A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief reference to her views on evolution:
BOOKS OF THE TIMES Memoir Is Palin s Payback to McCain Campaign By MICHIKO KAKUTANI Published: November 14, 2009
Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she didn t believe in the theory that human beings thinking, loving beings originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea or from monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief > reference to her views on evolution:
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES > Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI > Published: November 14, 2009
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she > “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving > beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out > of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the > trees.”
> -- > ---Tom S. > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to > the currant jelly. > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Could be the views of the ghost writer catering to the conservative masses.
>On Nov 15, 1:45=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief >> reference to her views on evolution:
>> BOOKS OF THE TIMES >> Memoir Is Palin=92s Payback to McCain Campaign >> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI >> Published: November 14, 2009
>> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she >> =93didn=92t believe in the theory that human beings =97 thinking, loving >> beings =97 originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out >> of the sea=94 or from =93monkeys who eventually swung down from the >> trees.=94
>> -- >> ---Tom S. >> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is= > due to >> the currant jelly. >> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>Could be the views of the ghost writer catering to the conservative >masses.
>Ron Okimoto
It tends to confirm by belief that the real core of support for creationism lies in the denial of our relationship with monkeys.
Not in any of the "official" reasons.
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief > reference to her views on evolution:
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES > Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI > Published: November 14, 2009
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she > “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving > beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out > of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the > trees.”
"So there ya go. You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys havin' buttsex with a fish squirrel. Congratulations." -- Mr. Garrison.
Satire just can't beat real life, can it?
-- "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them." Bertrand Russell
On 15 Nov 2009 11:45:04 -0800, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief >reference to her views on evolution:
>BOOKS OF THE TIMES >Memoir Is Palin? Payback to McCain Campaign >By MICHIKO KAKUTANI >Published: November 14, 2009
>Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she >?idn? believe in the theory that human beings ?thinking, loving >beings ?originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out >of the sea?or from ?onkeys who eventually swung down from the >trees.?
On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief > reference to her views on evolution:
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES > Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI > Published: November 14, 2009
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she > “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving > beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out > of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the > trees.”
Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to understand ?
Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
On 15 Nov 2009 11:45:04 -0800, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief > reference to her views on evolution:
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES > Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI > Published: November 14, 2009
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she > “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving > beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out > of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the > trees.”
I don't believe that either; no scientist does. Wow, Idiot Palin got something right!
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief > reference to her views on evolution:
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES > Memoir Is Palin s Payback to McCain Campaign > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI > Published: November 14, 2009
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she > didn t believe in the theory that human beings thinking, loving > beings originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out > of the sea or from monkeys who eventually swung down from the > trees.
> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief >> reference to her views on evolution:
>> BOOKS OF THE TIMES >> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign >> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI >> Published: November 14, 2009
>> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she >> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving >> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out >> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the >> trees.”
> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > understand ?
> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
>On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: >>> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief >>> reference to her views on evolution:
>>> BOOKS OF THE TIMES >>> Memoir Is Palin s Payback to McCain Campaign >>> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI >>> Published: November 14, 2009
>>> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she >>> didn t believe in the theory that human beings thinking, loving >>> beings originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out >>> of the sea or from monkeys who eventually swung down from the >>> trees.
>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this >> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or >> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to >> understand ?
>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:53:53 -0800, Robert Camp > <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
>>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief >>>> reference to her views on evolution:
>>>> BOOKS OF THE TIMES >>>> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign >>>> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI >>>> Published: November 14, 2009
>>>> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she >>>> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving >>>> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out >>>> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the >>>> trees.”
>>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to >>> understand ?
>>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
>>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS >>> Published: November 13, 2009
>>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the >>> deeply >>> religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
>> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising >> considering the source.
> Since when is making an observation about someone's behavior bigoted?
When it unfairly and irresponsibly tars an entire group with accusations appropriately reserved for the behavior of an individual. The phrase "the primary morality of the deeply religious" is clearly not an observation about *someone's* behavior.
>A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief > reference to her views on evolution:
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES > Memoir Is Palin's Payback to McCain Campaign > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI > Published: November 14, 2009
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she > "didn't believe in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving > beings - originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out > of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the > trees."
> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief > >> reference to her views on evolution:
> >> BOOKS OF THE TIMES > >> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign > >> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI > >> Published: November 14, 2009
> >> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she > >> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving > >> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out > >> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the > >> trees.”
> > Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > > topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > > a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > > understand ?
> > Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
On 2009-11-16 09:41:13 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed > futilely: >> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
>>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to >>> understand ?
>>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
>>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS >>> Published: November 13, 2009
>>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the >>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
>> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising >> considering the source.
> "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
> Next.
> And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based > on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar. She's certainly of demonstrably limited intellectual capacity.
But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge group of people (the religious).
It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention ridiculously unparsimonious).
> On 2009-11-16 09:41:13 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed > > futilely: > >> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> >>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>> 2...>
> >>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > >>> understand ?
> >>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
> >>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts > >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > >>> Published: November 13, 2009
> >>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the > >>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
> >> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising > >> considering the source.
> > "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> > Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
> > Next.
> > And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based > > on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
> It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar. > She's certainly of demonstrably limited intellectual capacity.
To say the least...
> But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge > group of people (the religious).
No, I am accurately describing the actual, observed, morality of that mass of people. I do not claim that ALL deeply religious people are that way, just that a majority show that they are.
And, among my proofs for my statement are that the deeply religious were and are the supporters of Lying Pallid, that deeply religious people are the great majority of creationists, if not the whole of that fould and LYING while willfully stupid group, and so on.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits," Matthew 7:16.
> It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention > ridiculously unparsimonious).
No evidence offered ? Factless whiny bullshit claim always fails.
Robert Camp wrote: > On 2009-11-16 09:41:13 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed > > futilely: > >> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> >>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>> 2...>
> >>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > >>> understand ?
> >>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
> >>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts > >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > >>> Published: November 13, 2009
> >>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the > >>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
> >> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising > >> considering the source.
> > "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> > Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
> > Next.
> > And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based > > on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
> It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar.
I think that's been well demonstrated to date.
> She's certainly of demonstrably limited intellectual capacity.
I think in this particular case she may just be ignorant. I think many creationists follow very simplistic logic: Christianity is good; putting it into our schools would be good; anybody who opposes that is bad. Thus:
- Liberals are bad. - The ACLU is bad. - Science is bad.
In the black-and-white lunatic fringe mindset, I doubt that anything matters except the party line. I doubt she could even conceptualize the ramifications to science education in this country.
> But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge > group of people (the religious).
> It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention > ridiculously unparsimonious).
Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support for science education.
> Robert Camp wrote: > > On 2009-11-16 09:41:13 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed > > > futilely: > > >> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > >>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >>> 2...>
> > >>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > > >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > > >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > > >>> understand ?
> > >>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
> > >>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts > > >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > > >>> Published: November 13, 2009
> > >>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the > > >>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
> > >> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising > > >> considering the source.
> > > "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> > > Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
> > > Next.
> > > And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based > > > on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
> > It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar.
> I think that's been well demonstrated to date.
> > She's certainly of demonstrably limited intellectual capacity.
> I think in this particular case she may just be ignorant. I think > many creationists follow very simplistic logic: Christianity is good; > putting it into our schools would be good; anybody who opposes that is > bad. Thus:
> - Liberals are bad. > - The ACLU is bad. > - Science is bad.
> In the black-and-white lunatic fringe mindset, I doubt that anything > matters except the party line. I doubt she could even conceptualize > the ramifications to science education in this country.
Indeed, and for the most part, in the US, this is the baseline "deeply religious" position.
> > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious > > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just > > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge > > group of people (the religious).
> > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention > > ridiculously unparsimonious).
> Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support > for science education.
Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some PR work ?
Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better for us all. Sure.
Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass, then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"? By the count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a tenable position.
Until then, it isn't. QED.
Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you, personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR denominations ?".
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief > reference to her views on evolution:
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES > Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI > Published: November 14, 2009
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she > “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving > beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out > of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the > trees.”
