The Devil’s Delusion

[Dragon]

Once again, it comes down to what sort of statement is being made on the basis of religion.

Are there statements that can be made on the basis of religion, for which science can offer no counter? Absolutely. These include, most obviously, statements of value (with one caveat; see below). Science is a poor tool for answering questions of value, which include moral assertions and ideas about life's meaning and purpose. This is just not the sort of factual, operational claim that scientific method is designed for. And there are other religious statements as well, mystical visions, or myth (properly understood as metaphor) which are similarly outside scientific competence. Not only can science not refute any of these things, it can't even TRY to do so.

The problem between science and religion arises in every case when religion makes statements, not of morality, mysticism, or myth, but of fact. And by "fact" I mean some assertion that we can use our senses and/or our instruments to verify one way or the other. A good example was the Catholic Church's position in the time of Galileo that the sun orbited the earth rather than vice-versa. Another example is creationism -- not the rather nebulous claim that "God created the Earth," but the more precise claim that he did so at a fixed date a few thousand years ago, with an unchanging mix of species, at the end of which he created a single male human being, later creating a female out of a part of his body, and we are all descended from this pair who lived some 6,000 years ago. Much of that is disprovable, and has been proven wrong.

Science is not the perfect tool for all knowledge of every sort about everything. In reality, it's a tool of fairly narrow focus and compass. Not only the proper subject matter of religion, but also aesthetics, law, public and civic morality, all of these are outside the direct competence of science. The only way in which science can even contribute is to the extent that factual information can provide necessary input. That can also touch on religious ideas even within the proper sphere of religion to a degree. For example, if a religious teaching holds that homosexuality should be condemned because it is "unnatural," an examination of the behavior of both human beings and other animals can show that there is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality, and so this does not provide a reason for condemning it.

But while science is a tool of fairly narrow focus and compass, within that focus and compass it reigns supreme. We have no other method for answering questions of fact about observable reality that can compare with it. And so, while religion does indeed have a proper sphere, outside the sphere of science, when it remains within that sphere religion never, ever conflicts with science. And that means that when such a conflict does arise, it happens because religion has trespassed into science's domain -- and will, inevitably, lose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So?

Like this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing of yours?

This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing.

I am arguing it is not so.

The reason that the scientific and the theological explanation for the existence of the universeare at odds is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."

What an ignorant fellow you are.

Really? What do you think the word "ignorant" means?

Oh? You're going to "prove" what "... an ignorant fellow [I am?]

This will prove to be rich.

I don't have to provide the evidence; you will.

Oh but there is. You provide it below.

Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.

Thanks for the evidence.

Despite the erroneous assertion that there's some "exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics", thank you for the validly logical conclusion as well.



You see PoliticalChic, despite your intellectually dishonest quote-mining, there's nothing about the Big Bang Theory that necessarily excludes the existence of this Creator, or Designer or God of yours, there's just nothing in it that requires one--and that's the problem that superstitious retards have with it.

Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs, and that's just retarded.

No. It just allows for such a suggestion to still be made by the superstitious, but the evidence does not suggest any such thing.

I get a certain amount of amusement when folks like you attack faith, yet have beliefs based on just as much faith.

Except you fail to demonstrate ANY of my beliefs are faith.

These assertions are what makes you intellectually dishonest. You just project your intellectual paradigm, in which verifiable evidence and valid logic are irrelevant, on other people. That's retarded.

But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."

Now, why is that?
Class?

No. It's because my beliefs (where founded upon evidence and valid logic) aren't retarded, and trying to demonstrate they are will only serve to expose you for a retard.

You're joking, right?

This is the best you can do?
Might as well throw in the towel.

1. "Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic
a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
Thanks for the evidence. "

Possibly you really don't know the meaning of " discrepancy" or "considered a problem for the original model" or "revised calculations" or "various reevaluation proposals" or "inconsistencies between" or "more inconsistent with observations rather than less"
or "very different from observations" or "a shaky measuring rod."


And you see the above as proof of scientific models???
If I were a Liberal, I'd be calling you a liar...but I realize that the Left has that
term trademarked.


Here, let me explain it to you in a manner that one of your ability might understand: the translation from science-speak is "Ooops!"

2. I really like the direction this argument is taking.
Let me suggest to anyone interested in judging the science vs. theology questions, take a look at the currenct Harper's (The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)) in which M.I.T. physicist Alan Lightman, makes a fascinaing admission, and then poses science's answer....

a. Professor Lightman (atheist) explains that there are fundamental forces that seem to 'fine tune' our universe so as to allow life.
"according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."

