Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

Religion is nothing more than the result of humans EVOLVING enough intelligence to question how we got here, and where we're ultimately going. Unfortunately, but understandably, the god thing was the best they could come up with thousands of years ago.

Yep, god is a shithead. I remind our brainwashed brothers that their god so fucked up the reproduction process that 20 to 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Hence god or jesus or whatever they call him these days is the number one abortionist, ever. Maybe those pro life idiots should be bombing the Vatican or churches n shit?

The 70-80 years in a highly imperfect world is but a sting that lasts a microsecond when compared to an eternity in a the much better great beyond.

Bronco wrote:

death dealer wrote:I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

So what is your explanation for how the universe began? The Big Bang? So, there was nothing then all of a sudden there was a Big Bang? Are you going to resort to that singularity "timeless dimensionless point" thing?

I think I've seen variations of your statement on engineering. But please elaborate. Let me know when humankind is capable of designing and building something like our solar system much less an entire universe. Let me know when human beings are able to design and consruct something like a human being.

They can't. If it's so easy and so "bad," why can't we do it?

The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

JohnStOnge wrote:

death dealer wrote:I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

So what is your explanation for how the universe began? The Big Bang? So, there was nothing then all of a sudden there was a Big Bang? Are you going to resort to that singularity "timeless dimensionless point" thing?

I think I've seen variations of your statement on engineering. But please elaborate. Let me know when humankind is capable of designing and building something like our solar system much less an entire universe. Let me know when human beings are able to design and consruct something like a human being.

They can't. If it's so easy and so "bad," why can't we do it?

The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

Yes, the big bang is my explanation. I don't know if God is responsible for the Big Bang or not, but I think the universe was started by the big bang.

What is your explanation? God talking to himself in the dark?

JohnStOnge wrote: The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

what evidence? It makes just as much sense to say all came from nothing as it is to say all came from something that came from essentially nothing

Another "I hate God" thread

Damn, AGS is looking better and better with football season coming up.

catamount man wrote:Another "I hate God" thread

Damn, AGS is looking better and better with football season coming up.

Go fuck yourself Fatman. You religious fucks can never take any heat.

JohnStOnge wrote:

death dealer wrote:I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

So what is your explanation for how the universe began? The Big Bang? So, there was nothing then all of a sudden there was a Big Bang? Are you going to resort to that singularity "timeless dimensionless point" thing?

I think I've seen variations of your statement on engineering. But please elaborate. Let me know when humankind is capable of designing and building something like our solar system much less an entire universe. Let me know when human beings are able to design and consruct something like a human being.

They can't. If it's so easy and so "bad," why can't we do it?

The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

St. Wronge, you are seriously fucked in the head.

JohnStOnge wrote:

death dealer wrote:I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

So what is your explanation for how the universe began? The Big Bang? So, there was nothing then all of a sudden there was a Big Bang? Are you going to resort to that singularity "timeless dimensionless point" thing?

I think I've seen variations of your statement on engineering. But please elaborate. Let me know when humankind is capable of designing and building something like our solar system much less an entire universe. Let me know when human beings are able to design and consruct something like a human being.

They can't. If it's so easy and so "bad," why can't we do it?

The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

I've heard a lot about this intelligent design theory, but I've never heard the theory itself stated. Perhaps you could help us, John, by stating the Theory of Intelligent Design/Creationism?

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
So what is your explanation for how the universe began? The Big Bang? So, there was nothing then all of a sudden there was a Big Bang? Are you going to resort to that singularity "timeless dimensionless point" thing?

I think I've seen variations of your statement on engineering. But please elaborate. Let me know when humankind is capable of designing and building something like our solar system much less an entire universe. Let me know when human beings are able to design and consruct something like a human being.

They can't. If it's so easy and so "bad," why can't we do it?

The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

I've heard a lot about this intelligent design theory, but I've never heard the theory itself stated. Perhaps you could help us, John, by stating the Theory of Intelligent Design/Creationism?

Yeah John, go for it. Let's see it.

JohnStOnge wrote:

death dealer wrote:I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

So what is your explanation for how the universe began? The Big Bang? So, there was nothing then all of a sudden there was a Big Bang? Are you going to resort to that singularity "timeless dimensionless point" thing?

I think I've seen variations of your statement on engineering. But please elaborate. Let me know when humankind is capable of designing and building something like our solar system much less an entire universe. Let me know when human beings are able to design and consruct something like a human being.

They can't. If it's so easy and so "bad," why can't we do it?

The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

Superstring and m theory may provide an explanation for the big bang. The LHC results will be interesting.


If I were going to argue your side, I'd stick close entropy.

