Bill Clinton on Bigotry

[Gary]

This article is a year old, but this is the first time I read it. And for the first
time, I agree with Bill Clinton. I only noticed this bigotry when I came to the
internet, 16 years ago. And I noticed that liberals are the most firmly bigoted.
They never read or listen to an idea they do not agree with.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 16, 2016

Bill Clinton: Americans Have One Remaining Bigotry, We Don't Want To Be Around People Who
Disagree With Us

"America has come so far," he said. "We’re less racist, sexist, homophobic and anti
specific religions than we used to be. We have one remaining bigotry: We don’t want to be
around anyone who disagrees with us."

http://tinyurl.com/yddq38a6

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/18/bill_clinton_americans_have_one_remaining_bigotry_we_dont_want_to_be_around_people_who_disagree_with_us.html

[jillery]

Bill might be right about human preferences, but if we allow our
instinctive prejudices to dictate our behavior, it will be the death
knell for both democracy and scientific progress.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:14:05 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:

>This article is a year old, but this is the first time I read it. And for the first
>time, I agree with Bill Clinton. I only noticed this bigotry when I came to the
>internet, 16 years ago. And I noticed that liberals are the most firmly bigoted.
>They never read or listen to an idea they do not agree with.

Would it be possible for you to take this sort of crap to a
relevant group, or are you incapable of listening to that
idea?

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sept. 16, 2016
>
>Bill Clinton: Americans Have One Remaining Bigotry, We Don't Want To Be Around People Who
>Disagree With Us
>
>"America has come so far," he said. "We’re less racist, sexist, homophobic and anti
>specific religions than we used to be. We have one remaining bigotry: We don’t want to be
>around anyone who disagrees with us."
>
>http://tinyurl.com/yddq38a6
>
>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/18/bill_clinton_americans_have_one_remaining_bigotry_we_dont_want_to_be_around_people_who_disagree_with_us.html

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

One of the most typical features of a bigot - or a cultist - is their
incapacity to accept that there can be an honest point of view which
differs from theirs. Or, for that matter an honest criticism of their
views.

If, for example, we take our Ray Martinez, he is quite unable to
discuss any criticism of his viewpoint wiithout characterising his
critic as "atheist," and therefore a stooge of the devil.

I invite Gary to tell us if he has found anyone who honestly
disagrees with his own views


Have Judgemental fun


Joe Cummings

[Gary]

I've only recently joined this group. So it is too short a time to decide who disagrees
with me and who doesn't. But ... being disagreed with does not bother or offend me.

[Ray Martinez]

Wrong, Joey, I only point out bias when it's fair and relevant to do so. Atheists attempt to hide their bias because they want the audience to believe their views are factual and objective.

Ray (Christian)

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, Bill Clinton wants to silence anyone who disagrees with him. Yet overall America is the most tolerant compared against any Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Turkey.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You are aware of the fact that the topic of this group is origins of natural reality, Creationism versus Darwinism, and relevant subjects?

Off-topic threads are allowed, but should be kept to a minimum.

Ray

[Gary]

I'm interested in the origins of mankind. I mostly lean toward Darwin -- and the idea
of ancient aliens helps me believe him more.

I will keep my posts as much on your topics as possible.

[jillery]

Since you accept both Darwin's Theory and ancient aliens, which
effects do you assign to which cause?

>I will keep my posts as much on your topics as possible.

[Gary]

I believe evolution brought man up the chain to his present body and brain (40,000+ years
ago) . However, I think it was an advanced entity that sparked man into using his mind
and his intelligence to improve his place on Earth. Maybe it was done by the introduction
of a language.

[jillery]

That's the part you don't make clear. If you think Evolution was good
enough to get humans up to their "present body and brain", why do you
think Evolution was insufficient to take that last step to allow
language as well? Why invoke an extra agent which just happened to
come all the way over to our neck of the galaxy, and then just
happened to give us only language and then leave without a trace?

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

Do you?

Tell me how many evolutionists on the newsgroup are not atheists.

