Warped
Robert Camp
thread. I was so struck by the extreme intellectual and ethical
confusion in the quote below that it took me a minute to believe
someone actually wrote it. Neither POTM nor Chez Watt seemed
appropriate somehow, though they would have called more attention to
it. The magnitude of irresponsible ignorance just seemed too big for
that.
----------------
> It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur 'the
> average person' with your own willful ignorance.
We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
----------------
The only way one could miss the utterly thoughtless contradiction in
the above statement is to be so overwhelmed by malign vindictiveness as
to be willing to offer up "dying kids" in the hopes of scoring a
rhetorical point. It's a sentiment so callous and clueless, yet
dripping in self-righteousness, that I'd be embarrassed for the author
had he not already earned the disdain of nearly everyone here.
I don't know if religion warps minds (as many of our more militant
denizens here seem to think), but I'm pretty confident that in many
cases certain kinds of warped minds find religion - and twist it to
conform with their particular psychoses.
RLC
All-seeing-I
I do not see how anyone could make a rational judgment on this without
reading the entire context.
Mitchell Coffey
Mike Painter
> ----------------
>> It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur 'the
> We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
> 40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
> ----------------
>
> The only way one could miss the utterly thoughtless contradiction in
> the above statement is to be so overwhelmed by malign vindictiveness
> as to be willing to offer up "dying kids" in the hopes of scoring a
> rhetorical point. It's a sentiment so callous and clueless, yet
> dripping in self-righteousness, that I'd be embarrassed for the author
> had he not already earned the disdain of nearly everyone here.
There is nothing unusual in the reply.
These are the people who really believe that chemistry is little more than
mixing things together to see what will happen.
They read little, comprehend less, believe they are smarter than most, also
believe in wrestling and can't figure out how to stop their VCR from
blinking.
They are the reason why "Vote for Jones" and "Yes on 13" are powerful tools
in elections.
They believe the last bad thing they hear about a person.
They explain why a large company will spend millions on products explaining
how their own brand X is better than their own brand Y in one commercial and
just teh opposite in another.
They are the ones who will spend more time questioning which of these brands
is better than in their religious beliefs.
Robert Camp
I left out further context, as well as the author's name, because it
does him no favors. Your immediately previous comment, for example,
only sharpens the idiocy of the statement as it shows that he
completely misses the fact that evolutionary theory underpins all of
biology, including physiology.
All-seeing-I
Are you prepared to say you have found an absolute truth with
chemistry and it shows conclusively that man is the result of gene
frequencies resulting in slow changes with in a population?
Boikat
<snip squackage>
Are you? Yes or no.
Boikat
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Are you prepared to say you have found an absolute truth with
>chemistry and it shows conclusively that man is the result of gene
>frequencies resulting in slow changes with in a population?
no science has an 'absolute truth'.
neither does religion. that's why there are 38,000 christian
denominations.
All-seeing-I
No it doesn't. All of those sciences were doing fine before evolution
and they will do just fine after evolution is placed on the burn pile
of history.
.
Here is the prelude (thanks to Mitchell Coffey)
===============
> >> Do you actually think the average person gives a rats ass if man
> >> slowly evolved from an ape?
> > It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur 'the
> > average person' with your own willful ignorance.
> We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
> 40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
==============
In the context of "does the average person give a rat's ass if mankind
slowly evolved from an ape"... the response was "intellectual
curiosity".
Now. We have greater concerns on this planet other then spending
countless millions of dollars (not to mention wasting brilliant minds)
to discover if we are or if we are not evolved from an ape.
Even if we did in fact conclusively discover that we are nothing more
then apes... So what? Our real and immediate problems will not be
solved by knowing that. If anything, the undermining of religion and
family traditions with such information will only serve to cause
mankind even more harm at a time in human history when we can not
afford any more problems.
So in that context... Nashton was 100% correct with his statement
which said:: "We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal
asswipe".
Look around you. The entire world is in a recession and we still do
not have the technology to feed everyone. There are still diseases
that have no cure.
The research monies are better spent on our immediate problems rather
then discovering if we are the "Planet Of The Apes".
It really is THAT simple.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes.
All-seeing-I
That is not why idiot.
And all flavors of the Christian religions agree on the main
points.Which is all that is actually important.
Science OTOH will constantly be revised because man will never be able
to explain what God has done with natural science.
Robert Camp
Please stop. I know it's utterly familiar and comfortable territory for
you to make foolish pronouncements, but surely at some point even the
most severely uninformed have to face up to their own ignorance.
