Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > No reason for a rift between science and religion?

Pages: (37) < ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... >

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,11:33    Not to revisit this but I just finished The Universe in a Single Atom.  This book offers a different perspective to those wishing to pursue this topic on their own.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,12:24    Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 21 2007,17:33) Not to revisit this but I just finished The Universe in a Single Atom.  This book offers a different perspective to those wishing to pursue this topic on their own. {Asks self "Do I bother?", flips coin, flips coin again, best two out of three, flips coin again. Damn.} How can you "revisit" a topic (or rather series of topics) you have repeatedly refused to "visit" in the first place? Yes, I know as far as you're concerned I'm a giant meanie out to persecute the universe or something but come on Skeptic, do you think people have no memory or that they cannot simply go back and read? Your assertions and denials and utter lack of engagement with the substance of any argument (let alone one that opposes your "views" whatever they might be) do not constitute "visiting" a topic and are a matter of public record. Stop deluding yourself. I'm chuffed to bits that you're reading the Dalai Lama though (This is a good thing btw, it's a British colloquialism for "pleased"), he advocates a very reasoned approach to matters (one which, incidentally, demonstrates my points earlier in this thread in part at least) Why start there though? Any time you want to deal with my actual arguments and continue what could have been an interesting topic, you're welcome to do so. Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,14:21    I doubt that there is any way to deal with your arguments Louis. At least from a religous POV. You have had me thinking for a few months now and I must admit that I can see zero evidence for a God /Heaven/Allah etc. I reckon that I would now have to consider myself as agnostic. In a way, that seems ok in another it is kinda disturbing. Long held beliefs are troubling to change and I really would like to see lost loved ones again. Then again, not having a belief in an afterlife does make me realise how precious life actually is. OH well. Guess I should try to make more of the life I do know that I have.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,14:40    Even though the post wasn't really aimed at you, Louis, because I've come not to expect much, I have no intention of revisiting the topic.  This was just a suggestion to anyone who may be interested.  BTW, you might want to actually read the book because you're sorely mistaken if you think the Dalai Lama's views in any way reflect yours.  In fact, your world view is treated rather unkindly by the Dalai Lama, or at least as close as he can get to unkindness.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,15:20    Skeptic, You actually make a good point. And it's one I deleted from the previous post (it was in a section I thought too mean. Amazing I know). I haven't read the book, and thus have no idea what's in it. What I do know is that the Dalai Lama favours an evidence based approach, wherever that evidence leads, he's said as much on many many occasions (even to the detriment of his beliefs as it happens). That at least he and I agree upon. Perhaps the nuances of this book are different, I don't know. I'll pick up a copy, I've been meaning to read more Dalai Lama! Oh and I don't have a "worldview" such as these things are. Which of course you'd know having, erm, and I hate to say this, well, you know, read, understood and dealt with any argument I have made. The thing is Skeptic, I'd bet doillars to dust motes that you couldn't even restate the Dalai Lama's views with any accuracy. Reading, comprehension and you are not close bedfellows. But like I said, any time you're willing to actually deal with arguments made and reality as it can be demonstrated to be, I'll cheerfully play along.. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,15:33    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 21 2007,20:21) I doubt that there is any way to deal with your arguments Louis. At least from a religous POV. You have had me thinking for a few months now and I must admit that I can see zero evidence for a God /Heaven/Allah etc. I reckon that I would now have to consider myself as agnostic. In a way, that seems ok in another it is kinda disturbing. Long held beliefs are troubling to change and I really would like to see lost loved ones again. Then again, not having a belief in an afterlife does make me realise how precious life actually is. OH well. Guess I should try to make more of the life I do know that I have. Steve, You raise an interesting conundrum for me. Amazing though some might find it, I have absolutely no desire to deconvert people/destroy personal faith. I'm of the opinion that what works for you works for you. What I am NOT content to ignore is the extension of that personal faith into observable reality WITHOUT any evidence or corroboration. It could turn out god(s) exist in some manner or another, it's not likely given the ones described thus far, but in principle I see no reason why some form of "higher being" could not exist. I am happy with "I believe this and it helps me in some manner", I'm not happy with "I believe this therefore it is true because I believe it". Skeptic and his ilk do the latter (and more). I'm also perfectly au fait with the non-evidenciary nature of faith, zero evidence of god does not neccessarily equate to evidence of zero god, or that belief in such a god has no use. Again it's the extension of that faith beyond its applicable bounds that is a cause for concern. Of course I'd want to see everybody adopt a rational approach to evidence and the universe around them, but I don't have any expectation that this will happen so I'm more than content for people to simply realise the limits of what faith can acheive epistemologically. That's not a social comment btw, it's a philsophical one, it bears only upon the issue of epistemology. Anyway, I'd say "Welcome to the real world" but you were already here! ;-) I agree btw, enjoy the life you have, make the most of the people you love while they are here to be loved. Strange isn't it, when the unrealities of false beliefs are stripped away, how life becomes infinitely more valuable and valued. Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,21:50    No, you're right, the Dalai Lama restates in the book that in the light of scientific evidence to the contrary Buddist scripture must be reevaluated or even discarded.  It is the boundaries and scope of science and faith that I think you would find interesting.  That is not to say that you would agree with him but I think you might appreciate his eloquence and the personal nature of his investigation.  Then again, I'm just guessing on that last point.  In any event, if you find the time, it's a good read and you might find it worthwhile.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2007,04:47    Quote (Louis @ Nov. 21 2007,15:33) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 21 2007,20:21) I doubt that there is any way to deal with your arguments Louis. At least from a religous POV. You have had me thinking for a few months now and I must admit that I can see zero evidence for a God /Heaven/Allah etc. I reckon that I would now have to consider myself as agnostic. In a way, that seems ok in another it is kinda disturbing. Long held beliefs are troubling to change and I really would like to see lost loved ones again. Then again, not having a belief in an afterlife does make me realise how precious life actually is. OH well. Guess I should try to make more of the life I do know that I have. Steve, You raise an interesting conundrum for me. Amazing though some might find it, I have absolutely no desire to deconvert people/destroy personal faith. I'm of the opinion that what works for you works for you. What I am NOT content to ignore is the extension of that personal faith into observable reality WITHOUT any evidence or corroboration. It could turn out god(s) exist in some manner or another, it's not likely given the ones described thus far, but in principle I see no reason why some form of "higher being" could not exist. I am happy with "I believe this and it helps me in some manner", I'm not happy with "I believe this therefore it is true because I believe it". Skeptic and his ilk do the latter (and more). I'm also perfectly au fait with the non-evidenciary nature of faith, zero evidence of god does not neccessarily equate to evidence of zero god, or that belief in such a god has no use. Again it's the extension of that faith beyond its applicable bounds that is a cause for concern. Of course I'd want to see everybody adopt a rational approach to evidence and the universe around them, but I don't have any expectation that this will happen so I'm more than content for people to simply realise the limits of what faith can acheive epistemologically. That's not a social comment btw, it's a philsophical one, it bears only upon the issue of