Quake3World

Foo wrote:I'm thinking we should step this up a little bit. What if the satanic ritual also included a time share presentation?

No pressure.

(read reply above this post)

DRuM wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

Law wrote: Possibly, or maybe something deeper. It's usually that way for people who use internet forums as a form of outlet for constant negative expression.

You should really read something into the fact that you're being backed up by the biggest moron on the board. And the Psych 101 amateur crap is hilarious, Drs. Fraud and Dung.

you're middle aged, bald, fat, and still at school

And still thanking my lucky stars that I'm not you. Bitter, old, big nosed, wifeless cunt with no future, fuming over a messageboard. It's funny to watch you get so angry over getting the reality of your "life" stuck in your face.

Freakaloin wrote:atheists r about as dumb as fundamentalist christians...

Care to explain that little jewel of wisdom sparky?

scourge34 wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:atheists r about as dumb as fundamentalist christians...

Care to explain that little jewel of wisdom sparky?

Simply because stating as fact that a higher power does not exist is just as baseless as stating that one does.

The obvious answer is that we dont know, and cant divine anything useful from assuming one way or the other.

Or in other words.... jelluz?

well scourge, i cant/dont speak the loin'ed one, but to me, it implys that mabe one should ask/ponder these questions oneself , and reach actual personal reasonings intead of just like, being told eh

eh or nah ive no idea

atheists assume they know something which is impossible to know...just like moronic christians...both r retarded...

so is agnostic the only way then?

tnf wrote:so is agnostic the only way then?

It seems to be the only one that holds up to all logical scrutiny.

but its obvious there is no judging, meddling type of god...thats just moronic speak...

But you just said yourself there is no way to know for sure.

plained wrote:well scourge, i cant/dont speak the loin'ed one, but to me, it implys that mabe one should ask/ponder these questions oneself , and reach actual personal reasonings intead of just like, being told eh

eh or nah ive no idea

I'm quite capable of pondering the question myself. I was curious as to why he would say that. Going by his past statements he seemed to be atheist himself.

Freakaloin wrote:atheists assume they know something which is impossible to know...just like moronic christians...both r retarded...

So what's your plan then? Wait until you die and then claim loyalty to whatever religeon happens to be right if any?

scourge34 wrote:But you just said yourself there is no way to know for sure.

god is the prime mover...nothing more...religion has nothing to do with what could be called god...

religion is just superstition and nothing more...

Freakaloin wrote:

scourge34 wrote:But you just said yourself there is no way to know for sure.

god is the prime mover...nothing more...religion has nothing to do with what could be called god...

religion is just superstition and nothing more...

LOL, THIS IS FACT EH?

Freakaloin wrote:atheists assume they know something which is impossible to know...just like moronic christians...both r retarded...

Why are you picking on the christians? What about islamic, buddhist, etc? Wouldn't they be retarted as well?

Freakaloin wrote:atheists assume they know something which is impossible to know

And what about this agian? You say that it is impossible to know, then turn around and say this:

Freakaloin wrote: god is the prime mover...nothing more...religion has nothing to do with what could be called god...

religion is just superstition and nothing more...

Either you're just baiting or you're the moron.

neither...ur the moron and just can't see it...the religious god isn't part of the god debate...thats just bs superstition...we r talking about a god...not a fairytale...

dzjepp wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:atheists assume they know something which is impossible to know...just like moronic christians...both r retarded...

Why are you picking on the christians? What about islamic, buddhist, etc? Wouldn't they be retarted as well?

christians...muslims...whatever...they r all idiots...

Freakaloin wrote:neither...ur the moron and just can't see it...the religious god isn't part of the god debate...thats just bs superstition...we r talking about a god...not a fairytale...

so how do you know this non-religious god exists idiot? do you have it written down on your wrist or something?

geoff is right. agnosticism or certain, quasi-agnostic notions of unitarianism are the only ways to settle the problem. everything else is superstition, fairytales and cowardly avoidance of a personal causa sui.

Foo wrote:Simply because stating as fact that a higher power does not exist is just as baseless as stating that one does.

The obvious answer is that we dont know, and cant divine anything useful from assuming one way or the other.

Or in other words.... jelluz?

Yeah, but the burden of proof lies with religion.

dzjepp wrote:

Freakaloin wrote: god is the prime mover...nothing more...religion has nothing to do with what could be called god...

religion is just superstition and nothing more...

LOL, THIS IS FACT EH?

They way he puts it, God could simply be the cosmological forces that hold the universe together, not some sentient, omnipotent being. Stuff that can be explained by science, you know?

scourge34 wrote:

plained wrote:well scourge, i cant/dont speak the loin'ed one, but to me, it implys that mabe one should ask/ponder these questions oneself , and reach actual personal reasonings intead of just like, being told eh

eh or nah ive no idea

I'm quite capable of pondering the question myself. I was curious as to why he would say that. Going by his past statements he seemed to be atheist himself.

i thank you sir in advance to not pigeon-hole me into somehow infering your non-capeabillites.

cause ey i dint. heh

Transient wrote:

Foo wrote:Simply because stating as fact that a higher power does not exist is just as baseless as stating that one does.

The obvious answer is that we dont know, and cant divine anything useful from assuming one way or the other.

Or in other words.... jelluz?

Yeah, but the burden of proof lies with religion.

I don't see how this is a 'but' against what I said. Athiesm believing no higher power exists, religions believing that they do. Agnosticism is the position to which both sides owe the burden of proof.

Both sides seek to make definitive statements when there exists no evidence to support either view, and likely never will be. If you're aware of occams razor, you'll be aware of this as one of the often stated quirks of its application.

plained wrote:

scourge34 wrote:

plained wrote:well scourge, i cant/dont speak the loin'ed one, but to me, it implys that mabe one should ask/ponder these questions oneself , and reach actual personal reasonings intead of just like, being told eh

eh or nah ive no idea

I'm quite capable of pondering the question myself. I was curious as to why he would say that. Going by his past statements he seemed to be atheist himself.

i thank you sir in advance to not pigeon-hole me into somehow infering your non-capeabillites.

cause ey i dint. heh

Apparently I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were saying I should figure it out myself. I don't know how in the world I could ever misunderstand you though.

Apologies for the mistake.