Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on March 08, 2015, 01:20:45 PM

That video didn't even have the quote that made that scene so hilarious.

«I'm a catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic.
So hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon, madame»

Ikr, it's the only one with the complete fight scene though...

Seems like a censored version, although they probably would have just skipped this scene entirely

I guess it's just for the places that felt words are worse than a man killing 20 people. Wish someone would upload one with that line, but at least we have these gifs.

so much gay tights

why are you interviewing a guy for school?

English essay/profile of a person involved with a social justice/non-profit organization.

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on March 07, 2015, 06:38:11 PM

Technically, isn't it a good thing we're terraforming Antarctica to make it habitable? Technically.

I hope you enjoy really big fucking storms. All that water's going to create some massive fucking cells.

RIP in peporonis all coastal habitations.

But my beautiful frozen mountain ranges. Set up a resort once they thaw out a bit, boom money.

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on March 06, 2015, 06:21:37 PM

and he really was fine to talk to as long as you stayed cool during conversation.

Eh, I have to disagree here. Nothing against Camnator and I did enjoy talking to him, but having serious discussions with him was rather frustrating. It's comparable to talking about higher maths with someone who claims that 1+1 does not equal 2. When there's no basis, there's no room for proper discussion. There's not much of a point in talking about anything politics, economics or law related with a person who will literally refuse to even listen to any of your arguments because "every government and all of its laws are illegitimate and evil". At certain points, it was tantamount to a fundamental Christian rejecting all science because of the bible and his own interpretation of it.

Eh, maybe I'm just special but I remember making a post about how if mandatory taxation had clear effects and was used very responsibly by government then it would be better, or at least acceptable in intent, and he liked that. I rarely got into serious debates with him, but yeah he certainly has an interesting way of presenting himself that's outright imposing or seems daft on some people.

Nothing of any real note so far.

I'm pretty sure Roman Catholicism is open to the idea of extraterrestrials, not sure how they justify the complete absence of the idea from the Bible though.

There's the Nephilim, which are mentioned maybe once and everyone just shrugs their shoulders at what the hell they were supposed to be, so they'd probably say they're that.

Here's where logic comes into play.
If God has the ability to interfere with earthly people and situations, he is evil and lazy. If he really loves us, than he wouldn't have led me on the path to being an atheist. You claim to believe because of divine intervention, so he saved you essentially, but he hasn't done the same for me, which means that he's damning me to hell because he didn't supply enough evidence.

And you are in a position to judge a being infinitely wiser than you, and who has a full picture of the universe and what's best for it, because? Who's to say that you being on the path of atheist is a bad thing? Saved? I'm sorry when did I say anything about Hell, damnation, saving, Jesus Christ or any of that stuff?

Of course. But if someone usually acts like an asshole, but is sometimes nice, they aren't 100% asshole.

True, but they are still an asshole because that's what the majority trait is.

I feel like this whole part of our discussion is just going to places that aren't relevant. So what if people are identified as violent?

Well, it was about how people are shaped to believe things based on what they experience in life, and that a neutral-acting character of the group that the person has only encountered negative-acting characters does not change their mind from thinking that all characters of that group are majority negative-acting. Point being, more or less, it would seem to take a lot to change a lot; even for radical beliefs.

Then why doesn't your God supply me with the same evidence he's given this person? He essentially just proved himself to that person, which takes away any choice the person witnessing has from believing in God. Why can't he do the same for me?

I'd like to clarify, this isn't God coming down bathed in golden light saying, "Sup browski, wanna hang out?". There isn't any forcing or removing the person's choice from the equation. It's the person choosing to attribute the evidence/event to God. Where you saw it as just someone randomly handing out a million dollars, somebody else might attribute the act to happening because of something greater(God).

You seem to think it is being forced by God, through some manner, to start believing in God's existence, when the more reasonable answer would be that it's a different perspective of looking at things. Expecting to have some grand moment of realization where God makes you change will only guarantee that you stay the same, because you need to actively choose to start believing something.

Evolution, the age of the earth/universe,

Evolution is evidence against the faith of the Bible if you were to believe it word-for-word, perhaps. However, that's not how the Old Testament was written to read as(like most mythologies); the beginning of Genesis is a poem, it is not meant as a pure historical record. That goes for your age argument too.

contradictions between various books of the bible, morally ambiguous stories and laws, morally wrong stories and laws.

sigh, Okay post a few if you want, but I've personally corrected over a dozen before and have yet to encounter a single one that cannot be reasoned about. When Christ died on the cross the Old Law(Leveticus and such) had been fulfilled now that the messiah had sacrificed himself, so that stuff was okay. Bashing babies/genocide one? Yeah, that was the Israelite peoples thoughts and resolve after having their cities brutally massacred and taken over by another nation that then took many prisoner/slaves. Reasoning for not eating pig or scallops or wearing things/tattoos/piercings? Diseases and allergies to things, so taught to be avoided; wearing things & tattoos/piercings were said to be things other nations/religions did so those were to be avoided to keep people together in their nation.

