And it’s…Obama!
Ho hum. I was kind of let down. I keep hoping for a big surprise, like that it’s a squirrel living in downtown Des Moines, or that it’s Jan Crouch, but yeah, it’s always the Christian politician who isn’t quite Christian enough for the wingnuts.
Glad that they got that out of the way.
One more step on the road to irrelevance.
第一个！！！！
You mean it’s not you, PZ?
That’s actually reminiscent of one of those Time/Life book ads on late night TV — you even get free bonus reports. I didn’t click through to find out what they’re charging, but it occurs to me that if the world is in peril of Satanic domination, they might want to give us the 4-1-1 free of charge. Evidently the end of days is no reason not to make a buck.
Well at least that means the end is near right? All of these christians will disappear.
What,it isnt any of the Antichrists they named in the past 2000 years???
At #2: Close, Steve beat you to it!
第四个
And yet, these same people take umbrage when I ask them why they revel in being a hate-filled death cult.
Oh, sure, you may oubt and mock, but if Obama isn’t the antichrist, then how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
Huh–and I could have sworn it was George W. Bush.
Yep, it’s all there, the freemasons, the loud and multi-coloured typography, the threat of a cover-up, the exuberant use of hyperbole and exclamation marks (Sickening! Painstaking! Sensational!) and the ‘renowned’ experts praising the level-headed exposure of the fact that the president of America is in fact a FICTIONAL CREATURE!!! Egad!
It’s nice of them to inclue the EU in it though, make things global.
Could someone please explain to a simple Finnish person the reason the Republicans in your country constantly spew out insane things? I just watched The Daily Show and there was the bit with Steve King talking about some law being passed. I just don’t get it.
How can he equate being homosexual with being a coprofiliac? I know (most of all from reading PZ’s blog) that there are lots of intelligent people there but the least intelligent seem to be the loudest.
Sorry for the poor paragraphing, this might be a pain to read.
P.S. There really isn’t that big of a difference between parties in Finland. Most of them are basically the same and they don’t really bicker between each other. As far as I know, anyway.
I knew’d it. I mean…look at him. Have you ever seen his feet? No? Well, that’s because the devil can’t hide his hooves.
MY favorite bit is how all the “endorsements” don’t in any way sound like they’re written by the same person. At all. Not even a little bit.
$24.97 to save the world and my soul. Wow this report is so real, why didnt I see it coming of course Obama is the antichrist. The endorsements are great at the end of the adverstisment, if you can stomach it go to the bottom. Just think the final fellows involved in this report will probably be on the school board next month.
What?!?! $44.97 for a report to tell me what the loudmouthed troll in the cube on the other side of the wall has been telling everyone since August? Nah. My workmate is free, and much more entertaining.
So ‘Prince Charles of Wales’ is a member of this conspiracy! That must be why he promotes homeopathy and general tree-hugging type activities.
Funny, they didn’t count the letters in the names of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
The Anti-Christ is whoever came up with the new SB format.
Those 4 “testimonials” at the bottom; aren’t those the same photos that the Onion uses for its “man in the street” opinions? (I am blocked from the Onion right now so I can’t check)
“The report also implicates not only Barack Obama but also Javier Solana of the European Union, Prince Charles of Wales, Queen Beatrix of Netherlands and Prince Hassan of Jordan.”
I’m glad that the queen of my tiny country is also a mayor player in this scheme!!!
Frankly any conspiracy that includes in its number Prince Charles is on pretty shaky grounds.
Three questions:
One: the enthousiasm with which the author wants us to click on certain links begs the question: virus?
Two: did anyone actually try the link?
Three: Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands was mentioned. That ofcourse will result in even more enthousiasm for any conspiracy theory as a deluded man claimed to commit a terrorist attaque on the Dutch royal family last week.(Never mind that he was seriously wounded when he made the statement and tried to hit a solid bus -10 meter plus- with a car that can best be described as a dinky toy).
One of their sources is…The British UFO Association!!!11!! Gasp!! It must be true then.
I’m as anti-christ as the next person.
Why do these earth shattering reports containing information that could possibly save the world from certain destruction always cost money?
…oh, right.
I certainly do Totally enjoy it when people capitalize and italicize words arbitrarily within an otherwise normal sentence (and by normal, I am of course referring to it solely in the grammatical sense. An analysis of the content of that website would implode from the drastic overload of crazy).
Oh god, if I hear the words ‘new world order’ one more time I’m going to scream. Conservatives love the phrase so much. The NWO and supposed connections with ‘it’ is something that people bring up when they have nothing to support their argument. I guess they expect me to run screaming, my mind full of images of eugenics experiments and sinister people in suits. It’s just like using ‘socialist’ as a button-pusher when you haven’t got a real argument and just want people to start screaming bloody murder over nothing.
We’re working on it. Thought mebbe it was the lead levels for a while, but the correlations really weren’t selling it. Then we looked a bit at fetal alcohol syndrome. Same deal.
Our current working hypothesis considers possibly two distinct causes, now. For one large, impoverished group, possibly it’s something rubbing off when they use their television remotes. While a smaller, wealthier group may have been overexposed to something in the money itself…
(But it’s still in progress.)
Aren’t all US Presidents the Antichrist? They might as well swear them in as Antichrist during the inauguration ceremony. It’ll save time and speculation.
This idea has been making the rounds for a while, particularly prior to the election. The irony I noted is that those who believed Obama to be the antichrist, and also believed that these “end times” events are inevitable, should have voted for him in order to not stand in the way of prophecy’s fulfillment. :)
I also posted something from a Biblical studies perspective a while back on how I know Barack Obama is not the antichrist:
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-i-know-barack-obama-is-not.html
azqaz #17: One advantage of the bad economy is that the three loudmouth right-wing trolls in my row of cubes were let go back in January.
I like how Notre Dame is having a crisis of faith over letting the President of the country at commencement.
So retarded. The guy is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES not some dude going around forcing abortions on people.
And when is supporting medical advancement or a woman’s right to her own body ever a bad thing?
It’s great how we can get all the details (with special bonus material!) for just $24.95. (The only reason I clicked on the “more info” link was to find out how much the guy is trying to rip everyone off.)
AJ Milne forgot to mention the hypothesis of brain-boring parasitic larvae that live in baptismal fonts.
So, they should be very happy that Obama has come to fulfill biblical prophecy then, right. Why doesn’t he seem happy? I guess you just can’t please some people. I wish he’d hurry up and get raptured… could he self-rapture?
Nucking futjobs….
P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S. I heard a rumour that the queen of the Netherlands always wears a hat to disguis the HORNS that grow from her skull. Also she dances NAKED in the park of her palace at MIDNIGHT. ‘S true! Honestly! I was told by one of her horses.
P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S. Sorry about my previous post, I really should also have underlined a couple of words.
Do they want the apocalypse or don’t they?
Do they want the rapture or not?
These people are very confused.
Has anyone read “The Story of B” by Daniel Quinn? I hope he is the anti-christ is the Quinn meaning of the word. I hope we all are.
#31
James, I grew up in Ireland and had a catholic priest as ‘Religious Education’ teacher in high school. HHe explained the book of revelations to a class of 13 year olds pretty much as you have read it – an allegorical account written by Christians living under persecution in Rome. We had brought up the subject with him in connection with The Omen series of movies. I got the impression that everyone thought the Roman allegory explanation made perfect sense – compared to the alternative apocalyptic devilish stuff – but then again we hadnt grown up thinking of the devil as a real being. Perhaps if you do it makes much more sense to think the weird end of the world stuff makes much more sense.
Whew, am I the only one relieved that the Antichrist is such a nice guy with a good head on his shoulders? I mean, how lucky are WE?!
I told you people already: I looked in hundreds of baptismal fonts. There’s nothing in th… REAGAN WAS A GOD! DUBYA IS HIS PROPHET! THERE WERE *TOO* WMDS IN IRAQ! TAX CUTS! TAX CUTS! TAX CUTS!…
I think you guys are all missing the most important point.
It’s easy to make money off of ignorant fools. We should start a competing site proclaiming PZ as the Antichrist.
We will only charge $23.97 for our report, including a “special edition” on how Satan’s messenger of choice is no longer the lowly snake but the mighty Cuttlefish.
Jan Crouch, Antichrist? Noooooooooo.
How is Jan these days. I’ve not seen TBN in years. I used to be a regular watcher. I loved the way she came on with Kleenex in hand and watery eyes. She was constantly crying. She was so moving with her powerful “repentant sinner” testimony. I think she went to Evangel College where she was a “bad girl” but then found her way. She would be weepy with cracking voice when talking about the “little children” who had nothing to eat or wear. Man, that was great drama. Her husband Paul came across more as a business man who could never rise to her level of visceral robustness.
Jan Crouch, Antichrist? Noooooooooo.
How is Jan these days. I’ve not seen TBN in years. I used to be a regular watcher. I loved the way she came on with Kleenex in hand and watery eyes. She was constantly crying. She was so moving with her powerful “repentant sinner” testimony. I think she went to Evangel College where she was a “bad girl” but then found her way. She would be weepy with cracking voice when talking about the “little children” who had nothing to eat or wear. Man, that was great drama. Her husband Paul came across more as a business man who could never rise to her level of visceral robustness.
Marvellous stuff! (Ironic use of exclamation mark). That particular piece doesn’t leave much out in its attempt to ensnare conspiracy buffs across the whole spectrum does it. End time prophecy, Merovingians, Freemasons and general religious nuttiness. Throw in a bit of UFO conspiracy lore as well and you have a full house.
