OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[Hollie]

You're such a fruitcake you must have raisins for eyes.

Your lack of self-respect is apparent. Those who resort to childish tantrums in attempts to calm an emotional need to defend their sacred cows are both arrogant and ignorant. While freedom of expression and the need to defend secular institutions from corruption by religious zealots need not vanquish consideration for people of faith, one would hope people of faith would be sustained by that very faith when they perceive its failings. Too often, however, insecurity in one's religion inculcates a disposition to coercion: irrational hatred against offence whether unmindful or deliberate, or emotional connivance to impose the strictures of one's religious hate upon others.

Wow! Looks who’s back! Why…it’s Crazy Collie…the atheist fanatic!
Today your day out of the ‘nervous hospital’?

Good to see you….wanted to go over some of your insane posts…you know,
to see if you’ve …’recovered.’

1. Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes! Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Welll..at least one monkey.


2. Remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”



Now...write soon, y'hear!

As usual, you're stuttering and mumbling. You're reduced to juvenile name-calling.

That's a syndrome shared by the religiously addled.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your lack of self-respect is apparent. Those who resort to childish tantrums in attempts to calm an emotional need to defend their sacred cows are both arrogant and ignorant. While freedom of expression and the need to defend secular institutions from corruption by religious zealots need not vanquish consideration for people of faith, one would hope people of faith would be sustained by that very faith when they perceive its failings. Too often, however, insecurity in one's religion inculcates a disposition to coercion: irrational hatred against offence whether unmindful or deliberate, or emotional connivance to impose the strictures of one's religious hate upon others.

Wow! Looks who’s back! Why…it’s Crazy Collie…the atheist fanatic!
Today your day out of the ‘nervous hospital’?

Good to see you….wanted to go over some of your insane posts…you know,
to see if you’ve …’recovered.’

1. Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes! Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Welll..at least one monkey.


2. Remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”



Now...write soon, y'hear!

As usual, you're stuttering and mumbling is reduced to juvenile name-calling.

That's a syndrome shared by the religiously addled.

Hey.....good to see you, Collie!


Got a question for ya'


1. I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts. So......I'm right again? You are so much fun!



2.Then there was this: You wrote "...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea embraced by Richard Dawkins, among others, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Heck....I was hoping for some response.

a. But….you disappeared! Where is your answer? Ohhhh…hiding under your desk?



3. And one of your many obfuscations: "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
But….there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science. In fact..I wrote:

‘You seem not to be able to grasp the essence of the OP....that there is an abrasiveness that some scientists exude....as do you....when the idea of God or religion is brought up.

I'm not discrediting science, and, in fact, I agree with " Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. "
(above from Wikipedia).

a. Seems to me you have some pretend-opponent in mind ( I’m using the term loosely, in your case) and you’ll simply write some prepared jargon to an imaginary question…..true?



b. Responding to imaginary questions is not a sign of mental health. You should have that looked into.


.

 

[Hollie]

Wow! Looks who’s back! Why…it’s Crazy Collie…the atheist fanatic!
Today your day out of the ‘nervous hospital’?

Good to see you….wanted to go over some of your insane posts…you know,
to see if you’ve …’recovered.’

1. Remember when you wrote ‘There are a number of fallacies, false accusations, foolish claims in the above cut and paste.’ [http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-omg-science-attacks-religion.html]…and then went on to post fallacies, false accusations, and foolish claims, bolstered by….get this: by cut and paste quotes! Heck, Collie…you’re a barrel of monkeys! Welll..at least one monkey.


2. Remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”



Now...write soon, y'hear!

As usual, you're stuttering and mumbling is reduced to juvenile name-calling.

That's a syndrome shared by the religiously addled.

Hey.....good to see you, Collie!


Got a question for ya'


1. I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts. So......I'm right again? You are so much fun!



2.Then there was this: You wrote "...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea embraced by Richard Dawkins, among others, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Heck....I was hoping for some response.

a. But….you disappeared! Where is your answer? Ohhhh…hiding under your desk?



3. And one of your many obfuscations: "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
But….there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science. In fact..I wrote:

‘You seem not to be able to grasp the essence of the OP....that there is an abrasiveness that some scientists exude....as do you....when the idea of God or religion is brought up.

