Information Increase
Devils Advocaat
genetic mutations failing to increase the information in an organism's
genome.
How do they define "increase in information"?
Kalkidas
Um, my guess is that would be di/dt >0
johnetho...@yahoo.com
They make sure not to define "information" in any way at all since
their arguments fail under any definition.
OK
Define information.
Richard Clayton
As with "design," they apparently need no definition more rigorous than
"I knows it when I sees it."
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Mike Painter
@fq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, manky...@gmail.com says...
They don't define it, they quote it from some other source.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
How profound..."an increase is an increase".
Since you're so knowledgeable about this, how about
providing the group with a definition for information, one
which is measurable in the context of DNA. IOW, how exactly
does one compare two DNA segments of identical length and
determine which has "more information"?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
<manky...@gmail.com>:
They don't - that's the beauty of the claim. Humpty-Dumpty
strikes again, only this time the word means not what they
say, but instead has no meaning at all.
Kalkidas
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:11:00 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub>:
>
>> On 8/10/2011 12:00 PM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> I often ponder what creationists and IDers mean when they talk about
>>> genetic mutations failing to increase the information in an organism's
>>> genome.
>>>
>>> How do they define "increase in information"?
>>
>> Um, my guess is that would be di/dt>0
>
> How profound..."an increase is an increase".
>
> Since you're so knowledgeable about this, how about
> providing the group with a definition for information, one
> which is measurable in the context of DNA. IOW, how exactly
> does one compare two DNA segments of identical length and
> determine which has "more information"?
Why don't you just Google some of the countless links to "bioinformatics"?
Cubist
from such a search, it's quite possible, even likely, for 'genetic
information' to increase as a result of random mutation. Since
Creationists/IDists claim it's impossible (or at best, vanishingly
unlikely) for 'genetic information' to increase as a result of random
mutation, it follows that Creationists/IDists *cannot* be using any of
*those* definitions of information. So... which definition of
information *is* being used by Creationists/IDists, Kalkidas?
Devils Advocaat
Still waiting for creationists and IDers to define this in the context
of genetic mutations and the genome.
Mark Buchanan
The creationist with the 'best' definition is Werner Gitt.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/In-the-Beginning-Was-Information,4631,226.aspx
I have been going through Sarfati's 'Greatest Hoax on Earth' book
recently. The general claim is that god created 'kinds' (a sort of
super-species) with an incredible amount of perfect DNA information.
These kinds have speciated since the flood through genetic mutations.
All of the mutations have involved a loss of information however and
are ultimately bad. Even these bad mutations can benefit the organism
making it more adapted to its environment appearing to be beneficial.
Based on this 'theory' humans (and supposedly all species) have a very
limited time to survive before the mutations finish us off. Of course
the rapture should happen by then so it's OK.
Mark
Steven L.
"Cubist" <xub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37e299df-c8dd-44c0...@s18g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
The ID people use "complex specified information"--the complexity of the
specification of the gene's function(s).
The problem with that, of course, is that reverse engineering assumes
that there was a specification to begin with that you're trying to
rediscover.
-- Steven L.
Bob Casanova
Why don't you follow through on your assertions?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Cubist
<xub...@gmail.com>:
I predict evasion. Or silence.
Interested Lurker
Perhaps they should ask the authors of this paper?
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja2054034
BBC report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14492948
--
Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in
ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of
women and coercive toward children - Christopher Hitchens
The Bible is bollocks - me.
The Quran is cobblers - also me.
The Torah is testicles - me again.
Kalkidas
If I had made any, I would.
Kalkidas
Do you think that is an unreasonable assumption? Why?
How could any science proceed without such an assumption? If there are
no specifications in nature, then there are no specifics in nature.
Everything is just a vague jumble of totally unrelated blobs.
r norman
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
>allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in
>ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of
>women and coercive toward children - Christopher Hitchens
>
>The Bible is bollocks - me.
>
>The Quran is cobblers - also me.
>
>The Torah is testicles - me again.
I am very confused in reading your words. Bollocks can mean testicles
but more ordinarily means complete nonsense. OK, no problem there.
A cobbler is either a person who repairs shoes or one of several tasty
food items. OK, I'll buy that also. You don't have any problem with
the Quran, it is a tasty morsel for a good, honest working man.
Testicles are considered in many societies to be a tasty and very
prized food delicacy. Again that seem quite appropriate.
So you are completely opposed to Christianity but Islam and Judaism
are highly desirable, based on texts that are considered treats. Here
you speak figuratively; treats for the mind, not for the taste buds.
Burkhard
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:11:13 +0100, Interested Lurker
>
> >Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
> >allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in
> >ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of
> >women and coercive toward children - Christopher Hitchens
>
> >The Bible is bollocks - me.
>
> >The Quran is cobblers - also me.
>
> >The Torah is testicles - me again.
>
> I am very confused in reading your words. Bollocks can mean testicles
> but more ordinarily means complete nonsense. OK, no problem there.
>
> A cobbler is either a person who repairs shoes or one of several tasty
> food items. OK, I'll buy that also. You don't have any problem with
> the Quran, it is a tasty morsel for a good, honest working man.
>
> Testicles are considered in many societies to be a tasty and very
> prized food delicacy. Again that seem quite appropriate.
Ah, but not in Jewish culture which would be relevant here, and link
back t the first item:
Al beeste, that ... kitt and taken a wey the ballokes is, ye shulen
not offre to the Lord...", (Leviticus 21, 24)
r norman
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Aug 13, 12:05 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:11:13 +0100, Interested Lurker
>>
>> <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
>> >allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in
>> >ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of
>> >women and coercive toward children - Christopher Hitchens
>>
>> >The Bible is bollocks - me.
>>
>> >The Quran is cobblers - also me.
>>
>> >The Torah is testicles - me again.
>>
>> I am very confused in reading your words. Bollocks can mean testicles
>> but more ordinarily means complete nonsense. OK, no problem there.
>>
>> A cobbler is either a person who repairs shoes or one of several tasty
>> food items. OK, I'll buy that also. You don't have any problem with
>> the Quran, it is a tasty morsel for a good, honest working man.
>>
>> Testicles are considered in many societies to be a tasty and very
>> prized food delicacy. Again that seem quite appropriate.
>
>Ah, but not in Jewish culture which would be relevant here, and link
>back t the first item:
>Al beeste, that ... kitt and taken a wey the ballokes is, ye shulen
>not offre to the Lord...", (Leviticus 21, 24)
It is amazing that the Pentateuch was written in old English (or is it
some celtic variation?)
Burkhard
Middle English - the Wycliffe Bible
John S. Wilkins
Alle fooles know that it was written in Latin first.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Interested Lurker
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:11:13 +0100, Interested Lurker
><no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
>>allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in
>>ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of
>>women and coercive toward children - Christopher Hitchens
>>
>>The Bible is bollocks - me.
>>
>>The Quran is cobblers - also me.
>>
>>The Torah is testicles - me again.
>
>I am very confused in reading your words. Bollocks can mean testicles
>but more ordinarily means complete nonsense. OK, no problem there.
>
>A cobbler is either a person who repairs shoes or one of several tasty
>food items. OK, I'll buy that also. You don't have any problem with
>the Quran, it is a tasty morsel for a good, honest working man.
"Meaning
Nonsense, rubbish.
Origin
This is a classic of Cockney rhyming slang. It has nothing directly to
do with shoemakers but originates from cobbler's awls, which are the
pointed hand-tools that cobblers use to pierce holes in leather. The
rhyme is with balls, or testicles.
The phrase is often reduced just to cobblers, which is now considered
an acceptable vulgarism, as many may not be aware of its origin. "
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-load-of-cobblers.html
>Testicles are considered in many societies to be a tasty and very
>prized food delicacy. Again that seem quite appropriate.
Not in my hoose!
>So you are completely opposed to Christianity but Islam and Judaism
>are highly desirable, based on texts that are considered treats. Here
>you speak figuratively; treats for the mind, not for the taste buds.
It's all a load of balls of one variety or another.
--
Loirbaj
capacity’ . No matter how numerous they
may be, mutations do not produce any kind
of evolution." - Pierre-Paul Grasse
Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos,
in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers,
or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists,
still has never been traced."
- Margulis/Sagan
Loirbaj
They talk about genetic mutations failing to increase the information
in an organism's
genome.
BroilJAB
So weak is the claim for evolution that Downs
Syndrome --as it confers additional genomic
and chromosomal material-- would be considered
a stunning success of evolution in action.