epistemology. Anyway, I'd say "Welcome to the real world" but you were already here! ;-) I agree btw, enjoy the life you have, make the most of the people you love while they are here to be loved. Strange isn't it, when the unrealities of false beliefs are stripped away, how life becomes infinitely more valuable and valued. Louis You are correct about life seeming more valuable without a belief in an afterlife. Pretty much reminds me of this cheesy song; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mHaFMqde6A A tad corny but not a bad way to live. Now if I could just get my ass in gear... Quote What I am NOT content to ignore is the extension of that personal faith into observable reality WITHOUT any evidence or corroboration. It could turn out god(s) exist in some manner or another I agree. Religious fruitcakes are very dangerous. Death threats about jokes make me uncomfortable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs All over cartoons. Nice to know that these are UK citizens.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2007,05:13    Steve, If it were only the fruitcakes who did this, I'd be out of a hobby! Louis -------------- Bye.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2007,20:26    Louis when you get done deconverting all the believers, you and skeptic should swap handles. Not that the artist currently known as skeptic would be better served as Louis, but perhaps otherwise.  And this would free him up to be Obliviot. I just thought I would add this part.  Louis you have converted me to be a Jehovah's Witness.  The strength and cogency of your arguments are irrefutable and strip me of all my inborn (satanic) defenses.  So, if I am one of the 144,000 that makes it to Heaven, I will pray that Yahweh takes mercy on your godless little materialist soul that hates puppies and strangles little old quadraplegic eskimo lesbian nuns.   So, anytime you want to take this show to UD, there is a sockpuppet school out there I heard.  it's called UD. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2007,23:59    Quote (Louis @ Nov. 22 2007,06:13) Steve, If it were only the fruitcakes who did this, I'd be out of a hobby! Louis "mmmm fruit cake...." drool drool drool

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,09:29    Steve and/or Wes, I've been watching the conversation in this thread, to see where it would go. While Stephen does make an excellent and topical point about Fundies' inability to let go of their nonsense for any reason short of their own demise, it was probably not phrased as well as it might have been and the conversation has keyed on that and whether it was humor for a while now. If you get a moment, I'd appreciate it if one of you might move everything from that comment to this one to the BW, with the exception of Steve's Homer Simpson illustration which was in response to something said earlier. I'll duplicate this note to you both via PM. Thanks, BWButtonless Lou -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,09:36    Hey, whilst your policing the thread can you get Skeptic to deal with arguments as they are put to him? Do you have a stick that big? EDIT: Actually, I'd ask you not to move these things. This thread was set up by me for Skeptic to defend a specific set of claims. That he cannot do so and that he has to resort to assumptions of hostility (even to the extent of seeing threats of violence in obviously humourously intended comments) and persecution to distract from the fact that he cannot do so is very releavnt to the topic of this thread and the way it has progressed. Please leave those posts where they are. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,10:17    I have a little proposal: Louis' Law: In any debate or conversation where a topic is discussed in which two more people disagree about aspects of that topic, the probability of that discussion topic to mutate into "offense trolling"* and discussion of offense trolling increases proportionally with the length of debate or conversation. This is independent of medium, i.e it could be online in chat or on a message board, or in a spoken conversation etc. I.e. As a discussion progresses the chance of offense trolling occuring increases to 1. The term "offense trolling" is only applicable IF the person doing the pupported "offense trolling" has not actually presented a coherent argument or case and/or has failed to counter or comprehend the opposing argument or case. It is specifcally the use of personal "offense", or its cognates, to distract from the inability/vacuity of the partipant/argument. [ADDED IN EDIT] It is the juxtaposition between the stated