> -- > ---Tom S. > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to > the currant jelly. > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
Andre Lieven wrote: > On Nov 16, 2:11 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote: > > Robert Camp wrote: > > > On 2009-11-16 09:41:13 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > > On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed > > > > futilely: > > > >> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > >>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >>> 2...>
> > > >>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > > > >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > > > >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > > > >>> understand ?
> > > >>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
> > > >>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts > > > >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > > > >>> Published: November 13, 2009
> > > >>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the > > > >>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
> > > >> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising > > > >> considering the source.
> > > > "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> > > > Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
> > > > Next.
> > > > And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based > > > > on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
> > > It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar.
> > I think that's been well demonstrated to date.
> > > She's certainly of demonstrably limited intellectual capacity.
> > I think in this particular case she may just be ignorant. I think > > many creationists follow very simplistic logic: Christianity is good; > > putting it into our schools would be good; anybody who opposes that is > > bad. Thus:
> > - Liberals are bad. > > - The ACLU is bad. > > - Science is bad.
> > In the black-and-white lunatic fringe mindset, I doubt that anything > > matters except the party line. I doubt she could even conceptualize > > the ramifications to science education in this country.
> Indeed, and for the most part, in the US, this is the baseline "deeply > religious" position.
You're over-generalizing. Deeply religious Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopals, Presbyterians, etc., don't support Biblical creationism.
> > > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious > > > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just > > > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge > > > group of people (the religious).
> > > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention > > > ridiculously unparsimonious).
> > Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support > > for science education.
> Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't > speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some > PR work ?
> Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being > above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that > places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see > that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better > for us all. Sure.
Nice to see you're not considering yourself above anyone. *Cough*
> Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully > be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T > proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume > that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass, > then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
They *are* protesting the wingnutters. You are aware that a lot of anti-creationist folks in T.O and other newsgroups are theists? Certainly you don't think it's only atheists who protest their actions?
> Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people > saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"?
They're out there, and speaking out. For one example, see the Clergy Letter Project. Then look up statements from religious organizations concerning evolution, especially the RCC and mainstream Protestant denominations.
> By the > count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast > a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid > voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
Right-wingers primarily vote Republican. No surprise there.
> When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that > they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate > religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a > tenable position.
> Until then, it isn't. QED.
Non sequitur. Moderate masses *do* deal with the lunatics.
You are aware of who won the election last year? A recent Gallup poll estimated that about 5% of the US population are atheists. Hence, the vast majority of those voting for Obama were theists.
QED
> Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you, > personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that > not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are > as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't > any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR > denominations ?".
Wingnutters haven't taken over my denomination. You're operating under some serious misconceptions.
> Andre Lieven wrote: > > On Nov 16, 2:11 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote: > > > Robert Camp wrote: > > > > On 2009-11-16 09:41:13 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > > > On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed > > > > > futilely: > > > > >> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > > >>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >>> 2...>
> > > > >>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > > > > >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > > > > >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > > > > >>> understand ?
> > > > >>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
> > > > >>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts > > > > >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > > > > >>> Published: November 13, 2009
> > > > >>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the > > > > >>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
> > > > >> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising > > > > >> considering the source.
> > > > > "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> > > > > Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
> > > > > Next.
> > > > > And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based > > > > > on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
> > > > It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar.
> > > I think that's been well demonstrated to date.
> > > I think in this particular case she may just be ignorant. I think > > > many creationists follow very simplistic logic: Christianity is good; > > > putting it into our schools would be good; anybody who opposes that is > > > bad. Thus:
> > > - Liberals are bad. > > > - The ACLU is bad. > > > - Science is bad.
> > > In the black-and-white lunatic fringe mindset, I doubt that anything > > > matters except the party line. I doubt she could even conceptualize > > > the ramifications to science education in this country.
> > Indeed, and for the most part, in the US, this is the baseline "deeply > > religious" position.
> You're over-generalizing. Deeply religious Jews, Catholics, > Methodists, Episcopals, Presbyterians, etc., don't support Biblical > creationism.
"Silence gives assent." Where are they, when it comes to protesting the shoving of ONE religion into PUBLIC schools, et al ? Uh huh.
> > > > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious > > > > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just > > > > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge > > > > group of people (the religious).
> > > > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention > > > > ridiculously unparsimonious).
> > > Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support > > > for science education.
> > Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't > > speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some > > PR work ?
> > Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being > > above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that > > places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see > > that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better > > for us all. Sure.
> Nice to see you're not considering yourself above anyone. *Cough*
I'm a smart guy, and there is empirical evidence of that in my grades, when I was in school. In any case, I hold that *I* have an obligation, starting to myself, to Get The Facts before I opine. That way, not only can those who know me, count on my information being good, but that way, I also reduce the frequency of my own errors.
In that, I AM better than those who REFUSE to Get The Facts, those who REFUSE to consider evidence and data as being BETTER means of knowledge about the Universe than folktales and legends.
I AM an elitist, pal. NOT because it means that I am better, just for showing up, but because I"VE DONE THE REQUIRED HOMEWORK.
If you have a problem with that, you can kiss my shiny metal ass.
> > Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully > > be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T > > proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume > > that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass, > > then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
> They *are* protesting the wingnutters. You are aware that a lot of > anti-creationist folks in T.O and other newsgroups are theists?
So ? Posting to newsgroups ISN'T what I'm talking about.
Protests, like, marches, speeches, petitions to legislatures, and so on. The "reasonable" believers have been quite... ABSENT from that field.
> Certainly you don't think it's only atheists who protest their > actions?
No, I don't, but there aren't very many of us, by percentage of population. For every atheists, there ought to be at least, say, five or ten "reasonable" believers whose own rights to their religions are at as much risk from the wingnutters as is atheists' rights to non-religion.
Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T doing squat.
Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers.
> > Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people > > saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"?
> They're out there, and speaking out. For one example, see the Clergy > Letter Project. Then look up statements from religious organizations > concerning evolution, especially the RCC and mainstream Protestant > denominations.
Wow, a whole statement. I hope that their word processors didn't have a conniption from all that effort...
Feh. As I said, let me know when those folks SHOW UP to school board meetings where advocates for creationism are trying to get that crap into the public schools. I was in Florida most of last winter, and the local paper had an article about some county school board meeting where said pro creationism types were pushing their shite.
Yet, no such article mentioned any "reasonable" believers demanding that religion stay out of the public school science classes...
> > By the > > count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast > > a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid > > voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
> Right-wingers primarily vote Republican. No surprise there.
That's a part of my point; The NUMBERS of people who are "deeply religious" are hardly likely to be TWICE that of the McKook/Pallid voters. Ergo, MOST "deeply religious" people in the US thought that McKook/Pallid was the BEST ticket to run the country, after eight years of the Chimpenfuhrer. That makes my point.
> > When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that > > they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate > > religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a > > tenable position.
> > Until then, it isn't. QED.
> Non sequitur. Moderate masses *do* deal with the lunatics.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
> You are aware of who won the election last year? A recent Gallup poll > estimated that about 5% of the US population are atheists. Hence, the > vast majority of those voting for Obama were theists.
Wrong. You left out agnostics. Further, not ALL US voters who are religious are "DEEPLY religious".
DUH !
> QED
Wrong. Ibid. Duh.
> > Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you, > > personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that > > not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are > > as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't > > any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR > > denominations ?".
> Wingnutters haven't taken over my denomination. You're operating > under some serious misconceptions.
"What is asserted without evidence cen be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
Wheras, the evidence that the present crop of US wingnuters, from the birthers, to the global warming deniers, to evolution deniers, ARE almost all primarily "deeply religious" people.
> On Nov 16, 2:11 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > Robert Camp wrote: > > > On 2009-11-16 09:41:13 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > > On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed > > > > futilely: > > > >> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > >>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >>> 2...>
> > > >>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > > > >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > > > >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > > > >>> understand ?
> > > >>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
> > > >>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts > > > >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > > > >>> Published: November 13, 2009
> > > >>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the > > > >>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
> > > >> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising > > > >> considering the source.
> > > > "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> > > > Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
> > > > Next.
> > > > And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based > > > > on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
> > > It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar.
> > I think that's been well demonstrated to date.
> > > She's certainly of demonstrably limited intellectual capacity.
> > I think in this particular case she may just be ignorant. I think > > many creationists follow very simplistic logic: Christianity is good; > > putting it into our schools would be good; anybody who opposes that is > > bad. Thus:
> > - Liberals are bad. > > - The ACLU is bad. > > - Science is bad.
> > In the black-and-white lunatic fringe mindset, I doubt that anything > > matters except the party line. I doubt she could even conceptualize > > the ramifications to science education in this country.
> Indeed, and for the most part, in the US, this is the baseline "deeply > religious" position.
> > > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious > > > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just > > > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge > > > group of people (the religious).
> > > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention > > > ridiculously unparsimonious).
> > Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support > > for science education.
> Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't > speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some > PR work ?
> Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being > above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that > places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see > that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better > for us all. Sure.
> Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully > be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T > proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume > that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass, > then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
> Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people > saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"? By the > count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast > a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid > voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
> When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that > they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate > religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a > tenable position.
> Until then, it isn't. QED.
> Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you, > personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that > not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are > as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't > any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR > denominations ?".
> Andre- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Hey moron. Who do you think voted Obama in?
The vast majority that voted for Obama were people that believed in a God or at least a creator. A large majority of liberals go to church. Some of the Christian right obviously voted for him as well.
You claim to not be better then anyone else but for the 7 years i have read your vomit on Usenet you do not miss an opportunity to dump on America --every chance you can.
> On Nov 16, 1:24 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2:11 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > Robert Camp wrote: > > > > On 2009-11-16 09:41:13 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > > > On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed > > > > > futilely: > > > > >> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
> > > > >>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >>> 2...>
> > > > >>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this > > > > >>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or > > > > >>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to > > > > >>> understand ?
> > > > >>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
> > > > >>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts > > > > >>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > > > > >>> Published: November 13, 2009
> > > > >>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the > > > > >>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
> > > > >> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising > > > > >> considering the source.
> > > > > "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> > > > > Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
> > > > > Next.
> > > > > And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based > > > > > on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
> > > > It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar.
> > > I think that's been well demonstrated to date.
> > > I think in this particular case she may just be ignorant. I think > > > many creationists follow very simplistic logic: Christianity is good; > > > putting it into our schools would be good; anybody who opposes that is > > > bad. Thus:
> > > - Liberals are bad. > > > - The ACLU is bad. > > > - Science is bad.
> > > In the black-and-white lunatic fringe mindset, I doubt that anything > > > matters except the party line. I doubt she could even conceptualize > > > the ramifications to science education in this country.
> > Indeed, and for the most part, in the US, this is the baseline "deeply > > religious" position.
> > > > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious > > > > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just > > > > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge > > > > group of people (the religious).
> > > > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention > > > > ridiculously unparsimonious).
> > > Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support > > > for science education.
> > Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't > > speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some > > PR work ?
> > Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being > > above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that > > places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see > > that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better > > for us all. Sure.
> > Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully > > be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T > > proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume > > that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass, > > then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
> > Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people > > saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"? By the > > count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast > > a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid > > voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
> > When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that > > they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate > > religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a > > tenable position.
> > Until then, it isn't. QED.
> > Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you, > > personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that > > not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are > > as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't > > any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR > > denominations ?".
> > Andre
> Hey moron.
Sorry, I'm not your mom.
> Who do you think voted Obama in?
Mostly non kooks...
> The vast majority that voted for Obama were people that believed in a > God or at least a creator. A large majority of liberals go to church. > Some of the Christian right obviously voted for him as well.
So ? My point was about "DEEPLY religious" people.
NOT ALL religious people are DEEPLY religious, oh illiterate cretin.
> You claim to not be better then anyone else but for the 7 years i have > read your vomit on Usenet you do not miss an opportunity to dump on > America --every chance you can.
<Laughs> It's the US that "dumps" on itself, by behaving STOOPIDLY a every chance that it gets. That has AbZero to do with me. I'm Canadian. I couldn't have voted for the Chimpenfuhrer or McKook/Pallid... Those USians who DID, well, they showed how fucking willfully stoopid they ARE...
"So, looking at a map of North America, we see Canada is not only bigger than the US, but Canada is on top, as well. So, if Canada and the US were in jail together, the US would be our *bitch*." Rick Mercer. <bg>
> You give all atheist a bad name.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
But, thanks for adding to the mounds of proof that religion = brain damage.