I’m a big fan of fleecing the gullible; I wish the author(s) every success in their effort to rake in the cash with this derivative drivel, because that is obviously its purpose
Screw ’em. If they won’t give me a free set of Ginsu Knives with my purchase, I ain’t buyin’!
Are you speaking in tongues, Silver Fox? Because that’s the best explanation I can come up with for your inane, content-free blather.
Nope. At least they weren’t for me.
(Anndd, typekey seems busted)
“Do they want the apocalypse or don’t they?
Do they want the rapture or not?”
It’s possible that these are the more sensible ones. The ones who know that they’ll probably fall short of being raptured because they’re not good enough. Or whatever, isn’t this not even really in the Bible anyway?
Only $25 for an online MS-Word-to-PDF-Export? I MUST HAVE IT! I MUST know the TRUTH!
::SPEEEEENNNNNDD:::
Spot on, azqaz@17. Three of my cubiclemates go almost as far. The rest are the silent, liberal type.
Nah, I think he is just showing us for how long his brains have been soft with IQ lowering religion. Lights on, nobody home. I still haven’t figured out why he has to demonstrate that here though…
Good to know.
Wait a second…
Can any of you atheists prove that Obama is NOT the antichrist?
Checkmate!
And Javier Solana…
Of course!
Before being a politician, he was a physicist. Those evil scientists, the Hell’s fifth column, conspiring against sweeeeeet Jesus… Badies, badies…
Oh well…
—
El Guerrero del Interfaz
If Obama isn’t the Antichrist then why does he appear to these people in their dreams with the offer to protect them come the Apocalypse, if they will just perform the osculum infame as a sign of their allegiance?
Ha ha. The world map at the top of the page shows DVD regions. Is copyright protection part of the NWO?
I have as well as “Ishmael” and “My Ishmael”. I agree. We could use a whole bunch of anti-Christs like that.
From AA Milne’s opus magnus:
Piglet: “Lots of people talk to nature.”
Pooh: “Yes, but not enough people listen.”
Is this Mel Sanger for real? I mean, really? If you’d showed me his article as an Onion spoof I could easily have accepted that.
As for a canditate for the Anti-Christ? Well, the Pope (whichever one is around) is usually in the frame for that role acording to protestant fundies. Now if Obama is a secret catholic it will all make sense……
There is no such person. The correct title is, of course, Charles, Prince of Wales, as Prince of Wales is a substantive title. The style “Prince X of Wales” is used for his children, Prince William of Wales and Prince Harry of Wales.
Sorry about the pedantry, but I hate it when people get British titles wrong. I called Professor Myers out when he referred to Viscount Monckton as “Lord Christopher Monckton” (a style which is correct for certain sons of peers, but not for a suo jure peer such as Viscount Monckton).*
*Incidentally, I’m having dinner with Viscount Monckton** tomorrow night, as he’s coming to Oxford. I’m quite excited.
**For those of you who don’t know, he was one of Mrs Thatcher’s policy advisors and is now a noted climate change sceptic.
No no NO!! Obama is not the anti-Christ, people, Obama is a major player in the “anti-Christ system,” along with Prince Charles, etc., etc. Gosh, an “international political researcher” goes to all the trouble to examine “4000 pieces of evidence” and you can’t even get that right.
You’re all in denial “Because just like the movie the Matrix, the vast majority of people don’t believe or don’t want to believe.”
Seriously, though, I read it all the way through, because I’m weird like that. I recommend it, though — it has freemasons and Israel and all kinds of classic crank-iness.
As a resident of downtown Des Moines (really) I can categorically and emphatically deny the existence of any giant squirrels. There are no giant squirrels in downtown Des Moines, and they don’t have a nest under the giant neon Traveler’s Insurance umbrella. And they most certainly don’t have a longstanding gang territory-style conflict with the residents of Beaverdale.
Nerd: “I still haven’t figured out why he has to demonstrate that here though… ”
Just trying to add a little “in touch” feelings of reflection to the otherwise droll pseudo-intellectualism that usually inhabit these threads.
You know, my sources tell me there was also nothing said about the plan to send me thirty billion dollars next Friday. Must be true then! Early retirement, here I come!
The Bilderburg group is behind Obama’s rise to power. They are in their end-game, ready to take over the world! The end-times are nigh!
Seriously, though, why is it that these NWO conspiracy sites are all run by massively-intelligent and well-educated insiders with access to information that none of us might possibly have, and yet they can’t seem to write one sentence without an exclamation point. Their grammar is shoddy, their editing non-existent, and their hyperbole barely hyperboled. I mean, instead of calling President Obama the “most dangerous President evar!” he could have instead written, “Obama will destroy us all in his evil quest for the perfect monte christo sandwich!”
At least the site is a good indication of the quality of research of the final report.
So, they’re petrified with fear as to what Obama may do, and want everyone to know the truth so that all terrible things will not come to pass, so they get out the message by… selling the data. “The world is about to end! I’ll tell you how to avert the catastrophe! If you pay me.”
Yeah, that’s new.
Well, I can get behind that, at least.
(I mean, priorities, people.)
The Theothuglicans are just an umbrella organization for the lunatic fringes. They are down to 22% of the population according to a recent survey.
The US has a huge lunatic fringe. America has always gone for bigger and better and we lead the world in…..Lunatic Fringes.
These would all be amusing except:
1. Many or most of these loons openly hate the USA and would and will try to destroy it.
2. They represent the worst in human nature, liars, haters, ignorants, morons, fundie xians and are rather prone to violence.
The US will probably survive them but there are no guarantees.
BTW, the Pope is going to be disappointed. For centuries the Pope has been the antichrist. Michelle Bachmann’s church Wisconsin Lutherans has it displayed on their website.
No SF, the only thing you are in touch with is your mental penis, which you make very good use of. Religion and god are not needed for anything, as we prove daily here. If you could stop your mental wanking long enough to look at the real evidence, you would agree. Until then, do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.
Funny how the same people buy all these reports and are so keen to share their testimonies.
http://www.adsensetemplates.com/amember/thanks.php
Funny how they keep changing their name and moving around the country too.
Anyone would have thought the customer testimonials were made up!
Huh… that map of the world on that site… that’s a DVD region code map- WTF? That was the best they could find to represent the New World Order?
Why is it always the black guy?
Yes, Dennis, and it’s more apropos than you know. You see, the entire world will not adopt a single DVD standard until the eleventh king defeats three of the ten kings, and then forces the remaining seven to bow to his will. It’s in the Bible. Look it up!
only had to read the first paragraph and see the word FREEMASONS to understand where this crap was going. for the record, i have a friend in the freemasons (hes like the grand master thingy of the local chapter), do you know what the freemasons do. they wear silly clothing and silly hats (think stone masons from simpsons) make long silly speeches and then eat and get drunk. its a freking gentlemens club. nothing more.
I’m torn. Joke or a scam to get some fools’ money? Or both?
What do I get for volunteering to be the auntie-christ?
Ha, Ian at #74. Great catch.
I could use someone with your talent for rooting out the truth. When I rise to power and subjugate all mankind to my despotic will as THE ONE TRUE ANTI-CHRIST, I’m going to appoint you Grand Inquisitor of the New World Order.
Please forward a resume with salary requirements at your earliest convenience.
Walton, why would Americans care about an immoral system of giving certain Brits power and privilege that they don’t deserve? Whatever that inbred batch of loons wants to call themselves shouldn’t concern free people.
Can I just say…. Oh My God!!!!
Walton, why would Americans care about an immoral system of giving certain Brits power and privilege that they don’t deserve? Whatever that inbred batch of loons wants to call themselves shouldn’t concern free people.
Before Obama was elected I was sent an email by Mormon friends that noted all the signs of evil in the candidate. These obvious signs of evil included his gestures.
Another Obama kook at http://www.pr-inside.com/honolulu-obama-movie-solicits-script-ideas-r1226035.htm & http://boycotthawaii.com/
This is obviously wrong. The antichrist will be from Romania, as detailed in the documentary series “Left Behind”.
Another Obama kook at http://www.pr-inside.com/honolulu-obama-movie-solicits-script-ideas-r1226035.htm & http://boycotthawaii.com/
Nerd:
“Until then, do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.”
Who’s talking about God but you?
Ah.! How revealing it is that just below the surface of all that pseudo-intellectual prattle, there lurks a reservoir of vile denigrative anger
Speaking as a non-Xian, I am 100% pro-antichrist, and so should you be. If this guy exists, think of the things he does. He brings about world peace… eliminates poverty… all we have to do is to denounce our worship of the god of Abraham. Sweet!
Of course, in the next part of the story, god sends the tribulation, the unkillable scorpions with the heads of beautiful women that sting you with a poison that causes incredible agony but you can never die, that manner of thing.
Who’s the good guy in this story, again?
Silver Fox, you are the angry one. Why else would you force yourself on a blog where you are not sympathetic to general themes. So you get called on being irrelevant, which you are. You really need to just give up trying to contribute here, because you have nothing but proven idiocy to contribute. When you finally understand that, you will be a smarter man. Until then, expect to get taken to task for your posting of your mental masturbations here.
Allegedly Christian.
@ Schmeer #82
Notwithstanding the irony of your criticising the ill-deserved inheritance of influence given the quasi-dynastic nature of American politics, can you try and keep your anti-Brit xenophobia to yourself?
