OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[PoliticalChic]

I think I'll read this thread after a few more coffees ...

Other than the name calling it looks like a good debate...

It sure is.....

For some reason, the less enthused about religion go nuts when one points out that this nation was designed for a moral biblically based people.

No one ever demands that one need be to live here....but any mention sets 'em off.

I'm having a lot of fun.

Uh, yeah well can see what you're doing here with the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.

Are you going to claim that's unintentional? Then how come this post quoted above, the only one where that sabotage-edit would not benefit your obfuscation project, is the only one where this was not done? I quoted this post so that there's a record of it -- that you can't edit.


What's the game here? Muddy the water so much that everybody gives up, because you know you've been owned?

Is this part of that "biblical honesty"?

Visitor-readers, be advised....

" the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.
"

What does that mean?

What are you talking about?


Both you and Moronica have been thoroughly thrashed.....

Is this some pretense of yours?


Explain yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So... we're left with you being a candidate for the U.S. Olympic swim team: the backstroke.

Your claim to: "how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?" is thus fraudulent as you admit there is no reference to jesus christ.

Making a claim that jesus christ is mentioned in the constitution when no such mentioning exists is what we would call a false claim.

Didn't your mommy or perhaps your 1st grade school teacher explain what a lie is and why lies are bad?

You see...that's why I said to focus like a laser.....you seem unable to do so.

Again?

Try to think clearly.....
Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."


How would a crazy person like you explain " our Lord."


Or do you simply realize that there really is only one answer..and giving it would destroy our most closely held biases....
That it?

Gotcha, don't I.

I see you're just ignoring your false claim and being held accountable for your false claim.

It's a simple matter for anyone to read the constitution and understand the secular nature and intent of that document.

As much as you wish to force your belief on others, re-writing the constitution on a message board has no affect on the wording of the original document which makes no reference (implied or otherwise), to your gods.

Came across this about you:

“The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”
Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.

Read more: Wacko Atheists Sue Over WTC Cross |Blogs | NCRegister.com




So....since I believe in truth in packaging, at least make 'fanatical atheist' your tag.
How about it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many wars have been fueled by religion? Most of them.

Religious war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is going on in Egypt and Syria?

Islam vs Dictatorship/government.



What about Africa? There are wars that consist of Christianity vs Islam.

What about Islamic nations? No other religion is spared.

Israel and the middle east? they are constantly in eachother's throats.

Christianity vs reality, diversity, etc. It goes on here in the US.






Politics.
What about moderate conservatives?
Atheist conservatives?
Conservatives who are actual conservatives, instead of corporate ass kissing, anti-american, ignorant, intolerant, self centered, religiously oppressed senior citizens who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and was created by a power that has not been proven to exist and is based on a deviation of thousands of other religious beliefs that have popped up and vanished over the course of history.

Gay sex scandals that constantly pop up worldwide in churches, religions, and with the pope. (which includes innocent children being the victims)

Hypocrisy. (Tattoos, intolerance, abortion, divorce, etc)

Nonsense. How about the human cost of war unrelated to religion?


First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (1917–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime (1924–53): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (1937–45): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (1945–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s
regime (1949–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 million
Tibet (1950 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,000
Congo Free State (1886–1908): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 million
Mexico (1910–20): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Turkish massacres of Armenians (1915–23): . . . . . 1.5 million
China (1917–28): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,000
China, Nationalist era (1928–37): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 million
Korean War (1950–53): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (1959–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
Second Indochina War (1960–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 million
Ethiopia (1962–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Nigeria (1966–70): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Bangladesh (1971): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975–78): . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 million
Mozambique (1975–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Afghanistan (1979–2001): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 million
Iran–Iraq War (1980–88): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Sudan (1983 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 million
Kinshasa, Congo (1998 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 million
Philippines Insurgency (1899–1902): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,000
Brazil (1900 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Amazonia (1900–1912): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Portuguese colonies (1900–1925): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325,000
French colonies (1900–1940): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Japanese War (1904–5): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
German East Africa (1905–7): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Libya (1911–31): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000
Balkan Wars (1912–13): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,000
Greco–Turkish War (1919–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Spanish Civil War (1936–39): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365,000
Franco Regime (1939–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000
Abyssinian Conquest (1935–41): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Finnish War (1939–40): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Greek Civil War (1943–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,000
Yugoslavia, Tito’s regime (1944–80): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
First Indochina War (1945–54): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Colombia (1946–58): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
India (1947): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Romania (1948–89): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Burma/Myanmar (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
Algeria (1954–62): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537,000
Sudan (1955–72): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Guatemala (1960–96): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Indonesia (1965–66): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Uganda, Idi Amin’s regime (1972–79): . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Vietnam, postwar Communist regime
(1975 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430,000
Angola (1975–2002): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,000
East Timor, conquest by Indonesia (1975–99): . . . . . 200,000
Lebanon (1975–90): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Cambodian Civil War (1978–91): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,000
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979–2003): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Uganda (1979–86): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Kurdistan (1980s, 1990s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Liberia (1989–97): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Iraq (1990– ): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Somalia (1991 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