There are numourous fakes in Christianity, depending on your denomination. The Protestant side of the religion is hopelessly divided on every little issue, it's absurd. You can't say they are all right.

But you can say they are all wrong.

Yeah, spreading an idea across the world that requires a level of interpretation tends to result in lots of alterations among different cultural groups.

Why are we getting so much into Christianity?

It's the exact same thing. We've searched for God in creation, he isn't there. We've searched for God in our hearts, he isn't there. If there was some evidence that God did exist, than everyone would accept that and there would be no debate. But there is no evidence, so there is no good reason to believe he does.

One can obviously tell you searching for the creator of a bench inside the bench itself is a poor idea. Not finding God in your heart would be a personal problem, there's plenty of people that said they have.

You said "absence of X is proof of Y". X being evidence and Y being God doesn't exist.

If there is no X(evidence), that is proof of Y(That there is no God).

I said:

That doesn't make sense. How does absence of X equal presence of Y?

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on March 04, 2015, 02:20:26 PM

Quote from: BritishLemön on March 04, 2015, 02:18:50 PM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on March 04, 2015, 02:17:54 PM

Since when are Legos boy toys?

Stop it

What did I do this time?

Just Lego.

No s.

Edit: Oh, don't care.

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on March 04, 2015, 02:17:54 PM

Since when are Legos boy toys?

Stop it

What did I do this time?

Edit: Oh, don't care.

That's retarded. That isn't the intervention of god, that is me giving you a million dollars to prove a point.

Y'know, there's this old joke that goes like this.

base·less
ˈbāsləs/
adjective
1.
without foundation in fact.
"baseless allegations"

Foundation in fact =/= proof. It's more comparable to a hypothesis that cannot be tested.

That literally makes no sense.
If someone says "All pieces of chocolate are brown." because all they've ever seen is brown chocolate, they are justified in their understanding of chocolate's colour. But as soon as I show them a piece of white chocolate, they should conceit that they were wrong, and that not ALL chocolate is brown. You are seriously trying to justify intentional ignorance which is just another phrase for stupidity. If someone shows you the evidence that contradicts your prior understanding, and you still support your prior understanding, you are daft.

Neutrality not canceling out or adding to negatives is not the same as your chocolate metaphor. What you're saying would require for all Muslims to be violent and harassing all the time, which wasn't what the hypothetical was. Muslims acting neutral isn't the same as white chocolate, because those Muslims might still be violent and harassing but simply not acting that way right then.

Interpretation means fuck all, I'm looking for factual information.

You're interpreting factual information as of value and interpretations of events as of no value.

I'm not claiming that "living a different life than mine" is illogical. I'm claiming that believing anything without evidence is illogical.

You're looking for repeatable tests, in a sense as evidence, right? That cannot be done here. The so called evidence cannot be repeated because you cannot replicate all the factors.

What else would you want, eye-witness accounts of what people say they experienced? Those have shown to be unreliable in regards to what really might have happened. Telling someone that what they experienced that strengthened or weakened their belief in god was only their interpretation of what they experienced isn't going to change them, they're going to stay with what they have because it works for them.

1) You can't prove a negative.
2) Where's your evidence that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist? Do you believe in her until proven that she DOESN'T exist? (Although in this case, there is more evidence of Nessie than God.)
3) I believe it was Meta who made a thread about how a lack of evidence for God is evidence that he doesn't exist. But yeah, a lack of evidence for God is evidence that he doesn't exist.

But you more or less said that "If you've only had support for god in your life, then you are justified in your belief that god exists. But as soon as I "show you the evidence", and you don't change your beliefs, we have a problem." If you don't have proof that contradicts the belief that god exists, then what was your point?

Pretty sure they've done various expeditions and there's been absolutely no evidence supporting Nessie exists, but okay. The picture of a log doesn't count.

That doesn't make sense. How does absence of X equal presence of Y?

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on March 04, 2015, 11:56:32 AM

Quote from: BritishLemön on March 04, 2015, 10:11:39 AM

Quote from: Plotmaster | Fluid Druid on March 03, 2015, 08:46:02 PM

Quote from: Arm The Mob on March 03, 2015, 08:36:14 PM

new Bionicles? wat

They rebooted the franchise because 90% of the fanbase hated everything from 2004 and beyond and the other 10% were retarded. So now we get a sweet new story that's entirely fantasy but as a compromise the toy designs are all shit.

But the only line after 2004 was the Hordika shit.

That was an odd year.

Fuck yourself I liked that year.

It was pretty fucking odd.
Like, just what?

It was still really awesome though.

Did the support team have a thick Indian accent?

Are they a support team?

I don't know why you're playing victim. You called me a "beyond obsolete and useless pathetic human," called it a "joke," and then you couldn't even take the jokes that were thrown back at you. Either grow a thicker skin or just give up.

I'm going to throw out a radical idea here, treat others as you would like to be treated.