You don't know what you're talking about, as you have been told by so
many who do. Evolution is the foundation of biology. Virtually all
biologists say so. It's not just witless to continue to contradict
this, it is (or should be) a humiliating admission of how terrified you
are of real knowledge (evidenced by your continued effective denial
that such a thing exists apart from whatever it is you choose to
believe).
> Here is the prelude (thanks to Mitchell Coffey)
>
> ===============
>>>> Do you actually think the average person gives a rats ass if man
>>>> slowly evolved from an ape?
>
>>> It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur 'the
>>> average person' with your own willful ignorance.
>
>> We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
>> 40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
> ==============
>
>
> In the context of "does the average person give a rat's ass if mankind
> slowly evolved from an ape"... the response was "intellectual
> curiosity".
"Than" apes. Please demonstrate, if only in this one instance, the
ability to learn.
> Now. We have greater concerns on this planet other then spending
> countless millions of dollars (not to mention wasting brilliant minds)
> to discover if we are or if we are not evolved from an ape.
>
> Even if we did in fact conclusively discover that we are nothing more
> then apes... So what? Our real and immediate problems will not be
> solved by knowing that. If anything, the undermining of religion and
> family traditions with such information will only serve to cause
> mankind even more harm at a time in human history when we can not
> afford any more problems.
I'm not going to get into even more subjects about which you understand
little (e.g., the role of religion in society, relative historical
conditions). I will just say that if there is anything to which we owe
our current good fortune, and anything that can redeem those problems
we've created, it is clearly intellectual curiosity.
On the other hand, your brand of fearful ignorance, including the
attitude that would suggest thoughtful reasonable people cannot handle
empirical truth, can be counted on to make our problems worse.
> So in that context... Nashton was 100% correct with his statement
> which said:: "We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal
> asswipe".
Well I'm not surprised you would think so. You are given to speaking
without thinking. And although I appreciate the fact that you are able
to express yourself in a less despicable fashion than Nashton, it does
not absolve you of responsibility for the danger your kind of willful
thick-headedness poses. His was a patently idiotic statement. The
obvious fact is that to deal with the kind of problems both he and you
cite we cannot afford *not* to be intellectually curious. It is the way
of a thoughtful, enlightened people.
But as I said, I'm not surprised you'd rather embrace ignorance.
> Look around you. The entire world is in a recession and we still do
> not have the technology to feed everyone. There are still diseases
> that have no cure.
Done, now how about you look all around you. Consider the world you
live in and compare it to that of 100 years ago, then 200 years ago,
etc. This is grade-school evangelicals-at-the-door kind of stuff ("Sir,
can't you see that our world is going to pot!"). Try not to insult
everyone's intelligence with these empty emotional arguments.
> The research monies are better spent on our immediate problems rather
> then discovering if we are the "Planet Of The Apes".
Wherever the research monies are spent we can all only hope that they
fund intellectual curiosity. And yes, despite your inane protests to
the contrary, monies spent on evolutionary research have helped us
better understand, and improve, the human condition.
> It really is THAT simple.
That you think so is a sad comment on your intellectual capacity.
RLC
VoiceOfReason
Yikes! It's even worse in context. Pulling out a few choice phrases
is pretty enlightening too:
"Christian values... you flipping dip wad... you colossal arrogant
asshole... you colossal arrogant asshole... you fucking buffoon... you
and your fellow useless, idiot-activists... good-for-nothing
activist... go get a life and a clue... You are a nobody..."
Man, somebody has some serious issues.
VoiceOfReason
> On Dec 11, 5:40�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:54:08 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > >Are you prepared to say you have found an absolute truth with
> > >chemistry and it shows conclusively that man is the result of gene
> > >frequencies resulting in slow changes with in a population?
>
> > no science has an 'absolute truth'.
>
> > neither does religion. that's why there are 38,000 christian
> > denominations.
>
> That is not why idiot.
>
> And all flavors of the Christian religions agree on the main
> points.
Which is that all the other ones are heretics and are going to hell.
(I kid... actually it's just the most ignorance-infested ones that
make that claim.)
Devils Advocaat
Can you list those main points that all the Christian denominations
agree on?
Mike Painter
> On Dec 11, 2:08 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Robert Camp wrote:
>>
>>> ----------------
>>
>>>> It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur
You would think that after a few hundred repetitions you would at least know
enough about science to know the answer to that question.
You are not required to agree with it but it *is* the way science is done.