Thanks old bean.
Walton, we don’t give a fiddler’s fuck about titles that cause concern to you. Adding that you’re having dinner with Lord What’s His Yucks just cements the fact that you’re a privileged little twit.
GilbertNSullivan: I’m pretty sure there isn’t that much irony in people with quasi-dynastic heads of state mocking our actually dynastic head of state. We lose.
What no one is going to point out that they quote RAY MARTINEZ?
@Matt Heath #96
Whereas I’m pretty sure that there is irony if they don’t *get* that their head of state stands a pretty good chance of being born to the role.
What no one is going to point out that they quote RAY MARTINEZ?
You guys are being completely misleading. What he says is very clear: “In September 2008 we published the findings in a report called the Antichrist Identity. The title is slightly misleading as we do not believe that he is the biblical Antichrist. However there is iron clad research and evidence that confirms that he is a major pawn in the new world order and one of the most dangerous US presidents ever to hold office. ”
So you see, he’s not being overly exaggeratedly crazy. He’s totally sane and just trying to warn us :)
Also, Daniel Quinn rules.
So now, in addition to being the messiah, Obama is the anti-Christ too? How is this possible.
I wonder if they’ll change the name of the tune to, “Hail to the Beast”
I so support press coverage of people nutty enough to write things like this… can we get the guy on network TV rambling on about the mark of the beast and the evils of not saluting the flag? I’m honestly not sure if this article is a joke, but I keep reminding my self that if Fred Phelps exists, there’s not much left in fundy land to surprise the world.
@Scooty Puff, Jr. #65
Perhaps you haven’t been to Birdland Park recently. The Beaverdale group were drowned during the floods last year.
A paltry $25? sheesh, used to be that kooks could bring in much much more with less kookery.
Vorvadoss #12
QUESTION
“Could someone please explain to a simple Finnish person the reason the Republicans in your country constantly spew out insane things?”
ANSWER
Could someone explain to everyone how a tiny country in an incredibly difficult geographical and climatological corner of the world can produce so many excellent musicians? And do not give me the excuse that it is due to good education; must be the water.
But back to your original question; take a look at these websites:
http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=republicans+sex+crimes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Lots of scary minds there.
Rey Fox, #52,
In fact, you are correct, it is not.
Silver Fox have you done your homework yet?
One of the characteristics of the antiChrist is that he is at first hailed as a Messiah.
Interesting. I actually found this description somewhat on target and borderline humorous. I’m not sure SF meant it that way, but that’s how I read it… as if it was dripping with sarcasm.
Jan Crouch is so over the top that she’s beyond annoying and straying into the so bad it’s funny category. She’s like Tammy Faye on jesus Steroids with a nice touch of Drag Queen campy stage presence.
Now now, Nerd. The nutter in question is merely employing the culturally agreed-upon cliche, here…
It’s now standard usage, see: in any and all conflicts between ‘New Atheists’ (and they are this when you call them this) and those they criticize, it is to be taken as axiomatic that if the atheist expresses disgust toward the believer, it is because the atheist is ‘full of anger’…
Not because the believer is, in fact, disgusting.
(/Hoping this clears this up.)
This has to be a spoof.
I thought Mel Sanger was the Bubble Boy’s father in Seinfeld
RevBigDumbChimp @ 108
Right on the mark For Tammy, but with the addition of the complete close- out inventory of Max Factor on her face! Is she trying to hide her soul from jeebus or scare the hell out of the devil?
*Incidentally, I’m having dinner with Viscount Monckton** tomorrow night, as he’s coming to Oxford. I’m quite excited.
How utterly pathetic. If you’re going to name-drop, Walton, wait until you have a name worth dropping.
**For those of you who don’t know, he was one of Mrs Thatcher’s policy advisors and is now a noted climate change sceptic.
He’s a liar without any scientific credentials – so of course he fits in fine with the denialists. See for example:
Monckton’s deliberate manipulation
“the otherwise droll pseudo-intellectualism that usually inhabit these threads.” – Silver Fox
How would an ignorant halfwit like you tell the difference between pseduo-intellectualism and the real thing?
When you think of it, the antichrist makes as much sense and bullshit as the antieasterbunny. Leave it to religion to form phrases that endangers their idiocy with the obvious counter measures. Morons
Wow, Walton, Heddle and Silver Fox all at once! Can we handle this triple threat to smooth thinking and discourse?
@111
I have no idea, but if I didn’t know how ridiculous she was, she would scare the hell out of me.
#78:
All the cover they need to hide the triple-secret nefarious plotting with the Knights Templar going on in the catacombs beneath their temples.
And the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Fool!The anti-easterbunny is real! Who do you think it is that sneaks into our houses on Easter Monday and steals all the Peeps and chocolate bunnies. I know I didn’t eat it all myself. No, I didn’t.
You mean there is hope? SIGH. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t so..
The true gruesome trio. With all that clucking on one thread PZ should make a fortune in egg money.
I really hate to see people trying to rip everybody off even if the Sanger Report supposedly has been reduced from $44.97 to $24.97 (why the $0.97?). It reminds me of those 419 scammers who I could never get to reduce their commission rate despite the fact that 50% of nothing is just as good as 90% of nothing.
So, my offer to the first 1,000 who email me is that I will let you have a copy of my downloaded copy of the Sanger Report for $1 each. No, I’m feeling especially generous today so I’ll make that $0.97 each for the first 2,000 customers.
You won’t be very disappointed.
In fact, you are correct, it is not.
What isn’t?
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.”
–1 John 2:18
marcus @ 118
If I had known you had a cache of Peeps and chocolate bunnies, I would sneaked in and gobbled the whole lot down. Hmm, what loot! Only white and yellow Peeps, please.
Like that’s ever stopped ’em before.
@57 Sigmund
Yes. Yes, I can.
Obama = Anti-Christ.
Jesus doesn’t exist, so Jesus = 0.
The Anti-Christ is the negative of Christ, so AC=-0 = 0 since the negative of zero is still 0.
Therefore Obama is actually Jesus! We’re Saved!!!!
(See, I can do creationist logic. :)
The truth of this depends on what you mean by “pretty good chance.”
Presidents since WWII: Born to the role, or not? IMO:
Eisenhower, no.
Kennedy, YES.
Johnson, no.
Nixon, no.
Ford, no.
Carter, no.
Reagan, no.
Bush, YES.
Clinton, no.
Bush, YES.
Obama, no.
Three yes (two from the same family), nine no. A 25% chance might qualify as “pretty good” here in the land of opportunity. Does it?
CJO, #122
Exactly. The apostle wrote: this is the last hour. Not: “2000 years from now, give or take, it then will be the last hour.”
Wait…does that explain biblical time? This has been one hell of a long last hour.
I’ll say it again.
The formatting on this SB template blows donkeys.
I love how the wingnuts (who are the only ones who apply the “messiah” tag to Obama) who invariably question Obama’s Christianity are the same wingnuts who swallowed good-old-boy Dubya’s alcohol-soaked born-again claim without a single twitch of an eyelid or jaw muscle.
@129 Rev Big Dumb Chimp
Well, at least the donkeys are enjoying it. ;) Me, myself, I’m with you.
Yeah, Rev. Look what it did to my indented, bulleted list of Presidents in #126.
A Tijuana reference for Cinco de Mayo?
I agree with the Chimp this formatting SUCKS! It’s hard to see, which puts me in a pissy mood. *snort*
A nice slice of pork bomb might straighten out the mood…
I kept looking for the punchline but there wasn’t one.
Does anyone really buy this crap? Surely nobody not even the 12 toed, sister-marrying, webbed-fingered, Fox News watching, bible-belt hicks out there in Neo-Conservative Americalandland could be stupid enough to fall for such trashy advertising and outrageous rubbish, could they?
It’s curious how the office address the “author” gives is actually a virtual office address in central London (England). Why England when the “report” is squarely aimed at Americans? Odd that.
I sincerely hope that behind this garbage is an English wo/man merrily laughing their socks off at the stupidity of certain xtians Americans. What would be nice would be if on entering your order the Thank You page came up telling you that no money had really been taken from you and now you should stop being so fucking stupid.
On the other hand, fleecing the religous right wingnuts of Americalandland for a few dollars is pretty funny, at least that’s a few dollars that won’t go to their local megachurch or other charitable-abuse.
Cheers.
ZK
Oh, I totally forgot.
*looks around for a margarita*
Yep, 5/5. And, incredibly, the Dead played “Mexicali Blues” last night. I suspect Weir is slipping slowly into dementia.
*adds voice to those who hate the new format*
Tonights birthday dinner for the Redhead, tamales, rice and beans, fresh guacamole, with tres leches for desert.
Yeah that’s what spawned my comment.
Pork Bomb. Patricia, I had a friend make that a few weeks back. I didn’t participate. While the novelty of it is funny, and duh… it’s bacon… it’s a bit much. And scary.
This is just disinformation to distract us from the real threat. There’s a group of the five wealthiest people in the world known as The Pentaverate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion known as, the Meadows. It consists of The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothchilds, and Col. Sanders before he went tits up.
The apostle wrote: this is the last hour.
Oh, come on. No apostle wrote that (or anything else, so far as we know). The epistles of John were most probably composed by the same author/redactor who put the finishing touches on what we now call the Gospel of John, or a contemporary, likely in the early 2nd century at Ephesus.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say it was written by the Apostle John; that helps how? Yet another disconfirmed apocalyptic prediction from an early Christian author, either way. The traditional attribution merely saddles a supposedly authoritative figure with the failed prognostication; I’d have thought you’d rather lay it on an anonymous author.
