Jump to content


Member Since 11 Nov 2009
Last Active Today, 06:59 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Post a pic, any pic.

Yesterday, 07:39 PM

As if any university, let alone Harvard, would send back a personalized rejection letter. Do universities even send rejection letters at all? Or personalized letters, other than your name and address at the top?

they send form letters as rejection letters, and certainly wouldn't spend the time calling out the specifics that were wrong.

The girl who wrote this did it as a parody for her school paper. Then a friend of hers posted it online and it took off.

Now she's not at all happy that it's gone viral because she actually is applying to Harvard and she's worried they'll be angry.

Given she has it down as Harvard College, maybe the university will like her humor and will be a contributing factor to her admission

It was a joke?






In Topic: What is with the Christian hate?

Yesterday, 07:30 PM

can you expound on this?


I can try, but wording it to be concise and inoffensive may be somewhat difficult. Plus I've started to reply several times, only to be interrupted and my thought process has become extremely fragmented.


First, lets talk about scientism. The scientistic type sees that no empirical method of testing for a divine creator exists. A creator can't be seen, heard, smelled, touched, tasted, or felt. Therefore, to the scientistic person, no divine creator exists. 


Much like crossfitters who will not stop talking about crossfit, the scientistic crowd will not stop talking about its specific religious beliefs. Yes, I mean religious beliefs, such as the origin of the universe, the existence of a creator, and the interpretation of sacred texts. I see the same religious zeal here in the tinderbox from the scientistic posters as I do in real life from religionist people.


(I use religionist instead of fundamentalist because most academic papers imply the fundamentalist movement died out a century ago)


The fact that such beliefs are void of divinity does not necessarily mean such beliefs are void of religious character. After all, not all religions have divine teachings or events.


Further, in my opinion, the way that certain atheist posters here proudly boast about there being "no invisible man in the sky" and "lol religious loons" is not very different from the billboards promising eternal damnation if you don't offer 10% every Sunday. Neither makes the other side any points of view, but instead causes the other side to dig in even deeper.


A YEC arguing the earth is 6,000 years old is, to me, every bit as silly as Dawkins' polemic take on turning a creator into a testable hypothesis. If you're going to argue from an intellectual point of view, both YECs and Dawkin slurpers set both camps back half a century with their methods. Both are purely anti-intellectual. Science cannot prove or disprove a creator. It can only tell things that can happen based on our current understanding. To use science to refute the existence of a creator, in my opinion, puts you in the same camp as religionists.

In Topic: A Message From Kony Ealy

Yesterday, 04:53 PM

Oh wee mayne he DAT deal


oh for peak's sake

In Topic: Was beating Atlanta worth dropping 17 selections in the draft?

29 March 2015 - 11:05 PM

BOA was 99% Panthers fans against Arizona. That alone was worth it.

That's the first game I've ever been where the number of opponent's fans were in the single digits.

In Topic: Season 5: The Walking Dead

29 March 2015 - 10:48 PM

That episode built serious tension. The commercials during the last half hour though...