I lol'd, so 5

Brilliant!

Brilliant

Good site, five for sagan.

No sources and non-omg, non-secret nazi object = :/

Also 4 for Star Trek V in-jokery and big, blatantly-not-there god.

◄The ironic thing is most atheists still wouldn't believe in God if they saw Him face to face. They'd still try to find some way to rationalize.► Since when does god have a face? If ifs and bus were sugar and nuts, we'd all have a godparty. Until then: c*cks.

what the f*ck was the point?

Now you're their tool too.

Al Manar is also known as Hezbollah Television. It's a propaganda tool.

Only one news agency reported this "fact": AL-MANAR Television from Beirut, Lebanon. Lebanon being the country that had a big chunk of its territory stolen by Israel.

You can't even get your own conspiracy straight. The alleged figure isn't 4000 jews. It's specifically 4000 israeli citizens. Also, they weren't workers at the WTC. They were people who were reported missing by their families, and were later found after the chaos stopped. Three israeli citizens were killed during the attacks. http://www.911myths.com/html/4000_israelis.html http://slate.msn.com/id/116813 http://www.nocturne.org/~terry/wtc_4000_Israeli.html

You forgot comedy.

Why'd you remove the copyright? I call ebaumery shenannigans.

The jews also made you mentally retarded with their J-Beams.

Pray for satan to reap the souls of the sinful. May they burn in an eternity of hellfire, pained and suffering. Amen!

"Holy f*ck a saskatchewanian. I thought I was the only one." - Holy f*ck, a saskatchewanian who is ALSO NAMED MECH?!! also 5 for goddamn sasktel.

Five for using real logic. Fix that spelling though, hawkins.

That's right: you reversed cause and effect! That's the biggest no-no of all!

Wrong Direction: It is not valid to reverse cause and effect or to claim cause and effect in situations where causality is unclear. Guess what you did?

Reification: Treating abstract concepts as though they are quantifiable is not valid. Causality is a constant, not a physical object. It does not need a cause to exist. The assumption that causality did not exist before the big bang is flawed.

Wishful thinking: It is not valid to base a decision on an imagined pleasant outcome, and not one based in evidence or rationality. Your argument is based on various hopes (a benevolent magic entity, simple linear time, the ability for an intelligent creative force to exist without any mass) yet no evidence whatsoever.

Enthymeme: An argument is invalid when a key element of the argument is an unstated assumption. Your argument is loaded with unstated assumptions (the intelligence of a god, the linearity of time, etc.)

Animistic Fallacy: It is not valid to argue that an event or situation is evidence that someone consciously acted to cause it. Your assertion that a god must have invented causality fits this description.

Existential fallacy: When a claim is made based on a stated premise, but the claim do not establish the premise as factual, the claim is not valid. Your "law of causality" is this form of fallacy.

This isn't logical. The fact that you've tricked so many into 5ing you for "logic" is a f*cking shame.

This is like the perfect storm, except it is based on movies instead of the other way around.

If my comment isn't up within the hour, I'm changing my vote to a one.

This ytmnd actually sucks ass, but now it is official.

Five for efficient use of muppets.