Have fun,

Joie Cummings

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 18, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<q72euc59clidsictd...@4ax.com>):

this should be good...
>
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joie Cummings

[Gary]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:11:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:53:13 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:26:50 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:14:40 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>Off-topic threads are allowed, but should be kept to a minimum.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ray
>>>>
>>>>I'm interested in the origins of mankind. I mostly lean toward Darwin -- and the idea
>>>>of ancient aliens helps me believe him more.
>>>
>>>
>>>Since you accept both Darwin's Theory and ancient aliens, which
>>>effects do you assign to which cause?
>>
>>I believe evolution brought man up the chain to his present body and brain (40,000+ years
>>ago) . However, I think it was an advanced entity that sparked man into using his mind
>>and his intelligence to improve his place on Earth. Maybe it was done by the introduction
>>of a language.
>
>
>That's the part you don't make clear. If you think Evolution was good
>enough to get humans up to their "present body and brain", why do you
>think Evolution was insufficient to take that last step to allow
>language as well?

I'm not saying it was insufficient. I'm only saying that if evolutionists are right --
and man was evolved for 40,000 years -- why had he left no proof of his presence on Earth
until 5 or 6,000 years ago ? Then suddenly -- after 35,000 years -- he suddenly began
to build monuments, civilizations and leave records of his presence.

> Why invoke an extra agent which just happened to
>come all the way over to our neck of the galaxy, and then just
>happened to give us only language and then leave without a trace?

To me -- it seems he got outside help. And where else could "outsiders" come from but
outer space ?

I'm sure his brain had the IQ necessary -- but it had never been activated. I also
think that after the Aliens departed, man told his children about them -- and as the
stories were passed down -- the children began to think the Aliens were "gods". As
handed down to us by the Mesopotamians, Greeks, and others.

[Gary]

I would suggest that very few posters with high IQs are "atheists". IMO, most are
simply "agnostic". You see -- an atheist swears there are no gods. An agnostic simply
does not know -- but doubts it. An atheist is just as strong a "true believer" as is
an Evangelist.

[Sean Dillon]

I don't know that many atheists would agree with your use of terminology here.

Atheism is either a lack of belief in any gods (weak atheism) or a belief that no gods exist (strong atheism). There is nothing in there about swearing.

An agnostic believes that the truth about whether a god/s exist is unknown (weak agnosticism) or unknowable (strong agnosticism). There is nothing in there about doubt, one way or the other.

Though the notion drives Ray apoplectic, it is in fact possible to be both at once. I, for example, recognize that it is impossible to conclusively prove that God does OR does not exist, but it is my personal belief that no such entity exists. I am a strong agnostic strong atheist.

[Ernest Major]

Or, by some circumscriptions, doesn't care whether God exists
(apatheism) or considers the question meaningless (ignosticism). Some
people even consider ietsism a form of agnosticism.

>
> Though the notion drives Ray apoplectic, it is in fact possible to be both at once. I, for example, recognize that it is impossible to conclusively prove that God does OR does not exist, but it is my personal belief that no such entity exists. I am a strong agnostic strong atheist.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 18/10/2017 12:46, Gary wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:11:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:53:13 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:26:50 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:14:40 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Off-topic threads are allowed, but should be kept to a minimum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm interested in the origins of mankind. I mostly lean toward Darwin -- and the idea
>>>>> of ancient aliens helps me believe him more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you accept both Darwin's Theory and ancient aliens, which
>>>> effects do you assign to which cause?
>>>
>>> I believe evolution brought man up the chain to his present body and brain (40,000+ years
>>> ago) . However, I think it was an advanced entity that sparked man into using his mind
>>> and his intelligence to improve his place on Earth. Maybe it was done by the introduction
>>> of a language.
>>
>>
>> That's the part you don't make clear. If you think Evolution was good
>> enough to get humans up to their "present body and brain", why do you
>> think Evolution was insufficient to take that last step to allow
>> language as well?
>
> I'm not saying it was insufficient. I'm only saying that if evolutionists are right --
> and man was evolved for 40,000 years -- why had he left no proof of his presence on Earth
> until 5 or 6,000 years ago ? Then suddenly -- after 35,000 years -- he suddenly began
> to build monuments, civilizations and leave records of his presence.

But man has left "proof" (evidence) of their presence on earth for much
longer than 5 to 6 thousand years. We've even mentioned some of that
evidence (cave art, petroglyphs) to you in earlier conservation.