 

[Hollie]

You see...that's why I said to focus like a laser.....you seem unable to do so.

Again?

Try to think clearly.....
Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."


How would a crazy person like you explain " our Lord."


Or do you simply realize that there really is only one answer..and giving it would destroy our most closely held biases....
That it?

Gotcha, don't I.

I see you're just ignoring your false claim and being held accountable for your false claim.

It's a simple matter for anyone to read the constitution and understand the secular nature and intent of that document.

As much as you wish to force your belief on others, re-writing the constitution on a message board has no affect on the wording of the original document which makes no reference (implied or otherwise), to your gods.

Came across this about you:

“The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”
Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.

Read more: Wacko Atheists Sue Over WTC Cross |Blogs | NCRegister.com




So....since I believe in truth in packaging, at least make 'fanatical atheist' your tag.
How about it?

How sad for you that you’re now left to hurling poor attempts at insults. As your false claims have been stripped away, you're left with juvenile lashing out.

I’m really not interested in being an accomplice to your ideology of hate and derision. Your behavior seems to reflect that of so many fundamentalist Christians. There’s an inherent anger and frustration which is manifested as self-hate.

Unfortunately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn very cleverly, which is actually why I find the Bible to be a fascinating book. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

In "Mein Kampf" Adolf Hitler lays out his entire plan for world conquest. He even goes so far as to explain the concept of concentration camps, and warns, "Those who don't come with me are against me, and they will die". In Hitler's world, death, even the most protracted of deaths with the most horrendous of tortures, is finite. It ends with the death of the person. In Jesus' model, not only does death occur, but then there is **eternal** death afterward-- replete with vicious tortures and devils, etc.

I abhor what Hitler did, but compared to what Jehovah/Jesus promises, Hitler's Nazi Empire was a walk in the park. If we reject Hitler's deeply disturbed plan, then why do we accept Jesus'? There is in fact no difference between them: Do As I Command and Be Rewarded. Don't Do As I Command and Suffer.

 

[Hollie]

It sure is.....

For some reason, the less enthused about religion go nuts when one points out that this nation was designed for a moral biblically based people.

No one ever demands that one need be to live here....but any mention sets 'em off.

I'm having a lot of fun.

Uh, yeah well can see what you're doing here with the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.

Are you going to claim that's unintentional? Then how come this post quoted above, the only one where that sabotage-edit would not benefit your obfuscation project, is the only one where this was not done? I quoted this post so that there's a record of it -- that you can't edit.


What's the game here? Muddy the water so much that everybody gives up, because you know you've been owned?

Is this part of that "biblical honesty"?

Visitor-readers, be advised....

" the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.
"

What does that mean?

What are you talking about?


Both you and Moronica have been thoroughly thrashed.....

Is this some pretense of yours?


Explain yourself.

Ah, a name-caller.

Oh, how disappointing... that you would actually stoop to this. And up to now your interpretations --while subjective and needlessly nasty (I prefer debates less drenched in the name calling you like to engage in) -- but don't interpret that in terms of anyone's feelings hurt, it really focuses on your behavior as being -- what? Immature? Childish? Goofy? Comical? you choose the word, so you don't think I'm attacking you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think I'll read this thread after a few more coffees ...

Other than the name calling it looks like a good debate...

It sure is.....

For some reason, the less enthused about religion go nuts when one points out that this nation was designed for a moral biblically based people.

No one ever demands that one need be to live here....but any mention sets 'em off.

I'm having a lot of fun.

Uh, yeah well can see what you're doing here with the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.