So come back when you have figured out what *it* is.
Mike Painter
> On Dec 11, 5:40 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:54:08 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you prepared to say you have found an absolute truth with
>>> chemistry and it shows conclusively that man is the result of gene
>>> frequencies resulting in slow changes with in a population?
>>
>> no science has an 'absolute truth'.
>>
>> neither does religion. that's why there are 38,000 christian
>> denominations.
>
> That is not why idiot.
>
> And all flavors of the Christian religions agree on the main
> points.Which is all that is actually important.
Not true, not even close. The ONE thing that the vast majority of them have
in common is that they believe they are absolutely right and that nobody
else is.
The small minority that don't claim absolute knowledge are condemned by
those that do.
Since the days of the reformation when they killed you for not believing as
they did, the most dangerous thing to be was a moderate or liberal.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 11, 3:17�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-11 09:28:01 -0800, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 11, 11:01�am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Didn't really know what to do with this except to give it it's own
>> >> thread. I was so struck by the extreme intellectual and ethical
>> >> confusion in the quote below that it took me a minute to believe
>> >> someone actually wrote it. Neither POTM nor Chez Watt seemed
>> >> appropriate somehow, though they would have called more attention to
>> >> it. The magnitude of irresponsible ignorance just seemed too big for
>> >> that.
>>
>> >> ----------------> It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime.
>> >> Don't slur 'the
>>
>> >> ?> average person' with your own willful ignorance.
>> >> We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
>> >> 40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
>> >> ----------------
>>
>> >> The only way one could miss the utterly thoughtless contradiction in
>> >> the above statement is to be so overwhelmed by malign vindictiveness as
>> >> to be willing to offer up "dying kids" in the hopes of scoring a
>> >> rhetorical point. It's a sentiment so callous and clueless, yet
>> >> dripping in self-righteousness, that I'd be embarrassed for the author
>> >> had he not already earned the disdain of nearly everyone here.
>>
>> >> I don't know if religion warps minds (as many of our more militant
>> >> denizens here seem to think), but I'm pretty confident that in many
>> >> cases certain kinds of warped minds find religion - and twist it to
>> >> conform with their particular psychoses.
>>
>> >> RLC
>>
>> > I do not see how anyone could make a rational judgment on this without
>> > reading the entire context.
>>
>> I left out further context, as well as the author's name, because it
>> does him no favors. Your immediately previous comment, for example,
>> only sharpens the idiocy of the statement as it shows that he
>> completely misses the fact that evolutionary theory underpins all of
>> biology, including physiology.
>
>
>No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
You cannot do modern science in any of the biological disciplines
without acknowledging the fact of evolution. Evolution is the
cornerstone and the cement that holds it all together.
> All of those sciences were doing fine before evolution
>and they will do just fine after evolution is placed on the burn pile
>of history.
It isn't going to happen.
>.
>
>Here is the prelude (thanks to Mitchell Coffey)
>
>===============
>> >> Do you actually think the average person gives a rats ass if man
>> >> slowly evolved from an ape?
>
>> > It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur 'the
>> > average person' with your own willful ignorance.
>
>> We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
>> 40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
>==============
>
>
>In the context of "does the average person give a rat's ass if mankind
>slowly evolved from an ape"... the response was "intellectual
>curiosity".
Yes, most people do have intellectual curiosity - if not you would not
have the plethora of serious channels like Discovery, History and
NatGeo. You would not have some of the most amazing programmes like
Life On Earth.
>
>Now. We have greater concerns on this planet other then spending
>countless millions of dollars (not to mention wasting brilliant minds)
>to discover if we are or if we are not evolved from an ape.
But it is not a waste. It adds to our total knowledge.
>
>Even if we did in fact conclusively discover that we are nothing more
>then apes...
That was discovered long ago.
> So what? Our real and immediate problems will not be
>solved by knowing that. If anything, the undermining of religion and
>family traditions with such information will only serve to cause
>mankind even more harm at a time in human history when we can not
>afford any more problems.
Religion has nothing to do with it. It either faces reality of falls
by the wayside.
>
>So in that context... Nashton was 100% correct
NashtOff has never been correct on anything - he is nearly as bad as
you are. Remember that he is the moron who claimed "All drugs are
derived from the ToE."
>with his statement
>which said:: "We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal
>asswipe".
We cannot afford NOT to have intellectual curiosity.
>
>Look around you. The entire world is in a recession and we still do
>not have the technology to feed everyone.