Ron O
Par for the course. An IDiot that fell for the ID scam who evades by
admitting that he had no intention of answering the question in the
first place and was just blowing smoke. I wonder if guys like Kalk
are pathologically dishonest enough to do this sort of thing if they
had the answers. The only IDiots left that support the ID scam are
the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.
Quoted from above on what Kalk was answering:
> >>>>> I often ponder what creationists and IDers mean when they talk about
> >>>>> genetic mutations failing to increase the information in an organism's
> >>>>> genome.
>
> >>>>> How do they define "increase in information"?
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
"Interested Lurker" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:i8gc47pecco68ugj6...@4ax.com:
What convinced you of that?
Did you actually study them all, or just decided to dismiss them out of
hand?
-- Steven L.
Interested Lurker
The fact that the various writers of these books claim knowledge of a
divine creator, yet offer no evidence; the almost unrelenting
brutality and acts of egregious cruelty and hatred that are gleefully
described and celebrated; the lies and misinformation they contain and
the damage their teachings have done to humanity - physical,
intellectual and societal.
>Did you actually study them all, or just decided to dismiss them out of
>hand?
Did I read every word? No. Do I have to? No. The central tenet of each
book is demonstrably false and their only value is as a lesson in how
not to behave.
--
Bob Casanova
"Um, my guess is that would be di/dt>0"; see that above?
Without defining how such an increase is to be measured this
assertion you made is meaningless. And you refuse to follow
through by defining what you meant.
Mark Isaak
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:54:54 +0000, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> So you are completely opposed to Christianity but Islam and Judaism
>>>> are highly desirable, based on texts that are considered treats. Here
>>>> you speak figuratively; treats for the mind, not for the taste buds.
>>>
>>> It's all a load of balls of one variety or another.
>>
>> What convinced you of that?
>
> The fact that the various writers of these books claim knowledge of a
> divine creator, yet offer no evidence; the almost unrelenting
> brutality and acts of egregious cruelty and hatred that are gleefully
> described and celebrated; the lies and misinformation they contain and
> the damage their teachings have done to humanity - physical,
> intellectual and societal.
I guess you hate Shakespeare and Homer, too.
>> Did you actually study them all, or just decided to dismiss them out of
>> hand?
>
> Did I read every word? No. Do I have to? No.
To say, "It's all a load of balls ...", yes, you must read every word.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Interested Lurker
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 8/13/11 9:12 AM, Interested Lurker wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:54:54 +0000, "Steven L."
>> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> So you are completely opposed to Christianity but Islam and Judaism
>>>>> are highly desirable, based on texts that are considered treats. Here
>>>>> you speak figuratively; treats for the mind, not for the taste buds.
>>>>
>>>> It's all a load of balls of one variety or another.
>>>
>>> What convinced you of that?
>>
>> The fact that the various writers of these books claim knowledge of a
>> divine creator, yet offer no evidence; the almost unrelenting
>> brutality and acts of egregious cruelty and hatred that are gleefully
>> described and celebrated; the lies and misinformation they contain and
>> the damage their teachings have done to humanity - physical,
>> intellectual and societal.
>
>I guess you hate Shakespeare and Homer, too.
Never heard of the church of Shakespeare, nor the temple of Homer. In
which country(s) are religions based on their books practiced?
>>> Did you actually study them all, or just decided to dismiss them out of
>>> hand?
>>
>> Did I read every word? No. Do I have to? No.
>
>To say, "It's all a load of balls ...", yes, you must read every word.
No, I mustn't. Central premise is bollocks, anything that flows from
that is also bollocks. That's all I need to know.
Devils Advocaat
Why I wonder are the creationists and IDers so silent on this one
question?
Loirbaj
claims of Evolution. And evolutionists had
confidently man would have in the range of
125,000 genes. Then...the long awaited
results came in...and it both falsified
Evolution and showed their predictions were
wrong by a fantastic percentage.
Mark Isaak
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:57:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/11 9:12 AM, Interested Lurker wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:54:54 +0000, "Steven L."
>>> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> So you are completely opposed to Christianity but Islam and Judaism
>>>>>> are highly desirable, based on texts that are considered treats. Here
>>>>>> you speak figuratively; treats for the mind, not for the taste buds.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all a load of balls of one variety or another.
>>>>
>>>> What convinced you of that?
>>>
>>> The fact that the various writers of these books claim knowledge of a
>>> divine creator, yet offer no evidence; the almost unrelenting
>>> brutality and acts of egregious cruelty and hatred that are gleefully
>>> described and celebrated; the lies and misinformation they contain and
>>> the damage their teachings have done to humanity - physical,
>>> intellectual and societal.
>>
>> I guess you hate Shakespeare and Homer, too.
>
> Never heard of the church of Shakespeare, nor the temple of Homer. In
> which country(s) are religions based on their books practiced?
I thought you were talking about the writings themselves.
>>>> Did you actually study them all, or just decided to dismiss them out of
>>>> hand?
>>>
>>> Did I read every word? No. Do I have to? No.
>>
>> To say, "It's all a load of balls ...", yes, you must read every word.
>
> No, I mustn't. Central premise is bollocks, anything that flows from
> that is also bollocks. That's all I need to know.
Ah, so you have not read enough even to know that a great deal of what
the Bible, Koran, and Torah say does not flow from the "central premise."
Anyone who thinks he knows all he needs to know, knows nothing.
Kleuskes & Moos
Hmmm... The central premise of any number of literary works is bullocks,
too. The premise of Don Quixote is downright silly, the premise of Lord
of the Flies is highly questionable and the premise of Lolita is
considered abhorrent by many.
Where's the difference?
Isn't it true that your beef isn't so much with "organized religion"*)
and their founding Holy Writs, but with their respective adherents? After
all, neither the Bible, nor the Thora or the Qor'an have ever killed
anyone, but their respective followers have.
*) Fortunately mine is highly disorganized.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________
< Yow! Are we wet yet? >
----------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Bushell
Kleuskes & Moos <kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> Isn't it true that your beef isn't so much with "organized religion"*)
> and their founding Holy Writs, but with their respective adherents? After
> all, neither the Bible, nor the Thora or the Qor'an have ever killed
> anyone, but their respective followers have.
>
> *) Fortunately mine is highly disorganized.
Let me guess, a Unitarian or perhaps a Discordian?
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Earle Jones
*
K&M: I generally enjoy your posts.
But what exactly would you say is the "...premise of Don Quixote..."
that you call "silly"?
Thanks,
earle
*
Devils Advocaat
And how is this allegation relevant to the purpose of this particular
thread?
Kleuskes & Moos
Well... The author calls it pretty silly to describe the adventures of a
man (whose name might be Quesada or Quijada or even Quejana, but almost
certainly, in a literary, not mathematical sense, NOT Quixote) gone mad
after reading to many books about legendary knights and i tend to agree
with him.
Nevertheless, the result is a _great_ novel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ Is he the MAGIC INCA carrying a FROG on \
| his shoulders?? Is the FROG his |
| GUIDELIGHT?? It is curious that a DOG |
\ runs already on the ESCALATOR ... /
-----------------------------------------
Kleuskes & Moos
> In article <j2bek7$l8h$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Kleuskes & Moos <kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>
>> Isn't it true that your beef isn't so much with "organized religion"*)
>> and their founding Holy Writs, but with their respective adherents?
>> After all, neither the Bible, nor the Thora or the Qor'an have ever
>> killed anyone, but their respective followers have.
>>
>> *) Fortunately mine is highly disorganized.
>
> Let me guess, a Unitarian or perhaps a Discordian?
I usually describe it as Tjaoist, but you have to know dutch to get the
pun. It rejects all theology and dogma as presumptious and hence
blasphemous.
More formally, /Sacrum Collegium Viatorum/ and don't tell me that doesn't
exist, since i invented it myself and traced it back to Roman times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________
/ TAPPING? You POLITICIANS! Don't you \
| realize that the END of the "Wash |
| Cycle" is a TREASURED MOMENT for most |
\ people?! /
---------------------------------------
Interested Lurker
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 8/14/11 9:07 AM, Interested Lurker wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:57:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/13/11 9:12 AM, Interested Lurker wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:54:54 +0000, "Steven L."
>>>> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> So you are completely opposed to Christianity but Islam and Judaism
>>>>>>> are highly desirable, based on texts that are considered treats. Here
>>>>>>> you speak figuratively; treats for the mind, not for the taste buds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's all a load of balls of one variety or another.
>>>>>
>>>>> What convinced you of that?