concern for productive discourse and the demonstrable inability of the offense troll to engage in it that delineates the fundamental tension at play here. Corollary to Louis' Law: The person/people/side who start the offense trolling is the person incapable of defending their argument, or is defending an argument which they either: a) know to be wrong and do not wish to admit it. b) do not know to be wrong but know that they are incapable of defending it and are unwilling to admit it. c) know it to be wrong, know they cannot defend it but are (for reasons unstated) unwilling to admit it. Thus they attempt to shift nature, mode and topic of the discussion in order to present a "subtle" argumentum ad hominem. I.e. I would be able to defend my argument/you'd see my argument is correct if my opponent was not so cruel/rude/mean/persecuting of me/offensive etc. Ergo offense trolling in such a context is an indication and admission of the vacuity of a person's arguments and claims/a person's inability to defend their claims. Louis *Offense trolling might be thought of as a subset of "concern trolling". The shared aim in this case is productive discourse, and the offense troll acts out of supposed "concern" for the discussion members' ability to engage in productive discourse. I.e. The demonstrably dishonest (whether consciously used or not) use of "offense" as a disruptive method in debate/discussion in roder to obfuscate in inadequate argument or defense of an argument. -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,11:32    Quote (Louis @ Nov. 26 2007,09:36) Hey, whilst your policing the thread can you get Skeptic to deal with arguments as they are put to him? Do you have a stick that big? EDIT: Actually, I'd ask you not to move these things. This thread was set up by me for Skeptic to defend a specific set of claims. That he cannot do so and that he has to resort to assumptions of hostility (even to the extent of seeing threats of violence in obviously humourously intended comments) and persecution to distract from the fact that he cannot do so is very releavnt to the topic of this thread and the way it has progressed. Please leave those posts where they are. Louis I second the motion.  Skeptic was too thin-skinned, and is "blessed" with a typical creationist "sense of humor" *(which is zero). *Please see UD Fart-Noise Thread, Jib-Jab thread, and UD's "brite" threads. Skeptic's whine, and Louis' response threads need to remain to give a lurker the proper sense of skeptic. My $.02 -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,11:44    IIRC Skeptic's not a creationist in the "antievolution" sense. I could be wrong, I don't remember every detail of Skeptic's initial forays here. He's certainly more than a little fond of the odd ludicrous proclamation, he's certainly and very demonstrably incapable of either making or following a coherent argument, other than that.... Louis -------------- Bye.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,12:50    Yeah well Louis all them big faintsy words and stuff don't impress me none.  All you had to say was 'Not Even Wrong' and then step out to the pub. Looked for and couldn't find a nifty essay about debating presuppositionalists (which i think skeptic might be).  Pity.  It would have been quite apropos. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,13:39    Good point. But tonight the pub has come to me! Yay for carry out! I do like the "not even wrong...then pub" approach, it's a tad unsatisfying sometimes because the other chap gets all "oh yeah, well HOW is it not even wrong?" and by that point I'm seriously drunk and into my bag of cheese and onion. Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:21    Louis, if at any point you wish to present a coherent argument that doesn't amount to "because I said so" I'd probably fall over from disbelief.  As far as persecution, don't flatter yourself.  I have no intention of portraying myself in any oppressed light.  I find it funny how you can miss the point of what I say so many times.  My comments have nothing to do with how I feel or what I'm defending and have everything to do with pointing out the idiocy of the conversation you and Stephan were having.  Simply reviewing the context of this board and those statements dismisses the  ridiculous "it was just a joke" defense.  Again, this isn't said to defend anything of my interest but to hint to you guys that you're bordering on stupidity and maybe it's time to engage your brains and disengage your mouths (or fingers, in this case).

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:42    Do you REALLY think they were serious?

