Mike Seaver Will Save Your Soul- Page 2

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:23pm

Good point, lil.

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:26pm

Behold the Banana Defense!

[Calvin]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:26pm

That's almost as good as the guy who used peanut butter to prove evolution is a lie!

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:31pm

"God has placed a tab at the top, so when you open it up, the contents don't squirt in your face."

What a waste of an accent.

[Calvin]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:37pm

If ease of eating is the intent in the creation of fruit, tell God his pomegranate blueprint needs work.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:38pm

Freud would have had a field day with that! Curved towards the face for easy access...

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:40pm

But don't let it squirt in your face!

Cal, God really needs to up the game. Papayas are a pain in the ass. But he did an excellent job on the apple. Just grab and go!

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:42pm

I suppose Satan created the artichoke.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:48pm

Damn you, Satan! Oh, wait.

[Calvin]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:49pm

And if I were an ugli fruit, I'd sue.

Now the asspeach, on the other hand...

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 2:01pm

lip-smacking juicy and delicious.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 2:11pm

Slate Downplays Cameron's BIG announcement, that EVOLUTION never happened because there isn't a Croco-Duck. That's why he held up the picture of one. It didn't just "slip out" he came PREPARED to play the Croco-duck card!

It really was pathetic. They tried to build Cameron up as a superstar instead of a one-hit wonder. Then pretended that he could have any career right now "if only he wasn't so Godly!"

I wonder why if God is all-powerful, why is it that he can only get wasked up has-beens to star in his movies?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 2:27pm

Cameron was once an atheist so he does have a viewpoint.

But I really wish they had intelligent, well spoken atheists. I would have liked to have heard a strong debate.

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 2:41pm

And you really thought the Christian contingent was well represented?

Updated On: 5/11/07 at 02:41 PM

[Calvin]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 2:46pm

The croco-duck argument is inane. It's akin to me saying that because I am a blond, it proves that no brunettes ever existed in my family tree. Because a certain outcome was not reached does not mean the potential to prove that outcome never existed in the first place.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:27pm

Quack quack chomp.

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:27pm

I believe! I believe!

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:31pm

Thank you for that, SG.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:33pm

I'm always here to assist.

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:36pm

You'll be assisting these heathens straight in the bowels of Hell, then.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:39pm

Kirk Cameron and the bowels are both full of the same thing.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 4:15pm

"And you really thought the Christian contingent was well represented?"

I already know the Christian viewpoint. I didn't need to hear it. I wanted to learn the atheist viewpoint, but their response was poor. Their response to Cameron's crock-duck was "who created God?" which is stupid because they don't believe in God. I wanted to hear their scientific response but they obviously didn't prepare one.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 4:39pm

I'll give you my atheist viewpoint:

Human beings are creatures who crave order and routine. The idea that we are simply born, live and die is far too bleak for most people to process and so they form a creation system to explain existence. This has taken many forms over the years, from paganism to Greek mythology to monotheism. In theorizing different ways in which "we got here," superbeings are necessary because humans are also too egotistical to believe that they are just another animal rooting around in he mud, so they reason that some "god" created them with a higher purpose in mind.

THIS atheist doesn't believe that to be the case. I don't have a theory of creation. I find the world far too complex and beyond my comprehension to try to explain the origins of life with a passage from a book. I do think that we did indeed "just happen," like any other plant or animal. No god or committe of gods had anything to do with creating life as I know it.

Religion is also responsible for much of the ignorance and hatred in the world today. Religious leaders use their influence over their followers to strengthen power and lard their wallets. It's much easier to control a population that fears for its eternal soul. It's also easier to keep poor people poor when they are taught that rich people cannot easily enter heaven and that they will receive their rewards after death.

This keeps people from rising against their oppressors and taking the power that rightly belongs to them.

Churches are MEANT to intimidate--the design, size, everything is geared to awe the believer and give him "something to aspire to"--meaning if one just believes, he too will live in a palace-church.

Most religion is geared around what happens when we die--humans are unfortunately cursed with consciousness that we will die and the fear of what happens next can become the basis for any and all types of faiths.

Most people don't want to think that when they die, it's over. But I'm afraid that is certainly the case. It's not a happy or comforting thought, but that's the function of religion--to give comfort when there's no hope.

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 4:47pm

I already know the Christian viewpoint. I didn't need to hear it. I wanted to learn the atheist viewpoint, but their response was poor. Their response to Cameron's crock-duck was "who created God?" which is stupid because they don't believe in God. I wanted to hear their scientific response but they obviously didn't prepare one.

So you did think the Christian viewpoint was well represented? To someone who doesn't believe in god, you think they made a good case?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 5:17pm

"So you did think the Christian viewpoint was well represented? To someone who doesn't believe in god, you think they made a good case?"

The Christian viewpoint was represented, but I think in the time segment that Nightline gave the story (15 minutes) it couldn't be expanded on. An atheist would come away with the question "Who is the designer of humans?" and "If evolution is an explanation, how come there is no proof of evolving animals, either today or in the past?"

The Atheist viewpoint was not well represented. I'm going to go back and watch the segment again, but I didn't come away the first time with any burning questions. In their time, the atheists just tried to poke holes in what the Christians said rather than present a strong argument for why there is no higher being or afterlife.