Guess where this idea is leading?

b. "...the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.” Ibid.

So, more scientists suggesting what this thread suggests, huh?

3. OKey-Loki....you're gonna like this part:
Know how guys like you, you know, those with a fear of admitting the possibility, answer this?

Mulitverse!
No longer a Universe with a consistent set of fundamental principles as revealed by physics!!!
a. "If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true." Ibid.

Now there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of principles!!!


4. You buying this?
No single set of fundamental laws, such as science has expounded all along???
No???

You're busted, Lok!
Our univese is too perfect for life to have been a pure accident, and if there is no God, then there must be infinite varieties of univereses with different fundamental priciples...and that means that science was dead wrong all along!!!!


OK...since there is no proof of any other universe based on alternative fundamental principles of physics........what has just happened to your view that science is not based on faith or 'superstition'?

Shredded, huh?
Tough day for you, Lok?
You have that deep-seated fear of being labelled a 'retard'...
...luckily for you, I don't use that term.

Hey...take heart...it makes friend G.T. look just as dumb.

 

[edthecynic]

Mulitverse!
No longer a Universe with a consistent set of fundamental principles as revealed by physics!!!
a. "If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true." Ibid.

Now there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of principles!!!


4. You buying this?
No single set of fundamental laws, such as science has expounded all along???
No???

You're busted, Lok!
Our univese is too perfect for life to have been a pure accident, and if there is no God, then there must be infinite varieties of univereses with different fundamental priciples...and that means that science was dead wrong all along!!!!


OK...since there is no proof of any other universe based on alternative fundamental principles of physics........what has just happened to your view that science is not based on faith or 'superstition'?

Shredded, huh?
Tough day for you, Lok?
You have that deep-seated fear of being labelled a 'retard'...
...luckily for you, I don't use that term.

Hey...take heart...it makes friend G.T. look just as dumb.

Well, there you go again with your dishonest editing of quotes. But then again, as a CON$ervative you are powerless to stop yourself.

If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true. Our universe is what it is because we are here. The situation could be likened to a school of intelligent fish who one day began wondering why their world is completely filled with water. Many of the fish, the theorists, hope to prove that the entire cosmos necessarily has to be filled with water. For years, they put their minds to the task but can never quite seem to prove their assertion. Then, a wizened group of fish postulates that maybe they are fooling themselves. Maybe there are, they suggest, many other worlds, some of them completely dry, and everything in between.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Mulitverse!
No longer a Universe with a consistent set of fundamental principles as revealed by physics!!!
a. "If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true." Ibid.

Now there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of principles!!!


4. You buying this?
No single set of fundamental laws, such as science has expounded all along???
No???

You're busted, Lok!
Our univese is too perfect for life to have been a pure accident, and if there is no God, then there must be infinite varieties of univereses with different fundamental priciples...and that means that science was dead wrong all along!!!!


OK...since there is no proof of any other universe based on alternative fundamental principles of physics........what has just happened to your view that science is not based on faith or 'superstition'?

Shredded, huh?
Tough day for you, Lok?
You have that deep-seated fear of being labelled a 'retard'...
...luckily for you, I don't use that term.

Hey...take heart...it makes friend G.T. look just as dumb.

Well, there you go again with your dishonest editing of quotes. But then again, as a CON$ervative you are powerless to stop yourself.

If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true. Our universe is what it is because we are here. The situation could be likened to a school of intelligent fish who one day began wondering why their world is completely filled with water. Many of the fish, the theorists, hope to prove that the entire cosmos necessarily has to be filled with water. For years, they put their minds to the task but can never quite seem to prove their assertion. Then, a wizened group of fish postulates that maybe they are fooling themselves. Maybe there are, they suggest, many other worlds, some of them completely dry, and everything in between.

Beets, it's so much fun responding to your rants, as they both establish you as the big, dumb teddy bear that you are, and because they allow me to reprise the point for readers not paying close attention...


You see, the claim to fame of the science caucus, to use the word of the day, over the religious causus, is that they have discovered fundamental principles, carved in stone, that apply to all of nature, forever and eternal.

But...physicists who have clung to atheism are now shaking in their Ugs as they realize that the parameters of our universe 'seem' to have been 'designed' to embrace, cause, support life!
And the 'Designer' would be....
...you guessed it!

And so, they have come up with an idea, based on 'faith'...meaning without any empirical support, that there might be an infinite number of universes that each have a different set of fundamental physical laws...i.e., the 'multiverse.'

This represents a major retreat by the 'science only' folks.

So you see, you are wrong, again, in stating that I might be dishonest.

Understand now, my slow-witted friend?


