He used profanity in a sentence. That isn't bullying.

He did call those kids pansy-asses for walking out. In a polite tone of voice, actually.

What never ceases to amaze me is the inability of conservatives to think with any clarity or nuance.

It is like that Gary Larson cartoon, where the dog owner has a long conversation with the dog, whose name is Ginger. Very complicated and nuanced. And then you see what the dog actually hears -- white noise with "Ginger" showing up now and then.

That is how (some) conservatives seem to hear. The word "bullshit" and "bible" are in the same paragraph and they can't seem to hear what is actually said. They just hear "bullshit" and "bible."

It isn't as if these are stupid people. I know they aren't. But they hear these trigger words and their brains and ability to process language just stops.

It's weird. I swear.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Craig did extremely well in that debate, especially in the segment where they asked eachother questions. You can see that at the 1:19:00 mark, and I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.
Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
&
gt;> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.



You say; "Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?"
Yes, all of them.
As for your assertion that Hitch "folded," and was "unsure of himself." What are you talking about? He was perfectly concise and logical. He, quite understandably, becomes terse in the face of "white noise" being presented as fact. As you say; "there it is on video."

Sorry to have brought this to your attention >> ^Drax:

I have the Broken CD edition with the seperate mini-cd for the last two tracks. The original Downward Spiral CD release with the extra white noise before hurt. Nearly evey LP. Owned the Broken movie on a bootleg VHS. Seen NIN over 30 times live.
...I never knew this existed.

lol

I have the Broken CD edition with the seperate mini-cd for the last two tracks. The original Downward Spiral CD release with the extra white noise before hurt. Nearly evey LP. Owned the Broken movie on a bootleg VHS. Seen NIN over 30 times live.

...I never knew this existed.


lol

>> ^BoneRemake:

It needs some of the random sonar ping sounds. This would aid me in sleeping if I wanted to position a separate set of speakers near my fuck slab.
it does have those sounds. you just haven't listened to it long enough to hear it

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Gallowflak:

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about how the new Atheist movement is full of young mature independent astute free-thinkers. They take criticism in stride and are open to opposing views and opinions. The responses to my comments here certainly reaffirms my position.


I think that most people absorb into groups that resonate with them because of highly tenuous bullshit, rather than a genuine ideological or intellectual kinship, and pay lip service to the ideas of the clan which is most convenient or comfortable for them to "be" in. So I think that a movement based around critical thinking and secular humanism has a hard time from the get-go, because most people aren't critical, or reasonable, or rational, even if they fancy to pretend otherwise.

Honestly, I never really expected many of those in the new atheist movement to be up to scratch, even before going into it. And there's a serious problem with some rather douchey and stiff figureheads.

These are all things we can talk about, though! There are people here genuinely interested in having a conversation, even if they forget that, sometimes. But you don't seem to want a conversation.

Maybe you feel embattled, and you'd probably have good reason. But making quips and then taking people's legitimately pissed reactions as a kind of vindication of your point, a point you haven't actually made, isn't a good way to get anything done.

It just seems like, rather than having an argument, you have an attack, and there's no real response to that other than rejection. And that's what you got. It isn't groupthink or hivemind activity, it's just that, here, you're not part of the dialogue, you're just offensive white noise.

If you have something to say and a case to make, there's at least one person who will actually fucking read it. But I've not seen it yet.

>> ^therealblankman:

Skip ahead to 14:23:37. That's where the real action starts.
Actually there were a few good parts before that.

Negative chronitom particles ejected at high velocity from phased plasma amplifier interact with low entropy bosons crossing the warp manifold event horizon. These bosons, now drained of trigonometric energy, collide with the gravimetric shielding surrounding the fusion relays thereby inducing oscillations in the ship's hull integrity field, thus producing low frequency oscillations in the ship's artificial atmosphere.

edit: Hm, that was supposed to be in response to raverman. Well, that doesn't make any sense now.

>> ^Zyrxil:

It's the Quantum Calmness Generator installed on all Starfleet ships to promote harmony and wellbeing between Borg attacks.

WLC says; "On the basis of the ressurection of jesus, we have grounds for the hope of immortality. If god raised jesus from the dead, then there is hope of immortality." What grounds, what evidence? What nonsense. Keep fighting your cancer Hitch, there is no one who debunks the rhetorical white noise of bronze age mystics like you.

It's amusing that no one here can actually just present their views without acting all incredulous "OMG I CANT BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE OMG UR SO DUMB OMG!!!" How about you just let your logic speak for itself. If you want to talk about intelligence, I scored 149 on my last IQ test..how about you? You science worshippers are more dogmatic and sensitive than any religious person I know, and that's the truth.

You can repeat something is true over and over again, as forcefully and dramatically as you want..there are no, and I repeat ZERO true transitionals. Yes of course every fossil is a transitional by definition..lol..but we're talking about actual records showing a change in kind to another kind. There aren't any. Here is a list of all the best ones science has found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

Read that a few times and let it sink in. None have ever been found, those are all extinct side branches, not true transitionals. Why don't you get a background and know you're talking about before you try to get into a debate with someone, let alone imply they themselves are ignorant.


>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

Oh god.
Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters
If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.
The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.
As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.


Oh god.

Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters

If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.

The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.

As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Just put your hard drive between two heavy duty magnets and rotate.
Magnets are fuckn' magic.

Programs exist that can fill a whole Hard Disk with white noise. Prolly takes a while, but if your gonna use magnets you may as well use the write head provided

...ratatata... WHITE NOISE! ...ratatata...

How about the *health channel?

And while running a hair dryer can work, may I recommend a white noise machine?
http://www.amazon.com/Marpac-SleepMate-980A-Electro-Mechanical-Conditioner/dp/B000KUHFGM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297049456&sr=8-1

In reply to this comment by nanrod:
What kind of sound do fan blades make when they kiss?>> ^BoneRemake:

fuck the fans I use for white noise so I can sleep, I would rather listen to that then the osculations of the fan blades.


they dont, if they where to kiss, they would be facing each other, the blades are going in opposite directions therefore you would get a little noise and then the motors would have to overpower each other !

on the chance its a joke, whats the answer?