In any case, the idea of an antichrist prefiguring the last days and the judgement of god is most certainly “in the bible.” We can agree that applying these prophetic writings to the current era is a childish fantasy of retribution and redemption, but you seem to be saying that they don’t even exist.
Nerd, that sounds like a terrific meal, all the more so because of the orbital occasion.
There are a lot of candidates for anti-christ. I think the fairest way to settle it would be a TV show where potential anti-christs do their thing in front of a panel of judges (headed by Simon Cowell, natch) and we the viewers get to vote. We could call it ‘The 666 Factor’ or something.
Settle the matter properly.
Rev. BigDumbChimp – Aww, now I am disappointed, if the King of Bacon thinks it’s over the top it must be scary.
Patricia:
Oh, but surely Walton’s excitement at supping with Viscount Monckton derives from his urgent desire to persuade the estimable Viscount that he is sadly mistaken on the question of climate change, and to enlist said worthy in the effort to encourage an effective, globally coordinated network of government regulations intended to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.
Right, Walton? Right?
[Well, I can dream, can’t I?]
@ Watchman #126
At the risk of making something out of what was originally a throwaway remark, I’d say that a 1 in 4 chance that you can become president merely by accident of birth is actually pretty comfortable odds.
Note that the odds shorten again if Hillary had won and served a full term (in which case the presidency of the US would have been shared amongst members of two families for 23 years).
Anyway, as I say, all I was doing was pointing out that our fondness for unfair privilege is hardly unique.
104 ThirtyFiveUp:
I’m pretty sure the music comes from the fact that there’s pretty much nothing to do from September to May if you don’t like skiing. And it’s pitch black during the winter. From dusk till dawn(ok, maybe 2 or 3 hours of sunlight). In the Summer it’s daylight 24/7, but we only get like 2 months of Summer when we’re lucky.
Meh. At least we’ve got a secular community. It’s kinda hard to complain on that.
/John Hogue mode on
No, he is clearly denying the evidence from numerology!
Taking the number of letters in “Barack Hussein Obama” gives:
6 7 5
Subtracting 1 from 7 and adding it to 5 yields:
6 6 6
The number of the Beast is there, it’s just cleverly hidden.
/John Hogue mode off
Isn’t that against the Bible?
Exodus 22:27 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0222.htm (interestingly, in any regular english bible version, this is at 22:28, but in any german version and appearently the hebrew version it’s on 22:27. If anyone knows why, tell me))
GilbertNSullivan:
Look at Watchman’s list again: Kennedy and Bush 41 came from political families, to be sure, but neither was preceeded as president by a blood relative. Only Bush 43, among those on this list, had a father who was president, and even then, he didn’t succeed directly. Further, Kennedy and Bush 41 had notable political resumes in their own right (Bush 41’s is one of the most impressive resumes in recent memory, which only proves a great resume doesn’t necessarily make for a great president). In both cases, you could say politics was the “family business”; if going into the family business constituted an hereditary aristocracy, there are lots of butchers and plumbers and used car salespeople who should be viscounts and barons! The existence of second- and third-generation politicians is no more surprising, nor any more invidious, than the existence of second- and third-generation athletes or entertainers.
Meaningless. Hillary would not have been the blood relative of any previous president (nor, AFAIK, of any prominent politician), and it’s more likely that her relationship with her husband is attributable to her political interests than vice versa: Hillary Rodham was always going to be a politician, and while she might never have been a viable candidate for president without her husband’s fame, once she was a candidate, it’s not at all clear whether the linkage to Bill helped or hurt her chances.
The only aspect of American politics that even vaguely looks like family succession is those cases where a widow takes over the office of her deceased husband (e.g., Bono, Carnahan, et al.)… but even in those cases, the widow must be elected on her own merits within 2 years (IIRC, even though a senate term is 6 years, senators appointed to fill vacated seats must stand for election at the next general election, which is to say, within 2 years). It’s nothing like an hereditary peerage.
GilbertNSullivan,
Your analysis does lack a little perspective in that, there may be a 1 in 4 chance that the person the USA elects to the presidency was in some sense “born into it.” However, Prince William’s chance of becoming King is 100% provided he outlives his grandmother and father. This probability has remained the same since he was born. That’s a hereditary head of state.
GWBush’s chances of being “born into” the presidency have changed through time and it was by no means certain he would become president, especially by merely waiting long enough. This is the case that’s closest to hereditary head of state in the US and if most presidential races hinged on candidates that were born into the presidency then you could argue for a quasi-hereditary system for determining our head of state. The problem is that the GWBush (and JFK) example is anomalous in our history and our constitution was designed specifically to avoid a hereditary head of state. Using Hilary Clinton as an example is also a red herring since she was never a candidate for president (merely a candidate to be a candidate), and one of the reasons she was not chosen by the Democratic Party was that she had been President Clinton’s wife.
That being said, I think the original comment that earned your scorn was not aimed at Brits in general, but at the aristocracy and their hereditary titles. Though much of the wealth and power in the USA is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful families, it’s still sorta weird to us to give those families explicitly special power in the government.
BTW I do think the British peerage system is interesting and I’ve always thought is would be cool to be Marquess Pygmy Loris :)
I know that Obama is not the antichrist, because I am, and I have known it since 1979.
The fact that you are all still alive is that I am an alcoholic, stoner antichrist, easily distracted and not particularly hardworking.
Indeed, how do you all know for sure that you’re not actually doing my bidding?
Muah ha ha ha.
I was just at the Galileo/Medici exhibit in Philaldelphia, where there was a display of a panel – from a church! – illustrating various scientific instruments flying about the heavens with various Christo-heroes. Making sure that plenty of family units were around, I remarked (rather too loudly?) to Wife Unit that “this is just like pictures of saints and stuff – except it’s about true things!”
See – I’m corrupting* youth! Antichrist!
*”corrupting” in the sense of the anti-verse sort of way, duh.
#151
Reminds me of a John Cleese quip in a Callard & Bowser commercial about festive occasions, like celebrating the birth of a new President.
Vorvadoss
Have a good day and life.
Hey, apparently you can pick this report up in person, and it’s not that far from me in London. Hmm. It’s got to be two stoners in a flat seriously. But I might pop by tomorrow and scare them. Ho ho ho.
CJO, #142
Not necessarily. There is a school of Christian eschatology under the name “preterism” that holds that most (or all–depending on the variant) of those “end times” prophecies: great tribulation, antichrist, etc, have already been fulfilled. They were, according to this view, prophecies concerning the end of the Jewish age in 70 AD (this generation will not pass away…), not the end of history. I happen to agree, but that’s besides the point–which is that your assumption is not correct.
Clearly, they Know Too Much. You must send them a warning…
I suggest one of those ‘All-seeing pyramid’ keychains. Just leave it on their doormat.
They’ll know what it means.
A wonderful idea. They shall know we are watching…
Wait, I thought the antichrist was Sam from “Reaper”! ;)
(this generation will not pass away…)
Nice ellipsis. Until? “All these things be fulfilled.” Including, presumably, v31:
“And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”
So according to your preterism, the train already left the station.
Also, Matthew is clearly at pains to account for his predecessor’s failed prognostication. For Mark, the Jewish War, the destruction of Jerusalem and the “abomination of desolation” are the final signs (13:20, “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.”). But Matthew, writing ~20 years later knows full well that those events did not, in fact, presage the imminent end of the age and trhe coming of the Son of Man in glory, so he tweaks it, just a little. (24:22, If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.)
Curiouser and curiouser.
Lastly, what did I assume?
Bill Dauphin – Perhaps you’re right, young Walton would have the best interests of all in mind. I’m sure he’ll bedazzle the diners with his well reasoned and witty conversation.
Perhaps he can find out for us ignorant Merikans if the Viscount is the one that holds the princes chamber pot, or the one that carries it? Inquiring minds want to know!
@Patricia, #162
I didn’t know that the title of Viscount also carried with it the title of Groom of the Stool…
No all ellipsis are evil, some are just to make a short reference. I just didn’t think you’d be all that interested. If you are I can refer you to a complete analysis of the Olivet Discourse from the preterist viewpoint here.
You assumption, if I understood, was that all Christians would have to agree that those prophesies apply to some point in the future.
I’m “that interested”, because, to me, “all these things” makes clearly for a disconfirmed prophesy. Matthew seems to recognize this and changes the tense of “cut[ting] short the days.” It wouldn’t have added too much length to your quotation to complete the sentence, but it would have made explicit a troublesome line, in my view anyway.
It looks like, from your blog, that the main way you get out of “all these things” being prophesied is that Jesus was just using poetic language for the far-out stuff, and nobody hearing him would have believed in the cosmic unravelling and the heavenly trumpets and the parousia and all that. Yet these are folks who, according to you, talk to three angels before breakfast most days, and whose hobbies include supernatural healing and exorcisms. I don’t think they’d be inclined to put realist filters on what their savior was telling them was going to happen. It’s another case of having it both ways.
666 revealed!
However, Prince William’s chance of becoming King is 100% provided he outlives his grandmother and father. – Pygmy Loris
Not quite – we might get rid of that family of braindead spongers before then.
IT MUST BE TRue!!!1!