Was an astounding article, though, wasn't it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again, it comes down to what sort of statement is being made on the basis of religion.

Are there statements that can be made on the basis of religion, for which science can offer no counter? Absolutely. These include, most obviously, statements of value (with one caveat; see below). Science is a poor tool for answering questions of value, which include moral assertions and ideas about life's meaning and purpose. This is just not the sort of factual, operational claim that scientific method is designed for. And there are other religious statements as well, mystical visions, or myth (properly understood as metaphor) which are similarly outside scientific competence. Not only can science not refute any of these things, it can't even TRY to do so.

The problem between science and religion arises in every case when religion makes statements, not of morality, mysticism, or myth, but of fact. And by "fact" I mean some assertion that we can use our senses and/or our instruments to verify one way or the other. A good example was the Catholic Church's position in the time of Galileo that the sun orbited the earth rather than vice-versa. Another example is creationism -- not the rather nebulous claim that "God created the Earth," but the more precise claim that he did so at a fixed date a few thousand years ago, with an unchanging mix of species, at the end of which he created a single male human being, later creating a female out of a part of his body, and we are all descended from this pair who lived some 6,000 years ago. Much of that is disprovable, and has been proven wrong.

Science is not the perfect tool for all knowledge of every sort about everything. In reality, it's a tool of fairly narrow focus and compass. Not only the proper subject matter of religion, but also aesthetics, law, public and civic morality, all of these are outside the direct competence of science. The only way in which science can even contribute is to the extent that factual information can provide necessary input. That can also touch on religious ideas even within the proper sphere of religion to a degree. For example, if a religious teaching holds that homosexuality should be condemned because it is "unnatural," an examination of the behavior of both human beings and other animals can show that there is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality, and so this does not provide a reason for condemning it.

But while science is a tool of fairly narrow focus and compass, within that focus and compass it reigns supreme. We have no other method for answering questions of fact about observable reality that can compare with it. And so, while religion does indeed have a proper sphere, outside the sphere of science, when it remains within that sphere religion never, ever conflicts with science. And that means that when such a conflict does arise, it happens because religion has trespassed into science's domain -- and will, inevitably, lose.

"And that means that when such a conflict does arise, it happens because religion has trespassed into science's domain -- and will, inevitably, lose."

A well-written, and thought out post.
I like the analysis...except for one tiny problem: the conclusion is incorrect.

I direct your attention to post #102, in which M.I.T. physicist Lightman makes the startling admission that many physicists
a. are realizing that our universe far too closely formed...may I use the word 'created'?...to embrace life...
....for the existing parameters to be due to randomness.

b. Said fearful atheists have therefore ginned up an idea that throws out fixed and unchanging fundamental principles !

c. In fact, they have used a vehicle that they have execrated when used by theology: 'faith!'
The faith is invested in a 'multiverse' in which every universe has its own variation of the principles about which scientists have rallied...

"An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another should witness identical laws of nature. From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity."
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)


Now, our theoretical physicists are faced with the daunting choice: either there could be a 'Designer' who created the world, or none of the above 'fundamental principle in physics'
are true in the majority of universes!


Forgive my schadenfreude!

 

[G.T.]

Loki is up 100-0 in the 4th Quarter with ten seconds to go.

You're really not a very good judge of reality, are you.

Bet the younger version turns out better.

Oh stop your imaginary high horse. You're not as smart as you think you are, that's a pretty solid bottom line.

Difference between science and faith in lamen's terms without all of the outlines and other people's words is pretty basic, even to many of the Religious.

Religion is 100% faith.

Science is hypothesis, theory, and a lot of the time conclusion (LAW) based on OBSERVABLE REALITY.

Of the two, one is a much better measure of "what is." I'll be my own judge. Not some random thinkers you link to because you're clutched to their ballsac too hard to support your own conclusion from - oh, I don't know - your own mind!!??!?!?! Thnx!~

 

[koshergrl]

Anyone who thinks they're illuminating anything except their own insecurity and lack of learning by calling PC "slow witted" or casting aspersions upon her obviously superior education and intellect is sadly mistaken.

While it is fun to draw attention to those who pretend to have advanced educations and debate skills but who are obviously lacking in both, to falsely accuse posters who quite obviously have impressive abilities does nothing except shine a bright spotlight upon the failings of those who think they are actually made to look smarter by doing so.

When yahoos like Loki, Dragon, GT feel compelled to comment on the "stupidity" of a poster who has pwned them repeatedly (though they are too stupid to even realize it), it's a clarion call that highlights their own inadequacies.

 

[G.T.]

