Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GunnerJ · 07-07-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Using humanity to judge God?

A kangaroo court and a clear mockery.

It would be pointless for me to post anything else here.

Hidden in what you call a joke is a very sharp point: if God is not answerable to his own laws, then they are not objective morals, and are only the subjective whims of a diety who enforces his opinion through tyranny. In effect, when Christians crow about how atheists have no absolute morals, they forget that neither do they: thier morality is only backed up by a bully of a god who doesn't play by his own rules: might makes right. If you buy into the Christian worldview, this should be a very shocking implication.

Defiant Heretic · 07-09-2003, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Back to the trial - without a lawyer for the defendant, I propose that the prosecution wins by default.

For one thing, the defendant has a lawyer, Groovy Cosmic Monkey. Besides, since when is a trial forfeit if the defendant decides to represent himself?
Regardless, I'm going to play devil's advoc-wait, that's not right. Deity's advocate? Defendant's ad...I'm going to take the bad guy's side for awhile to be sure the arguments used against him are sound. Ya, that's it.

Quote:

Objection. Confessor is creation of defendant. All responsibility for his actions is, by definition, on the shoulders of the omni-max being which created him. I move that his testimony be placed on the record, as testimony against the defendant.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the confessor was created specifically to perform said actions, the most the accused is guilty of is negligence.

Nialler · 07-09-2003, 07:06 AM

I would like to bring to the judge's attention the fact that the defendant(s) have not been properly identified in the charge sgeet. We see in the dock three entities, not all of whom can be proven to be guilty of all of the charges.

I propose a motion to dismiss the charges.

Failing that, I would like to propose an alternative motion to dismiss since my client(s) appears to have been suffering multiple personality disorder for a considerable amount of time.

winstonjen · 07-09-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant Heretic
Unless it can be demonstrated that the confessor was created specifically to perform said actions, the most the accused is guilty of is negligence.

Omniscience means that they were created for those purposes, with the full knowledge of them. Guilty as charged!

Biff the unclean · 07-09-2003, 03:56 PM

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole true and nothing but the truth so help you G�.hmmm we seem to have a procedural problem here. He's swearing to himself with his hand on exhibit 1

diana · 07-09-2003, 04:04 PM

Quote:

winstonjen quoth
The defendant has informed me that he would like to be represented by OJ Simpson's lawyer, in conjunction with Magus55 and the Iraqi Information Minister.

[Johnny Cochran]

I accept. The defendant is innocent of all charges against him. He was framed by a backward and racist cult.

All supposed "evidence" against him is hearsay. He is being blamed for the myriad crimes of the bigoted and hateful men, who will stop at nothing to have their way, when in fact there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest that he was even in the area! Or that he even exists, but let's stay focused.

The charges are shit
You must acquit.

[/JC]

d

Asha'man · 07-09-2003, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
[Johnny Cochran]...[/JC]

I sure hope he doesn't use the Chewbacca defense.....

Annabel Lee · 07-09-2003, 06:14 PM

Q: "You're dead, this is the afterlife -- and I'm God"

Picard: "Q, you are not God."

Q: "Blasphemy!"

RevDahlia · 07-09-2003, 07:51 PM

This is the funniest thing ever.

keyser_soze · 07-10-2003, 02:16 AM

Motion for the defense must be reviewed, as it was prematurely denied the first time: God is obviously not liable for satans works, as he is not omnimax. There is clear proof of this from exhibit 1. Not only did he not know where adam and eve were hiding, he can be stopped merely by the presence of iron.

We wish to humbly resubmit this motion for acquittal to the bench.

[waits patiently].

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2003, 07:06 AM	#53
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	I would like to bring to the judge's attention the fact that the defendant(s) have not been properly identified in the charge sgeet. We see in the dock three entities, not all of whom can be proven to be guilty of all of the charges. I propose a motion to dismiss the charges. Failing that, I would like to propose an alternative motion to dismiss since my client(s) appears to have been suffering multiple personality disorder for a considerable amount of time.

07-09-2003, 03:56 PM	#55
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole true and nothing but the truth so help you G�.hmmm we seem to have a procedural problem here. He's swearing to himself with his hand on exhibit 1

07-09-2003, 06:14 PM	#58
Annabel Lee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Let Buzz Stay!! Posts: 5,567	Q: "You're dead, this is the afterlife -- and I'm God" Picard: "Q, you are not God." Q: "Blasphemy!"

07-09-2003, 07:51 PM	#59
RevDahlia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Austin, TX, USA Posts: 4,930	This is the funniest thing ever.

07-10-2003, 02:16 AM	#60
keyser_soze Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: god's judge (pariah) Posts: 1,281	Motion for the defense must be reviewed, as it was prematurely denied the first time: God is obviously not liable for satans works, as he is not omnimax. There is clear proof of this from exhibit 1. Not only did he not know where adam and eve were hiding, he can be stopped merely by the presence of iron. We wish to humbly resubmit this motion for acquittal to the bench. [waits patiently].

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.