Are you going to claim that's unintentional? Then how come this post quoted above, the only one where that sabotage-edit would not benefit your obfuscation project, is the only one where this was not done? I quoted this post so that there's a record of it -- that you can't edit.


What's the game here? Muddy the water so much that everybody gives up, because you know you've been owned?

Is this part of that "biblical honesty"?

Visitor-readers, be advised....

Explanation?
No.....

Well then, it seems you made some sort of posting/quoting error and blamed it on me.



I was wrong.....you are worse than a dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see you're just ignoring your false claim and being held accountable for your false claim.

It's a simple matter for anyone to read the constitution and understand the secular nature and intent of that document.

As much as you wish to force your belief on others, re-writing the constitution on a message board has no affect on the wording of the original document which makes no reference (implied or otherwise), to your gods.

Came across this about you:

“The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”
Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.

Read more: Wacko Atheists Sue Over WTC Cross |Blogs | NCRegister.com




So....since I believe in truth in packaging, at least make 'fanatical atheist' your tag.
How about it?

How sad for you that you’re now left to hurling poor attempts at insults. As your false claims have been stripped away, you're left with juvenile lashing out.

I’m really not interested in being an accomplice to your ideology of hate and derision. Your behavior seems to reflect that of so many fundamentalist Christians. There’s an inherent anger and frustration which is manifested as self-hate.

Unfortunately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn very cleverly, which is actually why I find the Bible to be a fascinating book. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

In "Mein Kampf" Adolf Hitler lays out his entire plan for world conquest. He even goes so far as to explain the concept of concentration camps, and warns, "Those who don't come with me are against me, and they will die". In Hitler's world, death, even the most protracted of deaths with the most horrendous of tortures, is finite. It ends with the death of the person. In Jesus' model, not only does death occur, but then there is **eternal** death afterward-- replete with vicious tortures and devils, etc.

I abhor what Hitler did, but compared to what Jehovah/Jesus promises, Hitler's Nazi Empire was a walk in the park. If we reject Hitler's deeply disturbed plan, then why do we accept Jesus'? There is in fact no difference between them: Do As I Command and Be Rewarded. Don't Do As I Command and Suffer.

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uh, yeah well can see what you're doing here with the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.

Are you going to claim that's unintentional? Then how come this post quoted above, the only one where that sabotage-edit would not benefit your obfuscation project, is the only one where this was not done? I quoted this post so that there's a record of it -- that you can't edit.


What's the game here? Muddy the water so much that everybody gives up, because you know you've been owned?

Is this part of that "biblical honesty"?

Visitor-readers, be advised....

" the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.
"

What does that mean?

What are you talking about?


Both you and Moronica have been thoroughly thrashed.....

Is this some pretense of yours?


Explain yourself.

Ah, a name-caller.

Oh, how disappointing... that you would actually stoop to this. And up to now your interpretations --while subjective and needlessly nasty (I prefer debates less drenched in the name calling you like to engage in) -- but don't interpret that in terms of anyone's feelings hurt, it really focuses on your behavior as being -- what? Immature? Childish? Goofy? Comical? you choose the word, so you don't think I'm attacking you.

You have become the same source of entertainment as a piñata, and for the same reason: the fun of beating you with a stick.

 

[Pogo]

It sure is.....

For some reason, the less enthused about religion go nuts when one points out that this nation was designed for a moral biblically based people.

No one ever demands that one need be to live here....but any mention sets 'em off.

I'm having a lot of fun.

Uh, yeah well can see what you're doing here with the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.

Are you going to claim that's unintentional? Then how come this post quoted above, the only one where that sabotage-edit would not benefit your obfuscation project, is the only one where this was not done? I quoted this post so that there's a record of it -- that you can't edit.


What's the game here? Muddy the water so much that everybody gives up, because you know you've been owned?

Is this part of that "biblical honesty"?

Visitor-readers, be advised....

Explanation?
No.....

Well then, it seems you made some sort of posting/quoting error and blamed it on me.



I was wrong.....you are worse than a dunce.

You've got this weird penchant for asking questions that have just been explained. And documented. As if pretending they're not there makes them go away. The Pee Wee Herman "I know you are but what am I" school of debate.

Sad waste of time.

 

[Hollie]

" the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.
"

What does that mean?

What are you talking about?


Both you and Moronica have been thoroughly thrashed.....