Yes we do. Though if the religious nutters don't stop with the baby
making then we may have problems in a few decades. However, at the
moment we can produce more food than the world can eat. It is not my
fault that politics and wars, largely promoted by religion, keep
millions in hunger.
> There are still diseases
>that have no cure.
And without science there will never be a cure. In fact, without a
detailed understanding of evolution there will be no cure for many of
them.
>
>The research monies are better spent on our immediate problems rather
>then discovering if we are the "Planet Of The Apes".
We already know that were are.
>
>It really is THAT simple.
The only thing simple is you mind - very simple.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
bpuharic
>On Dec 11, 3:17�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-11 09:28:01 -0800, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> said:
>>
>>
>> > I do not see how anyone could make a rational judgment on this without
>> > reading the entire context.
>>
>> I left out further context, as well as the author's name, because it
>> does him no favors. Your immediately previous comment, for example,
>> only sharpens the idiocy of the statement as it shows that he
>> completely misses the fact that evolutionary theory underpins all of
>> biology, including physiology.
>
>
>No it doesn't. All of those sciences were doing fine before evolution
>and they will do just fine after evolution is placed on the burn pile
>of history.
?? how can a central point of a science be ignored? chemistry was
doing just fine before atoms were invented. but atomic theory made
chemistry ALOT more understandable.
we scientists look at evolution as science because it is.
YOUR view of nature is useless. it can not even tell when it's wrong.
>.
>
>Here is the prelude (thanks to Mitchell Coffey)
>
>===============
>> >> Do you actually think the average person gives a rats ass if man
>> >> slowly evolved from an ape?
>
>> > It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur 'the
>> > average person' with your own willful ignorance.
>
>> We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
>> 40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
>==============
>
>
>In the context of "does the average person give a rat's ass if mankind
>slowly evolved from an ape"... the response was "intellectual
>curiosity".
>
>Now. We have greater concerns on this planet other then spending
>countless millions of dollars (not to mention wasting brilliant minds)
>to discover if we are or if we are not evolved from an ape.
and if that's the case why not ban religion? people spend LOTS of
money on religious mumbo jumbo.
and evolution can and does lead to new drugs. creationists didn't even
know drugs existed. you're in a poor position to tell scientists what
we should be doing.
kind of like a whore lecturing a nun on virtue
>
>Even if we did in fact conclusively discover that we are nothing more
>then apes... So what? Our real and immediate problems will not be
>solved by knowing that. If anything, the undermining of religion and
>family traditions with such information will only serve to cause
>mankind even more harm at a time in human history when we can not
>afford any more problems.
in your view. first, your view of 'religion' and 'family traditions'
is skewed towards the regressive and untrue. are family values based
on lies? do you really think women shouldnt have the right to vote?
that used to be a 'family value' as well.
your view is incoherent and illogical
>
>So in that context... Nashton was 100% correct with his statement
>which said:: "We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal
>asswipe".
YOU can't. the human race, OTOH, can't afford not to pursue
intellectual advances
creationism, as we see, leads to ignorance. enforced ignorance. is
there a difference between ALL SEEING'S view of education and the
taliban?
there is no difference between the taliban and creationism
>
>Look around you. The entire world is in a recession and we still do
>not have the technology to feed everyone. There are still diseases
>that have no cure.
>
>The research monies are better spent on our immediate problems rather
>then discovering if we are the "Planet Of The Apes".
>
>It really is THAT simple.
tell it to the taliban
you're one of them
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 11, 5:40�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:54:08 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Are you prepared to say you have found an absolute truth with
>> >chemistry and it shows conclusively that man is the result of gene
>> >frequencies resulting in slow changes with in a population?
>>
>> no science has an 'absolute truth'.
>>
>> neither does religion. that's why there are 38,000 christian
>> denominations.
>
>That is not why idiot.
>
>And all flavors of the Christian religions agree on the main
>points.Which is all that is actually important.
no, they don't. they don't agree on the bible. they don't agree on the
virgin birth. the number of points they DISAGREE on is far larger than
the points they AGREE on. if the differences were unimportant
there wouldnt be 38,000 denominations.
>
>Science OTOH will constantly be revised because man will never be able
>to explain what God has done with natural science.
and neither can you. you creationists cant even explain earthquakes.
you THOUGHT you could but you were wrong
and what's even worse?
you couldnt tell you were wrong.