The genus Homo has a fossil record going back 2 to 3 million years.
Humans of the archaic grade, which may belong to the species Homo
sapiens, go back half a million years or more. Anatomically modern
humans go back at least 150,000 years, and possibly substantially
further. 40,000 is the date given for behavioural modernity, and it is
disputed whether that represents a discrete change in human nature, or
is an illusion formed by forcing a dichotomy on a continuum, or just
represents cultural advances enabled by improved demographics.

The next date in the chain would be the "Neolithic Revolution" starting
around 10,000 years ago.

It takes time to accumulate then societal capital needed to support the
subsistence infrastructe needed to support the population densities
needed to support urbanisation. Start off with a few thousand hunter
gatherers spread over hundreds or thousands of square miles of savanna;
how long should it take before you can have a thousand people crammed
into a few acres? (If you offer an answer, show your work.)

>
>> Why invoke an extra agent which just happened to
>> come all the way over to our neck of the galaxy, and then just
>> happened to give us only language and then leave without a trace?
>
> To me -- it seems he got outside help. And where else could "outsiders" come from but
> outer space ?
>
> I'm sure his brain had the IQ necessary -- but it had never been activated. I also
> think that after the Aliens departed, man told his children about them -- and as the
> stories were passed down -- the children began to think the Aliens were "gods". As
> handed down to us by the Mesopotamians, Greeks, and others.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

You would do yourself a big favor to learn more about the things you
assert before you assert them. Just sayin'.

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 07:46:08 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:11:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:53:13 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:26:50 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:14:40 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>Off-topic threads are allowed, but should be kept to a minimum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ray
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm interested in the origins of mankind. I mostly lean toward Darwin -- and the idea
>>>>>of ancient aliens helps me believe him more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Since you accept both Darwin's Theory and ancient aliens, which
>>>>effects do you assign to which cause?
>>>
>>>I believe evolution brought man up the chain to his present body and brain (40,000+ years
>>>ago) . However, I think it was an advanced entity that sparked man into using his mind
>>>and his intelligence to improve his place on Earth. Maybe it was done by the introduction
>>>of a language.
>>
>>
>>That's the part you don't make clear. If you think Evolution was good
>>enough to get humans up to their "present body and brain", why do you
>>think Evolution was insufficient to take that last step to allow
>>language as well?
>
>I'm not saying it was insufficient.

Of course that's what you said. That's what your "however" and your
"maybe" mean. Scientists have identified at least some of the genes
which allow language in humans. Why isn't that good enough for you,
that you feel a need to invoke external agents? Be specific.

>I'm only saying that if evolutionists are right --
>and man was evolved for 40,000 years -- why had he left no proof of his presence on Earth
>until 5 or 6,000 years ago ? Then suddenly -- after 35,000 years -- he suddenly began
>to build monuments, civilizations and leave records of his presence.

Your unstated assumptions are embedded in your questions. Of course,
humans left plenty of evidence of their presence on Earth, you just
don't accept them. Even an introductory anthropology course would
show you that. Your "suddenly" is an illusion from the myopia of
historical perspective.

And you keep mentioning "5 or 6,000 years ago" without being specific
about what you think happened so "suddenly" back then that you feel
the need to invoke external agents. Humans almost certainly had
language before then.

Are you stuck on the invention of writing? The evidence is that it
evolved stepwise, starting from icons to represent objects, which
eventually morphed into symbols to represent sounds.

Drawing pictures by hand on stone and clay tablets and walls isn't the
kind of thing I would expect your presumptive star-traveling ETs to
provide. Do you really think that's the kind of technology they used?

>> Why invoke an extra agent which just happened to
>>come all the way over to our neck of the galaxy, and then just
>>happened to give us only language and then leave without a trace?
>
> To me -- it seems he got outside help. And where else could "outsiders" come from but
>outer space ?

When you say "to me", it suggests you're relying on subjective
feelings which have no objective basis. You're entitled to your own
opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts.

>I'm sure his brain had the IQ necessary -- but it had never been activated.

Why not? What do you think kept our latent IQ from being activated?
Be specific.

>I also
>think that after the Aliens departed, man told his children about them -- and as the
>stories were passed down -- the children began to think the Aliens were "gods". As
>handed down to us by the Mesopotamians, Greeks, and others.

It's a truism that any technology sufficiently advanced is
indistinguishable from magic. However, when you invoke external
agents like star-traveling ETs, you're obliged to reconcile the
primitiveness of their presumptive gifts with their advanced
technologies they needed to get here in the first place.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:58:18 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by joecummin...@gmail.com:

Prediction: A vast and echoing silence. Yhose personal
definitions of his do tend to chomp on his fundament (pun
intended).