Is this some pretense of yours?


Explain yourself.

Ah, a name-caller.

Oh, how disappointing... that you would actually stoop to this. And up to now your interpretations --while subjective and needlessly nasty (I prefer debates less drenched in the name calling you like to engage in) -- but don't interpret that in terms of anyone's feelings hurt, it really focuses on your behavior as being -- what? Immature? Childish? Goofy? Comical? you choose the word, so you don't think I'm attacking you.

You have become the same source of entertainment as a piñata, and for the same reason: the fun of beating you with a stick.

That's an odd claim to make. You have retreated from your earlier false claim - actually, you dropped it like a boat anchor - only to resort to juvenile name-calling.

Shia islamists have a ritual of self-flagellation. Is that what you're doing?

 

[MaryL]

No it doesn’t. Not at all. Science represents simple provable facts, and what religion represents is metaphysics and can't be proven. Empirical proof. Religious superstition, the difference between the two is like night and day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uh, yeah well can see what you're doing here with the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.

Are you going to claim that's unintentional? Then how come this post quoted above, the only one where that sabotage-edit would not benefit your obfuscation project, is the only one where this was not done? I quoted this post so that there's a record of it -- that you can't edit.


What's the game here? Muddy the water so much that everybody gives up, because you know you've been owned?

Is this part of that "biblical honesty"?

Visitor-readers, be advised....

Explanation?
No.....

Well then, it seems you made some sort of posting/quoting error and blamed it on me.



I was wrong.....you are worse than a dunce.

You've got this weird penchant for asking questions that have just been explained. And documented. As if pretending they're not there makes them go away. The Pee Wee Herman "I know you are but what am I" school of debate.

Sad waste of time.

No explanation provided....you've simply made up some event that never took place.


All I can say is that at least the ‘Rainman’ was good at math.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, a name-caller.

Oh, how disappointing... that you would actually stoop to this. And up to now your interpretations --while subjective and needlessly nasty (I prefer debates less drenched in the name calling you like to engage in) -- but don't interpret that in terms of anyone's feelings hurt, it really focuses on your behavior as being -- what? Immature? Childish? Goofy? Comical? you choose the word, so you don't think I'm attacking you.

You have become the same source of entertainment as a piñata, and for the same reason: the fun of beating you with a stick.

That's an odd claim to make. You have retreated from your earlier false claim - actually, you dropped it like a boat anchor - only to resort to juvenile name-calling.

Shia islamists have a ritual of self-flagellation. Is that what you're doing?

A return performance by the Message Board Midden-Maid?

You must have finished dinner at the dumpster early, eh.


And, no....I'm not insulting you, I’m describing you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No it doesn’t. Not at all. Science represents simple provable facts, and what religion represents is metaphysics and can't be proven. Empirical proof. Religious superstition, the difference between the two is like night and day.

"Science represents simple provable facts,...."

Only to those with no clue about modern science.

a. 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.

b. Far less endearing is the manner in which many of our atheistic scientists react with sullen contempt when the religious behave in precisely the same way to speculate about that which cannot be grasped in any other way.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

 

[Hollie]

You have become the same source of entertainment as a piñata, and for the same reason: the fun of beating you with a stick.

That's an odd claim to make. You have retreated from your earlier false claim - actually, you dropped it like a boat anchor - only to resort to juvenile name-calling.

Shia islamists have a ritual of self-flagellation. Is that what you're doing?

A return performance by the Message Board Midden-Maid?

You must have finished dinner at the dumpster early, eh.


And, no....I'm not insulting you, I’m describing you.

Such an angry, self-hating fundie.

 

[Hollie]

No it doesn’t. Not at all. Science represents simple provable facts, and what religion represents is metaphysics and can't be proven. Empirical proof. Religious superstition, the difference between the two is like night and day.

"Science represents simple provable facts,...."

Only to those with no clue about modern science.

a. 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.

b. Far less endearing is the manner in which many of our atheistic scientists react with sullen contempt when the religious behave in precisely the same way to speculate about that which cannot be grasped in any other way.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

One of the dangers faced by religious zealots is their propensity for cutting and pasting from the web without understanding what their cutting and pasting.

“Atheistic scientists” is a canard promoted by many of the Christian creationist ministries. It seems to be a defense mechanism for the science-hating fundamentalists whose gods they feel are under siege by scientific truths.

