Messages

Just like Nigel is?

Touche, but it's unlikely that a male would adopt a specifically female name.

Who outside of the auld sod would have any clue?

1) Anyone picking the name for themselves, and spelling it properly
2) People of Irish descent
3) Filthy Pagans, especially ones that like Irish mythology

Yeah. Fuck that shit. I am a fucking real person. Yeah I'm of fucking Irish descent, I missed the "NO IRISH" notice on sign up so what of it?  Oh yeah, I hope for everyone's sake you aren't calling me a filthy Pagan or you will meet the biggest bitch you will ever have the priviledge of meeting in your life.

I ain't posting tit pics to prove I'm female. So sorry to disappoint. Don't want to run you for other women.

Also, Niamh is a family name so unless you want to start the yo momma jokes, let's just let it go.

You all sure know how to make a girl feel right welcome don't you?

This chick whines more than a Canadian.

British Columbia? What a stupid name for a province. Everyone knows that Britain never colonized Colombia.

Also, we have states.  They're stuck with provinces.  Hence the term "provincial".

We are clearly superior.

We have Leonard Cohen, you have "The Situation"... you win.

I can't wait until the next time I have to fly in the States... I really don't mind someone fondling my junk at all, male or female.  I am going to do my best to make certain THEY are the ones made uncomfortable by it.

"Hey, don't stop now... it was just getting good."

OUR shitty beer?  Oh you Americans and your wacky humour.  Yeah, that's right, I spelled it with a "u".

Our shitty beer was intended for export only while we kept the good stuff. But Americans don't like things that are better.

What's this "good stuff" you keep to yourselves?  Pabst Blue Ribbon?  

I agree, but it still freaks me out.

Same.

Reminds me of that former nurse that was talking people into suicide.  I still think it should count under free speech, but holy shit is it creepy.

OUR shitty beer?  Oh you Americans and your wacky humour.  Yeah, that's right, I spelled it with a "u".

It bother me when people use "believe in" in place of "approve" or "support". Are those words really too hard?

Yeah that does make more sense... I will try to adjust how I word it in the future.

Food for thought.

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

I did read what you wrote. However you seem stuck in an either/or as though people believed only in two static extremes. Either you secretly believe in God or you don't.

Yet, for skeptics the point not to believe in your heart one way or the other, until there is evidence. Otherwise, its not skepticism... its just belief.

I am open to the possibility of God. I don't believe any particular system that claims a God. Until there is evidence though, the question is silly.
God may exist. God may not exist. I don't know. No secret belief necessary.

But I think you are still dodging the actual question.  Ok, let's leave what your belief is out of it, but what about what seems likely?  Does it seem more or less likely that a god exists? And we will take the "we can't know" as a given, since it is blatantly obvious to any 5 year old.  And leave "skepticism" out of it, since I never brought it up to begin with.

If I ask you whether you think it's likely that there is, or would be, a god, and you answer "we can't know it" after its been taken as a given isn't your answer really just a more polite version of "fuck you I don't want to talk to you"?  How do you live your life on a daily basis?  Do you live your life acting as though you believe in a god?  If not, it seems to me, and I fully admit that I may just be wrong, but it seems to me if you act as if there is no god then your belief is probably that you don't find it very likely.  In which case I would say you would fit as an agnostic atheist, someone who thinks we cannot ultimately ever know the answer, but doesn't feel its very likely.

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

So if I say "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys", then by this logic I have a belief about one-winged purple monkeys.... ooooook.

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

People tend to act nicest when they've spit in your food or drink.

I am Enrico Salazar.

I got 13/15 but honestly I guessed on a couple of the ones I got right. 

I guessed on the Great Awakening one myself.

I guessed on that one too.  I got 14/15.  I was the keener in Sunday School, though I don't think I believe any of it then.  In my house bible stories amounted to about the same as stories about King Arthur or Hr Pufenstuf.