I cannot help by feel it gives these shitbirds recognition they don't deserve. How can there be actual debate where one side is totally comfy with "lying for Jesus" while the other is held to a personal assessment of intellectual and scientific integrity?
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 27, 2024, 12:02 am
Thread Rating:
Kent Hovind challenges Thunderf00t to a debate!
|
(September 18, 2015 at 8:29 am)houseofcantor Wrote: I cannot help by feel it gives these shitbirds recognition they don't deserve. How can there be actual debate where one side is totally comfy with "lying for Jesus" while the other is held to a personal assessment of intellectual and scientific integrity? They already have recognition they don't deserve. I think these debates serve to expose the lies.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. (September 18, 2015 at 8:37 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:(September 18, 2015 at 8:29 am)houseofcantor Wrote: I cannot help by feel it gives these shitbirds recognition they don't deserve. How can there be actual debate where one side is totally comfy with "lying for Jesus" while the other is held to a personal assessment of intellectual and scientific integrity? Would be better to throw cream pies.
TBH, I get Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind and Ken Ham all mixed up.
But who the fuck cares? It's like the godhead: you get three for the intellectual equivalence of one.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
I think you're overestimating the level of intellect somewhat, but I agree with the point.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(September 18, 2015 at 8:58 am)houseofcantor Wrote:Shit would work better. Your idea be a waste of good pie.(September 18, 2015 at 8:37 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: They already have recognition they don't deserve. I think these debates serve to expose the lies.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
Maybe Thunderfoot could just laugh constantly at everything Hovind says, and not debate at all? I'd pay to watch that.
This is a really, really scary and dangerous video about the Footster taking on the spawn of the possible opponent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9BfsHsVGNg Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum (September 17, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: The issue is that the creationists are already being taken seriously by a non critical audience. If no one challenges them they just spread their bullshit unopposed. That's the conundrum, yes, but I don't think a formal debate is the proper way to challenge. That forum should be left for two competing ideas, so inviting a creationist to a debate implies that creationism is on the same playing field as science. Creationism needs to be laughed at like the absurd theory it is, which means treating it like the flat-earthers. Honestly, I think the only way to truly eradicate this nonsense is with a ground up approach through better education. Sure, you'll need to supplement it with other efforts like organizations that specifically combat creationits' stupidity, but I think without giving kids a good formal education, it's all for naught. It's better to give kids the tools to poke holes in creationist garbage than to do it ourselves.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(September 18, 2015 at 8:29 am)houseofcantor Wrote: I cannot help by feel it gives these shitbirds recognition they don't deserve. How can there be actual debate where one side is totally comfy with "lying for Jesus" while the other is held to a personal assessment of intellectual and scientific integrity? This is also a really good point. Why invite people to a game that have proven they don't intend to play fairly?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(September 18, 2015 at 3:22 pm)robvalue Wrote: Maybe Thunderfoot could just laugh constantly at everything Hovind says, and not debate at all? I'd pay to watch that. I've seen that little video twice now and I strongly suggest not watching it. It is indeed an exercise in frustration.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)