Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,07:23

Actually, I didn't read that far.
Thanks for pointing that out, stevestory.
I withdraw that example.
I am sure that any equivalent example found on UD that is followed by criticism and an apology will not be forwarded.

My UD search may not be the most thorough, here are the parameters I used
"Judge Jones",
and then �Judge Jones� followed respectively by
hate, hatespeech, fool, disbar, atheist, death, fire, harm, hate idiot, kill, ridicule, threat

Google found the �delusions of adequacy� line for me here.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/785

Even the always volatile JAD comments there, with no reference to Jones at all.

Faid

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,07:30

And another sensible and polite commenter bites the dust, just for making mincemeat out of Dave's "evolution=atheism" arguments:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/960#comments

Quote

DaveScot,

Certainly Darwinian theory conflicts with some religious beliefs (young-earth creationism being the obvious example). Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller would tell you the same thing. The point is that it doesn�t require atheism. You don�t need to give up a belief in God in order to be a Darwinian.

Even the Wiesel 38�s definition of evolution is compatible with theism. They only state that the process of evolution itself is unguided and unplanned. It�s quite possible to imagine God creating the universe and then allowing it to unfold on its own.

You don�t need to give up a belief in God in order to be a Darwinian.

Of course not. All they have to do is pick a different God. Why don�t you practice that by picking a different blog. You�re just not fitting in well here. -ds

Comment by neuromonopolist � March 27, 2006 @ 1:52 pm

So, if you think that evolution does not interfere with belief in god, UD is not your blog? Noted, Dave.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. �And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Stranger than fiction

Posts: 22
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,07:32

Here's a sampling of hateful speech against Judge Jones, although none of it is threatening.

DaveScot: Do you hear me Judge Jones and Judge Cooper you unAmerican swine?!

Red Reader (referring to Judge Jones): The high priests of Darwinism have their �useful idiots�.

pmob1: Judge Jones considers himself a great �Science Guide� for school districts everywhere. What an idiot.

While I was pulling these up, I found this hilarious Dave quote from before the ruling:

Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn�t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won�t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,07:41

Quote

But Davescot said many times that hateful speech leads to hateful actions. PT is littered with hateful speech toward Christian/religious/fundamentalist people.

Do you spend much time at PT? There's actually quite a diverse set of people there (unlike at UD). You will find people who hate Christianity, people who hate religion, people who are ambivalent toward Christianity and religion, and people who ARE Christians and/or religious. All mixed together. When people bash all religions there or bash Christians in general, they get called on it. People argue there. It's what happens when a lot of very different people get thrown together in one place (again, unlike UD). What unites most of them is a desire for the teaching of real science not to be supplanted by government-mandated Biblical literalism.

As for 'hateful speech toward fundamentalists', that is a different matter. Much as I don't buy the idea that criticizing Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism, I don't accept that criticizing fundamentalists is the same thing as criticizing or hating Christianity. There are millions of people in this country who believe that fundamentalists are actually doing a huge amount of harm to this country. Fundamentalist movements are trying to destroy, control or censor science, and to dictate laws that would restrict the freedom or criminalize the beliefs of people who disagree with them. That is very corrosive to American society, and I see nothing wrong at all at attacking THAT mindset. Bashing Christianity itself is hypocritical and serves no purpose. Aggressive fundamentalism is a different thing, tho, in that it seeks to enslave and dominate others. It's a political movement. As such, attacking it is fair game. If fundamentalists think that's the same as 'attacking religion', that's their problem.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,07:52

There's no telling what kind of violent comments have been made on UD because they delete so many comments. DaveScot has deleted hundreds of his own comments after they've proven embarrassing. Who knows what was in them all. The point is, saying Panda's Thumb incites violence is stupid. "christianity sucks" is not an incitement to violence.

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,08:01

Apparently DaveSlot knows what Jesus's diet consisted of:

Quote

Ignorance of the history of various Buddhist sects is no excuse for denying it when it�s pointed out to you, Sartori. There are totally non-violent Christian sects too and Christ is all about non-violence - love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, thou shalt not kill, and etcetera are themes taught both by Christ and Buddha. Some Christians even insist that following Christ means you can�t eat meat because that entails killing. There�s no record of Christ ever killing anything. The most violent thing he did was curse a fig tree and he didn�t eat meat until (arguably due to translation issues) after the resurrection when he ate a piece of broiled fish to prove to his disciples he was truly risen from the dead and not an immaterial apparition. So you see, your initial claim that Buddhism is the only non-violent major religion is a crock of BS. -ds

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/963
Yup, cursing that fig tree was so much more violent than whipping the traders in the temple.