In the thousands of years that gods of all descriptions and persuasions have been asserted, not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been presented to suggest that they do. I would be pleased to see the evidence of your proposed gods, by the way. Just make sure that your evidence is rational, testable and verifiable so we can be sure a supernatural entity was the cause of those elements.

Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist Christians) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

See... it helps to do more than retreat into the “gods did it” safe room. You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.

 

[Hollie]

Came across this about you:

“The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”
Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.

Read more: Wacko Atheists Sue Over WTC Cross |Blogs | NCRegister.com




So....since I believe in truth in packaging, at least make 'fanatical atheist' your tag.
How about it?

How sad for you that you’re now left to hurling poor attempts at insults. As your false claims have been stripped away, you're left with juvenile lashing out.

I’m really not interested in being an accomplice to your ideology of hate and derision. Your behavior seems to reflect that of so many fundamentalist Christians. There’s an inherent anger and frustration which is manifested as self-hate.

Unfortunately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn very cleverly, which is actually why I find the Bible to be a fascinating book. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

In "Mein Kampf" Adolf Hitler lays out his entire plan for world conquest. He even goes so far as to explain the concept of concentration camps, and warns, "Those who don't come with me are against me, and they will die". In Hitler's world, death, even the most protracted of deaths with the most horrendous of tortures, is finite. It ends with the death of the person. In Jesus' model, not only does death occur, but then there is **eternal** death afterward-- replete with vicious tortures and devils, etc.

I abhor what Hitler did, but compared to what Jehovah/Jesus promises, Hitler's Nazi Empire was a walk in the park. If we reject Hitler's deeply disturbed plan, then why do we accept Jesus'? There is in fact no difference between them: Do As I Command and Be Rewarded. Don't Do As I Command and Suffer.

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.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wrong.
You can only say that because you are ignorant of the subject.

From post #6:

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

Well, then, "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."


2. The idea that science should trump all other arguments including the religious just because it is science, is not a scientific concept. Robert Bork points out that science is no different than other beliefs in regard to faith. “A belief that science will ultimately explain everything, however, also requires a leap of faith. Faith in science requires the unproven assumption that all reality is material, that there is nothing beyond or outside the material universe. Perhaps that is right…but it cannot be proven and therefore rests on an untested and untestable assumption. That being the case, there is no logical reason why science should be hostile to or displace religion.
Robert Bork, “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” p.281-282

Robert Bork?
A damn lawyer is your evidence?

No, silly....

...your ignorance is my evidence.

LOL, I have always admitted I am far, far educated beyond my intelligence.
What is your excuse?
You offered Robert Bork as your best evidence.
Weak.

 

[Gadawg73]

Amazing that the right wing does acknowledge that the crown monarchy at the time of the revolution in this country declared "God gives us the power to rule by divine right and we make the rules on all weapons and powder" as the British were marching on Concord and Lexington.
Yet they deny that on most all other matters even though God is no where in the Constitution.
Why?
Because at that time every country state in Europe was run by the church and their power over the people.
The Founders ran from that as evidenced in the Constitution.
We are a NATION OF LAW, not men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How sad for you that you’re now left to hurling poor attempts at insults. As your false claims have been stripped away, you're left with juvenile lashing out.

I’m really not interested in being an accomplice to your ideology of hate and derision. Your behavior seems to reflect that of so many fundamentalist Christians. There’s an inherent anger and frustration which is manifested as self-hate.

Unfortunately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn very cleverly, which is actually why I find the Bible to be a fascinating book. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

In "Mein Kampf" Adolf Hitler lays out his entire plan for world conquest. He even goes so far as to explain the concept of concentration camps, and warns, "Those who don't come with me are against me, and they will die". In Hitler's world, death, even the most protracted of deaths with the most horrendous of tortures, is finite. It ends with the death of the person. In Jesus' model, not only does death occur, but then there is **eternal** death afterward-- replete with vicious tortures and devils, etc.

I abhor what Hitler did, but compared to what Jehovah/Jesus promises, Hitler's Nazi Empire was a walk in the park. If we reject Hitler's deeply disturbed plan, then why do we accept Jesus'? There is in fact no difference between them: Do As I Command and Be Rewarded. Don't Do As I Command and Suffer.

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/religion-and-ethics/280175-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!