you going after me.

Plus, you said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I’d go after Ann Coulter if that bitch showed up here too.” So much for you respecting people you disagree with.

As usual the things you claim about yourself, and me, are false, which makes you a chronic LIAR, according to your standards for others.

You admit to slamming me a lot but of course you try to make it look like you’re a saint for doing so. Whether you or anyone else here ever accepts it or not, I’m just giving you and others shit back because you and/or they started it, either with me or someone else who didn’t or doesn’t deserve it.

I didn’t escalate the situation. You and your fellow, lying, arrogant hypocrites did.

It really cracks me up to see you guys acting exactly like some of the creationists you hate and condemn so much. You accuse and attack them for not listening and having closed minds, and for playing what you think are ridiculous games, but you do the same thing. Congratulations, you have become your enemy.

FODS

I haven’t lied about anything, you jackass! The simple fact is that you have invaded Panda’s Thumb and have been a disruptive force from the beginning and have played us like suckers. I’m not fooled by you and no one else is. Even if you were insulted by one or two people in the beginning, you could have ignored it and just responded to the ones who were being positive to you, like flowersfriend has been, but instead you started throwing shit at everyone who dared to reject your tactics. We insulted you because that seemed to be what you liked, but I get tired of that after a while. You don’t, appearantly.

If you seriously think you have made ANY positive contributions to this community here, you are even more delusional than most Creationists!

Dale Husband said: What’s the point of bashing me?

None whatsoever, but since any comments to a troll are going to produce nothing but bashing in response, that leads to what the point of the comments was.

John often fails to read for comprehension. A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Ghrom said:

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Malchus said: A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Oh Bob, I can hear the howls now: “Set phasers to SLAUGHTER!”

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Profile ready at hand? What exactly does that mean Mike? Ready for what or whom? Do you have printed profiles of all the people you’ve labeled as trolls and hand them out to passersby on street corners? Or, do you create a profile file in your computer containing your intricate and exhaustive (LMAO!) calculations and determinations about each alleged troll and somehow send a copy of it to everyone on Earth to warn them of impending doom? Or, do you only dispense it to other regulars here who are able to contact you personally and who request a copy because they let you do their thinking for them?

Or, do you just think that your stupid ‘profiles’ actually matter, when in reality they actually don’t? Do you really believe that what happens on this website, or your asinine profiles, or what you do with them, matters one iota to the vast majority of the people on Earth? Get over yourself Mike.

Hey, if you have my profile handy, why don’t you post it here? I could use a good laugh.

Your “profile” is a person who needs attention and does not even try to get it by behaving in any consistent or coherent fashion. You are a manipulative jerk who takes ANY response from others and uses it as an excuse to attack. You bash us for not being tolerant enough of Creationists, while stating Creationist fallacies yourself. Then you turn around and deny being religious and question why certain others who are Creationist take their religion so seriously. Such strange behavior is pathological in the extreme.

Gee, this website seems VERY important to you, considering how much time you spend here.

You are either crazy or a fraud, Kris.

The fun thing about the BW is that the trolls either have to cave in and respond on the BW – which they don’t want to do – or pass up responding – which they REALLY don’t want to do.

Kris said:

Whatever you do, don’t even consider that when people come here and sincerely want to ask, discuss, debate, learn, and/or contribute in some way, that when they’re mercilessly insulted and attacked and erroneously lumped into your hated group of ID/creationists, they just might not like it and may fight back, and especially when they offer reasonable explanations of their words and the explanations (and the person) are ignored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, slammed, bashed, and ridiculed by you and the rest of the mindless haters here. Yeah, don’t even consider that for a second. You and the other haters and bashers here are way too perfect to have to consider such things. It’s never your fault.

Your track record is too well known here for us to consider that you are sincere about anything. You are even WORSE than the average Creationist troll because you keep going back and forth between acting non-religious and acting like a Creationist. You cannot be both, so you must be bullshitting us. Nobody here can take that seriously.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

If you don’t like being called a liar, stop being one. At least I have ALWAYS told the truth about YOU.

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

mrg said:

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest. But I figured I’d just make a note of ANY inappropriate thing Kris says elsewhere and post it here, answer it here, and wait for Kris to take the hint and stop attacking us everywhere else and just slam people here.

Dale Husband said: Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest.

Why would I want to do that? But if my own rejoinder is indifference, I can at least politely ask that the effect not be spoiled.

Kris threatens: “I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar,…”

Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

Mike Elzinga said: … everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

AARGH! I am so outa here!

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.”

And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good?

Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will.

They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these.

But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention.

Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

Whew! Glad I never called Kris a liar. I only called him a coward and a bully.

