Offensive god-less Darwinist joke

A godless darwinist is in giving confession . It's a slow day and almost no one has come in . Suddenly the doors burst open and a drunken homeless man rushes in , sees the confessional , and practically runs for it . The godless darwinist is pleased that the man appears to be so eager for confession , and enters his side of the booth . Nothing happens . The godless darwinist waits a minute or so , but all here hears is a slight rustling . Puzzled , he knocks on the wood , and says "hello?" . The drunk says , "No use asking me , bub , there's no toilet paper on this side either !"

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What's the difference between Darwin and a large part of the Catholic clergy?

A large part of the Catholic clergy don't molest children.

A large part of the Catholic clergy don't molest children.

Are you implying they do?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]A large part of the Catholic clergy don't molest children.

Are you implying they do?[/b]

When I'm not speaking from the chair, you are free to interpret anything I say as an implication with a false hypothetical, like

If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most Catholic clergy do [not] molest children.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most Catholic clergy do [not] molest children.

Shouldn't there be an asterisk in there somewhere?

Originally posted by bbarr
Shouldn't there be an asterisk in there somewhere?

You are free to use any sort of asterisk notation you like in the conclusion of the implication.

For example,

If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most *godless Darwinists* molest children

where the string '*X*' denotes 'priests' for any X.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
When I'm not speaking from the chair, you are free to interpret anything I say as an implication with a false hypothetical, like

If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most Catholic clergy do [not] molest children.

That was a straightforward question, Scribs.

.
Take your "loss" like a man Aarvarkhome, and stop acting like a child who doesn't get his way.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That was a straightforward question, Scribs.

It sure was, and an easy one to answer.

Too bad you can't compel me to sit in the chair, isn't it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It sure was, and an easy one to answer.

Too bad you can't compel me to sit in the chair, isn't it?

Is a serious discussion possible with you, Dear Doctor ?

I am still waiting for your undoubtedly interesting and undoubtedly extensive report dealing with your trip to the Galapagos. Now thát will be very entertaining, I'm sure.

Originally posted by ivanhoe


I am still waiting for your undoubtedly interesting report dealing with your trip to the Galapagos. Now thát will be very entertaining, I'm sure.

[in cathedra]
I have so far been too lazy to compile my findings into a presentation for this forum. I have not, however, forgotten or abandoned it. I assure you, it will be quite entertaining.
[ex cathedra]

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are free to use any sort of asterisk notation you like in the conclusion of the implication.

For example,

If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most *godless Darwinists* molest children

where the string '*X*' denotes 'priests' for any X.

Considering that the Atheist Church covers up for the trangressing Darwins : how can it be said that most Darwins arent trangressers. And in that absence of details about the percentage of Darwins that do trangress isn't it a valid stance to treat all Darwins as trangressers: since the particular trangression has lifelong trauma on the victims?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.
Take your "loss" like a man Aarvarkhome, and stop acting like a child who doesn't get his way.

I'll return the toys you threw out of your pram last night.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are free to use any sort of asterisk notation you like in the conclusion of the implication.

For example,

If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most *godless Darwinists* molest children

where the string '*X*' denotes 'priests' for any X.

I've heard that most *atheists* like to *feed* and *care* for children, and that the *secular hierarchy* tacitly supports these instances of *general benevolence*.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
I'll return the toys you threw out of your pram last night.

jeez no1 was right hoe is a jerkwad