I'm not discrediting science, and, in fact, I agree with " Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. "
(above from Wikipedia).

a. Seems to me you have some pretend-opponent in mind ( I’m using the term loosely, in your case) and you’ll simply write some prepared jargon to an imaginary question…..true?



b. Responding to imaginary questions is not a sign of mental health. You should have that looked into.

You're just mindlessly cutting and pasting what you cut and pasted previously...which was refuted previously.

Shameless attention seeking?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, you're just stuttering and mumbling and your only offering is goofy name-calling.

 

[Underhill]

Religion is like having a classroom where the students have to show up every day but there's no teacher.

There are a bunch of books around and no one is even sure which one is the text book. Some students insist on one book; others argue just as hard for another.

Then suddenly, on the last day, the teacher appears and say's he's been watching everybody the whole time.

He praised the ones who chose the right book and sends them off to have cookies and milk.

And then he sets everyone else on fire.

 

[Hollie]

religion is like having a classroom where the students have to show up every day but there's no teacher.

There are a bunch of books around and no one is even sure which one is the text book. Some students insist on one book; others argue just as hard for another.

Then suddenly, on the last day, the teacher appears and say's he's been watching everybody the whole time.

He praised the ones who chose the right book and sends them off to have cookies and milk.

And then he sets everyone else on fire.

+1.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As usual, you're stuttering and mumbling is reduced to juvenile name-calling.

That's a syndrome shared by the religiously addled.

Hey.....good to see you, Collie!


Got a question for ya'


1. I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts. So......I'm right again? You are so much fun!



2.Then there was this: You wrote "...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea embraced by Richard Dawkins, among others, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Heck....I was hoping for some response.

a. But….you disappeared! Where is your answer? Ohhhh…hiding under your desk?



3. And one of your many obfuscations: "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
But….there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science. In fact..I wrote:

‘You seem not to be able to grasp the essence of the OP....that there is an abrasiveness that some scientists exude....as do you....when the idea of God or religion is brought up.

I'm not discrediting science, and, in fact, I agree with " Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. "
(above from Wikipedia).

a. Seems to me you have some pretend-opponent in mind ( I’m using the term loosely, in your case) and you’ll simply write some prepared jargon to an imaginary question…..true?



b. Responding to imaginary questions is not a sign of mental health. You should have that looked into.

You're just mindlessly cutting and pasting what you cut and pasted previously...which was refuted previously.

Shameless attention seeking?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, you're just stuttering and mumbling and your only offering is goofy name-calling.

Oh, my Crazy Collie....don't you even want to try to answer the ones you missed?

Such as ""...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’



And....I'm cerain you'd like to explain why you wrote "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
When there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science.


You'd like to tell me why you made that up abou fundamentalists and 'attempts to discredit science'....don't you?



Or else....you're kinda lookin' like a resident of the Hotel Califronia....trapped in your pretend world, leaping to heap hate in response to .....nothing

 

[Hollie]

Hey.....good to see you, Collie!


Got a question for ya'


1. I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts. So......I'm right again? You are so much fun!



2.Then there was this: You wrote "...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea embraced by Richard Dawkins, among others, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Heck....I was hoping for some response.

a. But….you disappeared! Where is your answer? Ohhhh…hiding under your desk?



3. And one of your many obfuscations: "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
But….there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science. In fact..I wrote:

‘You seem not to be able to grasp the essence of the OP....that there is an abrasiveness that some scientists exude....as do you....when the idea of God or religion is brought up.

I'm not discrediting science, and, in fact, I agree with " Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. "
(above from Wikipedia).

a. Seems to me you have some pretend-opponent in mind ( I’m using the term loosely, in your case) and you’ll simply write some prepared jargon to an imaginary question…..true?



b. Responding to imaginary questions is not a sign of mental health. You should have that looked into.

You're just mindlessly cutting and pasting what you cut and pasted previously...which was refuted previously.

Shameless attention seeking?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, you're just stuttering and mumbling and your only offering is goofy name-calling.

Oh, my Crazy Collie....don't you even want to try to answer the ones you missed?

Such as ""...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’



And....I'm cerain you'd like to explain why you wrote "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
When there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science.


You'd like to tell me why you made that up abou fundamentalists and 'attempts to discredit science'....don't you?



