Kirk Cameron and Banana Guy are back. And this WILL piss you off.

Wheezebucket said:
Kirk Cameron is the TV *legend* who played the lovable scamp Mike Seaver on the smash hit television series 'Growing Pains'. You may have also seen his fine work in the television remake of 'The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes' or...hhmm...I think he did an episode of Full House once.

See? Legendary.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if he did an episode of Full House. His sister, Candace, was a regular.

Marc
 
I saw an interview with Alan Thicke (the dad) who danced very well around the fact that this kid he had liked as a co-star had turned into a fundamentalist nutball that he despises.
 
I have never understood the basic christian belief that Jesus had to die for our sins and we should be thankful to god that he was so nice as to kill his son to grant us forgiveness. Couldn't god have just said "I forgive you" ? Why did this loving father have to kill anybody? I mean didn't he invent all the rules. If he is loving why has there got to be bloodshed?
 
Last edited:
The whole thing is down right pathetic! At least if your gonna do the religion thing, have someone who can interject some humor into it. (i.e Benny Hinn who "heals" people by touching them!) hahaha. I can't believe the people who get suckered into these scams!

Jeff
 
In the first 5 seconds they **** on Rod Serling. That's all it takes to piss me off.

Edit: FIRE BURN!
 
Last edited:
Mamah1 said:
I have never understood the basic christian belief that Jesus had to die for our sins and we should be thankful to god that he was so nice as to kill his son to grant us forgiveness. Couldn't god have just said "I forgive you" ? Why did this loving father have to kill anybody? I mean didn't he invent all the rules. If he is loving why has there got to be bloodshed?
Click to expand...
Maybe he loves bloodshed.
 
HarryKeogh said:
Being utterly deceitful and misleading doesn't seem very Christ-like to me.
Click to expand...
Why not? Couldn’t that have been exactly how Christ convinced all those people he could perform miracles? Similar to most psychics, faith healers, or whatever, but don’t get me wrong, Christ had a much better story. Being the son of God is much better then just claiming simply psychic abilities. :)
 
senorpogo said:
Wow!

I'd never have guessed.
Click to expand...
:) I'll take that as a compliment. Yeah, my first thread was in favor of ID. One of my first posts was against homosexual marriage and I was adamantly anti-socialist and far more conservative. I'm now libertarian, don't have an ax to grind against socialists (hell, it was here I found out George Orwell was a socialist, imagine that) and I'm a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. My wife had a hard time with that one for a little while.

When I came here I was still a Deist and sorta Mormon. But I had made a commitment to look for the truth and accept the chips where ever they fell. It wasn't easy, ego being what it is but I eventually came around.

It can happen but it takes a desire to find the truth. Most proponents of ID aren't willing to question their assumptions. I was.
 
RandFan said:
:) I'll take that as a compliment. Yeah, my first thread was in favor of ID. One of my first posts was against homosexual marriage and I was adamantly anti-socialist and far more conservative. I'm now libertarian, don't have an ax to grind against socialists (hell, it was here I found out George Orwell was a socialist, imagine that) and I'm a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. My wife had a hard time with that one for a little while.

When I came here I was still a Deist and sorta Mormon. But I had made a commitment to look for the truth and accept the chips where ever they fell. It wasn't easy, ego being what it is but I eventually came around.

It can happen but it takes a desire to find the truth. Most proponents of ID aren't willing to question their assumptions. I was.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to those early threads of yours? I'd be interested.
 
money said:
Do you have a link to those early threads of yours? I'd be interested.
Click to expand...
I've tried searching but I can't find my earliest posts. I believe some data has been pruned.

ETA: Damn, that was nearly 15,000 posts ago. How time flies.
 
RandFan said:
I've tried searching but I can't find my earliest posts. I believe some data has been pruned.

ETA: Damn, that was nearly 15,000 posts ago. How time flies.
Click to expand...

That's a shame.

I often look at the mind-numbing self-assuredness of the woos and shake my head. I'd like to see a conversion first hand...
 
money said:
That's a shame.

I often look at the mind-numbing self-assuredness of the woos and shake my head. I'd like to see a conversion first hand...
Click to expand...
:D I understand exactly what you are saying. Truth is many woos simply don't have the tools to even recognize when they are engaging in fallacy. They honestly think that their spurious arguments are valid. I know I did. They start with the assumption that they are right and everything else is simply trying to convince someone else of the correctness of the belief. Hey, their right.

I was listening to Dawkins on an interview taking phone calls from believers a day or so ago. Their arguments were dreadfully embarrassing. They were childish. I understand those people. I'm disappointed but I understand. The ones who piss me off are the likes of Comfort who should know better. He is capable, IMO, of understanding the difference between valid and invalid argument. Like I said, he is either intellectually lazy or dishonest.