Mike Elzinga said: Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

So it’s like “one of these days Alice, POW! To the mooning”?

Another collection of Kris’ delusional rants.

Kris said:

And of course your insulting comments, and the insulting comments by the other hypocrites here, don’t violate any of those rules you posted, eh?

Apparently, all that matters here is that any insults have to be aimed at creationists or anyone who doesn’t blindly and viciously attack them right along with you guys/gals.

Giving you back your own shit isn’t allowed. Questioning you isn’t allowed. Having a mind of my own isn’t allowed. Calling you on your bullshit isn’t allowed. Anything less than total devotion and obedience to you and your creationist hating ‘cause’ isn’t allowed. Hypocrisy, by you and your cohorts, is allowed, and encouraged.

Kris said:

And of course you and others going on and on about “trolls”, and repeatedly posting “DNFTT”, isn’t “SPAM”. Yeah, whatever.

Why do you think that a “dissenter” is automatically a “troll”? You’ve said you’re a Christian. Would your Christian God approve of your insulting, hypocritical, hateful behavior?

Kris said:

Maybe, just maybe the moderators are getting wise to the hypocrisy and other bullshit you and others are guilty of.

Now STFU spamming troll.

How do you like your own shit thrown back at you?

Panda’s Thumb is a blog made for defending evolution and promoting proper science education, and since Kris was the one who invaded the blog to spew both Creationist arguments that we were expected to “tolerate” (like we are supposed to tolerate falsehoods?) and then claim to be non-religious at other times, why shouldn’t we regard him as unwelcome, inconsistent and disruptive? Why shouldn’t we treat him like he is the enemy, when that’s all he has ever acted like since he arrived here?

An example of hypocrisy would be us invading and attacking ID promoters on Uncommon Descent. I’ve never done that, and never will. Maybe Kris can go over there and drive the ID people crazy for a while, to prove to us once and for all that he is an equal-opportunity critic, and not a bigoted Creationist concern troll.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Kris the creationist wrote:

“If, however, “descent with modification” is defined as showing that speciation (evolution) occurs and/or occurred, then that’s a different ballgame, and requires greater evidence. While a lot of evidence points to a persuasive probability that descent with modification, including divergence/speciation, occurred throughout(?) the history of life, there’s a lot more work to do to before it can reasonably be said that it has been established close to 100%, and I’m not sure it can be reasonably said that it can be established ‘empirically’. Many inferences have been and have to be made, and inferences are a matter of opinion.”

This is of course incorrect. I already posted a link to a web page entitled:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

If Kris wants to discuss the point, he can do so here. Maybe someone will want to discuss it with him. Unless of course he is just plain chicken shit.

DS said: Kris the creationist wrote:

You might just leave a short bland note on the original thread to invite him to come to the BW for discussion. He’ll ignore it, of course, but that works too.

Yawn.

(Bored.)

All the spamming at The Immune System Cross-examination Still Burns, and other forums, is very unChristlike, don’t you think?

Makes you wonder if these anti-science creation-supporters are Christians? (Never known a real creationist who wasn’t.)

It’s funny how trolls stubbornly resist being prodded to direct their comments to the BW. They know that once they do, they don’t have any real nuisance value any more: “What’s the point of trolling, then?”

Kris huffs and puffs and squeaks “What are you afraid of?” hiding behind his mommy’s apron. Afraid to mix it up on the big kid’s playground, he’ll sit in the sandbox and cry.

Poor widdle Kwis! Mean old scientists call you out on your stupid shit? Maybe if we ignore the little wanker he’ll go back into the closet and play with himself.

Geeze, I’m beginning to miss FL! I tell you, the neighborhood is going to hell.

I knew the asshole was chicken shit. All he haas to do is come here and provide a better explanation for the 29 different independent data sets that are all consistent with common descent. Until he does, I guess he will just be someone who believes in evolution but not in common descent. Yea right.

Everyone should remember, he had his chance to discuss science, he chose to quote mine and insult instead. He can cry all he wants to now, but everyone is wise to his crap.

FL’s response to a denial that the Bible is the Word of God, from the evidence of its content?

“Yeah, well, I’ve got another book that assumes that it isn’t.”

Uh-huh. And he thinks I’m going to be impressed with the fact that its author is an Australian. Freaking Ken Ham, the ayatollah of Appalachia, is an Australian, much to our national chagrin.

And I’m not surprised at the flat blank denial of reason from evidence required for that rejoinder. It’s only to be expected. As we have seen, lo, these many years, reason from evidence is so alien a procedure to FL that his mind cannot even comprehend its existence - at least on that topic and all related ones. He demonstrates that fact once again. Hey-ho.