>
>
Ye Old One
>On Dec 11, 5:40�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:54:08 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Are you prepared to say you have found an absolute truth with
>> >chemistry and it shows conclusively that man is the result of gene
>> >frequencies resulting in slow changes with in a population?
>>
>> no science has an 'absolute truth'.
>>
>> neither does religion. that's why there are 38,000 christian
>> denominations.
>
>That is not why idiot.
>
>And all flavors of the Christian religions agree on the main
>points.
Do they? I think you lie.
>Which is all that is actually important.
>
>Science OTOH will constantly be revised because man will never be able
>to explain what God has done with natural science.
Your religions have been forced to constantly revise as well.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Free Lunch
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in talk.origins:
Once upon a time, those points were put together in the Nicene Creed,
but there seem to be a lot of denominations, particularly in the US,
that reject creeds.
I doubt there is a single doctrine in Christianity that is not rejected
by some denomination that identifies itself as Christian (LDS being a
particularly good example).
JTEM
VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> Yikes! �It's even worse in context.
I'll say!
A whole group filled with supposedly "Science
Based" people, but nobody can get to what was
said, because they're all harping on how it
was said...
I've got news for you, a real "Science-Based"
person isn't above picking out the information
from shit.
Google "coprolites"
...and if he's not willing to do that, if he
fails to get the information then it ain't the
shit's fault, it's his. He let his agenda, or
personal feelings get in the way.
Burkhard
While science is constantly revised, it is typically a cumulative
revision that preserves most of the predecessor theory. and while
there id often disagreement on details, on the main points there is
agreement and the issues are typically resolved quickly.by contrast,
revision in religion are neither cumulative nor linear, but often
circular (between more liberal dn more conservative positions say) and
disagreements are typically not resolved at all, but result in schisms
that leave the issue unanswered, and both sides trying to kill each
other for centuries to come
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>
>> And all flavors of the Christian religions agree on the main
>> points.Which is all that is actually important.
>
> no, they don't. they don't agree on the bible. they don't agree on the
> virgin birth. the number of points they DISAGREE on is far larger than
> the points they AGREE on. if the differences were unimportant
>
> there wouldnt be 38,000 denominations.
They do agree that most bibles are black.
Devils Advocaat
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:01:27 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
Wouldn't that create a problem, as a creed is defined as "the written
body of teachings of a religious group"?
Boikat
Then you are a fucking liar.
Boikat
Tom McDonald
I've only got two in black. The rest are red or blue. Oh, yeah, one is
white. And somewhere, packed away, are a couple of paperbacks from the
Jesus Freaks times. (They gave them to me; I have always been an
Episcopalian. Well, except when I was a pantheist for a few years.)
bpuharic
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Didn't really know what to do with this except to give it it's own
>thread. I was so struck by the extreme intellectual and ethical
>confusion in the quote below that it took me a minute to believe
>someone actually wrote it. Neither POTM nor Chez Watt seemed
>appropriate somehow, though they would have called more attention to
>it. The magnitude of irresponsible ignorance just seemed too big for
>that.
>
>----------------
>> It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur 'the
>?> average person' with your own willful ignorance.
>We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
>40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
>----------------
>
>The only way one could miss the utterly thoughtless contradiction in
>the above statement is to be so overwhelmed by malign vindictiveness as
>to be willing to offer up "dying kids" in the hopes of scoring a
>rhetorical point. It's a sentiment so callous and clueless, yet
>dripping in self-righteousness, that I'd be embarrassed for the author
>had he not already earned the disdain of nearly everyone here.
>
>I don't know if religion warps minds (as many of our more militant
>denizens here seem to think), but I'm pretty confident that in many
>cases certain kinds of warped minds find religion - and twist it to
>conform with their particular psychoses.
well we KNOW religion kills in certain circumstances
-muslim clerics who incite hatred against health workers distributing
vaccines
-the pope who bans use of condoms though these would reduce the
incidence of AIDS in africa
-the current bill in the ugandan parliament that would cause genocide
against gays
all of these are irrational. all are based on religion....
>
>RLC
Free Lunch
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in talk.origins:
Yes, it would and does, but we don't tell every single denomination that
rejects the Nicene Creed that they are not Christian, or, I should say,
even when we tell them that, they ignore us and go on their merry way,
inventing new doctrines.
Earle Jones
<72a6b2a8-e11d-4692...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
*
My guess is that the Apostles' Creed would pretty much cover that:
1. Jesus was the only divine son of God.
Are there Christian groups who deny this?