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the various writers of these books claim knowledge of a
>>>> divine creator, yet offer no evidence; the almost unrelenting
>>>> brutality and acts of egregious cruelty and hatred that are gleefully
>>>> described and celebrated; the lies and misinformation they contain and
>>>> the damage their teachings have done to humanity - physical,
>>>> intellectual and societal.
>>>
>>> I guess you hate Shakespeare and Homer, too.
>>
>> Never heard of the church of Shakespeare, nor the temple of Homer. In
>> which country(s) are religions based on their books practiced?
>
>I thought you were talking about the writings themselves.
See where jumping to conclusions gets you? Makes you look rather
foolish, doesn't it?
>>>>> Did you actually study them all, or just decided to dismiss them out of
>>>>> hand?
>>>>
>>>> Did I read every word? No. Do I have to? No.
>>>
>>> To say, "It's all a load of balls ...", yes, you must read every word.
>>
>> No, I mustn't. Central premise is bollocks, anything that flows from
>> that is also bollocks. That's all I need to know.
>
>Ah, so you have not read enough even to know that a great deal of what
>the Bible, Koran, and Torah say does not flow from the "central premise."
I've read enough of each and observed enough of the behaviour of each
books' respective adherents to know that it's all a load of balls.
>Anyone who thinks he knows all he needs to know, knows nothing.
I'm wounded, cut to the quick, how will I ever go on, etc., etc., etc.
Interested Lurker
Where's the church of Quixote? Who's been slaughtered in the holy name
of Panza?
>Isn't it true that your beef isn't so much with "organized religion"*)
>and their founding Holy Writs, but with their respective adherents?
It's with both. The brutality described in each book is only matched
by the lust for blood of the faithful.
>After
>all, neither the Bible, nor the Thora or the Qor'an have ever killed
>anyone, but their respective followers have.
But they've killed many using their respective books as justification.
Now, they may well have found another reason for doing it anyway but
that doesn't detract from the fact that the teachings in these books
had lead directly to the misery, mutilation and murder of millions.
>*) Fortunately mine is highly disorganized.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ______________________
>< Yow! Are we wet yet? >
> ----------------------
> \
> \
> ___
> {~._.~}
> ( Y )
> ()~*~()
> (_)-(_)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kleuskes & Moos
Compared to, say, the Bhagavat Gita, the bible is positively pacifistic.
Got a beef with that, too?
If so, how about The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, in which the
entire earth is destroyed in order to build an Intergalactic Bypass?
>>After
>>all, neither the Bible, nor the Thora or the Qor'an have ever killed
>>anyone, but their respective followers have.
>
> But they've killed many using their respective books as justification.
You are now personifying a book, which is silly.
> Now, they may well have found another reason for doing it anyway but
> that doesn't detract from the fact that the teachings in these books had
> lead directly to the misery, mutilation and murder of millions.
Well... That's your interpretation of history. In mine religion is often
used as a pretext, but the ultimate reason for the bloodshed is
inevitabley a thirst for power, which is engrained in _people_ not books.
Books are merely paper with some ink on them. The only thing they can do
to you is give you a paper cut.
>>*) Fortunately mine is highly disorganized.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ Laundry is the fifth dimension!! ... um \
| ... um ... th' washing machine is a |
| black hole and the pink socks are bus |
\ drivers who just fell in!! /
-----------------------------------------
Mark Isaak
There's that word "all" again. "All" includes Rod Myatt, a former
botany professor in San Jose. I have known him to be invariably kind,
helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
classify as "a load of balls"?
Interested Lurker
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
You're being deliberately obtuse.
>I have known him to be invariably kind,
>helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
>classify as "a load of balls"?
If he believes the bible is some kind of divine book, then...
Interested Lurker
<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
I ask, where is the church of Arthur? What are its sacraments? Who
justifies killing in the name of Beeblebrox? Are you going to continue
to make pointless comparisons?
>>>After
>>>all, neither the Bible, nor the Thora or the Qor'an have ever killed
>>>anyone, but their respective followers have.
>>
>> But they've killed many using their respective books as justification.
>
>You are now personifying a book, which is silly.
How is pointing out the fact that people throughout history have used
so-called "holy" books as justification for horrendous acts of
brutality "personifying a book"?
>> Now, they may well have found another reason for doing it anyway but
>> that doesn't detract from the fact that the teachings in these books had
>> lead directly to the misery, mutilation and murder of millions.
>
>Well... That's your interpretation of history. In mine religion is often
>used as a pretext, but the ultimate reason for the bloodshed is
>inevitabley a thirst for power, which is engrained in _people_ not books.
Did you actually read what I wrote? More to the point, did you
actually read what *you* wrote?
>Books are merely paper with some ink on them. The only thing they can do
>to you is give you a paper cut.
Books are ideas and ideas can be dangerous.
Kleuskes & Moos
Why should they have churches? Didn't your mommy teach you it's impolite
to answer a question with a question?
Got a reason to ignore the Bhagavat Gita and the horrible events on the
Kurukshetra? Do you prefer Homer? No there wasn't a temple of Homer, but
he had many followers (well into Roman times) and the gods portrayed
certainly had temples, followers and all that.
I thinks your indignation is a tad selective.
>>>>After
>>>>all, neither the Bible, nor the Thora or the Qor'an have ever killed
>>>>anyone, but their respective followers have.
>>>
>>> But they've killed many using their respective books as justification.
>>
>>You are now personifying a book, which is silly.
>
> How is pointing out the fact that people throughout history have used
> so-called "holy" books as justification for horrendous acts of brutality
> "personifying a book"?
You were saying the Thorah, Qor'an and Bible have. But i guess that was
unintentional.
>>> Now, they may well have found another reason for doing it anyway but
>>> that doesn't detract from the fact that the teachings in these books
>>> had lead directly to the misery, mutilation and murder of millions.
>>
>>Well... That's your interpretation of history. In mine religion is often
>>used as a pretext, but the ultimate reason for the bloodshed is
>>inevitabley a thirst for power, which is engrained in _people_ not
>>books.
>
> Did you actually read what I wrote? More to the point, did you actually
> read what *you* wrote?
Yes. I even wrote what i wrote, spelling mistakes and all. What about it?
Your position is still a ludicrous simplification.
>>Books are merely paper with some ink on them. The only thing they can do
>>to you is give you a paper cut.
>
> Books are ideas and ideas can be dangerous.
We should eliminate them. No? At least strictly control them and burn
most of them. No? Then at least we should lock up anyone with any idea
and beat the crap out of them in order to prevent them having any ideas,
since THAT is dangerous. No?
> Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism,
> tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free
> inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children -
> Christopher Hitchens
You do not exactly seem to represent the ideas of tolerance, open
worldviews, free exchange of ideas, freedom of thought, religion, etc.
From where i'm standing, you seem a narrowminded, illinformed,
historically, philosophically and culturally ignorant twit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________
< I'm having a MID-WEEK CRISIS! >
Interested Lurker
<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
It's not my problem you can't follow the argument.
>Didn't your mommy teach you it's impolite
>to answer a question with a question?
I don't have a "mommy". I have a mother, a mither, a mum, a ma or a
maw.
>Got a reason to ignore the Bhagavat Gita and the horrible events on the
>Kurukshetra?
I've never read it.
>Do you prefer Homer? No there wasn't a temple of Homer, but
>he had many followers (well into Roman times) and the gods portrayed
>certainly had temples, followers and all that.
Which is, again, irrelevant.
>I thinks your indignation is a tad selective.
You can think what you like.
>>>>>After
>>>>>all, neither the Bible, nor the Thora or the Qor'an have ever killed
>>>>>anyone, but their respective followers have.
>>>>
>>>> But they've killed many using their respective books as justification.
>>>
>>>You are now personifying a book, which is silly.
>>
>> How is pointing out the fact that people throughout history have used
>> so-called "holy" books as justification for horrendous acts of brutality
>> "personifying a book"?
>
>You were saying the Thorah, Qor'an and Bible have.
No I wasn't, I didn't post anything that could be construed as such.
Your inability to read for comprehension is not my problem.
>But i guess that was
>unintentional.
It was non-existent.
>
>>>> Now, they may well have found another reason for doing it anyway but
>
>>>> that doesn't detract from the fact that the teachings in these books
>>>> had lead directly to the misery, mutilation and murder of millions.
>>>
>>>Well... That's your interpretation of history. In mine religion is often
>>>used as a pretext, but the ultimate reason for the bloodshed is
>>>inevitabley a thirst for power, which is engrained in _people_ not
>>>books.
>>
>> Did you actually read what I wrote? More to the point, did you actually
>> read what *you* wrote?
>
>Yes. I even wrote what i wrote, spelling mistakes and all. What about it?