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 07:46:08 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:

>On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:11:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:53:13 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:26:50 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:14:40 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>Off-topic threads are allowed, but should be kept to a minimum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ray
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm interested in the origins of mankind. I mostly lean toward Darwin -- and the idea
>>>>>of ancient aliens helps me believe him more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Since you accept both Darwin's Theory and ancient aliens, which
>>>>effects do you assign to which cause?
>>>
>>>I believe evolution brought man up the chain to his present body and brain (40,000+ years
>>>ago) . However, I think it was an advanced entity that sparked man into using his mind
>>>and his intelligence to improve his place on Earth. Maybe it was done by the introduction
>>>of a language.
>>
>>
>>That's the part you don't make clear. If you think Evolution was good
>>enough to get humans up to their "present body and brain", why do you
>>think Evolution was insufficient to take that last step to allow
>>language as well?
>
>I'm not saying it was insufficient. I'm only saying that if evolutionists are right --
>and man was evolved for 40,000 years -- why had he left no proof of his presence on Earth
>until 5 or 6,000 years ago ?

Why do you continue to make that assertion when it's been
shown to be incorrect?

> Then suddenly -- after 35,000 years -- he suddenly began
>to build monuments, civilizations and leave records of his presence.

He left records of his presence for tens of thousands of
years; your problem is that, even after having it pointed
out that the sort of technology developed after agriculture
became common is *not* a measure of intrinsic intelligence,
and that the sort of technology exhibited by sophisticated
stone tools and weapons, by fabricated clothing, by such
items as baskets and pottery, and by other things, you
*still* equate the two, *even after you admitted you were
incorrect to do so*.

>> Why invoke an extra agent which just happened to
>>come all the way over to our neck of the galaxy, and then just
>>happened to give us only language and then leave without a trace?
>
> To me -- it seems he got outside help. And where else could "outsiders" come from but
>outer space ?
>
>I'm sure his brain had the IQ necessary -- but it had never been activated. I also
>think that after the Aliens departed, man told his children about them -- and as the
>stories were passed down -- the children began to think the Aliens were "gods". As
>handed down to us by the Mesopotamians, Greeks, and others.

Cool fantasy, but it's been done to death. And Clarke did it
better. Of course, he knew it *was* a fantasy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 07:46:08 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Gary <c...@ubn.com>:

Wrong again; to be an atheist only requires that one not
believe in deities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Agnosticism, despite the modern tendency to make it similar
to "weak" atheism, is about the perceived limits of
knowledge (not "belief") in the existence of deities; both
strong theists and strong atheists can be (and should be,
IMHO) agnostic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:58:18 +0200, joecummin...@gmail.com
wrote:

Ken Miller has clearly stated his belief in God and that "it was God
after all who chose the universal constants that made life possible"
yet Ray insists Miller is an atheist.

There is, however, no bias whatsoever involved, just Ray-logic where
words mean whatever Ray chooses them to mean. You can't really argue
with that.

[Martin Harran]

So where did those aliens get *their* level of intelligence?

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 19, Martin Harran wrote
(in article<rftgucpgh7un615sj...@4ax.com>):

and why is Peter the Grate letting Gary horn in on his territory?

[Gary]

I suppose you are right.

[Gary]

Interesting thought. I'll pursue it and see if I can learn.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:31:17 -0400, Gary <d...@umn.com> wrote:

>An interesting thought. Were they created by a creator ? Or were
>they the product of evolution ?

You are the one suggesting that humans may have got their intelligence
from so you really need to address this issue or your suggestion falls
flat on its face.

BTW, the problem is just a variant of the one inherent in panspermia -
it doesn't answer the problem, it only moves it back a step.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <33ehuc9dd944uitr3...@4ax.com>,

Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, the problem is just a variant of the one inherent in panspermia -
> it doesn't answer the problem, it only moves it back a step.

But at least these two options have led to a few decent and a much
larger number of truly horrible sci-fi's, which is more than Creationism
can say.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:31:17 -0400, Gary <d...@umn.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:53:39 +0100, Martin Harran

>An interesting thought. Were they created by a creator ? Or were
>they the product of evolution ?