Or else....you're kinda lookin' like a resident of the Hotel Califronia....trapped in your pretend world, leaping to heap hate in response to .....nothing

I understand your anger and frustration. Your arguments have crashed to the ground in flames and your rabid cutting and pasting of the same nonsense has been exposed as fallacious and nonsensical.

The angry fundie persona is not helping. Neither is your juvenile name-calling.

Maybe a nice glass of Kool-aid?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're just mindlessly cutting and pasting what you cut and pasted previously...which was refuted previously.

Shameless attention seeking?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, you're just stuttering and mumbling and your only offering is goofy name-calling.

Oh, my Crazy Collie....don't you even want to try to answer the ones you missed?

Such as ""...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’



And....I'm cerain you'd like to explain why you wrote "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
When there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science.


You'd like to tell me why you made that up abou fundamentalists and 'attempts to discredit science'....don't you?



Or else....you're kinda lookin' like a resident of the Hotel Califronia....trapped in your pretend world, leaping to heap hate in response to .....nothing

I understand your anger and frustration. Your arguments have crashed to the ground in flames and your rabid cutting and pasting of the same nonsense has been exposed as fallacious and nonsensical.

The angry fundie persona is not helping. Neither is your juvenile name-calling.

Maybe a nice glass of Kool-aid?

OK....I can see you're embarrassed.

You were wrong on the above....and have no desire to revisit the defeats.



But as long as you're here....




1. Indicia of your….’sickness’….is the way you imagine voices making statements not in evidence. Like this:
"The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation." That is correct.

Then you imagine me making a claim to spead for others….

‘Otherwise, you’ll excuse me If I don’t accept your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers.’
I ‘professed’ no such thing.


‘Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such, I understand your insistence that your religion must be shoe horned into the founding documents of this nation.’
Nor have I insisted your fantasized claim. Is the fever coming back?



So....would you like to restate your posts along the lines of reality...of what was actually said?

You'd appear far less batty.....wouldn't you?

I'm just trying to help.....

 

[Hollie]

Oh, my Crazy Collie....don't you even want to try to answer the ones you missed?

Such as ""...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’



And....I'm cerain you'd like to explain why you wrote "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
When there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science.


You'd like to tell me why you made that up abou fundamentalists and 'attempts to discredit science'....don't you?



Or else....you're kinda lookin' like a resident of the Hotel Califronia....trapped in your pretend world, leaping to heap hate in response to .....nothing

I understand your anger and frustration. Your arguments have crashed to the ground in flames and your rabid cutting and pasting of the same nonsense has been exposed as fallacious and nonsensical.

The angry fundie persona is not helping. Neither is your juvenile name-calling.

Maybe a nice glass of Kool-aid?

OK....I can see you're embarrassed.

You were wrong on the above....and have no desire to revisit the defeats.



But as long as you're here....




1. Indicia of your….’sickness’….is the way you imagine voices making statements not in evidence. Like this:
"The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation." That is correct.

Then you imagine me making a claim to spead for others….

‘Otherwise, you’ll excuse me If I don’t accept your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers.’
I ‘professed’ no such thing.


‘Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such, I understand your insistence that your religion must be shoe horned into the founding documents of this nation.’
Nor have I insisted your fantasized claim. Is the fever coming back?



So....would you like to restate your posts along the lines of reality...of what was actually said?

You'd appear far less batty.....wouldn't you?

I'm just trying to help.....

You're really quite desperate for attention, aren't you?

Is there a reason for your mindless cutting and pasting... other than an opportunity to embarrass yourself?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand your anger and frustration. Your arguments have crashed to the ground in flames and your rabid cutting and pasting of the same nonsense has been exposed as fallacious and nonsensical.

The angry fundie persona is not helping. Neither is your juvenile name-calling.

Maybe a nice glass of Kool-aid?

OK....I can see you're embarrassed.

You were wrong on the above....and have no desire to revisit the defeats.



But as long as you're here....




1. Indicia of your….’sickness’….is the way you imagine voices making statements not in evidence. Like this:
"The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation." That is correct.

Then you imagine me making a claim to spead for others….

‘Otherwise, you’ll excuse me If I don’t accept your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers.’
I ‘professed’ no such thing.


‘Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such, I understand your insistence that your religion must be shoe horned into the founding documents of this nation.’
Nor have I insisted your fantasized claim. Is the fever coming back?



