In America, atheists are still in the closet

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>Nobody listened to him?

Obama listened to him.

That's why he was squirming in his seat wishing he could dispute Ryan's withering analysis of his plan.

You are an idiot. You are a small person with a small mind.

You lost on the round earth. You lost on Reagan and the U.S.S.R. You lost on the October Surprise. You lost on the Emancipation Proclamation.

Now you start in on Paul Ryan. Why would anyone pay attention to you?

I'm thinking of lowering the dome of silence on your ass.

You're useless.

At least useless is better than less than useless.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>That's what I said.

The earth is not round.

If nothing is round, the earth is not round.

Furthermore, there is a better and more accurate term to describe the shape of the earth than "round".

That term is "oblate spheroid". An oblate spheroid is not round. If it were, there would be no need for the term.

To say that "round" is better than "cube" means nothing. "Cube" would be better than "triangle". So what?

You are wrong that the earth doesn't conform to any geometrical shape. The earth IS a geometrical shape, so it has to conform. Even if there is no identical shape in existence, it still conforms to a geometrical shape.

I guess we should eliminate the word "round" from the English language.

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>The dirt is not brown.

The grass is not green.

The ocean is not blue.

Buck is not Buck.

When are we going to talk about boobies!?!?!?!?

Did you see the Olympic boob?

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Nobody listened to him?
Obama listened to him.
That's why he was squirming in his seat wishing he could dispute Ryan's withering analysis of his plan.
You are an idiot. You are a small person with a small mind.
You lost on the round earth. You lost on Reagan and the U.S.S.R. You lost on the October Surprise. You lost on the Emancipation Proclamation.
Now you start in on Paul Ryan. Why would anyone pay attention to you?
I'm thinking of lowering the dome of silence on your ass.
You're useless.

Ahhh. The O'le Dome Of Silence..LOL...."Missed it By This Much "

Buck Crick wrote:

I agree that "round" is a better descriptor than "flat".

Round like a ball, how fortunate that you allow everyone after three or four days to use the word 'round' to describe items that are round.

And three dimensional...

Will you concede that squares have four sides? triangles have three?

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
No. An honorable parent doesn't turn his children over to the priests. A responsible and loving parent doesn't let his child anywhere near a church. The church is not your friend.
<quoted text>
I would have blamed your stultifying ignorance.
<quoted text>
Um, because that would be idiotic.
Why aren't you?
<quoted text>
I am using my philosophy. I am combating them almost daily using frequent dining and dancing with friends as my weapon of choice.

The Ultimate " Dodge " Doc

First, We Were Talking About Schools..You Know ? The Hitchhikers Guide To Liberalism.
Were You Sodomized By A Priest ?
I Ask Because Your Fixated On It.

Look Flamer, You Know I Don't Agree With Most Churches....Nor Do It Believe in The Failed Education System, Full Of Ex Hippies And Sick Azzed Pedophiles.

Next, You Take Yourself To Be Much More Relevant Then You Really Are....Don't Cry, We All Are Not Doing Anything To Help Fix Any Of The Problems...Except For You...Were Busy Working And Making A Living.

Stultifying.....LOL
Oh Your A Master Of Bilingual Brutality...LOL

Dining And Dancing Daily With Entertainment ? How Much Fun Can It Be To watch Pedro Stoink His Gay Partner On The Dirt Floor ?
Ahh....Good Times...LOL

No Doc....You Still Living The Dream....As A Hippy...Still Doing Drugs And Using Your Philosophy To Lob Hand Grenades Across The Border, While Hiding In A Gay Village In Mexico.

Personally, I Believe Your A Coward, And Have No Say In American Interests.

No My Soulless Friend....You Have No Room To Insult.
You Reaped The Benefits Of A Capitalistic System...Against Your Own Philosophy, And Then Ran To A Third World Country, Were You Dance And Dine Daily, While The Peasants Work For Peanuts...You Really Should Be Ashamed.

Oh Hell...Your Old And Your Mind Is Dust From The Drug Abuse...Carry On Stoner.