2. He was born of the virgin Mary.
3. He suffered under Pontius Pilate.
4. He was crucified dead and buried.
5. On the third day he rose from the dead.
6. He ascended to heaven and sat with God.
7. He will come down and judge the wicked and the good.
Are there Christian denominations that take exception to any of the
above?
earle
*
Kermit
> On Dec 11, 2:08�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Robert Camp wrote:
>
> > �> ----------------
>
> > >> It's called intellectual curiosity, try it sometime. Don't slur 'the
> > > ?> average person' with your own willful ignorance.
> > > We can't afford intellectual curiosity you colossal asswipe. We have
> > > 40000 kids dying every fucking day of disease starvation and hunger.
> > > ----------------
>
> > > The only way one could miss the utterly thoughtless contradiction in
> > > the above statement is to be so overwhelmed by malign vindictiveness
> > > as to be willing to offer up "dying kids" in the hopes of scoring a
> > > rhetorical point. It's a sentiment so callous and clueless, yet
> > > dripping in self-righteousness, that I'd be embarrassed for the author
> > > had he not already earned the disdain of nearly everyone here.
>
> > These are the people who really believe that chemistry is little more than
> > mixing things together to see what will happen.
> > They read little, comprehend less, believe they are smarter than most, also
> > believe in wrestling and can't figure out how to stop their VCR from
> > blinking.
> > They are the reason why "Vote for Jones" and "Yes on 13" are powerful tools
> > in elections.
> > They believe the last bad thing they hear about a person.
> > They explain why a large company will spend millions on products explaining
> > how their own brand X is better than their own brand Y in one commercial and
> > just teh opposite in another.
> > They are the ones who will spend more time questioning which of these brands
> > is better than in their religious beliefs.
>
> chemistry and it shows conclusively that man is the result of gene
> frequencies resulting in slow changes with in a population?
We have explained over and again that science doesn't do absolute
truths.
Absolute certainty is only available in closed systems of logic. Given
the definitions of the terms, 2 + 2 = 4, and we know this absolutely.
Synthetic statements, assertions about the world are not and cannot be
known with absolute certainty. *Feeling does not make a claim more
likely to be correct. It is, in fact, more likely to be *wrong for
that reason. If you are certain that "X is true", then you do not
examine the areas of reasoning or evidence gathering in which you are
most likely to be wrong. Moreover, if it is important and you have
emotional investment in the matter, you are likely to *ignore or deny
anything which suggests you have made a mistake.
You and Creationism are perfect examples of this. *Claiming to be
absolutely correct with no chance of being wrong is simply arrogant,
and pathetic. Especially when we can look around and see otherwise.
The fact that you can ask this question after I and dozens of others
have explained this to you establishes that you can never show we are
wrong, for you cannot (or will not?) describe our position on this.
But you have given that poor strawman a good thrashing.
Kermit
Mike Painter
concept that Christ ever became a man.
Except for the possibility of #1, none of the others are the reasons that
Christians have been killing each other for the last 1700 years or so.
The reasons are far more important and in some cases are almost as important
as which end of the soft boiled egg to open.
Devils Advocaat
> In article
> <72a6b2a8-e11d-4692-9d3c-afb4b7a57...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
The Unitarians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Beliefs
>
> earle
> *
bpuharic
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>*
>My guess is that the Apostles' Creed would pretty much cover that:
>
>1. Jesus was the only divine son of God.
> Are there Christian groups who deny this?
>
>2. He was born of the virgin Mary.
>
>3. He suffered under Pontius Pilate.
>
>4. He was crucified dead and buried.
>
>5. On the third day he rose from the dead.
>
>6. He ascended to heaven and sat with God.
>
>7. He will come down and judge the wicked and the good.
>
>Are there Christian denominations that take exception to any of the
>above?
>
>earle
>*
the mormons, the JW's. and the s. baptists, while agreeing with these
points, are non-creedal.
Tom McDonald
That sounds like a premise for a wickedly satirical story. :-)
>> 2. He was born of the virgin Mary.
>>
>> 3. He suffered under Pontius Pilate.
>>
>> 4. He was crucified dead and buried.
>>
>> 5. On the third day he rose from the dead.
>>
>> 6. He ascended to heaven and sat with God.
>>
>> 7. He will come down and judge the wicked and the good.
>>
>> Are there Christian denominations that take exception to any of the
>> above?
>>
>> earle
>> *
>
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Devils Advocaat
> Earle Jones wrote:
> > In article
you are on.
heekster
That's really Swift of you.