So....would you like to restate your posts along the lines of reality...of what was actually said?

You'd appear far less batty.....wouldn't you?

I'm just trying to help.....

You're really quite desperate for attention, aren't you?

Is there a reason for your mindless cutting and pasting... other than an opportunity to embarrass yourself?

Crazy Collie....don't you recognize help when it's offered to you????

Do you want readers to think you're stupid?? Or worse.....crazy?


You couldn't answer my question, you make up questions not posed.....

Here's your opportunity to right the record!!!
C'mon, pal.....you can do it!

Don't be afraid....I'll pray for you if you like.

Now, go back and answer those questions.

 

[Hollie]

OK....I can see you're embarrassed.

You were wrong on the above....and have no desire to revisit the defeats.



But as long as you're here....

I


1. Indicia of your….’sickness’….is the way you imagine voices making statements not in evidence. Like this:
"The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation." That is correct.

Then you imagine me making a claim to spead for others….

‘Otherwise, you’ll excuse me If I don’t accept your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers.’
I ‘professed’ no such thing.


‘Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such, I understand your insistence that your religion must be shoe horned into the founding documents of this nation.’
Nor have I insisted your fantasized claim. Is the fever coming back?



So....would you like to restate your posts along the lines of reality...of what was actually said?

You'd appear far less batty.....wouldn't you?

I'm just trying to help.....

You're really quite desperate for attention, aren't you?

Is there a reason for your mindless cutting and pasting... other than an opportunity to embarrass yourself?

Crazy Collie....don't you recognize help when it's offered to you????

Do you want readers to think you're stupid?? Or worse.....crazy?


You couldn't answer my question, you make up questions not posed.....

Here's your opportunity to right the record!!!
C'mon, pal.....you can do it!

Don't be afraid....I'll pray for you if you like.

Now, go back and answer those questions.

Cutting and pasting the same incoherent mess you've cut and pasted a half dozen times already won't tidy-up your mess.

 

[Toronado3800]

Religion is like having a classroom where the students have to show up every day but there's no teacher.

There are a bunch of books around and no one is even sure which one is the text book. Some students insist on one book; others argue just as hard for another.

Then suddenly, on the last day, the teacher appears and say's he's been watching everybody the whole time.

He praised the ones who chose the right book and sends them off to have cookies and milk.

And then he sets everyone else on fire.

This is priceless! And I hope not the truth lol.

Then again depending on which book you believe it just may be.

 

[Toronado3800]

Hey.....good to see you, Collie!


Got a question for ya'


1. I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts. So......I'm right again? You are so much fun!



2.Then there was this: You wrote "...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea embraced by Richard Dawkins, among others, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Heck....I was hoping for some response.

a. But….you disappeared! Where is your answer? Ohhhh…hiding under your desk?



3. And one of your many obfuscations: "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
But….there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science. In fact..I wrote:

‘You seem not to be able to grasp the essence of the OP....that there is an abrasiveness that some scientists exude....as do you....when the idea of God or religion is brought up.

I'm not discrediting science, and, in fact, I agree with " Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. "
(above from Wikipedia).

a. Seems to me you have some pretend-opponent in mind ( I’m using the term loosely, in your case) and you’ll simply write some prepared jargon to an imaginary question…..true?



b. Responding to imaginary questions is not a sign of mental health. You should have that looked into.

You're just mindlessly cutting and pasting what you cut and pasted previously...which was refuted previously.

Shameless attention seeking?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, you're just stuttering and mumbling and your only offering is goofy name-calling.

Oh, my Crazy Collie....don't you even want to try to answer the ones you missed?

Such as ""...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’



And....I'm cerain you'd like to explain why you wrote "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
When there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science.


You'd like to tell me why you made that up abou fundamentalists and 'attempts to discredit science'....don't you?



Or else....you're kinda lookin' like a resident of the Hotel Califronia....trapped in your pretend world, leaping to heap hate in response to .....nothing

So let me try to summarize to see if I understand.

No proof of the big bang.....it may have happened

No proof of the primordial souo....it might have existed

No proof of God....he might exist

No proof of God in the Muslim sense....he might exist?

 

[Underhill]

Religion is like having a classroom where the students have to show up every day but there's no teacher.

There are a bunch of books around and no one is even sure which one is the text book. Some students insist on one book; others argue just as hard for another.