Buck Crick wrote:

<
You are grasping at an argument. Physicists have looked at the earth analytically with satellite instruments. What do they say about their observations?
They say the earth is not round.

You are a liar.

The say the earth is not perfectly round.

And they describe the earth as more round compared to the billiard ball.

Because they know- as everyone including you know- there is no such thing as perfectly round except in math.

Just as there is no infinite number except the concept of an infinite number.

To which I add one.

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you see the Olympic boob?

Damn...I Missed It ?

Did It Make It On The Jumbotron ?

lightbeamrider wrote:

Skeptical of all who denies the Deity of Christ and the bodily resurrection of Christ. Jesus is truth. He brings us out of spiritual death to life. He liberates those who commit to Him and brings us to positional peace with God. Your position being in a state of spiritual death and enemies of God.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

OK. Thanks for that.

Is there any reason for believing that? Any reason I should? It seems like a wild guess to me, like claiming that you know the winning numbers to tonight's lottery because they were on the back of a fortune cookie that your waiter gave you. How is that different than claiming you know such thing about some Jesus just because it was written in the bible that your parents gave you?

How could one know something like either of those things - the Jesus stuff or the lotto numbers? You couldn't. We both know that about the lotto, and I know it about your Jesus claims.

lightbeamrider wrote:

Resurrection of Christ. Did homework. Any reason for rejecting resurrection?

Seriously?

lightbeamrider wrote:

It is a first order question of truth

What do you mean by a first order question of truth? First order logic? Please be specific what you mean - and what you are referring to. Were you referring to the resurrection? The godhood of Christ?

lightbeamrider wrote:

When push comes to shove truth takes a backseat to mundane and temporary things.

When push comes to shove? Do you mean extreme situations? How about in ordinary situations, when push hasn't come to shove?

What mundane things are you referring to? Things like making a living? And what temporary things?

I could answer your comments more responsively if you used more expository discourse and less pronouns and "poetry" - symbolic language, tropes, euphemisms, vague references, etc..

lightbeamrider wrote:

No. I would say naturalistic assumptions about all of reality at all times is more of a wild guess [than belief in a god].

I make no such assumption. Rational skeptics doubt undemonstrable claims such as those.

I embrace naturalism for two excellent reasons apart from the stunning success of naturalistic philosophy and science.

[1] Supernaturalism has consistently failed to generate results. They looked for the philosopher's stone and perpetual motion machines because of a belief in the supernatural, and came up with nothing. They have tried exorcisms to cure disease because of a belief in supernaturalism and accomplished nothing. And now intelligent design is doing the same, assuming supernatural models, and it is just as sterile

[2] Methodological naturalism - looking only at physical reality for answers to the universe - is imposed on man. There is nothing else to study but energy and matter, force and form, in time and space. If there is a supernatural, we have no access to it, unless it affects the material world. For example, if prayer worked, we would have detected that.

Assuming that there is more to reality than the natural is the wild guess and a huge leap of faith. Assuming that there is or can be no supernatural is a less wild guess, and a smaller leap of faith.

Most skeptics are agnostic about the supernatural. Declining to buy into it without reason is not a wild guess. It's what rational skepticism is.

lightbeamrider wrote:

What does this life have to offer that is so important that you would not put aside your assumptions and investigate the matter with the effort it deserves?

What an odd question. Why would you think that I have not done that? Because I rejected faith? That was the result of investigating the matter further than as a believer. And my investigations in the thirty-five years since have reaffirmed that choice repeatedly.

lightbeamrider wrote:

Was not given a Bible by parents. Two books sparked my interest along with debates with Christians. The books. Basic Christianity by John Stott. and Holiness of God by RC Sproul.

Are you willing to describe your path to Christianity? Did you come to it for the first time as an adult? I did.

lightbeamrider wrote:

There are two types of knowledge. Generally. Actual.

Sorry. You seem to be using private language here. Do you mean abstract and concrete? Theoretical and practical? Inductive and deductive, as in general and specific?

lightbeamrider wrote:

My wife gave birth to our daughter. Observed. I observed the process. Observing i did not have actual.