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,08:06

Quote (Faid @ Mar. 28 2006,12:18)

I know. When I read this, I thought "Dave pulled the evilutionist arsonists card again WHAT" and immediately checked UD... but it turns out he doesn't try to support it this time: he just left it hanging, as if the facts hadn't disproved it and its mere mention would validate it. Dave's dishonesty at its best.

To me it looks like he is explicitly saying that the posters at PT are church burners. �At the very least, it is all "Darwin worshippers" who are church burners. �Judge for yourself:

Quote

March 27, 2006
Another Boner from the Church Burners
Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it�s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible. They�re their own worst enemy.

Filed under: Intelligent Design � DaveScot @ 9:38 pm

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,08:10

Quote (GCT @ Mar. 28 2006,14<!--emo&

)

Apparently DaveSlot knows what Jesus's diet consisted of:

Quote

Ignorance of the history of various Buddhist sects is no excuse for denying it when it�s pointed out to you, Sartori. There are totally non-violent Christian sects too and Christ is all about non-violence - love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, thou shalt not kill, and etcetera are themes taught both by Christ and Buddha. Some Christians even insist that following Christ means you can�t eat meat because that entails killing. There�s no record of Christ ever killing anything. The most violent thing he did was curse a fig tree and he didn�t eat meat until (arguably due to translation issues) after the resurrection when he ate a piece of broiled fish to prove to his disciples he was truly risen from the dead and not an immaterial apparition. So you see, your initial claim that Buddhism is the only non-violent major religion is a crock of BS. -ds

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/963
Yup, cursing that fig tree was so much more violent than whipping the traders in the temple.

DaveTard is also committing the VERY commonly seen fallacy of claiming that the followers of a religion are the same as whatever its scriptures dictate. Jesus preached nonviolence, so therefore Christians are nonviolent.

(Judged by actual actions of its followers, it's hard to deny that Buddhism is the least violent major world religion. My nonobjective opinion, anyway.)

You're right tho, forgetting the whole whipping the moneychangers in the temple business is vintage Dave. Since he reads this site, expect him to alter that post in the next few hours.

PS: Am I the only one who finds the idea of DaveTard being an authority of Buddhist history wildly implausible?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,08:19

Quote

Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it�s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible. They�re their own worst enemy.

No, Dave is being very coy here. At no point is he saying 'wicked Darwinists burned down the Alabama churches', since somewhere in the back of his brain he knows that's unsupportable. He's just throwing out a lot of little bits of innuendo and trusting that his credulous readers will make the connections. It's as tho a politician were to say that homosexuals like fancy restaurants and dressing well and then note that his opponent just ate at an expensive French restaurant and bought a $2,000 suit. Pretty typical GOP 'debating' strategy these days.

The odd thing is that at some level DS probably does really believe that Darwinists burned down those churches. The lack of any connection would be more than overridden by the ideological necessity of the statement to be true. So even tho he's lying, he probably believes it's in support of something true, anyway.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,08:23

What about the title, "Another Boner from the Church Burners"?

Faid

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,08:28

Quote

PS: Am I the only one who finds the idea of DaveTard being an authority of Buddhist history wildly implausible?

As implausible as Dave the "agnostic" trying to argue that Christianity is less violent than Buddhism...

Arden: You're probably right, but the title of the post went beyond that to straightforward mudslinging: "...from the church burners". GCT is right, I didn't notice that at first.
Turning to a slanderer, Dave? You're really starting to lose it...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. �And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,08:57

Another extremely foolish aspect of DT's "Jesus preached nonviolence, so Christians are nonviolent" argument is that it conveniently overlooks the Old Testament, which does not preach nonviolence in any way, and which arguably has a bigger influence on American Fundamentalists than the New Testament. So Christians' scriptures really don't have much of a defensible claim to being nonviolent.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Wonderpants

Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,09:51

Looks like DaveScot is getting pretty paranoid (see the latest UD post).

Is there an atheistic Darwinist hiding under YOUR bed, Dave?....

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,09:56

Arden, you little church burner.

lol.

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,09:58

stevestory wrote:

Quote

I mean, GOD####, that is magnificently retarded. I mean, that post is standing at the pinnacle of a mountain, it's cape flapping in a breeze, sunset casting a golden glow across it's chiseled features, gloriously retarded. It is the ne plus ultra of tard. It is to other retarded posts as Michael Jordan was to Craig Ehlo, on a distinct plane above even the world's best.

DaveTard to Alan Fox on John Davison's blog, after a series of anti-French tirades:

Quote

You're like the ne plus ultra of stooge. I couldn't ask for better setups than you give me.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Steve. �If only it meant something to be flattered by Dave.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,10:02

Welcome creationists who followed DaveTard's link over here. If you have a moment, enjoy this link:

DaveScot Steps in it Again...Or, the Case of Missing Post 744

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,10:07

Keiths, thanks for posting that. I wouldn't have seen it myself. I don't go to JAD's blog. He's angry and unhinged, but it's not the kind of wholly ignorant babbling that makes Uncommonly Dense so amusingly self-contradictory and ironic.