(BTW, I'd still like to hear the Theory of Creationism stated.)

Whoever or whatever created anything, I'm just glad THC ended up in some plant.

JohnStOnge wrote:

death dealer wrote:I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

So what is your explanation for how the universe began? The Big Bang? So, there was nothing then all of a sudden there was a Big Bang? Are you going to resort to that singularity "timeless dimensionless point" thing?

Pretty much, yeah. That's what all of the quantifiable evidence points to. I doubt that the theory as it stands at the moment is the final definitive answer, but I don't see the day a component of that will be an intelligent benevolent superbeing.

JohnStOnge wrote: I think I've seen variations of your statement on engineering. But please elaborate. Let me know when humankind is capable of designing and building something like our solar system much less an entire universe. Let me know when human beings are able to design and consruct something like a human being.

They can't. If it's so easy and so "bad," why can't we do it?

I didn't say it was easy. You're a smart guy, so don't play dumb, or try to add words to my statement to make it easier for you to attack. That makes you look either stupid, or unable to debate my statement. I know you are very capable of sticking to a debate of my original statement. So please do so.

Along those lines, you can do way better than that John. Just because current technology doesn't allow us to create life, that in no way excuses the gross errors in design that this intelligent superbeing you ID'ers propose has made in both the overriding design of the greater universe, and the horrible failures in the details of the individual designs of individual components.

I refuse to get bogged down in a diversionary tactic such as asking me to list all of the problems. However, I will throw you a bone. One of the easiest and most obvious design mistakes in design of the human is the overall intake mechanism for air and food. It is a nightmare. It's poor design results in a myriad of problems, most obvious of which are the ease with which one or the other can find it's way into the wrong system (i.e. ingestion of air, or worse, impaction of food in the airway resulting in asphyxiation), and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (the tendency in some individuals for the musculature responsible for the proper maintenance of the airway to collapse during periods of sleep). Now, assuming that a) the vast majority of ID'ers would identify the designer as their personal god, b) that god in most cases is more than likely the Judeo-Christian Yahweh or the Muslim Allah, and c) both of those Gods are supposedly onmipotent, omniscient, and infallible, then WTF??? Is that the best they can do?

JohnStOnge wrote:The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

The evidence doesn't point to me being the one with blinders on. You need to look around a little more yourself.

I don't have a beef with a belief in a god of your choice. That's a personal issue with your own need for some kind of purpose to life, and that is a character flaw shared by most other people. I don't happen to be one of them, but I have others in spades, so we all have our burdens. So you aren't strange, you're normal.

And I'm not even arguing against ID in general, just the notion that if there even is a designer that it's a benevolent one. Hell, I'm not even arguing against ID at all. I don't care whether the entire human race suddenly embraces ID, or if it becomes the accepted explanation for our existence and is in all of the texts and taught in every classroom around the world. None of that would change the fact that the empirical evidence in no way, shape, or form supports the conclusion that there is a benevolent force in charge of our existence, who ultimately has our best interests at heart. That's just an absurd statement based upon anything other than dubious anecdotal folktales.

youngterrier wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote: The evidence suggesting that there is some intelligence behind what we see around us is all around you. Take your blinders off.

what evidence? It makes just as much sense to say all came from nothing as it is to say all came from something that came from essentially nothing

Good observation my young Terrier. Where did the designer come from? Is it an actual intelligence? Does that imply a corporal being of some kind? Perhaps in a dimension of existence that we can't detect with current technology? What's the science behind this designer? Who designed it? And who designed the designer of the designer?

death dealer wrote:I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

Your provocative and uncharacteristically hateful logic is puzzling, DD.

We are born. We die. Perhaps the benevolence of existence or lack thereof results not from a benevolent or
malevolent God, but from what we ourselves make of the blessings and gifts of life. When a drunk kills an innocent is that the fault of the automotive designer?

The engineering classes you celebrate as superior to God's intelligent design are only part of our latest inadequate
attempts to describe a powerful and orderly universe. How can you see a "failed" engineering design in the universe?

To me, there pretty clearly appears to be order. Physics works in our observable environment. The planets move, the rains fall, life finds a way. Engineering classes are only part of our latest inadequate human attempts to describe a powerful and orderly universe, greater in scope than what the frail human mind can comprehend.

But strive we must to comprehend! When not otherwise occupied in raping and killing each other, humans have spent a considerable portion of their existence pondering the nature of the universe. To wonder and try to comprehend is part of the joy and glory of being human, and we can be glorious indeed! But Big Bang, Intelligent Design, and String Teory aside, do you really think we have done more than scratch the surface in our knowledge of the universe?