Then suddenly, on the last day, the teacher appears and say's he's been watching everybody the whole time.

He praised the ones who chose the right book and sends them off to have cookies and milk.

And then he sets everyone else on fire.

This is priceless! And I hope not the truth lol.

Then again depending on which book you believe it just may be.

Now that is an interesting, and clearly honest, reaction.

Thank you.

 

[Underhill]

So let me try to summarize to see if I understand.

No proof of the big bang.....it may have happened

Incorrect. No conclusive proof. There is plenty of evidence suggesting such an event happened.

No proof of the primordial souo....it might have existed

We know it existed. Hell, it exist today. The only real question is if that is where life started. The answer may be yes. Hopefully someday soon we will find out.

No proof of God....he might exist

No proof whatsoever. Not a shred. Nothing that points to god, nothing that implies god. And nothing that even remotely points to any specific god. And no, "it's complicated" does not count as proof.

But yes, he may exist. The chances are much slimmer than the chance of alien life somewhere out there, but it is possible.

No proof of God in the Muslim sense....he might exist?

See above.

Do you see the difference? On the one side you have evidence, but not proof. On the other no evidence, no proof, god simply complicates an already hard to explain situation.

You are trying to create a false equivalency.

In scientific terms, the big bang, primordial ooze and evolution are theories. Creation and god are hypothesis.

 

[Hollie]

You're just mindlessly cutting and pasting what you cut and pasted previously...which was refuted previously.

Shameless attention seeking?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, you're just stuttering and mumbling and your only offering is goofy name-calling.

Oh, my Crazy Collie....don't you even want to try to answer the ones you missed?

Such as ""...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’



And....I'm cerain you'd like to explain why you wrote "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
When there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science.


You'd like to tell me why you made that up abou fundamentalists and 'attempts to discredit science'....don't you?



Or else....you're kinda lookin' like a resident of the Hotel Califronia....trapped in your pretend world, leaping to heap hate in response to .....nothing

So let me try to summarize to see if I understand.

No proof of the big bang.....it may have happened

No proof of the primordial souo....it might have existed

No proof of God....he might exist

No proof of God in the Muslim sense....he might exist?

The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and indeed cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang.

This barrier to observation is sometimes known as Planck's Wall. What lies behind it? A second universe budding matter and energy into our own, as once suggested by Stephen Hawking? A collapsing universe forming the cosmeg? A supernatural creator breathing existence from non-existence? We cannot know through logical or even scientific means. But that there is something beyond the wall is entirely logical.

An interesting theory on the creation (beginning) of the Universe is suggested by Alan Guth. The beginning of the Universe can be described as a quantum event identical to or similar to quantum mechanical tunneling. It's suggested that quantum systems can make discontinuous transitions from one state to another. The theory is that a transition could take place from "nothing" to the start of the universe, the universe would then expand by the process of inflation following the Big Bang. By the way, the Big Bang has been measured, at least the cosmic background radiation resulting from it, which is the "glow" left over from the explosion itself. Confirmation of this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two Bell Labs researchers, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Conditions that existed on an early earth suggest that is the likely environment for the emergence of biological life.

There has never been proof of any gods.
More to the point, every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphynx.

Dust, all. Antiquities. History suggests it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

It's already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why are fundie xtians so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Fundie christians defame secular institutions as godless because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods don't return to this earth, as gods don't prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the fundies. Ultimately, they know there is only faith and belief to support the "belief". As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're really quite desperate for attention, aren't you?

Is there a reason for your mindless cutting and pasting... other than an opportunity to embarrass yourself?

Crazy Collie....don't you recognize help when it's offered to you????

Do you want readers to think you're stupid?? Or worse.....crazy?


You couldn't answer my question, you make up questions not posed.....

Here's your opportunity to right the record!!!
C'mon, pal.....you can do it!

Don't be afraid....I'll pray for you if you like.

Now, go back and answer those questions.

Cutting and pasting the same incoherent mess you've cut and pasted a half dozen times already won't tidy-up your mess.

Let's review.

1. I've asked you to respond to questions raised as a result of your posts.

2. I use exact quotes of your statements so there is no misunderstanding as to what you said....

3. You refuse to answer....and post the same level of answer over and over, claiming something about 'cut and paste.'
But....you've used massive 'cut and passte' passages....and, I have no problem with the method.....
...but do have a problem with the fact that the passages are not related to the posts to which you are ostensibly responding.