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:50    Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 26 2007,21:21) Louis, if at any point you wish to present a coherent argument that doesn't amount to "because I said so" I'd probably fall over from disbelief.  As far as persecution, don't flatter yourself.  I have no intention of portraying myself in any oppressed light.  I find it funny how you can miss the point of what I say so many times.  My comments have nothing to do with how I feel or what I'm defending and have everything to do with pointing out the idiocy of the conversation you and Stephan were having.  Simply reviewing the context of this board and those statements dismisses the  ridiculous "it was just a joke" defense.  Again, this isn't said to defend anything of my interest but to hint to you guys that you're bordering on stupidity and maybe it's time to engage your brains and disengage your mouths (or fingers, in this case). Please point out anywhere I have argued for anything on the basis of "because I said so". Just one example, any thread, any topic will do. If you can't do that I'll simply go ahead and consider that you are a demonstrated liar. Again. As for the rest, you're, um, joking right? Thanks Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,08:40    Hmmm a few days of silence again. Well we all have lives to be getting on with. No worries about that. But I AM curious. Surely it would be trivial to demonstrate I am arguing for any case in any thread by the use of mere assertion that "X is true because I say so". I wonder why Skeptic hasn't done it? It can't be because he isn't interested, after all he made this specific claim. I wonder why he isn't defending it as asked? I think it's because Skeptic is a liar. I reckon I can prove my assessments of his arguments using his own words, I'm also pretty gosh-darned sure he cannot prove his assessments of my arguments using my own words. Yet again I think it is more than fair for me to accuse Skeptic of lying, publically and very deliberately. My opinion, a guess I can only base on supposition, is that he is doing this because he is an incapable incompetant with nugatory reasoning capabilities. Of course I'm happy to be proven wrong. I wonder, will the liar bother to do this? Or does he lack both the personal and intellectual integrity and ability required? I think it's time for me to break out the "Brave Sir Robin Award for Intellectual Cowardice" again. Well done Skeptic, you are this year's winner. And now for the Award Ceremony Song: Bravely bold Sir Skeptic Rode forth on t'Internet. He was not afraid to lie, Oh brave Sir Skeptic. He was not at all afraid To look like a total pratt. Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Skeptic He was not in the least bit scared To fail to support his claims. Or to make poor arguments, And not learn to read. To have his claims destroyed And his notions burned away, And to lie when cornered Brave Sir Skeptic. His claims smashed in And their heart cut out And their assumptions bust And their basis exposed And their incoherence shown And their consequences mocked And their vacuity-- Sir Skeptic: "That's... that's enough music for now lads, I' afwaid that you is all big big meanies WAH!" Brave Sir Skeptic ran away. Bravely ran away away. When asked to prove his worthless shit, He bravely turned his tail and quit. Yes, brave Sir Skeptic turned about And gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, He beat a very brave retreat. Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Skeptic! Louis P.S. Let's all have a golf clap for Skeptic and his AMAZING NON-EXISTANT INTELLECTUAL HONESTY!!! YAY! Three cheers: Hip hip.... -------------- Bye.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,08:46    Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 26 2007,21:21) pointing out the idiocy of the conversation you and Stephan were having.  Simply reviewing the context of this board and those statements dismisses the  ridiculous "it was just a joke" defense.  Again, this isn't said to defend anything of my interest but to hint to you guys that you're bordering on stupidity and maybe it's time to engage your brains and disengage your mouths (or fingers, in this case). Are you (sorry Steve, Lou and Wes) out of your tiny fucking mind? Seriously, have you gone totally insane? You seriously think that anyone on this board wants to kill fundies (or anyone, for that matter)? If that is the case, you're madder than Mad Jack McMad, winner of this years Mr Mad competition. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,09:03    HE SAID "FUCK"!!!!! I'M OFFENDED!!!! IT MEANS HE WANTS TO RAPE AND KILL ME!!!!! SERIOUSLY!!!!!! HE IS BORDERING ON STUPIDITY ETC!!!! About right? Louis P.S. I want to kill fundies. Uh huh. Oh yeah. I really, really do. I want to put them in a big vat of killing stuff and kill them until they are dead. Really dead, not like, pretend TV dead but PROPER not coming back (unless they is Jebus) dead. I even have an argument that supports this. Are you ready: I say killing fundies is right and proper and good and everyone should do it BECAUSE I SAY SO. There, that should be good enough. Ok, now I don't have to defend that, obviously, it's right and true and completely unarguable. I have spoken therefore it is true. In no way do I have to defend that. In fact asking me to defend it just shows how wicked and mean you are because you're not allowing me to exchange my opinion with you, which because I said it is at least as valid as anything you can say, if not more because I believe in Jebus. So there. With knobs on. EDITTED TO ADD: P.P.S. It should also go without saying that I wish to bathe in their blood, piss in their egg nog and use the flayed skin of their children as a series of special hats. -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,16:26    I have to apologize for the long delay but life has gotten in the way, no that that's a bad thing.  