Drew Headley

Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,10:43

Quote

#

If I may answer the question from personal experience as a parent; one pays the tuition at a university like the old Baylor because one supposes the faculty won�t be indoctrinating the student body in liberal causes like gay marriage, abortion on demand, and freedom from accountability for one�s actions. One also presumes the student body itself is generally more conservative in nature and more interested in good grades than good parties so peer pressure doesn�t lure one�s child over to the dark side. The same parental motivations are what�s behind the push for vouchers and home schooling at the primary school level. If I had to use just one word to describe the perceived advantage of a university like Baylor for their child it would be �guardianship�.

Contrarily, no one sends their kid to Baylor because of the great football team. Although I did get a lot of mileage out of Baylor beating the Aggies last year with a good friend who�s a civil engineering graduate of Texas A&M. Said I to he, �I didn�t even know Baylor HAD a football team��.

Comment by DaveScot � March 28, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

This my friends is a perfect example of Dave having a completely warped perception of reality.

Shirley Knott

Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,11:07

What, his support of ID and the DI didn't suffice?
How much data is needed after all?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,12:07

As I said before, I completely disagree with DaveScot drawing a connection between the hate speech at PT and the Alabama church burnings.
As he is very happily abrasive and often rude I wouldn't generally like the task of defending a lot of his statements. Then again, it would likely make him sick to his stomach to think someone was trying to defend him as he is not at all ashamed of his boldly-stated positions.

But the answer to my question regarding where in the UD discussions of Judge Jones is there hateful speech the equivalent of that found on PT has netted only two "idiot"s and a "swine".
You'll find that aimed at "fundies", or IDiots (often the same categorization here) tenfold on a single PT thread.
You'll also find suggestions that people should be beaten (not counting my withdrawn example) and the religious ridiculed. You will even find active (although unpopular) threads right here at pro-science ATBC dedicated to mocking the religious - threads which are not locked or removed, oddly enough, given the rules for participation here.
Although other participants may admonish some offensive commenters (if the hate speech that Arden admits exists isn't directed at the right religious people) the statements are not removed, the commenters are not considered excessively annoying and banned, and the ridicule is actually instigated by some of those with posting privileges.

So DaveScot's unsubstantiated connection between the hate speech at PT and the actual burning of 9 Alabama Baptist churches should be countered by his accepting a connection between his "swine" remark (and two "idiots") and the emails Jones received, none of which amounted to a direct threat?

Yes, I think that it is hypocritical to admonish somebody's actions while engaging in similar ones. But the degrees of similarity are miles apart here.
And when accusing people of hypocrisy an often-used phrase �is "don't point out the sliver in my eye when you have a beam in your own". It isn't quite as effective when you say "don't point out the beam in my eye when you have a sliver in your own".

Regarding the Jones threats, here is how UD reacted:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/948

Is there a similar posting at PT on the church arsons?

Stranger than fiction

Posts: 22
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,12:51

Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 28 2006)

Is there a similar posting at PT on the church arsons?

You're right. �PT should post an article reminding its readers to not burn down churches. �They should also post the following:

Regarding the terrorist attacks in London last summer, we at Panda's Thumb wish to state that we do not support suicide bombings.

Articles like this would significantly decrease the number of criminal acts committed by PT readers.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:02

Also, I did not support what happened to the Armenians. Sorry for any possible confusion.

Stranger than fiction

Posts: 22
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:04

Subtle irony of the day: �Dave calls someone belligerantly ignorant, misspelling belligerently.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:09

Quote

You will even find active (although unpopular) threads right here at pro-science ATBC dedicated to mocking the religious - threads which are not locked or removed, oddly enough, given the rules for participation here.
Although other participants may admonish some offensive commenters (if the hate speech that Arden admits exists isn't directed at the right religious people) the statements are not removed, the commenters are not considered excessively annoying and banned, and the ridicule is actually instigated by some of those with posting privileges.

I'm not going to respect your religion, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:14

Sanctum, I browsed the last 60 comments here, and the worst you've come up with is us "mocking the religious". Is this all you've got? Is that the worst sin you've found?

Sanctum

Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:18

Here on this thread?

steve_h

Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:31

I would like to add that I can in no way condone forcible deportation of people who are sensitive to offence they might cause to muslims, jews and/or jehovah's witnesses.

And I certainly would not in any circumstance �

Quote

kick in a dime to help cover the one-way boat ride to any far away port.

What *WE* Are Up Against!

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 28 2006,13:33

Well, you're making the argument that we're so vicious and morally bankrupt compared to Uncommon Descent, I expect you to provide some evidence, but the worst I see is you claim that some of us mock the religious. You got anything stronger?

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006