We limit ourselves unnecessarily when we look only in the mirror. But that's the essential problem with the
arguments of believers and non-believers alike. We look at ourselves in the mirrow, find what we see to be
inadequate, and blame God. Just because I cannot possibly understand something fully does that mean that I should
not strive to understand? Does it mean that I must confine my understanding to the image I see in the mirror? Does it preclude the possibility of God?

I love math, debates and science projects, but faith is a choice, not a science experiment. Whether you believe in
God, yourself, or nothing, you have chosen to believe something. One of the central truths of the Judeo-Christian
tradition is that when we humans fail to recognize some power greater than ourselves, we tend towards evil. This has been consistently true, at least for the latest 10,000 years of human existence on earth that we know about. We fvck up a great deal more without God than with God.

You may disparage God and Christians all you want, but there is more useless fear and hopelessness in atheism and
atheists than among believers. The response to this thread by all you ardent and committed atheists, although not
surprising, is unnecessarily hateful and limiting. We humans are defined by what we believe. In your near-sighted hubris, you have defined humans hatefully and hopelessly.

There is another choice. I prefer an approach that does not laughably and tragically establish mankind as the limit
to the universe. I vote with Moses, C.S. Lewis, and Hub McCann, and a host of others who have chosen to see the
order, blessings and hopefulness of the universe without hating either God or mankind.

death dealer wrote:

youngterrier wrote: what evidence? It makes just as much sense to say all came from nothing as it is to say all came from something that came from essentially nothing

Good observation my young Terrier. Where did the designer come from? Is it an actual intelligence? Does that imply a corporal being of some kind? Perhaps in a dimension of existence that we can't detect with current technology? What's the science behind this designer? Who designed it? And who designed the designer of the designer?

if the designer can design itself, why can't the designed design itself (for the record I'm not putting my opinions of the existence of God here, I just put up with Evangelical Baptist junk everyday and I really don't want ID taught in Science class because it isn't a Scientific theory and I don't want those Baptists to brainwash me otherwise)

youngterrier wrote:

death dealer wrote:
Good observation my young Terrier. Where did the designer come from? Is it an actual intelligence? Does that imply a corporal being of some kind? Perhaps in a dimension of existence that we can't detect with current technology? What's the science behind this designer? Who designed it? And who designed the designer of the designer?

if the designer can design itself, why can't the designed design itself (for the record I'm not putting my opinions of the existence of God here, I just put up with Evangelical Baptist junk everyday and I really don't want ID taught in Science class because it isn't a Scientific theory and I don't want those Baptists to brainwash me otherwise)

Points well taken, YT. I grew up with Bible-thumping Baptists and don't care for their approach, either.

But the Baptists at least recognize a power greater than themselves, and allow humans the consideration of free will, which serve to keep them in reasonable and relatively harmless check.

All the evils of limitations of a Baptist literalism are not as dangerously evil and destructive as the prideful absolutism of the committed atheists and communists on this blog site. They celebrate themselves and avert attention from their own deep inadequacies by overstating and mischaracterizing the evils of religion and downplaying the observable and quantifiable evils of atheistic communism in all its many forms.

It costs nothing for the liberty-minded individual to admit the possibility of God. Why do socialists and progressives work so adamantly to crush the idea of God in the hearts and minds of their neighbors? Because just like Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh and Mao, they cannot acheive their anti-liberty agenda and the absolute control they desire without crushing religion and taking away your choices by force.

Ironically, Judeo-Christians are willing to compete in the marketplace of the heart in ways that Islamists, communists and the misguided and disguised progressive and socialist children of communists are not willing to tolerate.

Give the Baptists their due. They do more than the socialists or progressives to protect your liberty.

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote: if the designer can design itself, why can't the designed design itself (for the record I'm not putting my opinions of the existence of God here, I just put up with Evangelical Baptist junk everyday and I really don't want ID taught in Science class because it isn't a Scientific theory and I don't want those Baptists to brainwash me otherwise)

Points well taken, YT. I grew up with Bible-thumping Baptists and don't care for their approach, either.

But the Baptists at least recognize a power greater than themselves, which serves to keep them in reasonable and relatively harmless check.

All the evils of limitations of a Baptist literalism are not as dangerously evil and destructive as the prideful absolutism of the committed atheists and communists on this blog site. They celebrate themselves and avert attention from their own deep inadequacies by overstating and mischaracterizing the evils of religion and downplaying the observable and quantifiable evils of atheistic communism in all its many forms.

It costs nothing for the liberty-minded individual to admit the possibility of God. Why do socialists and progressives work so adamantly to crush the idea of God in the hearts and minds of their neighbors? Because just like Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh and Mao, they cannot acheive their anti-liberty agenda and the absolute control they desire without crushing religion and taking away your choices by force.