4. It seems as though you are simply programmed to post those answers, no matter the issue at hand.

What can one conclude, other than you have..."limited" intelligence?



5. It seems that you are no more than a biased 'hate-bot' whose programming kicks in as soon as you hear any reference to religion.


But...I won't give up on you!
6. I'll give you another opportunity to answer the questions.


You can do it!

…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…



Waiting.

 

[Hollie]

Crazy Collie....don't you recognize help when it's offered to you????

Do you want readers to think you're stupid?? Or worse.....crazy?


You couldn't answer my question, you make up questions not posed.....

Here's your opportunity to right the record!!!
C'mon, pal.....you can do it!

Don't be afraid....I'll pray for you if you like.

Now, go back and answer those questions.

Cutting and pasting the same incoherent mess you've cut and pasted a half dozen times already won't tidy-up your mess.

Let's review.

1. I've asked you to respond to questions raised as a result of your posts.

2. I use exact quotes of your statements so there is no misunderstanding as to what you said....

3. You refuse to answer....and post the same level of answer over and over, claiming something about 'cut and paste.'
But....you've used massive 'cut and passte' passages....and, I have no problem with the method.....
...but do have a problem with the fact that the passages are not related to the posts to which you are ostensibly responding.


4. It seems as though you are simply programmed to post those answers, no matter the issue at hand.

What can one conclude, other than you have..."limited" intelligence?



5. It seems that you are no more than a biased 'hate-bot' whose programming kicks in as soon as you hear any reference to religion.


But...I won't give up on you!
6. I'll give you another opportunity to answer the questions.


You can do it!

…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…



Waiting.

Let's review.

You're an angry, self-hating fundie who doesn't understand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So let me try to summarize to see if I understand.

No proof of the big bang.....it may have happened

Incorrect. No conclusive proof. There is plenty of evidence suggesting such an event happened.

No proof of the primordial souo....it might have existed

We know it existed. Hell, it exist today. The only real question is if that is where life started. The answer may be yes. Hopefully someday soon we will find out.

No proof of God....he might exist

No proof whatsoever. Not a shred. Nothing that points to god, nothing that implies god. And nothing that even remotely points to any specific god. And no, "it's complicated" does not count as proof.

But yes, he may exist. The chances are much slimmer than the chance of alien life somewhere out there, but it is possible.

No proof of God in the Muslim sense....he might exist?

See above.

Do you see the difference? On the one side you have evidence, but not proof. On the other no evidence, no proof, god simply complicates an already hard to explain situation.

You are trying to create a false equivalency.

In scientific terms, the big bang, primordial ooze and evolution are theories. Creation and god are hypothesis.

Over and over the oblivious champion science, but deny theology the same language they use to support science.

I couldn't write a funnier defense of science then this:

" No conclusive proof."

"evidence suggesting"

"might have existed"

"it is possible."

"The only real question "

"Hopefully someday soon we will find out."


Imagine, if you had the sense to realize that you're the punchline of your own joke!




Oh....one more thing:

“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times



Luckily you're here to set them right.

 

[Pogo]

OK....I can see you're embarrassed.

You were wrong on the above....and have no desire to revisit the defeats.



But as long as you're here....




1. Indicia of your….’sickness’….is the way you imagine voices making statements not in evidence. Like this:
"The Founding Fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation." That is correct.

Then you imagine me making a claim to spead for others….

‘Otherwise, you’ll excuse me If I don’t accept your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers.’
I ‘professed’ no such thing.


‘Christianity is a proselytizing religion and as such, I understand your insistence that your religion must be shoe horned into the founding documents of this nation.’
Nor have I insisted your fantasized claim. Is the fever coming back?



So....would you like to restate your posts along the lines of reality...of what was actually said?

You'd appear far less batty.....wouldn't you?

I'm just trying to help.....

You're really quite desperate for attention, aren't you?

Is there a reason for your mindless cutting and pasting... other than an opportunity to embarrass yourself?

Crazy Collie....don't you recognize help when it's offered to you????

Do you want readers to think you're stupid?? Or worse.....crazy? <snip>

Oh trust me, there's zero chance of that after the way she owned you here. Her avatar could be a chunk of green kryptonite.