Look how many conspiracy theories are so neatly tied up in their explanation!!! I bet Obama plotted 9/11 as well!!1!!1
The thing I am waiting for the Nutjobs to pick up on is the whole “can’t trade without the mark of the Beast”- The Cashless Society we keep being promised!!!! You need a bank account to trade- Obama helped the banks WAKE UP- THE BANKS ARE IN LEAGUE WITH THE DEVIL- ITS ALL THERE IN REVELATIONS!!!1!!!
{Static}
Station Message
Technical difficulties- please stay tuned
{ahem}
Sorry, where was I? Oh yes- If you pick one up in person, what currency do you pay in? I ask because the address for postal and personal purchases is in London, yet all prices are quoted in the Devil’s Own Currency.
You assumption, if I understood, was that all Christians would have to agree that those prophesies apply to some point in the future.
Well if those they were supposed to enlighten can’t even agree on whether they have yet been fulfilled, they were bloody useless prophecies? Face it heddle, the Bible’s a bunch of crap, and your stupid sophistry is worse.
I think they made the discovery by browsing over at T-shirt hell…
http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/antichrist-08-barack-obama/
So I’m looking up the address they use to go and pick up my copy of the Anti-Christ report and am now slightly perturbed by the fact that 26 York Street (their central office) is the Bermuda Department of Tourism…
I’m slightly put off about asking for my copy of the Real-News-Behind-The-Anti-Christ-Cover-up-Bargain to a lot of mortified Bermudans.
Or is their cover really THAT good? Bermuda Triangle anyone? Okay this is getting freaky now. I shall probably go armed with my masonic handshake…
Wait a minute, I thought that the Antichrist lives in Miami, is CNN pulling my leg again?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/miami.preacher/
/this is sarcasm btw…
#22 Mystic Olly wrote:
Pfft.
Any conspiracy that doesn’t include Prince Charles is on pretty shaky grounds.
DeafAtheist:
You missed this one.
I could do that. But since this is a Conservative Association event at which the norm will be sycophantic admiration of the guest speaker, it would be somewhat inadvisable to do so. (If I actually want a political future, that is.) Plus, I know virtually nothing about climate change either way.
(I already pissed off the majority of my party colleagues on Sunday night when I stood up at a debate and called for the disestablishment of the Church of England and the adoption of a secular constitution. From the reaction of the assembled Tory activists, you’d think I’d just advocated the mass killing of small African children. Oh well. At least I’m not running for election this term.)
something tells me if you’d offered that as Plan B, they’d have applauded.
why exactly do you hang out with Tories, again…?
Knock:
“How would an ignorant halfwit like you tell the difference between pseudo-intellectualism and the real thing?”
Let me see if I can answer that one for you:
Let’s try this:
Theism is foundational for all knowledge
Atheists are non-theist
Atheists have no foundation for knowledge
Ergo:
All pretended knowledge posited by atheists has to be pseudo-knowledge
The main reason that I think Obama will not be the Antichrist, is that he does not fit one description of him from the Bible – “his look is more stout than his fellows” – which I take as meaning he will be rather overweight. Of course Obama is quite young – give him another 20 years and see if he piles on the weight.
Knock:
“Face it heddle, the Bible’s a bunch of crap, and your stupid sophistry is worse”
Heddie: the Bible is a diverse and erudite piece of literature which requires exegetical talent to interpret. For an atheist to say the Bible is a bunch of crap because he’s bumped up against something he is incapable of understanding in the Christian analog of saying “God did it” when he bumps up against something he doesn’t understand. Talking to an atheist about the Bible is going to be about as useful as titties on a rooster.
cute. except that saying so doesn’t magically make it true
Silver Fox, implying that he is actually getting stupider, wrote:
Now I’m going to ask you a question; it’s rather important, so you need to pay attention and focus.
Do you have any evidence or valid argument to support this claim?
It is, of course, a silly question, because I know you don’t; just like you have no evidence or valid argument for your god, and no evidence or valid argument that your particular god is in any way more able to exist than any of the other myriad gods of human imagination – which, hilariously, you yourself deny the existence of.
Or have you managed to come up with something other than your unsupported and invalid claims regarding Yahweh’s qualities?
Silver Fox, your god doesn’t exist and your bible is a work fiction that cannot be rationally analyzed. If you can’t live with with us having that philosophy, you need to stop posting your idiocy here. Everything you say is considered a lie, since you cannot show physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Failure to do so has shown us your lack of integrity.
Silver Fox,
Heddie: the
BibleBhagavad Ghita is a diverse and erudite piece of literature which requires exegetical talent to interpret. Foran atheista Christian to say theBibleBhagavad Ghita is a bunch of crap because he’s bumped up against something he is incapable of understanding in theChristianHindu analog of saying “GodShiva did it” when he bumps up against something he doesn’t understand. Talking toan atheista Christian about theBibleBhagavad Ghita is going to be about as useful as titties on a rooster.With that in mind, why aren’t you a Hindu, Silver Fox?
Because Vishnu threatened to reincarnate back onto Earth as a a multi-armed can of whoopass if Silver Fox did so.
the Bible is a diverse and erudite piece of literature which requires exegetical talent to interpret.
So what? No amount of talent will make anything in the bible factually true.
For an atheist to say the Bible is a bunch of crap because he’s bumped up against something he is incapable of understanding in the Christian analog of saying “God did it” when he bumps up against something he doesn’t understand.
There’s a huge difference between someone dismissing a piece of fiction as crap because it doesn’t say anything important to them, and someone invoking a meaningless non-explanation because they’re too ignorant, stupid, and/or superstition-riddled to understand science.
Talking to an atheist about the Bible is going to be about as useful as titties on a rooster.
By your own criterion, it would depend on whether the atheist has “exegetical talent”, and there’s no a priori reason to think an atheist wouldn’t. You appear to be claiming that anyone able to properly interpret the bible must be a theist, which is a clearly circular argument … but then, that’s what we expect from godbots.
I see SF is still operating under the presumption we atheists haven’t read the bible. What a shithead. SF, while some atheists have never read the bible, most of us have. We read it cover to cover. We saw for ourselves what a petty amoral warlord Yahweh was, and not anything we would want to emulate. We saw all the rules everybody was ignoring, while pretending others were divinely inspired. We saw the pettiness of Paul. And mostly, we saw such a mangled mess that we wanted nothing more to do with it. One of the primary ways to become an atheist is to actually read the bible. So your sheeple bleatings about not understanding it is a lie. We understand it. Another lie for the godbot. In fact, it is time for you to quit lying, but in your case, the only way you can do so is to just stop posting here.
I’m guessing that ‘exegetical talent’ means the ability to apply the principles of literary analysis in such a way that they can find a pseudo-academic argument to defend the idea that some parts of a story which meet contemporary standards of fact and historical accuracy were intended by the writers to be considered such, and those parts which don’t weren’t meant to be taken literally.
Or, ‘I like these parts so they must be what the writer wanted me to think; I don’t like these other parts, so they must be things the writer just added in to be poetic, or because that was the style of apocalyptic literature at the time.’
‘Handily, I can discard the parts I don’t like because sometimes people sometimes write fiction, and, even though I have no idea what the writer’s intent was, that’s the argument I’m going to use.’
It’s like someone trying to tell a joke and then, when no-one laughs, explaining it away by saying, ‘Oh, you thought I was trying to be funny? How foolish of you.’
Wow:
“Do you have any evidence or valid argument to support this claim?”
Of course, but I’m afraid it won’t do you much good.
The formal object of the intellect is knowledge. So, I have
subjective epistemic knowledge of God. That is a mode of knowing that you can have no knowledge of, and I can’t transform that into an objective ontological mode of being that you could know. So, here you have bumped up against something that you can’t possible understand and I cannot help you with. So, I can only say that I KNOW and you, not having a subjective epistemic knowledge of God, can only say “It’s a figment of your imagination, Silver Fox”. What it comes down to is, I know God and you can’t, and never the twine shall meet.
Hahah! Good one! Tell us another.
Fox, that’s utter bullshit, and you know it.
Is that really the best you can do? To claim special knowledge? Pathetic. No wonder you catch so much flack around here. You’re a walking, talking olive loaf.
But how can you know that your way of knowing will allow you to know and give you knowledge on the matter? Can you demonstrate that subjective epistemic knowledge is a valid path to truth? i.e. how can you know that your mind isn’t tricking you if it is wholly internalised?
Then your work here is done Go away forever. We don’t need your interference.
If this is true, then God doesn’t exist. If God does exist, then God should exist external to belief. So if only you can “know” God exists and Wowbagger can’t, then you have to come up with an explanation that externalises God from your mind. This is essentially an admission that God exists purely between your ears, well done Silver Fox.
“Gentlemen- Today’s Fox. View Hulloo!”
Its obvious. If you don’t believe in God, then you are too stupid to understand God is Truth. You can’t be True until you believe in God. We don’t believe in God, ergo everything we write upon the nature of the universe is wrong. We can not prove this assertion by Foxy wrong, because the only way to prove it wrong would be to know God, and if we did that we would see that he was right.
No doubt if we knew God, and still said that Foxy’s premise was wrong, then we would either be deluded or lieing, and not really know god.
Where’s Yossarian when you need him?
So, I have subjective epistemic knowledge of God.
No, you have belief and delusion, which you, a grossly ignorant person who has no understanding of epistemology, arrogantly call knowledge. (And writing “epistemic knowledge” is as idiotic as writing “unmarried bachelor”.)
What it comes down to is, I know God and you can’t, and never the twine shall meet.
Then why are you here, making arguments for your beliefs, when you’ve just declared your knowledge to be inaccessible to us? My answer is that you’re stupid and dishonest, a recognition of which fact I don’t think is beyond you.
Ken:
“Hahah! Good one! Tell us another.”
Theism is foundational for all knowledge because as God is omniscient all true knowledge comes from there. Man, to the extent that he has true knowledge, he is participating in the knowledge of God. Since atheists believe in no God, then any presumed knowledge they have is obviously pseudo-knowledge. They might have factual scientific knowledge but true knowledge is metaphysical and involves things as they exist in their being and that true knowledge the atheist would have no access to.
Well done Kel. Clap, clap, clap.
Shoving chestnuts in his mouth hopefully.
The twine? For Pete’s sake…
I am formally threatening at this time to break out my hoary metaphor of Jerry Garcia’s space helmet. Do not make me do this.
Theism is foundational for all knowledge because as God is omniscient all true knowledge comes from there.
Blatantly circular arguments will not convince anyone that you aren’t a pathetically stupid and dishonest troll.
So, if Silver Fox is claiming that theists are intellectually superior to atheists, as well as claiming that belief in GOD is the foundation of all knowledge, then how come he has never demonstrated or supported either?
Well, the first thing to consider is he a stupid fool. If so, that explains that. And it appears that he is a fool.
This is essentially an admission that God exists purely between your ears, well done Silver Fox.
Yup. His “subjective” characterization of God is epistemically indistinguishable from a dream: a mental experience with no external referent.
Fox,
Hi. “Ken” here. LOL.
So let me get this straight. If I believed in God until, say, yesterday, and today I woke up and found that I no longer believed in God, then all of a sudden all the knowledge I possessed has become pseudo-knowledge? How does that happen? It’s all the same knowledge. Please explain.
Just keep digging that hole, eventually you’ll get to China. Knowledge is not “revealed”, it is derived from the universe. By measuring the rate at which an object falls in a vacuum, it is not sharing in God’s knowledge – rather it is constructing knowledge through interpretation of observation. When Galileo looked through a telescope and saw that Jupiter had 4 moons, this was not sharing in God’s knowledge, it was making an observation about the world. Likewise when his findings demonstrated heliocentrism, it was charged by the Church for going against God’s revealed knowledge.
This is the folly of theism, there is no divine wisdom to tap, no omniscience by which to ascertain the truth. Instead there is a perception of the world around us, and through studying how it works we are able to know. This magic screen you are sitting in front of? Well it can do more calculations per second that the entire population combined. This isn’t revealed knowledge, but aquired through understanding the world around us.
Now compare the two different sets of knowledges. On the one hand we have the notion that knowledge is not revealed but derived from our understanding of the environment around us. This method has put devices in our homes with more mathematical capability than all life, it has put people on the moon, allowed for global communication (greetings from Australia, mate), eradicated smallpox, fed billions, etc. The list is endless. The other source of knowledge, this subjective epistemic knowledge only works if you already believe. It seems a no-contest as to what works. And judging by the fact that you are on the internet now, you secretly know what works too…
Jerry Garcia’s space helmet
Kel:
“how can you know that your mind isn’t tricking you if it is wholly internalised?”
You are following the path of Descartes’ Error. Descartes elected not to trust his inclination to God and, Instead, went off on an exercise of doubt, doubting his sensory experiences of the natural world, doubting his own ideas, doubting everything except his own thinking. However, at that point he had already discarded his only real road to God. He ended up having to posit God on the notion that God would not deceive him – he made a leap of faith which was unconvincing.
You’re inviting me to follow Descartes’ path. That’s an invitation that I’m respectfully going to decline.
Silver Fox wrote:
Again with the unsupported assertions regarding one of Yahweh’s qualities. You have no idea of what your god is or isn’t; you only have hearsay, faith and pure imagination – which don’t count.
Explain how you can make that claim and perhaps it will be accepted.
who put Descartes before de Fox?
If I knew you were going to answer my question so easily, I should have asked you something more challenging, like a good recipe for chantrelle.
I see SF still hasn’t learned the first rule of holes. When in over your head, stop digging. Since SF is in over his head with any posts, these last bits of delusional thinking has him barely able to see any stars up the shaft. He needs to quit posting, which is the equivalent of stop digging.
I want in on this “international bible prophecy conference.”
see what you made me do?
That’s not what I was suggesting and it’s pathetic that you would take it to be that way. Here’s the problem with subjective experience: two people can both be convinced 100% that their position is true and be completely contradictory. How do we distinguish between the theist with the absolute conviction in the Trinity and one who believes that Allah has divinely revealed themselves? What of those who are absolutely certain that they have been abducted by aliens? What of those who are certain they have seen ghosts or communicated with the dead? What of those who are certain they have psychic powers including mind reading? What of those who are certain that homoeopathy works? Not all of these can be right, and many fly in the face of something else listed…
The simple fact is that as individuals are prone to error. That the senses are not perfect, we are fallible in our thoughts and actions. Why should I believe your testimony any more than someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens? What makes your subjective experience any more valid than theirs?
My argument is that anything that is real exists external to the mind’s ability to perceive it. If your claim has any merit whatsoever, then any claim to knowledge should be externalised as through countless psychological experiments and throughout history, it has been demonstrated that people can and will believe weird things. We even know how the mind tricks itself, magicians exploit this for our entertainment.
On my mother’s old car, she used to have a bumper sticker that said “the more I believe in angels, the more I see them.” So how is that different to subjective epistemic knowledge?
BTW,
Theism is foundational for all knowledge because as God is omniscient all true knowledge comes from there.
doesn’t make a lick of sense — that “because” is a ridiculous non sequitur. If PZ knew everything there is to know about cephalopods, that obviously would not make belief that PZ exists foundational to all knowledge about cephalopods.
SF’s epistemological argument here is similar to the argument that there’s no morality without god, although perhaps even more stupid; in the morality argument, what is right and wrong is determined by god, so atheists have access to it even if they aren’t properly motivated in their moral judgments. But according to SF, we can’t even have knowledge, even if we believe things that are true. Apparently, 1+1=2 is knowledge if claimed by SF, but is pseudo-knowledge if claimed by an atheist. This argument of his isn’t some internal subjective thing inaccessible to us; he has expressed it so that all can evaluate it … to be wrong, and stupidly so.
Translation: I really, truly, honestly, hope with all my heart that god exists. Please, god, exist for my sake, pretty please with sugar on it and whipped cream on top with a cherry on the whipped cream.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson “dig up, stupid”
One more point before I go have some lunch:
It’s obvious, but the problem with Silver Fox’s argument is that it’s circular. It’s not that the knowledge was revealed, he already believed in it before it was revealed. And thus any spiritual experience he did have would only be interpreted as revealed because the mind was going to treat it as revealed. If the belief has to be there for the revelation to work, then the revelation cannot be distinguished from interpretation. To go one step further, revelation reveals nothing, it acts purely as confirmation. Because the belief is already there, by definition revelation that has a pre-requisite of belief cannot reveal anything new. And as such, this form of subjective “knowledge” is completely useless. It tells us precisely nothing about the universe.
Nope, that doesn’t follow. I know that Abraham Lincoln was 16th president of the US and that the square root of 9 is 3. My friend living in Oregon also knows these things. My knowledge has no effect on whether or not this Oregonian knows these things. The point that god supposedly knows anything or everything has nothing to do with anyone else’s knowledge.
it’s pathetic …
And thus par for the course.
Why should I believe your testimony any more than someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens?
He’s already stated that there’s no reason for us to believe him, that his epistemic grounds are inaccessible to us, as if they were locked away in some dungeon (hint hint).
“If God does exist, then God should exist external to belief.”
I think you’re confused over objective/subjective. Epistemic knowledge is not “BELIEF” – For me, subjectively, in that mode of knowing, he exist ontologically in that mode of being. You apparently hold that unless God exist as objective ontology, on the order of a mountain or a fountain pen, then he cannot exist for you as epistemic knowledge and consequently cannot exist ontologically. But that is a problem of your knowing and not of God’s being. I understand that. But it certainly doesn’t mean that God exist “only between the ears”.
Silver Fox #179:
Ah, so only those of the One True Faith™ can interpret the Bible correctly.
No, the Bible is a bunch of crap because it’s a bunch of crap – not because it can only be interpreted correctly by the OTF™.
You might be surprised – many atheists are ex-Christians, and so may know the Bible much better than many Christians.
#196:
In the interests of expanding knowledge, then:
1) Prove God exists.
2) Prove He is omniscient.
3) Prove this omniscience means that nobody can derive any knowledge from any source bar God, by any means.
4) This being the case, explain the knowledge and technological advances made by cultures that didn’t believe in the Christian God (such as the astronomy of ancient Babylonia).
So, how do we tell ‘pseudo-knowledge’ from ‘knowledge’? For example, what about other Christian sect’s knowledge? They would say that comes from God, even if it’s different from the OTF™’s knowledge, so is their knowledge true ‘knowledge’, or ‘pseudo-knowledge’? Let me guess – if it doesn’t contradict the OTF™’s interpretation of the Bible, it’s ‘knowledge’, but if it does, it’s ‘pseudo-knowledge’? wouldn’t they say the same thing about the OTF™? How do we tell who’s REALLY got the true ‘knowledge’, then, if we can’t trust such minor things like ‘evidence’ and ‘logic’?