Then you would have recognised that what you wrote was, for all
intents, the same as what I wrote. Do please learn to read and
understand.
>Your position is still a ludicrous simplification.
Coming from someone who can't understand a simple sentence.
>>>Books are merely paper with some ink on them. The only thing they can do
>>>to you is give you a paper cut.
>>
>> Books are ideas and ideas can be dangerous.
>
>We should eliminate them. No? At least strictly control them and burn
>most of them. No? Then at least we should lock up anyone with any idea
>and beat the crap out of them in order to prevent them having any ideas,
>since THAT is dangerous. No?
The fact that you would even suggest that that is what I meant betrays
your bad faith and appalling grasp of the English language.
>> Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism,
>> tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free
>> inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children -
>> Christopher Hitchens
>
>You do not exactly seem to represent the ideas of tolerance, open
>worldviews, free exchange of ideas, freedom of thought, religion, etc.
>From where i'm standing, you seem a narrowminded, illinformed,
>historically, philosophically and culturally ignorant twit.
That's the thing about the opinions of worthless people, they too are
worthless.
--
Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in
ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of
women and coercive toward children - Christopher Hitchens
The Bible is bollocks - me.
Loirbaj
he was caught in his latest eruption of
Academic Fraud --even changing his
own quotes and premises.
DevilsAdvocaat
I quoted directly from the work of Lynn
Margulis "Acquiring Genomes", which anyone
can purchase for themselves. Whereas Jahnu
cherry-picks from creationist websites
When pressed to confirm his above claim
then DevilsAdvocaat FLED that and started
a new Thread with a NEW claim. Please
apologize to the group for your Academic
Fraud, sir?
Loirbaj
in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers,
or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists,
Virgil
<787c43fb-04cd-4397...@cf8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> DevilsAdvocaat
> I quoted directly from the work of Lynn
> Margulis "Acquiring Genomes", which anyone
> can purchase for themselves. Whereas Jahnu
> cherry-picks from creationist websites
And we all know that Jahnu is a total fraud!
--
Virgil
<226137d8-b346-4e08...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos,
> in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers,
> or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists,
> still occurs.
>
> DevilsAdvocaat
> I quoted directly from the work of Lynn
> Margulis "Acquiring Genomes", which anyone
> can purchase for themselves. Whereas Jahnu
> cherry-picks from creationist websites
While Loirbaj jabrioL has nothing true to say.
--
Devils Advocaat
I have not committed academic fraud.
I have previously explained what that actually is.
You choose to ignore this.
Because you don't like going where the evidence leads.
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip rubbish>
> That's the thing about the opinions of worthless people, they too are
> worthless.
Ah... "Worthless people" including anyone who does not agree with you on
the spot?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
/ I didn't order any WOO-WOO ... Maybe a \
\ YUBBA ... But no WOO-WOO! /
----------------------------------------
Mark Isaak
I'm deliberately taking you at your word.
>> I have known him to be invariably kind,
>> helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
>> classify as "a load of balls"?
>
> If he believes the bible is some kind of divine book, then...
Then he must be a better man for it.
Loirbaj
in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers,
or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists,
Still SILENCE from DevilsAdvocaat as
he was caught in his latest eruption of
Academic Fraud --even changing his
own quotes and premises.
DevilsAdvocaat
I quoted directly from the work of Lynn
Margulis "Acquiring Genomes", which anyone
can purchase for themselves. Whereas Jahnu
cherry-picks from creationist websites
When pressed to confirm his above claim
then DevilsAdvocaat FLED that and started
a new Thread with a NEW claim. Please
apologize to the group for your Academic
Fraud, sir? Do you again claim 'Jahnu got
quote from creationist websites'? If so, then
document WHICH sites for YOUR claim,
sir. Or, just admit to the News Group that
you lied again, and later attempted to change
the premises of your claim.
Interested Lurker
<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 23:48:09 +0100, Interested Lurker wrote:
><snip rubbish>
"Rubbish" that shows clearly your inability to read for comprehension
and your dishonesty.
>> That's the thing about the opinions of worthless people, they too are
>> worthless.
>
>Ah... "Worthless people" including anyone who does not agree with you on
>the spot?
No. I don't care if people agree with me or not. If I did I wouldn't
be posting in a creationist newsgroup.
Someone who may have made a genuine mistake in interpretation of
something I write but, when it's brought to their attention, instead
of acknowledging the fact or asking for clarification, continues to
deliberately misrepresent what I say; someone who attaches the worst
possible interpretation to the things I write and when called on it,
doesn't have the decency or basic honesty to accept their error and
instead starts throwing insults around. That kind of person is pretty
worthless, in my estimation.
Interested Lurker
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
No, you're not.
>>> I have known him to be invariably kind,
>>> helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
>>> classify as "a load of balls"?
>>
>> If he believes the bible is some kind of divine book, then...
>
>Then he must be a better man for it.
He's a deluded fool.
Devils Advocaat
Your ignorance about the nature of academic fraud is only exceeded by
your propensity for lying.
Mark Isaak
Trust me, I am being quite literal. Perhaps you did not say quite what
you intend.
>>>> I have known him to be invariably kind,
>>>> helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
>>>> classify as "a load of balls"?
>>>
>>> If he believes the bible is some kind of divine book, then...
>>
>> Then he must be a better man for it.
>
> He's a deluded fool.
Shrug. So are you, so are we all. At least his delusion results in
kindness and helpfulness, whereas yours results in bigotry and rudeness.
Interested Lurker
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
I said exactly what I intended, it's not my fault you fail to
comprehend and prefer to play childish games.
>>>>> I have known him to be invariably kind,
>>>>> helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
>>>>> classify as "a load of balls"?
>>>>
>>>> If he believes the bible is some kind of divine book, then...
>>>
>>> Then he must be a better man for it.
>>
>> He's a deluded fool.
>
>Shrug. So are you, so are we all. At least his delusion results in
>kindness and helpfulness, whereas yours results in bigotry and rudeness.
Bigotry? Indeed? I hope you've got evidence to back that up.
Otherwise, like IlBeBauck, you're a filthy liar.
VoiceOfReason
<snip>
> >>>>> I have known him to be invariably kind,
> >>>>> helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
> >>>>> classify as "a load of balls"?
> >>>>
> >>>> If he believes the bible is some kind of divine book, then...
> >>>
> >>> Then he must be a better man for it.
> >>
> >> He's a deluded fool.
> >
> >Shrug. So are you, so are we all. At least his delusion results in
> >kindness and helpfulness, whereas yours results in bigotry and rudeness.
>
> Bigotry? Indeed? I hope you've got evidence to back that up.
> Otherwise, like IlBeBauck, you're a filthy liar.
Read your tagline lately?
Interested Lurker
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>Interested Lurker wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >>>>> I have known him to be invariably kind,
>> >>>>> helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
>> >>>>> classify as "a load of balls"?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If he believes the bible is some kind of divine book, then...
>> >>>
>> >>> Then he must be a better man for it.
>> >>
>> >> He's a deluded fool.
>> >
>> >Shrug. So are you, so are we all. At least his delusion results in
>> >kindness and helpfulness, whereas yours results in bigotry and rudeness.
>>
>> Bigotry? Indeed? I hope you've got evidence to back that up.
>> Otherwise, like IlBeBauck, you're a filthy liar.
>
>Read your tagline lately?
Yes. Do you have a point to make?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:21:22 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>
>>On 8/12/2011 1:56 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:21:09 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub>:
>>>
>>>> On 8/11/2011 3:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:11:00 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/10/2011 12:00 PM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>>>>> I often ponder what creationists and IDers mean when they talk about
>>>>>>> genetic mutations failing to increase the information in an organism's
>>>>>>> genome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do they define "increase in information"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Um, my guess is that would be di/dt>0
>>>>>
>>>>> How profound..."an increase is an increase".
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you're so knowledgeable about this, how about
>>>>> providing the group with a definition for information, one
>>>>> which is measurable in the context of DNA. IOW, how exactly
>>>>> does one compare two DNA segments of identical length and
>>>>> determine which has "more information"?
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you just Google some of the countless links to "bioinformatics"?
>>>
>>> Why don't you follow through on your assertions?
>>
>>If I had made any, I would.
>
>"Um, my guess is that would be di/dt>0"; see that above?
>Without defining how such an increase is to be measured this
>assertion you made is meaningless. And you refuse to follow
>through by defining what you meant.
[Crickets...]
No surprise.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Steven L.