And so we go on to Vallicella, and another assertion that the burden is on the atheist to demonstrate that there is no God. Never mind that the atheist position is not that there is no God, nor that God is impossible, but simply that God is inevident, and one should not believe without evidence.

It’s about the difference between knowledge and belief. Is there a God? Agnostic atheists don’t know. They see no reliable evidence for one. They therefore do not believe in one, on the principle given above: “One should not believe without evidence”.

A rational discussion would move on to “Is it invariably true that one should not believe without reliable evidence?” and “Why should one not believe without evidence?” and “What evidence is there?” and “What evidence would suffice?” and “Is there reason to expect that there would be evidence of that nature for a God?”

We can’t go there with FL. He’s stuck broken-recording the same defiance of reason as always: “You have to prove that there’s no God; you have to prove a universal negative, which is impossible, so I win.” with a topping of “There is so evidence; it’s just that only I can see it, and you can’t because you won’t.” And the fact that the last contradicts a fundamental Christian doctrine, namely, the necessity for faith - as eric pointed out - he simply ignores.

There is no way forward from this. All that can be done is to broken-record him back: Nobody says that they know there is no God. Nobody says that there is no possibility of one. Therefore nobody has to prove it, quite apart from the fact that it’s impossible to prove a universal negative. All agnostic atheists say is that there is no evidence for God, and that they decline to believe in what is not evident.

As for the idea that the Bible (as defined any way you want, within reason) is the Word of this God, this: If you can read the Bible and understand it and still assert that all of it is the inerrant record of the actions of a just and benevolent God, then you’re either insane, OR amoral, OR incapable of deriving meaning from written words. One or more of those has to apply.

The Panda’s Thumb has FL because everybody needs a local Misinformation Minister.

Dave Luckett said:

FL’s response to a denial that the Bible is the Word of God, from the evidence of its content?

“Yeah, well, I’ve got another book that assumes that it isn’t.”

Uh-huh. And he thinks I’m going to be impressed with the fact that its author is an Australian.

Oh no no, Dave. Didn’t even TRY to think that you would “be impressed.” And didn’t care, either.

It’s just that you scholarly fellow Australian’s book came to mind when I read your patently false paragraph. I’m fairly certain you haven’t read Leon Morris’ textbook, or for that matter, any of the scholarly NICNT and NICOT series. Doing so would imply a commitment to personal ongoing Bible study and research that is totally alien to any of Pandaville’s current residents, yourself included.

(PT used to have a couple of TE’s that might would be exceptions to that rule, but they’re long gone now.)

****

Freaking Ken Ham, the ayatollah of Appalachia, is an Australian, much to our national chagrin.

I know, but I didn’t want to rub it in your face. YOUR fellow Australian is messing things up for idolatrous Darwin-Worshippers all across America.

And I’m not surprised at the flat blank denial of reason from evidence required for that rejoinder. It’s only to be expected. As we have seen, lo, these many years, reason from evidence is so alien a procedure to FL that his mind cannot even comprehend its existence - at least on that topic and all related ones. He demonstrates that fact once again. Hey-ho.

Actually, I cited Leon Morris’ text as a direct piece of Australian counter-evidence against that silly and baseless paragraph you wrote. On the American side, I could have cited Gleason Archer’s works (which I’ve read), or any number of American Bible and religion PhD’s, for my counter-evidence.

But I just wanted to make sure that even in your own home country, your baseless bum paragraph was already refuted.

****

And so we go on to Vallicella, and another assertion that the burden is on the atheist to demonstrate that there is no God.

Which it is, same as the theist. WE ALL have a burden of proof on whatever assertions we’re making in public.

Atheists/agnostics are a flat-out minority in America because Joe and Jane Public see most of them DUCKING their rational responsibilities to provide backup.

Joe and Jane have to keep up with such responsibilities every day in the workplace and school, yet they see that you Atheists/Agnostics/Whatnots can’t even carry your own dysentery-laden water (not even with the help of professional water-carriers!!)

So most Joes and Janes, even the ones who say they are “NONES” (no organized religions), never actually sign up for the atheistic Scams that you Pandas have gotten bogged down in.

****

Never mind that the atheist position is not that there is no God, nor that God is impossible, but simply that God is inevident, and one should not believe without evidence.

And then Joe and Jane Public see how your guys HEM and HAW like HYPOCRITES when people rationally and calmly ask you if you yourself can demonstrate that YOU have actually checked and confirmed **all available avenues of evidence** that have a bearing on the question of God’s existence.

****

Have to run an errand or two, but I’m not ignoring the rest of your post Dave. Will rub more salt in Pandaville’s wounds when I return.