Once I gained the tools to recognize logically valid argument and what was fallacy suddenly a lot of my arguments disappeared. So I looked for better arguments. Eventually I realized I didn't have any. I only had questions and criticisms. Those are not a basis to believe in something.
 
Last edited:
Mamah1 said:
I have never understood the basic christian belief that Jesus had to die for our sins and we should be thankful to god that he was so nice as to kill his son to grant us forgiveness. Couldn't god have just said "I forgive you" ? Why did this loving father have to kill anybody? I mean didn't he invent all the rules. If he is loving why has there got to be bloodshed?
Click to expand...
If no one has done it yet, welcome to the board, Mamah1!

I think someone on the board has a sig which says it pretty well; can't remember what it was, but if I paraphrase: God sent his only son down to save us from his own wraith.
 
bignickel said:
If no one has done it yet, welcome to the board, Mamah1!

I think someone on the board has a sig which says it pretty well; can't remember what it was, but if I paraphrase: God sent his only son down to save us from his own wraith.
Click to expand...
[pedant]
That would be "wrath". A "wraith" is a ghost. Or perhaps that IS what you meant! ;)
[/pedant]
 
Zep said:
[pedant]
That would be "wrath". A "wraith" is a ghost. Or perhaps that IS what you meant! ;)
[/pedant]
Click to expand...

Actually Wraith makes sense if you think about it.
god=jesus=holy spirit

So god send god to be sacrificed to god in order to appease god so that god would forgive us for what god had done.
 
RandFan said:
:D I understand exactly what you are saying. Truth is many woos simply don't have the tools to even recognize when they are engaging in fallacy. They honestly think that their spurious arguments are valid. I know I did. They start with the assumption that they are right and everything else is simply trying to convince someone else of the correctness of the belief. Hey, their right.

I was listening to Dawkins on an interview taking phone calls from believers a day or so ago. Their arguments were dreadfully embarrassing. They were childish. I understand those people. I'm disappointed but I understand. The ones who piss me off are the likes of Comfort who should know better. He is capable, IMO, of understanding the difference between valid and invalid argument. Like I said, he is either intellectually lazy or dishonest.

Once I gained the tools to recognize logically valid argument and what was fallacy suddenly a lot of my arguments disappeared. So I looked for better arguments. Eventually I realized I didn't have any. I only had questions and criticisms. Those are not a basis to believe in something.
Click to expand...
Comfort is dishonest. Listen to the series of interviews that Reggie "InfidelGuy" Finley did with him. Comfort engages in every form of poor debating tactic there is. Dodging questions, browbeating, etc etc etc.

Definatly get the idea that he's the brains of the operation tho.
 
Although this video is infuriating and down right embarrassing, I've always been one to look on the bright side of things. Hopefully Cameron and Comfort encountered some people who actually knew what they were talking about with regards to evolution and it just wasn't shown.

If I were someone who knows his way around the theory of evolution, and I like to think that I am, I wouldn't agree to be shown in any video those two idiots were making.
 
RandFan said:
:D I understand exactly what you are saying. Truth is many woos simply don't have the tools to even recognize when they are engaging in fallacy. They honestly think that their spurious arguments are valid. I know I did. They start with the assumption that they are right and everything else is simply trying to convince someone else of the correctness of the belief. Hey, their right.

I was listening to Dawkins on an interview taking phone calls from believers a day or so ago. Their arguments were dreadfully embarrassing. They were childish. I understand those people. I'm disappointed but I understand. The ones who piss me off are the likes of Comfort who should know better. He is capable, IMO, of understanding the difference between valid and invalid argument. Like I said, he is either intellectually lazy or dishonest.

Once I gained the tools to recognize logically valid argument and what was fallacy suddenly a lot of my arguments disappeared. So I looked for better arguments. Eventually I realized I didn't have any. I only had questions and criticisms. Those are not a basis to believe in something.
Click to expand...

(my bold)

Hey RFan, I understand this completely.

A lot of people I know learnt all they know about logic from watching reruns of Star Trek.


This happened once, when I was trying to teach a friend the concept of syllogisms. Just the basics.

Me: OK, basically you got a couple of premises and a conclusion.

Friend: O kay....

Me: And the idea is that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Friend: O kay...

Me: In fact, the conclusion is an inescapable consequence of the premises.

Friend: M hmm...

Me: OK here's an example.
Premise One: All humans are mortal.
Premise Two: Fred is human.
Conclusion: Fred is mortal.

Friend: Right! So.. But.. Hang on... My cat's mortal, but she's not human!

Me: No, I didn't say all mortal things are human, I said all humans are mortal.

Friend (walking away in a huff) : But you said Fred was mortal coz he was human, well my ca't mortal and she's not a human...


I've had conversations with people who thought that an exclamation of "Whatever..." was the equivalent of delivering a coup de grâce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom