RE: Hilarious quotes by theists.
September 10, 2009 at 5:51 am
(This post was last modified: September 10, 2009 at 6:20 am by theVOID.)
(August 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm)LukeMC Wrote: "My contention then is that since the actuality of causality is itself contingent upon its own actuality, it doesn't account for its own actuality, because that would be a circuar argument and infinite regress. We cannot account for the actuality of causality by invoking an actualised potentiality (such as the actuality of causality itself), because actualised potentiality implies causality. Actualised potentiality implies the actualisation of potential, and that is the impure actuality which is the foundation of causality. So it is necessary for causality to be actual, that it derives it actuality from something that has nothing of potentiality (that is, that it derives its actuality not just from another actualised potential, since that would be causality again).
This is where pure actuality comes in."
Jon Paul, Atheist Forums.
Argument from verbosity at its finest.
JP was a riot, where'd he go?
(September 4, 2009 at 12:00 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: There's this thing called the 'Postmodernist Generator', that I found about an hour ago on the net, that is a computer program that generators an entirely bullshit article made of pseudo-intellectual, postmodernist, metatwaddlistic psychobabble (not entirely unlike how I'm writing right here right now) - and I find it quite entertaining...:and I just wondered if Jon Paul used a theistic equivalent! ( (ish)).
Here's the program: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Each time you click on it, the article will automatically change to some other bullshit twaddle.
Dawkins used it as an example of postmodernistic nonsense that is all for 'style' rather than quality, in one of his articles on his forums back in 1998, I noticed.
EvF
You mean this article in Nature 1998? It's damn brilliant
.