By the way, Morton’s Iodized Salt is the best kind for rubbing in Panda wounds. No fuss, no muss, just grind it in good. Stock up today at your local grocery store.

FL

Frankly, FL, I see more of a Christ-like nature in Dave’s posts than in yours.

For Christ’s sake, just stop posting.

So no evidence and no answers for Eric. Nothing but bullshit really. Just what I thought. If the asshole ever comes up with any evidence, or any way to get any evidence, let me know.

prongs said:

Frankly, FL, I see more of a Christ-like nature in Dave’s posts than in yours.

For Christ’s sake, just stop posting.

Well prongs, if you’re telling the truth, then please take the next step and accept the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, as your personal Savior and Ruler of your life.

Otherwise…there’s no use of you trying to invoke a Christ that you yourself ain’t on speaking terms with.

FL

FL says he knows I wouldn’t be impressed by the fact that Morris was an Australian. Why make such a song and dance about it, then?

The answer is FL’s usual reason. It’s a taunt, like the one about Ham messing things up for Darwin worshipers, or the bit about rubbing salt into wounds. A piece of junior-high invective. Its only purpose is to try to get under my skin. I’m an Australian, and proud to be one. FL’s trying to use it against me. So much for reasoned debate.

We could swap authorities all day long, for I’d put my reading up against FL’s any day, but that’s useless and irrelevant. It’s also useless to point out that it is at best argument from authority, not evidence. FL is simply trying to evade the point.

The point is this:

The burden of proof lies on the positive. It does not lie equally on the negative. It does not lie on the negative at all. It is for the maker of the positive assertion to demonstrate it, in default of which the negative holds. Any attempt to lay that burden anywhere else is a simple denial of reason.

But it’s actually even worse than that for FL; for atheists are not making an assertion that God does not exist. Their assertions are there is no testable evidence for God, and that one should not believe without evidence. The first part is a negative assertion, and the rule above applies.

Nobody, not even the Christian church, really tries to dispute the first part. Even FL concedes that nothing that he can cite proves the existence of God. The dispute is really over the second clause: that one should not believe without testable evidence.

At this point we wander off into theological thickets. Is God, then, to be tested? Jesus, quoting Deuteronomy, answered no. Could God provide testable evidence, anyway? We are supposed to have free will, aren’t we? Would not the provision of testable evidence of God prevent the exercise of free will? And how about the requirement for faith which the Christian church has always taught? If there were testable evidence, faith would NOT be required. By requiring faith, the Christian church is conceding that there is none.

Is faith is available to all who seek? How do you account for those who seek, but do not find?

Even more fundamentally, why should one decline belief unless there is testable evidence? Does anyone really apply that rule without exception? And if it has exceptions, why is belief in God not one of them?

But none of the questions of the last three paragraphs has even entered the discussion, at least not with FL. All we can get from him is: “You have to prove that there is no God. You can’t. Therefore, God.”

It’s worth my trouble, I suppose, to keep on pointing out how irrational that is. But, dear me, it does get tedious.

Dave Luckett said:

It’s worth my trouble, I suppose, to keep on pointing out how irrational that is. But, dear me, it does get tedious.

There’s a reason why all parents at some point, in dealing with a toddler or even an older child, give up on trying to reason him out of dangerous, disruptive, or rude behavior and fall back on adult, parental authority: “Because I say so.” “You can’t come out of your room until you apologize to your sister.” “After the way I saw you driving, you’re not getting the car keys back. Walk to school.”

You just can’t reason with someone too immature to admit that rational does not mean how I want things to be.

Oh, and this “patently false paragraph” that FL is exercised over?

I think he means this one:

As I said, anyone who can read it (the Bible) and understand it, given assistance from upwards of four hundred years of scholarship and research, cannot rationally conclude that this is the word of a merciful or even a just God.

If some statement is said to be false, the usual procedure among rational people is to demonstrate its falsehood.

Personally, I would welcome a break from the humdrum tedium of pointing out, over and over, the obvious logical falsity of FL’s requirement to demonstrate a universal negative. So bring it on. FL says the statement is “patently false”. Why, then its falsehood should be, er, patent. Easily demonstrated. Plainly apparent to anyone.

So demonstrate it, already.

FL said:

Oh no no…

Still a-waitin’, bluster boy.

But of course I’m not holding my breath, because you HAVE no testable evidence for the reality of your gods, because your gods ARE NOT REAL. All your claims to the contrary are desperate lies.

You know, Flawd, an honest man would admit that patently obvious fact and move on. But you’re too much of a coward to do that. You’re too crazy.

Leave a comment

About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter