Only just noticed this thread. I struggle with long sentences, summary anyone?

‘Elfin is wrong’ indeed. Elfin is wrong?? I BEG your pudden? What perversion of thought could possibly produce such a preposteration???

I’ve been waiting ages for a good opportunity to use this one: elf – do you have 3rd party insurance for cycling?

Don’t need it. If I’m in an accident, it’s clearly the other person’s fault. 😐

Only just noticed this thread. I struggle with long sentences, summary anyone?

You expect a summary of a 1200+ post thread? 😯

Well I suppose it’s something like this:
atheists are angry because of bad things that happen in the name of religion
religious types claim that those things are actually nothing to do with religion
atheists say religion is bad
religious types say atheism is bad
religious types suggest that atheists are angry because they’re doomed
atheists and religious types argue about whether or not there’s a god
thread gets sidetracked into debate about the meaning of “peer-reviewed” 😉
stuff which got discussed 1000 posts ago gets repeated
nobody bothers listening to the video in the OP

I’ve probably missed out quite a bit in the middle there – gave up reading it for quite a while whilst they thrashed out whether or not god exists.

If I’m in an accident, it’s clearly the other person’s fault

Self-insurance via Tower Hamlets assertion?

But that atheist, claiming to speak for atheists said that they were angry, so in the same way that christians or muslims or whatever are held responsible for the actions of others who identify themselves as such, you will need to account for her actions.

I account for her actions by telling you to listen to the video in the OP – she’s quite capable of accounting for herself. You can’t give your interpretation of atheists being angry, then when it’s pointed out that atheists aren’t angry in that way suggest that of course they are because she admitted it. Not when what she says refutes your position.

aracer – putting the mentalist in fundamentalist

😆

gave up reading it for quite a while whilst they thrashed out whether or not god exists.

Who won ?

The Tower Hamlets assertionis particular problematic in these situations as clearly the fault lies with the non Elfin citzen. However this naturally means that the other person has by defi ition acted in way which was not very nice, the TH defence requires the victimto leave the scene, thus perhaps committing a crime himself, however as he is incapable of being wrong. Then either there was no accident or the TH dweller di not leave it, thus we end up in the Tower Hamlets paradox

Who won ?

Me, check the tags

I account for her actions by telling you to listen to the video in the OP

You watch the utts video, then I’ll watch the op vid

Me, check the tags

You’re god? 😯

You watch the utts video, then I’ll watch the op vid

Not watching utts until you prove it was peer-reviewed. Do you really want to go there? 😈

it’s the duck’s fault for introducing a whole number of random , y’know, duck things. If you’re bringing ducks into it do it properly. They’re about 18 inches wide…

People are angry, Kev, but they can’t explain why. 🙁

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU[/video]

I think athieists, God types, us, anyone, whatever all looking for a solution. life ain’t that simple unfortunately, so get on with it with ducks. fat bastards. re: Elf. people are assholes. so? nothing new.

You watch the utts video, then I’ll watch the op vid
Not watching utts until you prove it was peer-reviewed. Do you really want to go there?

Not really, because it makes your stance very clear. You are arguing for the sake of it and finding any trivial excuse not to engage with evidence. Any ‘proof’ i show you would only be further quetioned. I can’t ‘prove’ that the conference took place and wasn’t some elaborate hoax. So i’m not going there, but your line of reasoning is very simplistic

I’m quite happy to accept basic stuff like that the conference happened. Less willing to take at face value things you consider “obvious” such as that it being presented at a conference proves that it was peer-reviewed, when my experience suggests otherwise, and the evidence you provided that papers presented at academic conferences have been peer-reviewed didn’t actually prove that (it didn’t even make that claim!) Just to come back to another point you ignored, the circular argument that academic conferences are defined as ones where the papers are peer-reviewed (even if that was universally true), therefore a paper at an academic conference must have been peer-reviewed, still leaves the issue of whether that conference was an “academic-conference” within that definition. Not when I have personal evidence of scientific conferences where that isn’t the case (don’t get the idea they were mickey mouse ones either – nice official sounding titles, and numerous people who were world-leaders in their field presenting and attending).

I might be arguing for the sake of it (like most people on this thread, shirley?), but that doesn’t mean you’re right.

I’d suggest the fact you didn’t bother to watch the video in the OP, yet have commented on it also tells a tale.

Charlie, do you believe in esp?

I might be arguing for the sake of it (like most people on this thread, shirley?), but that doesn’t mean you’re right.