Translation: I have no evidence of anything I’m saying, so I’m going to throw the word ‘metaphysical’ in there to try to make it look like ‘I believe it, so it must be true’ is a valid argument.
I’m afraid is does until you can show physical evidence otherwise. Which you have previously admitted you cannot. So until you do, your god exists only between your ears as that is what the evidence states. We don’t care to share your delusions, so you can take your sophistry elsewhere. We are bored with your imbecility and illogical thinking. I think it’s time for PZ to toss this fool into the dungeon as a boring, insipid, stupid, fool, and last, but not least godbotting, since he isn’t taking repeated hints to leave of his own accord.
I don’t know, but I’m sure there’s a mycological explanation for all this.
Kel:
“Knowledge is not “revealed”, it is derived from the universe. By measuring the rate at which an object falls in a vacuum, it is not sharing in God’s knowledge – rather it is constructing knowledge through interpretation of observation. When Galileo looked through a telescope and saw that Jupiter had 4 moons, this was not sharing in God’s knowledge,”
All knowledge essentially comes through our senses or, as you put it, from the universe. That’s correct.
Then you go on to say that we “construct” knowledge. I think you confuse construct with discover. You see, Jupiter had four moons before Galileo looked into his telescope, the object was destined to fall at the same rate before and after the object was dropped. The knowledge was there: it wasn’t invented or constructed.
Kel:
“Knowledge is not “revealed”, it is derived from the universe. By measuring the rate at which an object falls in a vacuum, it is not sharing in God’s knowledge – rather it is constructing knowledge through interpretation of observation. When Galileo looked through a telescope and saw that Jupiter had 4 moons, this was not sharing in God’s knowledge,”
All knowledge essentially comes through our senses or, as you put it, from the universe. That’s correct.
Then you go on to say that we “construct” knowledge. I think you confuse construct with discover. You see, Jupiter had four moons before Galileo looked into his telescope, the object was destined to fall at the same rate before and after the object was dropped. The knowledge was there: it wasn’t invented or constructed.
The knowledge was there: it wasn’t invented or constructed.
I just became a little bit more dumb. If I keep reading the silly old goat, I will lower myself to his level.
You are insightful, K, but that quote was taken waaaaay out of context.
I see Silver Fox is confusing/conflating “knowledge” with “fact,” when “knowledge” is actually “understanding”
I think you’re confused over objective/subjective. Epistemic knowledge is not “BELIEF” – For me, subjectively, in that mode of knowing, he exists ontologically in that mode of being. You apparently hold that unless
GodGanesh exists as objective ontology, on the order of a mountain or a fountain pen, then he cannot exist for you as epistemic knowledge and consequently cannot exist ontologically. But that is a problem of your knowing and not ofGod’sGanesh’s being. I understand that. But it certainly doesn’t mean thatGodGanesh exists “only between the ears”.What you need do now, Silver Fox, is attempt to justify why, when you read my rewriting of your inane blather, you don’t instantly become a Hindu.
SF is still going in illogical circles, digging himself deeper and deeper into circular sophistry. And still not making his point, if he has one. SF, either put up the physical evidence for your deity or shut up. Those who can’t put up or shut up are liars and bullshitters. And this is exactly what you are doing. You can’t put up, but you can’t shut up. So we have your number (666). Welcome to science.
Poe! Poe! Poe! My poe alarm wne toff the the moment I read it. Too well written and reminds me of Landover Baptist Church.
Nerd,
Alternatively, he could try and explain why, if you don’t need evidence to believe in something, he believes in his god rather than any other god – since the evidence for all of them is exactly the same*.
*i.e. ‘doodley-squat’, as Kurt Vonnegut put it.
I think you’re confused over what I’m saying. I hold that if God exists, God exists external to any mind. Just like Jupiter’s moons, just like the big bang, something either does exist or doesn’t. Your methodology requires the mind in order for it to exist, so either concede that God must exist outside of the mind and thus subjective knowledge is an oxymoron, or concede that God is indistinguishable from fantasy and thus exists in between your ears. It’s that simple, either show God is external or concede that it is a construct of your brain.
Wowbagger, your have a point. Maybe everybody should pick a different god for their “revelation”, and confuse the hell out him next time he posts. Might be good for an evenings laugh. But then, I think he would miss the point.
Janine, nice epithet…
Oh, and he’s fallen at the first hurdle, what a shame.
No you don’t. You think you know God.
You don’t have actual knowledge, you have a belief strong enough that it feels like knowledge. Certitude rather than certainty.
Wholly subjective knowledge carries no certainty whatsoever if you’re talking about something external to yourself.
Two people can feel utterly certain they know God.
One might say “God wants me to help the sick”.
The other might say “God wants me to kill the President”.
How can you say if either of these people are speaking the truth?
According to the bible, Didn’t Man effectively “steal” knowledge from God when he ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge? You know, the original sin?
Far from being a gift from God, knowledge is sin.
Furthermore, real knowledge of how the world works was illicitly granted to humans by rogue angels — who were imprisoned for their rebellion, while humanity was exterminated by a flood. (Though perhaps this part of the story isn’t on your approved reading list.)
Looks to me like subjectively revealed knowledge should be taken as highly suspect, because every time objectively revealed knowledge comes up, God smites the shit out of us. Clearly, he doesn’t want us to know.
Knowledge and facts are different things. We discover facts about the universe, we take those facts and turn it into knowledge. Facts exist external to a mind, knowledge doesn’t. And what I mean by this is that facts require no mind in order to comprehend them. Without humanity, gravity still existed. It’s not something to know, it just is. Knowing is our understanding of gravity in action. You cannot know without a mind, it’s that simple.
So back to the G-word. Either God exists or God doesn’t, he’s either a fact of reality or he is not. In order for us to know whether God is true, we need a means of learning about God’s existence. Your methodology fails because it requires belief in order to get knowledge. It’s circular, if someone doesn’t believe then God will never demonstrate according to your position. So this means that you need a way to get into that circular position so a) God has to reveal to a non-believer, b) God has to be a logical deduction from looking at the external world, or c) it’s a matter of someone by chance stumbling upon the concept. Option one is what the hope of Christianity is, option 2 is an appliation of the externalised knowledge as I was describing it, and option 3 is almost infinitely improbable.
I propose a simple test to see whether knowledge is revealed or constructed. How many man-made satellites are there in the sky? You can ask your God for the knowledge to be revealed, and I’ll check with NASA. Which way do you think will work?
Sven:
Was it? Ok, maybe, but… is that a problem? I was just indulging in a little late-night stoner quipping. :-)
Perhaps God can reveal to you the secrets of cold fusion, perhaps of time travel or even interstellar travel. Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask God how many earth-like planets there are in a) the universe, b) our galaxy, c) in our outer spiral arm. Perhaps a question of how the origin of life came about would be nice too. Or even ask God to reveal where Saddam hid those pesky WMDs. Why bother spying on other nations, why bother spying on individuals?
Subjective epistemic knowledge trumps rational inquiry so God should be able to reveal all those truths that we are spending trillions of dollars on. Why bother with particle smashers to reveal the fundamentals of the universe? Why bother spending billions on research into alternate energy sources or even where to harvest current energy resources? Why bother putting CCTV cameras in shops and public areas to keep the public safe / catch criminals / spy on hot girls? Why bother doing anything at all if truth is simply divinely revealed?
The fact of the matter is that the human race progressed in knowledge whenever it decided to stop using subjective epistemic knowledge and instead started to look at the world for what it is. Our entire modern civilisation is built on the notion that if something works, then it has to work beyond the subjective. And look at how far we have come. The computer shows that the method of constructing knowledge through inquiry into the universe is much much much much much more effective than waiting to the holy spirit to reveal it. Your method of ascertaining knowledge has been shown to be ineffective, completely useless. And you yourself know this, otherwise you’d be praying to God to reveal your conversation to me as opposed to plugging into the internet.
I see Silver Fox is confusing/conflating “knowledge” with “fact,” when “knowledge” is actually “understanding”
Understanding is intellectual competence, which requires knowledge but isn’t the same thing as knowledge. And knowledge is comprised of, and is a subset of, facts: if one knows P, then P must be a fact. Facts themselves are constructed — google “theory laden”.
SF’s problem is not confusing knowledge with fact, which is an ordinary secular question of epistemology, it’s his utterly nonsensical claim that god is omniscient -> theism (belief in god) is foundational to knowledge.
Kel:
“Knowledge is not “revealed”, it is derived from the universe. By measuring the rate at which an object falls in a vacuum, it is not sharing in God’s knowledge – rather it is constructing knowledge through interpretation of observation. When Galileo looked through a telescope and saw that Jupiter had 4 moons, this was not sharing in God’s knowledge,”
All knowledge essentially comes through our senses or, as you put it, from the universe. That’s correct.
Then you go on to say that we “construct” knowledge. I think you confuse construct with discover. You see, Jupiter had four moons before Galileo looked into his telescope, the object was destined to fall at the same rate before and after the object was dropped. The knowledge was there: it wasn’t invented or constructed.
Silver Fox, you are still confusing “fact” with “understanding”
That, and you have refused to demonstrate how GOD = knowledge.
The knowledge was there: it wasn’t invented or constructed.
holy fuck! I knew if I just looked hard enough, I’d find the plans to build my dream car written in the sand on the beach.
SF: the man who is sure that knowledge lies somewhere up his own ass, if he could just shove his head a little further in…
He’s got a habit of attributing qualities to his god without having any reason to do so. For a good laugh, ask him why he believes there can be only one god – I think you’ll find the response quite amusing.