Anyone who thinks they're illuminating anything except their own insecurity and lack of learning by calling PC "slow witted" or casting aspersions upon her obviously superior education and intellect is sadly mistaken.

While it is fun to draw attention to those who pretend to have advanced educations and debate skills but who are obviously lacking in both, to falsely accuse posters who quite obviously have impressive abilities does nothing except shine a bright spotlight upon the failings of those who think they are actually made to look smarter by doing so.

When yahoos like Loki, Dragon, GT feel compelled to comment on the "stupidity" of a poster who has pwned them repeatedly (though they are too stupid to even realize it), it's a clarion call that highlights their own inadequacies.

There's no "pwning" going on, that's a rose colored pair of glasses you're wearing and it's pretty disgusting that you're riding so hard for someone so grossly insecure that it weeps from her every post.

The feeling of inadequacy is spawned by an incessant use of outline format, pseudo-intellectual terminology where it's not necessary and the obsessive commenting on everyone else's intelligence, as if you could honestly guage that based on fly by posts on an internet message board where - you don't know - if the person you're responding to is in the car, on the toilet, in a meeting, on a fishing boat, drunk, high, sober, just out of brain surgery, just through a divorce, just unemployed, etc etc.

I mean, how hard do you think people are supposed to try and care about on here before they're guaged as obsessive and/or having no life? Come on, just let me know in your guesstimation. What does this faceless poster gain from writing periodicals of links and links and links and links in outline form on what, for most, is a flash in the pan time passer for boredom?

Basically: get a fuggin life and quit trying to project your and her insecurities onto others. It's weak-sauce, batman.


^ you could also ascertain from this post that I care! Then again, you've no fucking clue how many wpm I can type.

 

[koshergrl]

Anyone who thinks they're illuminating anything except their own insecurity and lack of learning by calling PC "slow witted" or casting aspersions upon her obviously superior education and intellect is sadly mistaken.

While it is fun to draw attention to those who pretend to have advanced educations and debate skills but who are obviously lacking in both, to falsely accuse posters who quite obviously have impressive abilities does nothing except shine a bright spotlight upon the failings of those who think they are actually made to look smarter by doing so.

When yahoos like Loki, Dragon, GT feel compelled to comment on the "stupidity" of a poster who has pwned them repeatedly (though they are too stupid to even realize it), it's a clarion call that highlights their own inadequacies.

There's no "pwning" going on, that's a rose colored pair of glasses you're wearing and it's pretty disgusting that you're riding so hard for someone so grossly insecure that it weeps from her every post.

The feeling of inadequacy is spawned by an incessant use of outline format, pseudo-intellectual terminology where it's not necessary and the obsessive commenting on everyone else's intelligence, as if you could honestly guage that based on fly by posts on an internet message board where - you don't know - if the person you're responding to is in the car, on the toilet, in a meeting, on a fishing boat, drunk, high, sober, just out of brain surgery, just through a divorce, just unemployed, etc etc.

I mean, how hard do you think people are supposed to try and care about on here before they're guaged as obsessive and/or having no life? Come on, just let me know in your guesstimation. What does this faceless poster gain from writing periodicals of links and links and links and links in outline form on what, for most, is a flash in the pan time passer for boredom?

Basically: get a fuggin life and quit trying to project your and her insecurities onto others. It's weak-sauce, batman.


^ you could also ascertain from this post that I care! Then again, you've no fucking clue how many wpm I can type.

Case in point. And perfect illustration, btw. Thanks.

 

[koshergrl]

PS...I type over 100 wpm. Is that an indication of my level of education and comprehension?

If so, I'm set for life.

 

[G.T.]

PS...I type over 100 wpm. Is that an indication of my level of education and comprehension?

If so, I'm set for life.

I'm still waiting for the posts where you've said anything other than some sideline cheerleader assed high-school type shit, on some troll-for-lyfe ride or die for politicalchic type affinity.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sorry you can't read. Perhaps you can take a night class.

 

[G.T.]

^ and again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Militant atheism is just a byproduct of runaway political correctness.

40 years ago some of the legal claims would result in the claimant being run out of town.

I don't agree with running someone out of town simply because of their beliefs, but I do get tired of some of the ridiculous hypocrisy on display by those who feel that Christians lack tolerance.

I feel the same about militant athiesm as I feel about militant Christianity, or any other militant 'faith'. If you have to shove it down people's throats, it is because it does not have enough validity to stand on its own.

"... shove it down people's throats..."

An example of that, please.

Controlling what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms because of the words of some goat herders from 5000 years ago.