"Interested Lurker" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ph3j47dnp9jfn5va9...@4ax.com:
Literally hundreds of millions of people believe in some form of
religious faith.
If it's all "violent, irrational, allied to racism, tribalism and
bigotry," as Christopher Hitchens claims, then surveys and public
opinion polls of those adherents should show a marked tendency toward
those evils as compared with nonbelievers.
There's no evidence that this is the case. Evidently you don't know any
people of faith personally, nor can you cite any surveys or polls of
people of faith to support your claim that they're evil people who were
made that way by religion.
I would also point out that some of the greatest violations of human
rights in the history of the world were committed by various Communist
regimes which were largely staffed by nonbelievers and who never invoked
religion as the basis for their crimes.
Stalin didn't carry out his purges or set up his GULAG in the name of
religion. Neither did Mao Zedong in his euphemistically named "Cultural
Revolution." Yet between them, literally tens of millions of people
were murdered and a quarter billion more were enslaved under
totalitarianism. I can't think of *any* actions perpetrated by Judaism,
Christianity or Islam in the 20th century that comes close.
Just compare the body counts.
-- Steven L.
Interested Lurker
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Argumentum ad populum.
>If it's all "violent, irrational, allied to racism, tribalism and
>bigotry," as Christopher Hitchens claims, then surveys and public
>opinion polls of those adherents should show a marked tendency toward
>those evils as compared with nonbelievers.
Surveys and public opinion polls can return any result you wish,
depending on how the questions are phrased. That's your standard of
evidence?
>There's no evidence that this is the case. Evidently you don't know any
>people of faith personally, nor can you cite any surveys or polls of
>people of faith to support your claim that they're evil people who were
>made that way by religion.
Neither can I cite any surveys or polls of turkeys who are looking
forward to Christmas.
>I would also point out that some of the greatest violations of human
>rights in the history of the world were committed by various Communist
>regimes which were largely staffed by nonbelievers and who never invoked
>religion as the basis for their crimes.
Communism didn't use religion? I'll grant you that but what they did
use was the centuries-old religiosity of the people. Remove one
godhead and replace it with another. Without the prior religious
conditioning of the population that kind of thing would not have been
possible.
>Stalin didn't carry out his purges or set up his GULAG in the name of
>religion.
You're aware that Stalin studied at a Georgian Orthodox Seminary? What
better place to learn how to brainwash and control and how easily acts
of brutality can be accepted when the all-knowing, all-seeing power
commands it?
> Neither did Mao Zedong in his euphemistically named "Cultural
>Revolution." Yet between them, literally tens of millions of people
>were murdered and a quarter billion more were enslaved under
>totalitarianism. I can't think of *any* actions perpetrated by Judaism,
>Christianity or Islam in the 20th century that comes close.
The Holocaust, envisioned by Hitler, a Catholic, and perpetrated by
the German people, the vast majority of whom were Christians.
>Just compare the body counts.
Religion and religiosity isn't looking look too good.
--
Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in
ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of
women and coercive toward children - Christopher Hitchens
The Bible is bollocks - me.
Mark Isaak
"It's all a load of balls", when there are obviously parts that are
extremely valuable by any reasonable measure, and when you admit you do
not even know all of it.
"Anything that flows from it is bollocks", wherein you denigrate the
behavior of a couple billion complete strangers, dismissing out of hand
the good they do and have done.
Kermit
> On Aug 10, 3:00 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I often ponder what creationists and IDers mean when they talk about
> > genetic mutations failing to increase the information in an organism's
> > genome.
>
> > How do they define "increase in information"?
>
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/In-the-Beginning-...
>
> I have been going through Sarfati's 'Greatest Hoax on Earth' book
> recently. The general claim is that god created 'kinds' (a sort of
> super-species) with an incredible amount of perfect DNA information.
> These kinds have speciated since the flood through genetic mutations.
> All of the mutations have involved a loss of information however and
> are ultimately bad. Even these bad mutations can benefit the organism
> making it more adapted to its environment appearing to be beneficial.
> Based on this 'theory' humans (and supposedly all species) have a very
> limited time to survive before the mutations finish us off. Of course
> the rapture should happen by then so it's OK.
>
> Mark
This has the added benefit of adding a thin veneer of science to the
claim that none of us are as noble, handsome, and healthy as are our
more reverent ancestors. Part of the reason that biblical literalists
dislike evolutionary science is that they dislike the claim (which ToE
doesn't actually make) that we are progressing over time. They take
pride not so much in what they accomplish as in who they are descended
from.
Consider their reverence for the Founding Fathers here in the US, and
their simultaneous contempt for contemporary politicians (especially
those from the reality-based culture, or any showing actual
compassion).
Or their insistence that they "didn't come from no monkey".
Kermit,
descended from slavers, horse thieves, and inarticulate apes, among
others
Kermit
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:16:05 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On Aug 13, 12:05 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:11:13 +0100, Interested Lurker
>
> >> <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant,
> >> >allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in
> >> >ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of
> >> >women and coercive toward children - Christopher Hitchens
>
> >> >The Bible is bollocks - me.
>
> >> >The Quran is cobblers - also me.
>
> >> >The Torah is testicles - me again.
>
> >> but more ordinarily means complete nonsense. OK, no problem there.
>
> >> A cobbler is either a person who repairs shoes or one of several tasty
> >> food items. OK, I'll buy that also. You don't have any problem with
> >> the Quran, it is a tasty morsel for a good, honest working man.
>
> >> Testicles are considered in many societies to be a tasty and very
> >> prized food delicacy. Again that seem quite appropriate.
>
> >Ah, but not in Jewish culture which would be relevant here, and link
> >back t the first item:
> >Al beeste, that ... kitt and taken a wey the ballokes is, ye shulen
> >not offre to the Lord...", (Leviticus 21, 24)
>
> It is amazing that the Pentateuch was written in old English (or is it
> some celtic variation?)
I shared guard duty once with a soldier who insisted that only the
King James version was inspired...
Kermit
Interested Lurker
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
There is nothing in those books - no behavioural code, no standard of
morals - that hasn't been expressed elsewhere, better and which could
not have been discovered if they had never been written. In fact, the
debased nature of humanity, the worst, lowest, most contemptible acts
of human cruelty, are celebrated within their covers and by those who
believe they are the inspired word of god.
>, and when you admit you do
>not even know all of it.
As I stated before, I don't have to. All I need to know is that for
good people to do bad things it takes religion.
>"Anything that flows from it is bollocks", wherein you denigrate the
>behavior of a couple billion complete strangers, dismissing out of hand
>the good they do and have done.
No. People do good things with religion and without it. What you're
saying is that people can't do "good works", can't behave in a decent,
moral fashion if they refuse to accept that a book written by
ignorant, bronze age savages is the work of god.
Tell me, what's it like being a filthy, lying bigot?
Kermit
> "Interested Lurker" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ph3j47dnp9jfn5va9...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:17:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
> > <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > >On 8/15/11 10:37 AM, Interested Lurker wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:16:49 -0700, Mark Isaak
> > >> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> On 8/14/11 9:07 AM, Interested Lurker wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:57:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
> > >>>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On 8/13/11 9:12 AM, Interested Lurker wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:54:54 +0000, "Steven L."
To side with Mr. Kurker on a particular...
We all know that the atheism and technology of Mao and Stalin were
more an accident of history than anything else. If Cromwell had had
submarines and planes and bombs, and there had been more Irishmen, do
you really think the body count would have been any less than
Stalin's?
I will say that currently the best man I know is an evangelical (and
probably a Creationist - I've not asked). As were some of the meanest
bastards I've ever met. I can't see that religion contributes much
other than a framework to hang one's life to give it shape.
I don't remember its name, but Yeats wrote a short essay in which he
said that there were two types of Irishmen: mean and selfish, kind and
charitable. They both used their Roman Catholic upbringing to justify
their behavior.
Myself, I prefer making sense out of the world around me than finding
comfort in it.
Kermit,
still trying to walk without wobbling
VoiceOfReason
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>
>
>
> <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >Interested Lurker wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >>>>> I have known him to be invariably kind,
> >> >>>>> helpful, and patient. What, specifically, about his behavior do you
> >> >>>>> classify as "a load of balls"?
>
> >> >>>> If he believes the bible is some kind of divine book, then...
>
> >> >>> Then he must be a better man for it.
>
> >> >> He's a deluded fool.
>
> >> >Shrug. So are you, so are we all. At least his delusion results in
> >> >kindness and helpfulness, whereas yours results in bigotry and rudeness.
>
> >> Bigotry? Indeed? I hope you've got evidence to back that up.