Who created the creator? Do you think "creators all the way down" an
interesting thought?

[solar penguin]

Exactly. A much more sensible theory is that it was human time
travellers from the future who modified us to give us our intelligence.
And that way, they got their own intelligence from the same modification.

I'm not saying I actually believe any of that, but any pseudo-science
based on aliens is always going to be unsatisfying compared to time travel.

[jillery]

BBT on time travel:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0qDy0T5WXM>

[Ray Martinez]

I contend acceptance of naturalistic assumptions to explain nature and evidence equates to acceptance of Atheism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The bias involved is Naturalism interpreting philosophy. I have always stated this, and Martin has always ignored, evaded, or misrepresented.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:09:12 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

But that fails to answer my invitation to you to tell me how many
darwinists here are not atheists.

I think you are such a victim of your own bigotry that you aren't able
to accept that there are believers who accept evolution.

You reinforce my point that I made above, that a cultist or a bigot
such as you is incapable of understanding that there are honest
criticisms of your position.

Now, Ray don't disappear, like you usually do, Address the question.
Are you able to do that?


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Ray Martinez]

It succeeds in answering most clearly; the problem is that you don't understand how that occurred. The fact that the assumptions of Naturalism produced the theory of evolution means the theory is pro-Atheism. The thing known as "evolutionary theory" can only accommodate one worldview, not two or more worldviews (A cannot be A and not A at the same time).

So acceptance of evolutionary theory, the evidence of acceptance, means acceptance of the assumptions that produced the theory, which are pro-Atheism. If a person accepts evolutionary theory but claims to be anything other than an Atheist then the self-identity claim is falsified by acceptance of evolutionary theory, which was produced, as mentioned, by assumptions of Naturalism.

So all Darwinists are Atheists.

>
> I think you are such a victim of your own bigotry that you aren't able
> to accept that there are believers who accept evolution.

Very many people, millions in fact, claim to be Christians and accept evolutionary theory. But one cannot say Christ led any person to accept a theory produced by the assumptions of Naturalism.

Your use of the word "bigotry" indicates a left-wing political tactic that attempts to smear their opponents when the facts show the falsity of the left-wing agenda.

>
> You reinforce my point that I made above, that a cultist or a bigot
> such as you is incapable of understanding that there are honest
> criticisms of your position.
>
> Now, Ray don't disappear, like you usually do, Address the question.
> Are you able to do that?

When the bigot card is played one can be sure those who play it are enraged over the fact that they are unable to show the falsity of the facts that defeated their view.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:09:12 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

We know. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own
facts.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

What have I ignored, evaded, or misrepresented? Miller believes in
God, just like I do but you insist that both he and I are atheists;
whatever your arguments are for doing so, they do not change the fact
that you have changed the meaning of a word from what the rest of the
world considers it to mean.

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Let's note this:

"All Darwinists are atheists."

This means that Ray's answer to my invitation is "No Darwinists are
non-atheists." In other words, like the bigot he is, he confirms my
claiim that the bigot is unable to accept that there can be honest
criticism of his viewpoint. For Ray, as I said before, there are only
atheists and their stooges.

He lives in a weird world.

We must also consider Ray's "scientific " standpoint; In an earlier
posting, I suggested that Ray would not know one end of a test tube
from the other. Now, I don't want to be too hasty in my claims, but
can anyone tell me if Ray has anywhere brought anything that resembles
a scientific argument to talk origins?

>
>>
>> I think you are such a victim of your own bigotry that you aren't able
>> to accept that there are believers who accept evolution.
>
>Very many people, millions in fact, claim to be Christians and accept evolutionary theory. But one cannot say Christ led any person to accept a theory produced by the assumptions of Naturalism.
>
>Your use of the word "bigotry" indicates a left-wing political tactic that attempts to smear their opponents when the facts show the falsity of the left-wing agend

No, Ray, I'm using the term because you are a bigot.
Amusingly, this can be contrasted to your incessant, almost obsessive
characterisation of anyone here who happens to be a believer, or
anyone who disagrees with Ray as "Atheist."

Let me limit my request , let me ask you if anyone in this group who
claims to be a believer can be shown to be an atheist?