Ironically, Judeo-Christians are willing to compete in the marketplace of the heart in ways that Islamists, communists and the misguided and disguised progressive and socialist children of communists are not willing to tolerate.

Give the Baptists their due. They do more than the socialists or progressives to protect your liberty.

I was talking about in science class, not political philosophy and I'll be honest with you, once I realize you weren't talking about what I was talking about I kinda stopped reading your post

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
Points well taken, YT. I grew up with Bible-thumping Baptists and don't care for their approach, either.

But the Baptists at least recognize a power greater than themselves, which serves to keep them in reasonable and relatively harmless check.

All the evils of limitations of a Baptist literalism are not as dangerously evil and destructive as the prideful absolutism of the committed atheists and communists on this blog site. They celebrate themselves and avert attention from their own deep inadequacies by overstating and mischaracterizing the evils of religion and downplaying the observable and quantifiable evils of atheistic communism in all its many forms.

It costs nothing for the liberty-minded individual to admit the possibility of God. Why do socialists and progressives work so adamantly to crush the idea of God in the hearts and minds of their neighbors? Because just like Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh and Mao, they cannot acheive their anti-liberty agenda and the absolute control they desire without crushing religion and taking away your choices by force.

Ironically, Judeo-Christians are willing to compete in the marketplace of the heart in ways that Islamists, communists and the misguided and disguised progressive and socialist children of communists are not willing to tolerate.

Give the Baptists their due. They do more than the socialists or progressives to protect your liberty.

I was talking about in science class, not political philosophy and I'll be honest with you, once I realize you weren't talking about what I was talking about I kinda stopped reading your post

Oh, but I WAS talking about what you were talking about. A little Baptists follishness in the classroom is a small price to pay for your liberty.

...Not sure if you were disparaging me, yourself, or the both of us with your dunce cap smilie.

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote: if the designer can design itself, why can't the designed design itself (for the record I'm not putting my opinions of the existence of God here, I just put up with Evangelical Baptist junk everyday and I really don't want ID taught in Science class because it isn't a Scientific theory and I don't want those Baptists to brainwash me otherwise)

Points well taken, YT. I grew up with Bible-thumping Baptists and don't care for their approach, either.

But the Baptists at least recognize a power greater than themselves, and allow humans the consideration of free will, which serve to keep them in reasonable and relatively harmless check.

All the evils of limitations of a Baptist literalism are not as dangerously evil and destructive as the prideful absolutism of the committed atheists and communists on this blog site. They celebrate themselves and avert attention from their own deep inadequacies by overstating and mischaracterizing the evils of religion and downplaying the observable and quantifiable evils of atheistic communism in all its many forms.

It costs nothing for the liberty-minded individual to admit the possibility of God. Why do socialists and progressives work so adamantly to crush the idea of God in the hearts and minds of their neighbors? Because just like Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh and Mao, they cannot acheive their anti-liberty agenda and the absolute control they desire without crushing religion and taking away your choices by force.

Ironically, Judeo-Christians are willing to compete in the marketplace of the heart in ways that Islamists, communists and the misguided and disguised progressive and socialist children of communists are not willing to tolerate.

Give the Baptists their due. They do more than the socialists or progressives to protect your liberty.

Back in the 70s my cat told me something very similar once when I came home from seeing Pink Floyd.

houndawg wrote:

native wrote:
Points well taken, YT. I grew up with Bible-thumping Baptists and don't care for their approach, either.

But the Baptists at least recognize a power greater than themselves, and allow humans the consideration of free will, which serve to keep them in reasonable and relatively harmless check.

All the evils of limitations of a Baptist literalism are not as dangerously evil and destructive as the prideful absolutism of the committed atheists and communists on this blog site. They celebrate themselves and avert attention from their own deep inadequacies by overstating and mischaracterizing the evils of religion and downplaying the observable and quantifiable evils of atheistic communism in all its many forms.

It costs nothing for the liberty-minded individual to admit the possibility of God. Why do socialists and progressives work so adamantly to crush the idea of God in the hearts and minds of their neighbors? Because just like Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh and Mao, they cannot acheive their anti-liberty agenda and the absolute control they desire without crushing religion and taking away your choices by force.

Ironically, Judeo-Christians are willing to compete in the marketplace of the heart in ways that Islamists, communists and the misguided and disguised progressive and socialist children of communists are not willing to tolerate.

Give the Baptists their due. They do more than the socialists or progressives to protect your liberty.

Back in the 70s my cat told me something very similar once when I came home from seeing Pink Floyd.

You are something of an Egyptologist, dawg. Does that mean you are a cat worshipper, too?