> >> Otherwise, like IlBeBauck, you're a filthy liar.
>
> >Read your tagline lately?
>
> Yes. Do you have a point to make?
I don't need to. You make it for me every time you post.
Interested Lurker
I'm sure you thought that was clever but all it demonstrates is that
you too are a filthy liar.
Mark Isaak
So: Valuable enough to repeat again and again. And you neglect the
value of the artistry within the books.
> In fact, the
> debased nature of humanity, the worst, lowest, most contemptible acts
> of human cruelty, are celebrated within their covers and by those who
> believe they are the inspired word of god.
Too bad you are so obsessed with that part that that is all you can see.
>> , and when you admit you do
>> not even know all of it.
>
> As I stated before, I don't have to. All I need to know is that for
> good people to do bad things it takes religion.
>
>> "Anything that flows from it is bollocks", wherein you denigrate the
>> behavior of a couple billion complete strangers, dismissing out of hand
>> the good they do and have done.
>
> No. People do good things with religion and without it. What you're
> saying is that people can't do "good works", can't behave in a decent,
> moral fashion if they refuse to accept that a book written by
> ignorant, bronze age savages is the work of god.
No, what I am saying is that some people (not all) are influenced by the
Bible, Quran, and/or Torah to do some good. I have seen it happen.
> Tell me, what's it like being a filthy, lying bigot?
You do not know what bigotry is, do you? It is when a person finds
qualities that they do not like in a few people and attributes those
negative traits to an entire group, most of whom they have never met.
For example, they find that some religious people are cruel or deluded
or somesuch, and they jump from there to insisting that *all* religious
people are losers.
As for what it is like being a bigot, it is not comfortable to recognize
it, because then you have the choice of either continuing the bigotry --
and being cognizant of one's irrationality and meanness -- or changing,
and changing one's unconscious attitudes is not easy. I have pretty
well overcome the bigotry against religion that I, like you, once had,
but I still struggle with bigotry against the morbidly obese, against
people with certain accents, and against gum chewers.
Loirbaj
Devils Advocaat
I have not changed my quotes or premises.
I quoted directly from "Acquiring Genomes".
This put Jahnu's piece in it's proper context.
Showing Jahnu's assertion to be false.
I stated he must have taken it from a creationist website.
Why?
Because it is the sort of thing you find on such websites.
I have asked Jahnu for his original source.
But he refuses to present it.
He has even said I was being unreasonable asking him to provide it.
If he were so sure of his position would he behave this way?
And if Loirbaj was so sure of his, would he twist and lie the way he
does?
Virgil
<2f555364-3352-4651...@q5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos,
> in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers,
> or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists,
> occurrs with astounding frequency.
--
Devils Advocaat
> On Aug 10, 8:00 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I often ponder what creationists and IDers mean when they talk about
> > genetic mutations failing to increase the information in an organism's
> > genome.
>
> > How do they define "increase in information"?
>
> of genetic mutations and the genome.
It shouldn't be difficult for those who claim that genomes don't
increase in information to explain why and define what they mean by an
increase in information, should it?
Ron O
Only the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest are still IDiots that
support the creationist intelligent design scam. All the regular
IDiot posters on TO know why the bait and switch went down on them
over 9 years ago, and why it is still going down on any rube that
claims to be able to teach the nonexistent ID science. If they put up
the lame ID propaganda about no information increase they know that
they can't defend it. It will just demonstrate how bogus and
dishonest they are for still claiming that the junk is worth
defending. When the ID perps that sold you the junk will not support
it when they have to, why should the IDiots that buy the junk from
them support the junk?
Look what just happened in Texas. Where is the wonderful intelligent
design science that the ID perps keep claiming that they have? When
all the IDiots ever get from the guys that sold them the ID scam is a
stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever
existed, what should a competent and honest person conclude? There
simply are no honest, informed and competent ID scam supporters in
existence. If there were you would see waves of such supporters
getting their local school boards to voluntarily teach the wonderful
intelligent design science. There would be honest and useful
intelligent design teaching supplements available for any honest
teacher to use. What would happen to any IDiot stupid enough to do
that? What keeps happening to the few that are stupid enough to try?
What happened to Michele Bachmann? What happened to the Louisiana
rubes that wanted to put intelligent design supplements into their
science textbooks? What just happened in Texas with the intelligent
design supplements?
If there is an IDiot that still wants to defend the ID scam they
should go to the Discovery Institute and demand to see the intelligent
design public school lesson plan. Just ask the ID perps what they
were going to use as the wedge before they resorted to the obfuscation
switch scam. Make the scam artists put up what they are still
claiming that they can teach about intelligent design and how they
want to teach it, and get back to us with this lesson plan. In all
the years that the creationist scam artists have been selling the ID
scam not a single one of them has ever demonstrated that they had
anything worth teaching about ID (Just ask the ID perps. The whole ID
scam was to use ID as the wedge in the public schools.). These guys
are running the bait and switch on their own creationist support base
rather than put forward the ID science they claim to have. Anyone can
check out the switch scam and demonstrate for themselves that it
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. They can't miss that the
switch scam is coming from the same guys that lied to them about the
intelligent design scam. So why are there still IDiots like Kalk that
will put in their 2 cents to obfuscate the issue instead of admitting
that there really is no scientific issue, and there won't be until the
IDiots can get their act together and come up with some viable science
worth discussing?
Really, 9 years of the ID perps running the bait and switch scam on
their own creationist support base and there are still IDiots that
support them. What excuse for that could there possibly be?
Ron Okimoto
Loirbaj
I stated he must have taken it from a creationist website.
Why?
Because it is the sort of thing you find on such websites.
BroilJAB said,
So, you knowingly lied. But you believe
that it is mitigated somehow by your
malicious intent. You omit to say that
you next changed your premises in your
successive postings. Apologize to Jahnu
and cease your frauds, sir.
Interested Lurker
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
No. The ideas existed long before the books did.
>And you neglect the
>value of the artistry within the books.
Irrelevant, considering the evil that has been done because of those
books.
>> In fact, the
>> debased nature of humanity, the worst, lowest, most contemptible acts
>> of human cruelty, are celebrated within their covers and by those who
>> believe they are the inspired word of god.
>
>Too bad you are so obsessed with that part that that is all you can see.
That's all that's important; much better those books never existed.
>>> , and when you admit you do
>>> not even know all of it.
>>
>> As I stated before, I don't have to. All I need to know is that for
>> good people to do bad things it takes religion.
>>
>>> "Anything that flows from it is bollocks", wherein you denigrate the
>>> behavior of a couple billion complete strangers, dismissing out of hand
>>> the good they do and have done.
>>
>> No. People do good things with religion and without it. What you're
>> saying is that people can't do "good works", can't behave in a decent,
>> moral fashion if they refuse to accept that a book written by
>> ignorant, bronze age savages is the work of god.
>
>No, what I am saying is that some people (not all) are influenced by the
>Bible, Quran, and/or Torah to do some good. I have seen it happen.
>
>> Tell me, what's it like being a filthy, lying bigot?
>
>You do not know what bigotry is, do you?
I'm well aware of what it is and you're exhibiting it by suggesting
that one must accept a "holy" book to do good.
>It is when a person finds
>qualities that they do not like in a few people and attributes those
>negative traits to an entire group, most of whom they have never met.
>For example, they find that some religious people are cruel or deluded
>or somesuch, and they jump from there to insisting that *all* religious
>people are losers.
It's a good thing I'm not doing that, then, isn't it? I condemn the
religions but not all of the religious. I recognise that most people,
believers or not, a fundamentally decent people. Unfortunately,
religious people have been lied to and for whatever reason are unable
to see the truth for themselves. It takes religion to make good people
do bad things; history is littered with the mutilated corpses of the
poor unfortunates who got in the way of the believers.
>As for what it is like being a bigot, it is not comfortable to recognize
>it, because then you have the choice of either continuing the bigotry --
>and being cognizant of one's irrationality and meanness -- or changing,
>and changing one's unconscious attitudes is not easy. I have pretty
>well overcome the bigotry against religion that I, like you, once had,
>but I still struggle with bigotry against the morbidly obese, against
>people with certain accents, and against gum chewers.
Religion is vile, evil, and worthless and the world would be vastly
improved without it. Time it was educated off the face of the planet.
Devils Advocaat
Note you ignore one fact.
Jahnu's refusal to disclose the source he used.
If it were not a creationist website.
He would have disclosed it by now.
I have not lied.
Nor have I committed fraud.
Walter Bushell
<962b65ff-6214-4d87...@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> What happened to Michele Bachmann?