Do you mean that you didn't have the experience of delivering a baby? You can't mean obstetric knowledge? How could whatever knowledge or experience you gained being there not be actual?

It would be so helpful if you would use the language in a standard way.

lightbeamrider wrote:

Knowledge of the resurrection is more in the observed category.

Seriously? What did you observe?

lightbeamrider wrote:

You associate the Jesus stuff with lotto numbers. In order to obtain the Jesus stuff,[as you put it] means one may to give up the winning lotto numbers. It is as pearl of great price in which all this world has to offer is as worthless in comparison.

This is more nonsense to me - the misunderstanding of a metaphor, and more poetry.

Aura Mytha wrote:

You decide if earths surface can be compared to a cue ball surface.

The deepest trench in the ocean is a mere (not quite) ten miles; the highest spot above the sea is half that. The diameter of the earth is 7,926.28 miles...the most extreme places on earth.

Ten miles deep (rounded) may be a long way to carry a gallon of gas but is a tiny fraction of eight thousand miles

The earth is more round and more smooth when compared to a cue ball.

OK, Huddle-up

In My Opinion....We All Have A Right To Our Opinions...Much Like Philosophy...Everyone Has An Opinion, And Most Of Them Stink.

Where I Believe We Can Make Great Strides, Is By Living Our Lives Honorably, Trying To Help Others, And Not Complaining Constantly.

Some Of Us Are Stuck In A Battle Against Society.
Instead Of Focusing On Helping, We Tend To Attack Those Who Disagree.

There Are Those Who Really Need Help And Support, And, Then There Are Those Who Live Off Of The Hard Working Peoples Money.
Entitlements And Government Sponsored Handouts, Have Created A Generational Group Of Slugs.
This Is By Design And Offers Itself To The Political Arena OF " Votes "

We Can Best Help Ourselves And Others, By Being Self Sufficient. In The Future, It Might Be Wise To Be Able To Grow Your Own Food, Be Able To Kill And Butcher An Animal.

We Are All On A Journey, Some Of Us Take Different Paths....Philosophy, Doc...LOL

The Country Is Divided And Ripe For Failure.....
Now, We Can Take Care OF Ourselves And Others, Or, We Can Complain And Help Divide.

Now, Go Out There And Succeed.....Don't Mind The Man Behind The Curtain...LOL

Buck Crick wrote:

The earth is not round.
Have you ever seen a tire or a gear operate when, due to a defect in it's roundness (the radius not the same in all directions) it has a wobble or an imbalance?

The earth is round.

No matter how hard you stomp your fat ignorant feet, Scrote.

It is not perfectly round.

You know: you edited that out of your post when you "quoted" the article that proclaim the earth 'not round': that the earth is not PERFECTLY round and the article went on to note that it was a tiny fraction of one percent out of round.

There is no such thing as perfectly round except for the concept of a perfect mathematically round number.

Just as even a sheet of glass is not perfectly flat.

wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>Damn...I Missed It ?

Did It Make It On The Jumbotron ?

I don't know. It was on women's water polo.

Buck Crick wrote:

The earth is also not a sphere.

sphere (sfr)
n.
1. Mathematics A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point.
2. A spherical object or figure.
3. A celestial body, such as a planet or star.
(clip)

Buck Crick wrote:

It's called being "out of round".

There is no perfect round - putting aside you told us a few days ago you insisted that round did not exist in three dimensions... and now you are lecturing about "out of round" of tires and comparing them to spherical objects.

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you see the Olympic boob?

http://www.forgetfoo.com/images/blog/olympic-...

He's up, up and OVER!

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Nobody listened to him?
Obama listened to him.

Ryan budget was not and will not be passed.

If you want to see someone squirm, ask Romney why he won't post his tax returns.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, you are so clever.
Brrrrrrrrrrrr.... the dome of silence comes down on you.

WAHHH! Scrotum dishes it out and when he gets it back, he makes threats his hummingbird ass can't back up!

WAHHHHHHHH!

KowKow has made exactly the same threats... to stop talking to and about me... at which the traffic picks up.

Gosh, I will have to lay into some Unisom, how will I get to sleep knowing you no longer speak to me?