No, but it does mean that you are not interested in the evidence. After all if you are arguing about the credibilty of the evidence just for the sake of the argument rather than actually being interested in wheter or not the evidence is credible then that kind of proves the point. I can’t easily prove to you, beyond all doubt that the paper was peer-reviewed. But I think even you know that the work has been peer-reviewed, given the circumstances of it. The best i can do is to say that I presented at the same conference and my work along with everyone else giving proper presentations had their work peer-reviewed, but i know, you only have my word for it. So, if you are interested inthe evidence, then watch the video, if you are interested in arguing or winning and losing, then i suggest you chose a different partner.

I’d suggest the fact you didn’t bother to watch the video in the OP, yet have commented on it also tells a tale.

Well, you didn’t watch the utts video or read the paper, yet you were happy to have an extended argument about it. I’d also suggest the fact that you think that i commented about the content of the video in the OP, when in fact I didn’t, tells a more important tale.

Clearly you relish the battle of wits which is an argument,, it is a shame you came half prepared.

Charlie, do you believe in esp?

I am open-minded about it. I used to think it was rubbish, but having considered the evidence, I think there is some evidence for its existence. I’m no longer sure.

“TJ bores underpants gnomes” has to be up there in the tag top ten. good work!

Well, you didn’t watch the utts video or read the paper, yet you were happy to have an extended argument about it. I’d also suggest the fact that you think that i commented about the content of the video in the OP, when in fact I didn’t

Yes I did, and yes you did.

CharlieMungus – Member
“Can anyone summarise what she said, because i am not spending an hour watching that.”
Nothing new…

The best i can do is to say that I presented at the same conference and my work along with everyone else giving proper presentations had their work peer-reviewed

Well you could have just said that before, rather than relying on the argument that it was an academic conference and all academic conferences are peer-reviewed – anybody might think you were just after an argument. I’m not totally disbelieving of anything anybody writes on here – first hand evidence isn’t too bad. Of course that just leaves the issue that it wasn’t actually the paper in question being presented.

Of course that just leaves the issue that it wasn’t actually the paper in question being presented.

Why is that an issue! The conf. Paper stands alone. As does the journal paper.

Get a room guys.

I might be arguing for the sake of it (like most people on this thread, shirley?), but that doesn’t mean you’re right.

And don’t call me Shirley!

Cogito Ergo Sum. Cogito Ergo Deus Est.

Well, I find it an interesting philosophical concept, even if you don’t.

Good effort to raise the quality of the debate. I rather liked Descartes’ argument about the evil demon – goes to show that The Matrix was not such a new idea after all.

I can cope with the Cogito Ergo Sum, but the second bit was also axiomatic for Descartes. It isn’t for me.

HOLY THREAD RESURRECTION BATMAN!

Did you really dredge up a 3 month old thread to say that?

I’m dying to know which particular piece of spam dredged this one up again? any guesses

Erm…… nah. 😉

I’M STILL ANGRY!!

Because I’ve run out of milk.

Good grief! Never thought I’d see this thread rear it’s angry head again … 😯

it wasnt even spam.

djcombes actually revived this corpse just to say that ^

I didn’t even notice it was three months old. I came to it via tags. Does it matter?

which tag looked the most enticing out of interest? Was it VOLVO FOR SALE?

angry bingo wings angry birds aracer got no game argues more than elf CFH = silly charles wins charlie doesn’t ride charlieminga loves aracer CharlieMungus=winna charlies chocolate factory chukky mung= fool Cod botherers? Elf can’t tell when he’s being a **** Emz = AWESOME Faith Bar-Bee Jackson faithaggedon God botherers godforsaken Grief athletes Hitchslapped LOLVO FOR SALE Move along Elf Nob botherers? SBZWPWAOT tagaggedon Taggers=Cowards Taggers=Heroes thatcher = god? TJ argues TJ bores underpants gnomes Usual extreem atheists VOLVO FOR SALE WWSBZD?

TJ bores underpants gnomes

Wonderful juxtaposition there, I’d read that thread.

Up there with “Let’s ringfence the unicorn”.

… “We need to bore the underpants on the gnome”.

it wasnt even spam.

djcombes actually revived this corpse just to say that ^

He is The Messiah, and I claim my loaves and fishes. Thank you.

Christianity: The belief that a Jewish zombie can make you live forever: providing that you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically make him your master. All of this so that he can remove an evil force inside you that only exists because this woman (created from some dudes rib) was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magic tree.

Whats not to believe..!!

Human beings are actually highly evolved viruses but if you look closely they are mostly just a hotch poth of positive and negative electrical charges held in a sea of nothingness in an even vaster nothingness moving nowhere. What’s not to believe?
Thread resurrection indeed
“on the third day he rose again… 🙂

I flipping love the Volvo tag. It always makes me laugh!