She may be the next US President.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
VoiceOfReason
> In article
> <962b65ff-6214-4d87-b39e-2152419d9...@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > What happened to Michele Bachmann?
>
> She may be the next US President.
She's even nuttier than Palin, though not as incompetent. I doubt the
Republican Party is stupid enough to make her the nominee for
president... though I could be wrong.
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip for brevity>
>>It is when a person finds
>>qualities that they do not like in a few people and attributes those
>>negative traits to an entire group, most of whom they have never met.
>>For example, they find that some religious people are cruel or deluded
>>or somesuch, and they jump from there to insisting that *all* religious
>>people are losers.
>
> It's a good thing I'm not doing that, then, isn't it? I condemn the
> religions but not all of the religious. I recognise that most people,
> believers or not, a fundamentally decent people. Unfortunately,
> religious people have been lied to and for whatever reason are unable to
> see the truth for themselves. It takes religion to make good people do
> bad things; history is littered with the mutilated corpses of the poor
> unfortunates who got in the way of the believers.
While you, on the other hand, are in possession of The Truth, The Whole
Truth and Nothing But the Truth concerning the Ultimate Question of Life,
the Universe and Everything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
< Yow! Are you the self-frying president? >
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Bushell
<b8fe8942-10a6-4d04...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
Ah, but she's better than most of the candidates.
Interested Lurker
<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:10:29 +0100, Interested Lurker wrote:
>
><snip for brevity>
>
>>>It is when a person finds
>>>qualities that they do not like in a few people and attributes those
>>>negative traits to an entire group, most of whom they have never met.
>>>For example, they find that some religious people are cruel or deluded
>>>or somesuch, and they jump from there to insisting that *all* religious
>>>people are losers.
>>
>> It's a good thing I'm not doing that, then, isn't it? I condemn the
>> religions but not all of the religious. I recognise that most people,
>> believers or not, a fundamentally decent people. Unfortunately,
>> religious people have been lied to and for whatever reason are unable to
>> see the truth for themselves. It takes religion to make good people do
>> bad things; history is littered with the mutilated corpses of the poor
>> unfortunates who got in the way of the believers.
>
>While you, on the other hand, are in possession of The Truth, The Whole
>Truth and Nothing But the Truth concerning the Ultimate Question of Life,
>the Universe and Everything.
I am? News to me.
You really do seem to have a profound problem with reading for
comprehension. That or you're a pathological liar. Either way, there's
help out there if you truly desire it.
Andrew
> Loirbaj wrote:
>> DevilsAdvocaat blurts out,
>> I stated he must have taken it from a creationist website.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because it is the sort of thing you find on such websites.
>>
>> BroilJAB said,
>> So, you knowingly lied. But you believe
>> that it is mitigated somehow by your
>> malicious intent. You omit to say that
>> you next changed your premises in your
>> successive postings. Apologize to Jahnu
>> and cease your frauds, sir.
>
> Note you ignore one fact.
>
> Jahnu's refusal to disclose the source he used.
You here acknowledge that he did not disclose
a source in his posts, yet you said where he got
them. Therefore your mendacity is manifest.
> If it were not a creationist website.
>
> He would have disclosed it by now.
Therefore it proves your statement? Not.
> I have not lied.
>
> Nor have I committed fraud.
Simply apologize and recover some
of your former respect.
>
>
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:25376039-148c-437c...@l37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > Loirbaj wrote:
> >> DevilsAdvocaat blurts out,
> >> I stated he must have taken it from a creationist website.
>
> >> Why?
>
> >> Because it is the sort of thing you find on such websites.
>
> >> BroilJAB said,
> >> So, you knowingly lied. But you believe
> >> that it is mitigated somehow by your
> >> malicious intent. You omit to say that
> >> you next changed your premises in your
> >> successive postings. Apologize to Jahnu
> >> and cease your frauds, sir.
>
> > Note you ignore one fact.
>
> > Jahnu's refusal to disclose the source he used.
>
> You here acknowledge that he did not disclose
> a source in his posts, yet you said where he got
> them. Therefore your mendacity is manifest.
Try and think things through if you can.
I originally said Jahnu got these out of context statements from
creationists websites.
I later asked him to disclose his source(s).
He refused to do so.
Why don't you address his reluctance to comply with my simple request.
The reason I suggested his source(s) were creationists websites is
simple.
Creationists websites that attack the theory of evolution often
contain such out of context statements as posted by Jahnu.
And Jahnu comes to the same conclusion as the author's of such
websites.
That these statements prove the theory of evolution to be false.
>
> > If it were not a creationist website.
>
> > He would have disclosed it by now.
>
> Therefore it proves your statement? Not.
See above.
>
> > I have not lied.
>
> > Nor have I committed fraud.
>
> Simply apologize and recover some
> of your former respect.
>
I have no need to apologise to anyone.
You and your ilk have never shown me any respect.
Even when I have been reasonable in my requests and questions.
Vend
> It's a good thing I'm not doing that, then, isn't it? I condemn the
> religions but not all of the religious. I recognise that most people,
> believers or not, a fundamentally decent people. Unfortunately,
> religious people have been lied to and for whatever reason are unable
> to see the truth for themselves. It takes religion to make good people
> do bad things; history is littered with the mutilated corpses of the
> poor unfortunates who got in the way of the believers.
I would say it takes ideology to make good people do bad things.
Even without being proper religions (belief in the supernatural)
religious-like ideologies, such as soviet communism and its
derivatives, can and did motivate tremendous atrocities.
I suppose that, despite being irrational, these ideologies, whether or
not they have a supernatural belief content, resonate well in the mind
of many people because of the tribal mentality of our species:
Unquestioning loyalty to the alpha-male, self-sacrifice for the group
and hatred and dehumanization of outsiders and members of the group
that are perceived as disruptive may have provided an evolutionary
advantage, at least at group level.
VoiceOfReason
>
> VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 8:48 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <962b65ff-6214-4d87-b39e-2152419d9...@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > What happened to Michele Bachmann?
>
> > > She may be the next US President.
>
> > She's even nuttier than Palin, though not as incompetent. I doubt the
> > Republican Party is stupid enough to make her the nominee for
> > president... though I could be wrong.
>
> Ah, but she's better than most of the candidates.
That's a pretty scary thought.
Walter Bushell
<509eb11e-7e68-43f4...@h4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
Terrifying, I would say.
Loirbaj
that it is mitigated somehow by your
malicious intent. You omit to say that
you next changed your premises in your
successive postings. Apologize to Jahnu
and cease your frauds, sir.
DevilsAdvocaat said,
Note you ignore one fact.
Jahnu's refusal to disclose the source
he used.
BroilJAB said,
You actually admit that you INVENT
attributions ('cherrypicked from creationist
site'). By your crooked/malicious logic,
you can falsely attribute anything, at any
time. And still you are denial of it. Apologize
for your fraud, lick your wounds, and learn
from it.
Virgil
<85878c5a-e0e1-4ec6...@q3g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Loirbaj blurts out,
nothing truthful!
--
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in message
> news:25376039-148c-437c...@l37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > Loirbaj wrote:
> >> DevilsAdvocaat blurts out,
> >> I stated he must have taken it from a creationist website.
> >>
> >> Why?
Because it is creationist propaganda that no one else would promulgate.
--
Mark Isaak
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:14:46 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/11 3:09 PM, Interested Lurker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:25:07 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/16/11 8:42 AM, Interested Lurker wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:32:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>>>> Bigotry? Indeed? I hope you've got evidence to back that up.
>>>>> Otherwise, like IlBeBauck, you're a filthy liar.
>>>>
>>>> "It's all a load of balls", when there are obviously parts that are
>>>> extremely valuable by any reasonable measure
>>>
>>> There is nothing in those books - no behavioural code, no standard of
>>> morals - that hasn't been expressed elsewhere, better and which could
>>> not have been discovered if they had never been written.
>>
>> So: Valuable enough to repeat again and again.
>
> No. The ideas existed long before the books did.
>
>> And you neglect the
>> value of the artistry within the books.
>
> Irrelevant, considering the evil that has been done because of those
> books.
I see. "Religion is wholly, 100% bad because the multitude of good
within it is irrelevant." A very neat debating trick. I hope you can
see that the same trick can prove that religion is wholly, 100% good.
>>> In fact, the
>>> debased nature of humanity, the worst, lowest, most contemptible acts
>>> of human cruelty, are celebrated within their covers and by those who
>>> believe they are the inspired word of god.
>>
>> Too bad you are so obsessed with that part that that is all you can see.