Argueing that Christians have the right to put their Books words on public property, while other religions do not. The false Christian Nation arguement.

And there are many more.

Every religion or ideology that cannot change minds by the force of their logic or rhetoric resorts to laws or force of arms. Every single one.

 

[koshergrl]

^ and again.

There is no point for me to belabor the points that PC makes perfectly well on her own. Just as there's no point in wasting breath on idiots who haven't the insight to see their own egocentric ignorance for what it is. The arguments have been made, quite successfully, time and again, in this thread and hundreds of others...the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the reasoning, or the truth of what is stated, is not a problem that can be fixed by heaping more evidence on top of the evidence you already ignore.

 

[G.T.]

I feel the same about militant athiesm as I feel about militant Christianity, or any other militant 'faith'. If you have to shove it down people's throats, it is because it does not have enough validity to stand on its own.

"... shove it down people's throats..."

An example of that, please.

Controlling what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms because of the words of some goat herders from 5000 years ago.

Argueing that Christians have the right to put their Books words on public property, while other religions do not. The false Christian Nation arguement.

And there are many more.

Every religion or ideology that cannot change minds by the force of their logic or rhetoric resorts to laws or force of arms. Every single one.

Even their rhetoric is a type of forcing it down people's throats: i.e. the threat of hell & eternal damnation.

 

[G.T.]

^ and again.

There is no point for me to belabor the points that PC makes perfectly well on her own. Just as there's no point in wasting breath on idiots who haven't the insight to see their own egocentric ignorance for what it is. The arguments have been made, quite successfully, time and again, in this thread and hundreds of others...the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the reasoning, or the truth of what is stated, is not a problem that can be fixed by heaping more evidence on top of the evidence you already ignore.

There was no argument made, just a bunch of bumble jargain that didn't even say what she thought it said when you expand upon the quotes. How.....................clever? Nawt.

 

[koshergrl]

I feel the same about militant athiesm as I feel about militant Christianity, or any other militant 'faith'. If you have to shove it down people's throats, it is because it does not have enough validity to stand on its own.

"... shove it down people's throats..."

An example of that, please.

Controlling what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms because of the words of some goat herders from 5000 years ago.

Argueing that Christians have the right to put their Books words on public property, while other religions do not. The false Christian Nation arguement.

And there are many more.

Every religion or ideology that cannot change minds by the force of their logic or rhetoric resorts to laws or force of arms. Every single one.

Not only are those not examples, with no specificity (an example means a specific action/event that proves the point), they also don't illustrate forcing anything down anyone's throat. Provided they were examples in the first place. Which of course they aren't.

To say "it happens all the time" is not providing an example, in other words.

 

[koshergrl]

^ and again.

There is no point for me to belabor the points that PC makes perfectly well on her own. Just as there's no point in wasting breath on idiots who haven't the insight to see their own egocentric ignorance for what it is. The arguments have been made, quite successfully, time and again, in this thread and hundreds of others...the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the reasoning, or the truth of what is stated, is not a problem that can be fixed by heaping more evidence on top of the evidence you already ignore.

There was no argument made, just a bunch of bumble jargain that didn't even say what she thought it said when you expand upon the quotes. How.....................clever? Nawt.

I was talking about the intelligent posts, not your own.

And again, you make my point for me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anyone who thinks they're illuminating anything except their own insecurity and lack of learning by calling PC "slow witted" or casting aspersions upon her obviously superior education and intellect is sadly mistaken.

While it is fun to draw attention to those who pretend to have advanced educations and debate skills but who are obviously lacking in both, to falsely accuse posters who quite obviously have impressive abilities does nothing except shine a bright spotlight upon the failings of those who think they are actually made to look smarter by doing so.

When yahoos like Loki, Dragon, GT feel compelled to comment on the "stupidity" of a poster who has pwned them repeatedly (though they are too stupid to even realize it), it's a clarion call that highlights their own inadequacies.

LOL.

For thousands of years, your religions laid hands on people and performed rituals, and people died by the thousands. For less than three hundred years, we have had the scientific method. And almost all of the major diseases have been made into rarities.

And that does not even address the differance in the standard of living that we enjoy because of the development of the scientific method.

I do not object to anyone having their religious beliefs. But don't try and tell me how wonderful the results of those beliefs have been. When they gained absolute power, whether Christian or whatever other religion you choose, they did exactly the same things as the Nazis and Communists. The only thing that kept their murdering numbers lower was the fact that the technology was not up to delivering the numbers desired by those in power at the time.

Read about the wonderful things done in the religious wars after the Reformation started.
Then tell me that Christianity has less blood on it's hands than other religions.