A while back he came up with the brilliant idea of claiming that atheism is invalid because his god’s non-existence cannot be proved. I felt obliged to point out to him that, using that logic, Christianity is invalid because it can’t prove the non-existence of the gods of other religions.
His response was a baffling succession of assertions regarding the alleged nature of his god – none of which, of course, he could support.
Kel
“On my mother’s old car, she used to have a bumper sticker that said “the more I believe in angels, the more I see them.” So how is that different to subjective epistemic knowledge?
Your mother’s bumper sticker told you that she had no KNOWLEDGE of angels. It said she had a BELIEF. you wouldn’t put a sticker on your car reading, “I believe Obama is President of the United States”, or would you?
Silver Fox, the difference between ‘believing’ Obama is president and ‘believing’ in angels is that, for the former, the belief is irrelevant – since we can show that Obama is president whether or not people believe he is.
Can you do the same for angels? Or your god, for that matter?
Kel’s point stands. All you have is your belief, which, without evidence, means nothing. Anyone can believe in anything; it doesn’t make it true – no matter how much they want it to be.
The only difference between belief and your supposed “subjective knowledge” — if there is any, beyond semantics — is the degree of conviction involved.
That someone says that they believe angels exist, rather than assert that they know angels exist, could perhaps be seen as a tacit admission that they’re aware of the lack of objective evidence. Qualitatively, there is no difference between the two.
(Aside, of course, from the butchering of the language that allows “knowledge” to refer to something without objective meaning. The justification is missing from Plato’s “justified true belief”.)
I always love watching little children FREAK OUT when Jan Crouch tries to hug and/or cuddle them. You can always see the exact moment in which they realize that Jan Crouch’s tear-streaked Face of Doom is coming in for a kiss.
Your mother’s bumper sticker told you that she had no KNOWLEDGE of angels. It said she had a BELIEF.
What a nitwit. It referred to seeing angels. By claiming to see them, she claimed they were real. And it was her belief in them that reified them … just like with you, but she was honest about it.
you wouldn’t put a sticker on your car reading, “I believe Obama is President of the United States”, or would you?
I might if it had a picture of his birth certificate on it and I lived in a town full of right wing whack jobs sporting bumper stickers saying they don’t believe it, fool. And one can imagine them having another bumper sticker saying “I have subjective epistemic knowledge that Obama is a Muslim” — their claim to knowledge would be no less credible than yours.
Dig up, stupid.
You entirely missed the point. It is exactly the same principle of confirmation bias that you are doing, that you need belief in order to confirm belief. You are saying that you only know of God’s existence if you first believe in God’s existence, I’m saying that it’s a load of crap because your mind is just confirming your beliefs.
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true
Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato’s formulation of knowledge as “justified true belief”.
If you are going to try and get out of the point by playing semantics, at least understand the causal relationship between the words you are trying to distinguish. My mother’s belief in angels is justified by seeing them, just as your belief in God is justified by experiencing God. By arguing on semantics you are conceding the point because all you are doing is trying to weasel out of the weakness of your own argument as presented elsewhere. I write several paragraphs which includes one with an anecdote about a bumper sticker, and that’s the point of refutation you give?!? Check and mate silver fox
Dig up, stupid.
You entirely missed the point. It is exactly the same principle of confirmation bias that you are doing, that you need belief in order to confirm belief. You are saying that you only know of God’s existence if you first believe in God’s existence, I’m saying that it’s a load of crap because your mind is just confirming your beliefs.
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true
Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato’s formulation of knowledge as “justified true belief”.
If you are going to try and get out of the point by playing semantics, at least understand the causal relationship between the words you are trying to distinguish. My mother’s belief in angels is justified by seeing them, just as your belief in God is justified by experiencing God. By arguing on semantics you are conceding the point because all you are doing is trying to weasel out of the weakness of your own argument as presented elsewhere. I write several paragraphs which includes one with an anecdote about a bumper sticker, and that’s the point of refutation you give?!? Check and mate Silver Fox
Apologies for the double post, and the shitty formatting in both. only the word knowledge is meant to be bolded.
Third time lucky…
Dig up, stupid.
You entirely missed the point. It is exactly the same principle of confirmation bias that you are doing, that you need belief in order to confirm belief. You are saying that you only know of God’s existence if you first believe in God’s existence, I’m saying that it’s a load of crap because your mind is just confirming your beliefs.
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true
Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato’s formulation of knowledge as “justified true belief”.
If you are going to try and get out of the point by playing semantics, at least understand the causal relationship between the words you are trying to distinguish. My mother’s belief in angels is justified by seeing them, just as your belief in God is justified by experiencing God. By arguing on semantics you are conceding the point because all you are doing is trying to weasel out of the weakness of your own argument as presented elsewhere. I write several paragraphs which includes one with an anecdote about a bumper sticker, and that’s the point of refutation you give?!? Check and mate Silver Fox
nothing’s sacred @ 215:
Unless it is understood in the sense that God doesn’t merely know all there is to know but is Himself the necessary presupposition of any kind of knowledge about anything. Just as we only exist because God kindly shares His existence with us, so we only know because He grants us limited participation in His faculty of knowing. God alone is — everything else exists merely by participation.
Kel @ 205:
All knowledge of the physical universe derived from observation is indeed sharing in God’s knowledge. We only know anything at all because God sustains our intellectual faculty, just as he sustains our existence. If God stopped thinking us, we would wink out of existence. Ditto for the whole universe.
Kseniya @ 204:
It would be pseudo-knowledge only to the extent that you erroneously believe you can attain and possess it without the sustaining action of God’s will.
pilty?
knowledge by revelation is a conman’s game.
you’re just stupid enough to have fallen for it.
Just what drugs do you take Pilty? We need to put you on television to keep kids off drugs. Knowledge is derived from observation fullstop. You just complicate things by assuming God’s existence. Furthermore, the laws of physics are what sustains us, again God is superfluous to requirements; an unnecessary entity that can be cut away with occam’s razor.
But I’ll bite, pray tell how did you come across this “knowledge” that we are merely a manifestation of God’s consciousness? How did you come to that point? Can we empirically demonstrate this?
Oh, dear FSM, I left Africangenesis burbling away this morning on the open thread, and I get in from work this evening to find that Silverfox has taken up the mantle here.
Can we get back on topic? Otherwise I’m away to Orac and Terra Sig.
Do you think the Antichrist would eat bacon?
Unless it is understood in the sense that God doesn’t merely know all there is to know but is Himself the necessary presupposition of any kind of knowledge about anything.
You can’t rescue SF’s illogic by substituting incoherent nonsense.
Piltdown Man #254:
As you seem to be saying exactly the same thing as Silver Fox, once you strip out the bullshit, I’ll repeat my challenge to you:
1) Prove God exists.
2) Prove He is omniscient.
3) Prove this omniscience means that nobody can derive any knowledge from any source bar God, by any means.
4) This being the case, explain the knowledge and technological advances made by cultures that didn’t believe in the Christian God (such as the astronomy of ancient Babylonia).
‘All knowledge of the physical universe derived from observation is indeed sharing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s knowledge. We only know anything at all because he sustains our intellectual faculty, just as he sustains our existence. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster stopped thinking us, we would wink out of existence. Ditto for the whole universe.’
Does your ‘argument’ still sound as solid?
“I have subjective epistemic knowledge of God.” – Silver Fox
WTF is “subjective epistemic knowledge” supposed to mean? I googled the phrase, and got “No Results”. Seems even google recognises that the phrase is utterly senseless, and so refused even to list SF’s bletherings.
I think the fairest way to settle it would be a TV show where potential anti-christs do their thing in front of a panel of judges (headed by Simon Cowell, natch) and we the viewers get to vote. – Don
I see a possible flaw here – what if Simon Cowell is the Antichrist?
And you can support this claim how, exactly? Please do inform us where we can find the evidence that your god, if it exists, possesses these capabilities.
Another claim you can’t possibly back up – why is it you and the decrepit Silver Fox don’t seem to realise that your attempts flowery descriptions of your god are as worthwhile as trying to convince us that he wears pink toenail polish or that his favourite thing to listen to is Elliott Smith doing live Beatles covers?
Newsflash: you possess no facts about your god. Stop writing as if you did.
Pilty and SF, you aren’t going to baffle us with bullshit, so you need to respect this blog. That means real evidence that you aren’t delusional, and the best (only) way to do that is with physical evidence for your god. If you cannot supply that evidence, and, to date, both of you have acknowledged you can’t, you need to just forget about trying to show your god with bullshit words here. Our existence doesn’t make your faith any less. But your continued use of bullshit words to us makes us irritated with your irrationality. You always have the option of ceasing to post here. Make use of it.
Changing the subject away from God… anyone have any questions (non-obscene and non-inflammatory) which they’d like me to ask Viscount Monckton this evening? Since I know fuck-all about climate change, I can’t think of any myself.
I’m not going to click on the link, so I’ll ask here: “Wot, no dragon kings with alien lizard blood?” He missed a time-cube point.
Vorvadoss @12, perhaps the simplest explanation is an old one: “An empty gourd makes the most noise.”
Tassie Devil @ 257:
It’s a fairly common belief that he will be hailed by the Jews as their long-awaited Messiah (“Ego veni in nomine Patris mei, et non accipitis me; si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis“), so probably not.
And so, The Question has been begged to within an inch of its life. Well done, Pilty!