The Nasty NAAFI Thread About Christians

Higgs_bosun

On ROPS
On ROPs
I got to page 19 of this thread & it became quite clear that @deanol and @Higgs_bosun are one & the same.

Just a troll using both sides of the god nonsense to stir up things. Despite being linked several times Higgsy is yet to pop his head over the parapet. Why? They're the same person.

There's a level of psychopathy in both these posters that's staring to sound very similar.
Don't be ridiculous!
 
There is also this one, I've not listened to it yet, but I suspect it won't be terribly polite


No.

i was introduced to Kunt and Gang during a rather stressful period in one office I worked in. How it broke the tension, with laughter replacing our troubles.

Their "Fucksticks", an ode to frustration and exasperation, clearly wasn't strong enough and part way during the song deploys the neutron bomb of a phrase "Queen Mother's ****"


It was their tribute to Carol Vorderman that had me crying with laughter.


Please don't listen to that near sensitive audiences.

mmmmm Carol Vorderman.....

s-l300.jpg
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
No.

i was introduced to Kunt and Gang during a rather stressful period in one office I worked in. How it broke the tension, with laughter replacing our troubles.

Their "Fucksticks", an ode to frustration and exasperation, clearly wasn't strong enough and part way during the song deploys the neutron bomb of a phrase "Queen Mother's ****"


It was their tribute to Carol Vorderman that had me crying with laughter.


Please don't listen to that near sensitive audiences.

mmmmm Carol Vorderman.....

s-l300.jpg


fucksticks was the first one I heard, but other classics that don't go down well at family reunions include

Michael Jackson
and especially 'Jimmy Saville and the sexy kids'


do not click on this link
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
fucksticks was the first one I heard, but other classics that don't go down well at family reunions include

Michael Jackson
and especially 'Jimmy Saville and the sexy kids'


do not click on this link
Have you not got any videos of dogs barking at such a pitch that it hurts your ears? I can't find it.
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
Have you not got any videos of dogs barking at such a pitch that it hurts your ears? I can't find it.

Have you tried faceache or YouTube?
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
We haven't seen photos of his imaginary lesbian daughter, then we might have an imaginary psalm 69

Psalm 69 seems very apropos.

They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head

I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.
 

Smeggers

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

Smeggers

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I got to page 19 of this thread & it became quite clear that @deanol and @Higgs_bosun are one & the same.

Just a troll using both sides of the god nonsense to stir up things. Despite being linked several times Higgsy is yet to pop his head over the parapet. Why? They're the same person.

There's a level of psychopathy in both these posters that's staring to sound very similar.
@deanol is just a dull kunt whereas @Higgs_bosun is an unimaginative bellend who can't leave the SABC button alone
 
Supporting your arguments with something you have condemned as complete bollocks doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
But pointing out how the complete bollocks is complete bollocks helps build the case in favour of it being complete bollocks.
 
Belief should not be confused with "spirituality".

Religion is merely a structure. However, in the past it succeeded in instilling various "spiritually inspired" values in mainstream society in a way that "spirituality" is not able to.

That should be 'and/or' of course, but as the Apostles probably said when they were rumbles by the local infantry, "hey ho".
 
But pointing out how the complete bollocks is complete bollocks helps build the case in favour of it being complete bollocks.

Yes. But to refute an argument you need to use credible sources. On the face of it, Dawkins is trying to do the impossible, prove a negative.

In reality of course Dawkins is simply a narcissistic gobshite who loves the sound of his own voice rather than someone making a cogent argument.
 

BratMedic

LE
Book Reviewer
Well, I reckon that it's all a load of:
 
Yes. But to refute an argument you need to use credible sources. On the face of it, Dawkins is trying to do the impossible, prove a negative.

In reality of course Dawkins is simply a narcissistic gobshite who loves the sound of his own voice rather than someone making a cogent argument.
He's refuting the argument by demonstrating that the sources used by those making the argument are not credible. An argument that is made without proof can be refuted without proof. Other than that, your assessment of Dawkins is pretty good.
 
A bit like the FSM came about when Intelligent Design was supposed to 'prove' the existence of a god and was taught as fact in some schools
 
I thought this might be an appropriate place for this.

34345882_1727578827296658_4493873261611843584_n.jpg
 

Latest Threads

Top