>
> That's all that's important; much better those books never existed.
Only evil is important? Now you sound like a sociopath.
>>>> , and when you admit you do
>>>> not even know all of it.
>>>
>>> As I stated before, I don't have to. All I need to know is that for
>>> good people to do bad things it takes religion.
>>>
>>>> "Anything that flows from it is bollocks", wherein you denigrate the
>>>> behavior of a couple billion complete strangers, dismissing out of hand
>>>> the good they do and have done.
>>>
>>> No. People do good things with religion and without it. What you're
>>> saying is that people can't do "good works", can't behave in a decent,
>>> moral fashion if they refuse to accept that a book written by
>>> ignorant, bronze age savages is the work of god.
>>
>> No, what I am saying is that some people (not all) are influenced by the
>> Bible, Quran, and/or Torah to do some good. I have seen it happen.
>>
>>> Tell me, what's it like being a filthy, lying bigot?
>>
>> You do not know what bigotry is, do you?
>
> I'm well aware of what it is and you're exhibiting it by suggesting
> that one must accept a "holy" book to do good.
Except I never suggested such a thing. I do not accept a holy book
myself, and I consider myself more towards the good side.
>> It is when a person finds
>> qualities that they do not like in a few people and attributes those
>> negative traits to an entire group, most of whom they have never met.
>> For example, they find that some religious people are cruel or deluded
>> or somesuch, and they jump from there to insisting that *all* religious
>> people are losers.
>
> It's a good thing I'm not doing that, then, isn't it? I condemn the
> religions but not all of the religious.
Sorry. Religions are no more than the people who practice them. When
you condemn religions, you necessarily condemn the religious. When you
condemn all of religion, you condemn all of the religious.
> I recognise that most people,
> believers or not, a fundamentally decent people.
As I recall, when I brought up one eminently decent religious person as
an example, the best you could say of him was that he was deluded. Your
attitude did not come across as thinking of him as fundamentally decent.
> Unfortunately,
> religious people have been lied to and for whatever reason are unable
> to see the truth for themselves. It takes religion to make good people
> do bad things;
That's a catchy slogan, but it is not true. Peer pressure of any source
can make good people do bad things. So can other things, like extreme
hunger or simply being in a hurry.
Note also that religion (and other things) can make bad people do good
things.
> history is littered with the mutilated corpses of the
> poor unfortunates who got in the way of the believers.
>
>> As for what it is like being a bigot, it is not comfortable to recognize
>> it, because then you have the choice of either continuing the bigotry --
>> and being cognizant of one's irrationality and meanness -- or changing,
>> and changing one's unconscious attitudes is not easy. I have pretty
>> well overcome the bigotry against religion that I, like you, once had,
>> but I still struggle with bigotry against the morbidly obese, against
>> people with certain accents, and against gum chewers.
>
> Religion is vile, evil, and worthless and the world would be vastly
> improved without it. Time it was educated off the face of the planet.
How are you planning to do that? By exposing the fact that you know
very little about religion and then insulting the people you want to
change? Your strategy needs some work, I think. Unless, of course,
your entire goal is to make yourself feel morally superior, in which
case you are doing fine.
Interested Lurker
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
You're not related to Kleuskes & Moos, by any chance?
>A very neat debating trick. I hope you can
>see that the same trick can prove that religion is wholly, 100% good.
>>>> In fact, the
>>>> debased nature of humanity, the worst, lowest, most contemptible acts
>>>> of human cruelty, are celebrated within their covers and by those who
>>>> believe they are the inspired word of god.
>>>
>>> Too bad you are so obsessed with that part that that is all you can see.
>>
>> That's all that's important; much better those books never existed.
>
>Only evil is important? Now you sound like a sociopath.
Yeah, definitely related.
>>>>> , and when you admit you do
>>>>> not even know all of it.
>>>>
>>>> As I stated before, I don't have to. All I need to know is that for
>>>> good people to do bad things it takes religion.
>>>>
>>>>> "Anything that flows from it is bollocks", wherein you denigrate the
>>>>> behavior of a couple billion complete strangers, dismissing out of hand
>>>>> the good they do and have done.
>>>>
>>>> No. People do good things with religion and without it. What you're
>>>> saying is that people can't do "good works", can't behave in a decent,
>>>> moral fashion if they refuse to accept that a book written by
>>>> ignorant, bronze age savages is the work of god.
>>>
>>> No, what I am saying is that some people (not all) are influenced by the
>>> Bible, Quran, and/or Torah to do some good. I have seen it happen.
>>>
>>>> Tell me, what's it like being a filthy, lying bigot?
>>>
>>> You do not know what bigotry is, do you?
>>
>> I'm well aware of what it is and you're exhibiting it by suggesting
>> that one must accept a "holy" book to do good.
>
>Except I never suggested such a thing.
I see that now. I retract the accusation.
>I do not accept a holy book
>myself, and I consider myself more towards the good side.
>
>>> It is when a person finds
>>> qualities that they do not like in a few people and attributes those
>>> negative traits to an entire group, most of whom they have never met.
>>> For example, they find that some religious people are cruel or deluded
>>> or somesuch, and they jump from there to insisting that *all* religious
>>> people are losers.
>>
>> It's a good thing I'm not doing that, then, isn't it? I condemn the
>> religions but not all of the religious.
>
>Sorry. Religions are no more than the people who practice them.
Absolute nonsense. Religious narratives and traditions exist
independently of the people that follow them, hence the need for the
various user guides.
>When
>you condemn religions, you necessarily condemn the religious. When you
>condemn all of religion, you condemn all of the religious.
No you don't. Religion is an idea, nothing more, and to challenge and
oppose an idea does not necessarily mean that those that subscribe to
that idea are likewise opposed, especially when many of them have been
lied to and don't know any better.
>> I recognise that most people,
>> believers or not, a fundamentally decent people.
>
>As I recall, when I brought up one eminently decent religious person as
>an example, the best you could say of him was that he was deluded.
Of course he's deluded, he also lies to himself as all religious
believers do.
>Your
>attitude did not come across as thinking of him as fundamentally decent.
The two are not connected. One can be deluded and still be
fundamentally decent.
>> Unfortunately,
>> religious people have been lied to and for whatever reason are unable
>> to see the truth for themselves. It takes religion to make good people
>> do bad things;
>
>That's a catchy slogan, but it is not true.
It is true. Take up Hitchen's challenge on the subject - guaranteed
you'll fail.
>Peer pressure of any source
>can make good people do bad things. So can other things, like extreme
>hunger or simply being in a hurry.
Yeah, it was peer pressure that lead to the Albigensian crusade.
>Note also that religion (and other things) can make bad people do good
>things.
Cite one example of an act of kindness or decency that could only be
carried out by a religious believer.
>> history is littered with the mutilated corpses of the
>> poor unfortunates who got in the way of the believers.
>>
>>> As for what it is like being a bigot, it is not comfortable to recognize
>>> it, because then you have the choice of either continuing the bigotry --
>>> and being cognizant of one's irrationality and meanness -- or changing,
>>> and changing one's unconscious attitudes is not easy. I have pretty
>>> well overcome the bigotry against religion that I, like you, once had,
>>> but I still struggle with bigotry against the morbidly obese, against
>>> people with certain accents, and against gum chewers.
>>
>> Religion is vile, evil, and worthless and the world would be vastly
>> improved without it. Time it was educated off the face of the planet.
>
>How are you planning to do that? By exposing the fact that you know
>very little about religion
I reckon I know a damn sight more about it than you. I can see it for
what it is, while you're blind to the suffering it causes.
>and then insulting the people you want to
>change?
If the truth is insulting what am I supposed to do? Lie?
>Your strategy needs some work, I think. Unless, of course,
>your entire goal is to make yourself feel morally superior, in which
>case you are doing fine.
Yeah, either related or maybe even a sock puppet.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since we already know Atheists hate religion of all stripes, what's
the point?
Ray
Ron O
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 11:03 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b8fe8942-10a6-4d04-acad-2dc2e4f69...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 17, 8:48 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <962b65ff-6214-4d87-b39e-2152419d9...@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What happened to Michele Bachmann?
>
> > > > > She may be the next US President.
>
> > > > She's even nuttier than Palin, though not as incompetent. I doubt the
> > > > Republican Party is stupid enough to make her the nominee for
> > > > president... though I could be wrong.
>
> > > Ah, but she's better than most of the candidates.
>
> > That's a pretty scary thought.
>
> Terrifying, I would say.
>
> --
> The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
> is good, or is it the reverse?
Sad would be my comment.
Ron Okimoto