>
>>
>> You reinforce my point that I made above, that a cultist or a bigot
>> such as you is incapable of understanding that there are honest
>> criticisms of your position.
>>
>> Now, Ray don't disappear, like you usually do, Address the question.
>> Are you able to do that?
>
>When the bigot card is played one can be sure those who play it are enraged over the fact that they are unable to show the falsity of the facts that defeated their view.
>
>Ray

Whoa, Ray!

The only enraged, if not deluded, poster here is your good self.

Have witchfinding fun,



Joe Cummings

[jillery]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:19:29 -0400, Gary <d...@umn.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:16:18 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:31:17 -0400, Gary <d...@umn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:53:39 +0100, Martin Harran
>>><martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:53:13 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:26:50 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:14:40 -0400, Gary <c...@ubn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>I'm interested in the origins of mankind. I mostly lean toward Darwin -- and the idea
>>>>>>>of ancient aliens helps me believe him more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since you accept both Darwin's Theory and ancient aliens, which
>>>>>>effects do you assign to which cause?
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe evolution brought man up the chain to his present body and brain (40,000+ years
>>>>>ago) . However, I think it was an advanced entity that sparked man into using his mind
>>>>>and his intelligence to improve his place on Earth. Maybe it was done by the introduction
>>>>>of a language.
>>>>
>>>>So where did those aliens get *their* level of intelligence?
>>>
>>>An interesting thought. Were they created by a creator ? Or were
>>>they the product of evolution ?
>>
>>
>>Who created the creator? Do you think "creators all the way down" an
>>interesting thought?
>

>We are now getting beyond the grasp of human comprehension. It's like
>trying to imagine two men standing side by side --- each of whom is
>taller than the other.


Nope, rhetorical paradoxes have nothing to do with it. Instead, we
are discussing basic logic.

You said you "think it was an advanced entity that sparked man into

using his mind and his intelligence to improve his place on Earth."

If that's just your belief or a casual opinion, then you're entitled
to it, but it has no meaningful place in the kind of discussion you
started. Opinions (and beliefs) are like assholes; everybody has one,
and they all stink.

OTOH if you're going to replace Evolution, for which you acknowledge
it's existence and abilities, with an "advanced entity" in a specific
case, like the origin of civilization, then it's reasonable to assume
you have some reason to think Evolution was inadequate for that
specific case.

And if you're going to assert an advanced entity to explain said
specific case, then logic obliges you to explain the cause of that
advanced entity. OTOH if you say said advanced entity always existed,
then you could as easily say that specific case always existed and
eliminate said advanced entity. IOW asserting an unexplained advanced
entity doesn't logically extend a line of reasoning.

If that point is beyond your grasp, beyond your comprehension, the
you're going to have a hard time following some of the discussions in
this newsgroup.

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 17:14:46 -0400, Gary <d...@umn.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 00:26:54 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:19:29 -0400, Gary <d...@umn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:16:18 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:31:17 -0400, Gary <d...@umn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:53:39 +0100, Martin Harran
>

>>If that point is beyond your grasp, beyond your comprehension, then

>>you're going to have a hard time following some of the discussions in
>>this newsgroup.
>

>OK, thanks. You are way ahead of me in this subject. Let me make
>one comment on why I posted.
>
>I have always loved history. I am not -- nor do I claim to be a
>scholar. But I have been an interested amateur in the subject for
>many years. Especially ancient history.
>
>What do most civilizations have in commons ? A religion. Not all of
>them are alike, but most seem to believe in a deity who is from
>above. Trying to decide if their stories about their deities are
>actually refers to Aliens -- is what interests me. My early thought
>is -- yes, the idea of gods and deities originated with their
>stories about aliens. And that is why heaven is almost always "up".


There are lots of religions with lots of deities which arose from the
Earth. My impression is most polytheisms invoke them, where deities
personify the forces observed on the Earth, especially those regarding
fertility; "Mother Earth" is a common icon.

Abrahamic religions are distinctive in that they traditionally regard
things of the Earth as base and corrupting. It's only natural for
them to put eternal and perfect Heaven in the unreachable sky.

I agree civilizations tend to support religions. Religion provides
many benefits to civilization, as a stabilizing influence and a means
of separating us vs them. Asserting a deity has chosen a
civilization's leaders is a time-tested way to get support, and impose
obedience, from the masses.

There are several posters to T.O. who embody a large base of knowledge
about religions in general. I don't claim to be one of them.