I was actually formulating an fairly extensive response when I came to the sudden realization that I was wasting my time.  For one thing, I'm dealing with an individual that doesn't know the meaning of very basic words like liar and opinion.  So really, what's the point?  I think I'll pass. P.S.  I'm fully aware of the coming onslaught and I'm man enough not to be bothered by that childish behavior.  I just don't have the time right now for this inevitably kindergarten level discussion.  You may all carry on as you wish.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,16:40    Y'all hear that? apoplectic sez we can go back ta burnin'churches an' killin' fundies! YeeeeeHaw! What a guy. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,17:00    LOL, I didn't see that one coming.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,17:06    Quote P.S.  I'm fully aware of the coming onslaught and I'm man enough not to be bothered by that childish behavior.  I just don't have the time right now for this inevitably kindergarten level discussion.  You may all carry on as you wish. I'll make no bones about it, I haven't checked to see who is right between you and Louis, nor do I really care. While I am more inclined to agree with Louis' opinions on the original subject, you could well be right about him going off on one at you for no reason after that, whatever you like. However, I would like to point out I don't think it's childish to display where you either stupidly failed to understand a joke (irrespective of whether it was a GOOD one) or, alternatively, lied in order to make out like Louis et al are a bunch of homicidal psychopaths who honestly think fundies should be killed. ow, I'm not saying you ARE a liar, or that you are stupid, but boy, either you lied or made one hell of a mistake. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,18:36    Ian, I neither lied nor made a mistake.  If you go back and read the context of my comments you might see the intent.  Based upon the remarks made on this board consistently I made my determination.  IMO, those comments were not meant as a joke, they represent an actual sentiment that is shared by many here regarding the relative worth of a "fundie" life compared to that of a right-thinking individual.  Just a look back at the comments made at the time of Falwell's death reaffirm that.  No, I don't think Louis or Stephan have either the capacity or inclination to put a bullet in a fundie's head but at the same time I wouldn't expect them to shed a tear if it happened and based upon past experience they might even cheer.   We had that same situation in this country a few years back when christian fundamentalists were putting bullets into the heads of abortion doctors and very few members of the christian right made a great effort to express their condemnation.  That was equally repugnant and I would hope that we were beyond that here.  I guess that remains to be seen.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,18:49    Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 30 2007,00:36) Ian, I neither lied nor made a mistake.  If you go back and read the context of my comments you might see the intent.  Based upon the remarks made on this board consistently I made my determination.  IMO, those comments were not meant as a joke, they represent an actual sentiment that is shared by many here regarding the relative worth of a "fundie" life compared to that of a right-thinking individual.  Just a look back at the comments made at the time of Falwell's death reaffirm that.  No, I don't think Louis or Stephan have either the capacity or inclination to put a bullet in a fundie's head but at the same time I wouldn't expect them to shed a tear if it happened and based upon past experience they might even cheer.   We had that same situation in this country a few years back when christian fundamentalists were putting bullets into the heads of abortion doctors and very few members of the christian right made a great effort to express their condemnation.  That was equally repugnant and I would hope that we were beyond that here.  I guess that remains to be seen. You're insane. While I was in no way saddened by the loss of the "good reverend" he to me, as I'm sure the others will also state, was a special case. If some random perso who happened to believe in fundementalist religion died, I wouldn't mourn them either, just as I wouldn't mourn anyone who has made no impact on my life. Likewise, if one or more mmbers of this forum died, while I wouldn't exactly be apathetic, it would strike me less than the death of a friend who I see day to day. Point is Skep, you seem to think we want fundyism to die with them, we don't, we want it to die without them having to go first. There are a number of very special cases of people, with a great number of religions I would be less than unhappy to see go because of who they are and what they do. Just because he believed jeebus is coming didn't make Falwell unpopular, it was his hate speech, lying, and bigotry. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Pages: (37) < ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard