"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

ninja900 wrote: »

That's funny, it wasn't mentioned at all in primary, and in secondary only in science class. ... and on TV and every newspaper where the 'working assumption' is that we all have a 'slimeball' common ancestor.

There were no statues of Charles Darwin in each classroom. I never saw any statues of anybody in the state schools that I attended ... but there was a fair bit of talk about Darwin, as I recall!!!

Nobody ever told me that I would go to hell if I questioned evolution. That might be because you would be at a greater risk of going 'down below' if you don't question Evolution!!!

Nobody ever said that evolution should influence all aspects of one's life. They just knew that it would, without having to tell you.

Nobody ever said that people who know about evolution are better or happier people. That's because they probably aren't!!!

Nobody ever made me say daily evolution prayers from age 4, go to a church of evolution, or confess my sin of not believing in it fervently enough. As this thread has shown, discipline is achieved within Evolutionism, by the simple expedient of treating anybody who seriously questions M2M Evolution as a scientific 'heretic' instead!!!

Nobody ever used evolution as a reason to guilt me into giving them money. They don't need to ... as most states tax everyone to provide the money for Evolution Research and education!!!

Weak post. There is a great deal of observable evidence to support evolution*, ... but none has ever been provided

there is precisely zero to support the existence of a god. Everything from the 'ultimate cause' argument ... to the CFSI present in life ... to the requirement for the source of the Universe to be at least as great as the Universe itself ... to the fact that the Universe is observed to be 'running down' ... and therefore some agent(s) had to logically 'run it up' ... to name but a few arguments for the existence of God.

ninja900 wrote:

* but like any scientific theory, it's a best guess based on what we know so far. Science is not set in stone based on a 2000 year old book of riddles.

... M2M Evolution is instead based on a 150 year old book that doesn't even support it!!!

joseph brand wrote: »

Isn't it terrible that the better educated people become, (internet helps), the less chance of them believing in the threats of 'eternal damnation' and all the rest of the uncomfortable hassle that awaits the 'sinner'. The more somebody knows ... the more they know ... that they don't actually know much at all !!!:)
The most humble people that I have had the privilege to meet have been people at the 'cutting edge' of science. The more they discover about the Human Genome, for example, the more they realise they know very little about it!!!

Typical Christian: "Damn those well educated, know-it-all Atheists". I find that Christians of my aquaintance are just as well educated, if not more so, than the Atheists of my aquaintance.
Christians place a very high value on knowledge and education ... that's why there are thousands of Christian-sponsored schools and universities.

I would like to 'praise' Neil DeGrasse Tyson for bringing science, physics and astrophysics in particular, to the masses. Fair enough ... but he doesn't have a monopoly on it ... modern science was first brought to the bulk of the masses in Christian-sponsored schools and universities during the 19th and 20th centuries!!!

I think we have all heard the typical response from a Christian which goes like this: "Well, how come we don't see monkeys evolving in front of our eyes?" ... we see no evidence for M2M Evolution i.e. the spontaneous production of any CFSI!!!
... plenty of evidence for change and speciation within Created Kinds using pre-existing CFSI

Well, here's an even more idiotic question, which had Dawkins thinking "What the absolute fcuk is going on?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Lt5ClxG5Q

Wait a million years to take a leak?
Primary school kids would ask better questions. The interviewer isn't scientifically qualified ... what he should have asked Prof Dawkins ... is how the CFSI that produces a kidney, for example, could be produced by non-intelligently directed processes

.

ninja900 wrote: »

NO POPE HERE. Stay at home Benny, we don't want you.

Last time I saw this sectarian slogan was in Belfast about 10 years ago.

I thought that we had left this 'small-mindedness' behind ... but I never expected to see it on the A & A ... of all places!!!

A truly tolerant and liberal society respects the right of religious leaders to visit their churches ... and Irish Roman Catholics are quite entitled to welcome their Pope, just like Irish Anglicans have had the Head of their church visit Ireland last year.

Equally, when Ken Ham last visited Ireland, he was also treated with respect ... although, because he wasn't a head of state ... it wasn't a state visit, unfortunately.:):D

I don't deny you the right to be sectarian ... but I am exercising my right to condemn you for your intolerance!!!

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And creationism is based on a what, 3-4000 year old book?

Bazinga.

Neo-Creationism is based on modern Science ... as well as the Word of God.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

J C, if you're going to claim evolution is exclusively based on Darwin's work, then it's just as accurate for me to claim creationism is entirely based on the bible.

That was actually my point!!!:)

I was responding to this 'gem' from ninja900

wrote:

Originally Posted by ninja900
* but like any scientific theory, it's a best guess based on what we know so far. Science is not set in stone based on a 2000 year old book of riddles.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Planning to respond to this?

Please go look up the words Complex Functional Specified Information in a dictionary ... and come back to me if you still have problems understanding.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes you are.

A Pope is a Pope ... and the current one is also the previous one's 'right hand man' ... so I'm twisting nothing.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, you need to differentiate between people not welcoming a leader who condones disgusing things and people not welcoming someone purely because of his religion.
And the pope shouldn't be allowed to visit Ireland.

... so who are we going to ban next from Ireland ... because we have issues with what they (or their predecessors) have said or done???
The point is that the Pope has every right to come and speak to his church ... and indeed the Irish people, if he wants to.
What the Irish people make of it is their own business ... but banning people smacks of the Medieval Papacy ... which is a strange (and ironic) 'bedfellow' for you to find yourself alongside, on this issue.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

He has turned a blind eye towards wrongdoing against the people he's supposed to represent in this country. If he does visit it should be to issue a grovelling apology.

The inter-nicene issues involved should be left between Irish Roman Catholics and their Pope ... and any non-Roman Catholic would be well advised to allow this particular debate to proceed between Irish Roman Catholics (who were the ones affected) and their Pope (with whom most Irish Roman Catholics are still in communion).

You and I don't know why the Pope may wish to visit Ireland (or indeed what he may say to his church when he is here).
The point is that you and I need to differentiate between differences of opinon that we may have with the Papacy (or indeed any other institution) ... and the right of institutional leaders to visit and speak to their institutions in this country. This is such a fundamental principle underpinning any civil pluralist society, that I'm surprised that we are even debating it.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

A lot of the people I know who also have no time for the pope are Catholics. Are they sectarian too?

Some may have ceased to be Roman Catholics ... indeed, if their differences with the Pope are of a fundamental nature, they cannot be considered to be Roman Catholics, due to the absolute authority vested in the Pope within that particular Church.
In any event, the same logic would apply to disaffected Roman Catholics ... they have every right to make their differences with the Pope known to him and to anybody else, who will listen to them ... but they don't have the right to ban the Pope from visiting Ireland and talking to anybody who will listen to him.
That's what tolerance and pluralism is all about ... and tolerance has to cut both ways ... or it will rapidly cease to exist.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Straw man argument. The slogans in Northern Ireland (which I am against) have absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

What is the difference between the slogan 'NO POPE HERE' in Belfast or Dublin? Could I suggest that there is no logical difference ... and such slogans are deeply sectarian ... and have the same ultimate potential for strife wherever they are found.

wrote:

That's your belief. Mine is that respect has to be earned.

It isn't a belief, its a fact that respect cuts both ways ... and human relations rapidly break down when disrespect is shown by one person to another. I respect you and your right to hold and express your Atheistic viewpoint ... while still fundamentally disagreeing with almost everything you believe.

wrote:

Yes, I'm all for respect and tolerance for my fellow man. The man who keeps telling africans not to use condoms despite the AIDS epidemic, and who likes to regularly remind us of the evils of homosexuality on the other hand.....not so much.

I don't think that these issues are as stark and simple, as you make them out to be. For example, the Pope is saying the exact same thing about condom use to Irish Roman Catholics as he is to African ones ... and condom sales in Ireland don't seem to be suffering because of this.
Equally, as a Christian, I must say that chastity before and fidelity within Christian Marriage is the best way of preventing the spread of STDs. I would also point out that condoms aren't a panacea and they don't prevent the spread of all STDs ... genital warts, herpes and crabs, for example, aren't prevented by the application of micro-thin latex to less than 1% of the male anatomy!!!
Burst condoms and condoms coming off are also significant risk factors, especially where people are drunk or under the influence of drugs.
Equally, any STD that has manifested itself in clinical ulceration of the mouth or groin, for example, will be infective whether a condom is used or not. Condoms have a role to play in reducing the risk of STD transmission ... but any reduction in risk may be eliminated if the rate of promiscuity increases because people perceive that their use prevents all infection.

In any event, you may have quite legitimate differences of opinion with the Papacy on this and many other issues. You and I are quite entitled to express these differences of opinion ... but the Pope ... and anybody else, with an alternative opinion on these issues, has every right to present their opinion and have it listened to with respect and tolerance.

I would suggest that you respect all ... but believe few!!:)

... and please ease off on gratuituous sectarian insults like 'NO POPE HERE'.

MrPudding wrote: »

Respect is a word that I used to, well, respect… Unfortunately it seems to me that it, along with words like persecution, have been hijacked by the religious. Simply being the head of a religion, or believing in a particular thing does not entitle one to respect.

There are many things in this world I respect, but religion is not one of them. By extension, the head of a particular religion, in the absence of any other reason to be shown respect, will receive no respect from me.

Two can play that particular game ... of mutual disrespect ... but where precisely does that get us?
It reminds me of the mutual excommunication pronounced on each other in 1054 by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Humbert and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople Cerularius.

I respect your right to your views ... but I disagree with most of them ... and, if you adopt the same attitute to me and my beliefs, this facilitates normal civil discource between us. The alternative, of mutual disrespect, is usually not very nice for eiither party involved.

For example, if society were to suddenly start disrespecting you and your rights as an Atheist ... then it could be a very short step to society 'doing something about you' ... because of your beliefs (as religious persecution down the years amply illustrates). The same logic applies the other way around ... as Atheistic Communist tyrrany against Russian Christians also illustrates.

MrPudding wrote: »

Just because the religious demand that we must respect them and their idiotic views is not reason enough to earn respect. Why should we respect someone for believing something stupid? Would you respect an adult for believing in santa? Of course not. It deserves no respect and should not receive any.

Respect the person ... and politely disagree with their views (giving reasons, if you wish to do so).

MrPudding wrote: »

The religious these days seem to think that they deserve respect merely because they are religious. The slightest sign of this lack of respect and the other word they have hijacked kicks in, persecution. So not only must we show respect to peoples ridiculous belief but when we don’t we are persecuting them.

Atheists also (rightly) demand respect for themselves and their beliefs ... and should be accorded respect as the sovereign beings that they are. I think that their beliefs don't stand up to close scrutiny, but I respect their right to hold their beliefs, without any threat to their freedom or their job security, for example.

MrPudding wrote: »

The religious need to cop on. You don’t deserve belief by default. You may have had it in the past, but times are changing and you better get used to it. Respect must be earned and simply believing in something is not enough. And not being shown respect is not persecution. Calling it such is an insult to people, religious and otherwise, who are actually suffering from persecution.

Not showing another person proper respect can mean anything up to and including verbal or physical assault, the summary rejection of them for employment and any other form of discrimination that you can think of.
If I start thinking of you as a 'lesser being' ... and disrespecting you ... then it is a very short step for me to start actively discriminating against you!!!

MrPudding wrote: »

And another thing, the NO POPE HERE comment is, I am certain you know, very different to how it was used in NI. Further more, it is a very valid position to hold given his and his predecessors behaviour.

The words and the sentiments are the same ... and the guys in the North aslo thought it was "a very valid position to hold given his and his predecessors behaviour" ... and, as history records, active discrimination against Roman Catholics followed 'hot on the heels' of this and similar slogans!!!

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course, given you impressive ability to twist and misuse comments from a wide variety of sources, in combination with your ability to ignore that which you have no answer for, is too difficult or you simply don't like, I expect nothing better from you.

I'm twisting nothing ... I'm just presenting the truth ... and you guys are helping me by 'shooting yourselves in the foot'!!!!:pac:
... and some of ye even come back to 'finish-off' the other foot!!!:D

MrPudding wrote: »

I couldn’t care less if you don’t respect my views. To be perfectly honest I ma probably happier that you don’t.

I respect your right to hold you views. I do not, however, respect your views. They are idiotic and retarded and not worthy of respect. It should be noted, I only grudgingly respect your right to hold your views. My right to hold my views flows from your right to hold yours.

I'm glad that you recognise that the guarantee of your rights lies in the universality and equality of the scope and enforcement of everyones rights (including yours and mine).
However, the fact that you only grudgingly respect my right to hold my views means that you don't really respect me or my rights at all ... and this implies that, if given the opportunity, you would therefore discriminate against me if you were in a position to do so!!!
Your use of words like 'idiotic and retarded' about my beliefs are deeply prejudicial personal remarks ... and completely unfounded given my conventional University qualifications - and eminent career to date.
... and please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that these remarks were describing my ideas ... and not my person.
An idea may be wrong ... but it cannot be 'retarded' ... only a person can be 'retarded' ... although I wouldn't use such an insulting prejudicial word to describe a person with special needs, myself.:(

MrPudding wrote: »

I think your are going a little far here… I am not talking about disrespecting a person or that persons rights. Disrespecting someone is not the same as not respecting them. Further, I suggest that a person’s right to hold an opinion should be respected, but the opinion itself does not and should not attract such protection.

Disrespecting somebody is exactly the same as not respecting them.

MrPudding wrote: »

Please don’t go down the ISAW route in this thread.

I will protest naked sectarianism wherever I find it ... and irrespective of who it is aimed at.

MrPudding wrote: »

No. I will respect a persons right to hold an opinion. I will not be forced to respect the person. On this board I will do my best to stick to the charter, though I do fail occasionally and the lovely Robin keeps me on the straight and narrow.

You've got this back to front ... you should respect the person because respect for his/her rights flows from the respect for the person themselves.
You are free to reject or support their beliefs, as you wish.

MrPudding wrote: »

I don’t have to respect you. I don’t have to respect your beliefs. I respect your right to hold and opinion and I try to keep my opinions of you to myself. There is no respect.

Disrespect can range from sullen contempt (which you are exibiting), which can escalate to verbal or physical assault in inter-personal situations ... and thus it is highly anti-social behaviour.
You don't have to share my beliefs ... nor me yours ... but I respect you and your right to hold them without fear or favour from me or anybody else ... and you should reciprocate.

MrPudding wrote: »

Do they? I don’t. I demand respect for my right to hold my beliefs. I don’t care if someone does not respect me or my actual belief. Why would l care? The type of person likely to disrespect my belief is a religious believer. Do you really think it bother me what they think?

A Christian would respect you God-given free will to not believe in God, if that is what you want to do.

MrPudding wrote: »

Everyone should be accorded respect simply because they are a person. There is an additional bundle of rights which we are entitled to under the law. This bundle includes a right to believe whatever you want, it does not, however, extend to respect for the belief, as a number of your fellow christians have found out in the courts.

It all depends ... I don't think, for example, that any court would disrespect the beliefs of Jews and Moslems by setting aside their right to follow their belief in abstaining from eating Pork.

MrPudding wrote: »

As I said, people attract certain rights, these rights are not dependent on what that person believes.

... and one of these rights is the freedom to believe and express ones belief without being personally attacked or discriminated against.

MrPudding wrote: »

it is completely different and you know it. In the north it was, as you mentioned earlier, a statement about catholics in general. In this case it is about the actual pope himself as an individual. You are very well aware of this.

I am aware of no such thing ... The NO POPE HERE slogan is just as offensive to ordinary Roman Catholics, who view him as their spiritual leader, as it is to the Pope himself (who probably won't have read it anyway).

Why do you think that it is any more acceptable for you to make the exact same sectarian anti-Roman Catholic remark that is a 'by-word' for the depths of sectarian hostility in Northern Ireland?
... and has thankfully become a 'thing of the past' up there.

J C wrote: »

I'm glad that you recognise that the guarantee of your rights lies in the universality and equality of the scope and enforcement of everyones rights (including yours and mine).

I’m glad you are glad.

J C wrote: »

However, the fact that you only grudgingly respect my right to hold my views means that you don't really respect me or my rights at all ... and this implies that, if given the opportunity, you would therefore discriminate against me if you were in a position to do so!!!

I don’t respect you. I have already said that directly, there is no need to derive my thoughts about you for other things I have said. I do not respect you, I do not respect the utter rubbish you believe, but I grudgingly respect your right to believe whatever cr@ap you want.

J C wrote: »

Your use of words like 'idiotic and retarded' about my beliefs are deeply prejudicial personal remarks ... and completely unfounded given my conventional University qualifications - and eminent career to date.
... and please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that these remarks were describing my ideas ... and not my person.
An idea may be wrong ... but it cannot be 'retarded' ... only a person can be 'retarded' ... although I wouldn't use such an insulting prejudicial word to describe a person with special needs, myself.[IMG]file:///Users/Chris/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image002.png[/IMG]

Sorry, but I don’t agree. I call ideas retarded all the time. Your beliefs are idiotic and retarded, if you want to take that as a comment about you, then you can, but that is not how it is meant. I do have opinions on your personally, but I will keep those to myself.

Please don’t bring up your conventional training and your eminent career. Over the years to have been posting here your have provided nothing, either directly or indirectly by what you have posted, to give the slightest indication that you have any qualification in or that you work in any science related post. On the other hand you have over 7000 posts indicating that you have no clue about science.

J C wrote: »

Disrespecting somebody is exactly the same as not respecting them.

No. it isn’t. Disrespecting someone requires an act. Not respecting someone requires no act, it is merely not respecting them. There are a number of people that I respect, this is something I actively do. Here are plenty of people I don’t respect. I don’t respect them for a variety of reasons, but that vast majority of people I don’t respect the reason I don’t respect them is because I don’t know anything about them. Why should I respect or disrespect someone I don’t know?

This can then extend to people I do know but don’t respect. If I believe a person is not worthy of respect then I will not give them respect. In some cases I may also disrespect them, an actual act which shows I disrespect them, but fo the most part I will simply not respect them.

J C wrote: »

I will protest naked sectarianism wherever I find it ... and

irrespective of who it is aimed at.

Good for you. This isn’t it. It is like people protesting about the G20 leaders coming for a visit. I don’t know ninja900 but I think that statistically he is likely to be a lapsed catholic and as such is likely to have a large number of catholic relatives. I expect that he loves them and treats them as he should. The line in his signature simply indicates that the leader of that organization is not, as far as he is concerned, welcome in this country. He is not stopping the pope form visiting, he is not trampling on anyone’s right to do anything, he is merely pointing out that, in his opinion we, as a country, should not welcome a child rapist protecting cnut that disrespects our country to our country.

J C wrote: »

You've got this back to front ... you should respect the person because respect for his/her rights flows from the respect for the person themselves.
You are free to reject or support their beliefs, as you wish.

Don’t tell me what I should do. I will respect a person right to hold a belief. I will not be forced to respect that person or the potential crap they believe in.

J C wrote: »

Disrespect can range from sullen contempt (which you are exibiting), which can escalate to verbal or physical assault in inter-personal situations ... and thus it is highly anti-social behaviour.

Yes it can. I personally try to avoid escalating but it can be difficult. In cases where it does escalate we have the mods on boards and we have the criminal justice system in real life. Again, no reason for me to respect you or what you believe. The courts have, thus far, backed this position.

J C wrote: »

You don't have to share my beliefs ... nor me yours ... but I respect you and your right to hold them without fear or favour from me or anybody else ... and you should reciprocate.

I don’t want or need your respect. Why should I respect you? You have done nothing to earn it. I will respect your right to hold a belief but I will not be forced to respect you. What are you? The thought police?

J C wrote: »

A Christian would respect you God-given free will to not believe in God, if that is what you want to do.

Awesome. And I will respect a christian’s right to believe whatever crap they want. I still won’t respect the Christian himself unless he give a reason other than he believes some crap.

J C wrote: »

It all depends ... I don't think, for example, that any court would disrespect the beliefs of Jews and Moslems by setting aside their right to follow their belief in abstaining from eating Pork.

I would agree with you fort his type fo thing. However, where the beleiver’s belief is in conflict with someone else’s protected rights then the court will not protect it. The relate counselor that said he would not counsel gay people or the registrar that said she would not resister gay relationships show us this.

J C wrote: »

... and one of these rights is the freedom to believe and express ones belief without being personally attacked or discriminated against.

Beliefs can be criticized. You might not like it but it is the case. Criticism is not necessarily attack.

J C wrote: »

I am aware of no such thing ... The NO POPE HERE slogan is just as offensive to ordinary Roman Catholics, who view him as their spiritual leader, as it is to the Pope himself (who probably won't have read it anyway).

Well, that is too bad really. They are entitled to their opinion and ninja900 is entitled to his. If they are incapable of separating his view that the leader of their church is not welcome, according to him, then that says more about them than it does him.

J C wrote: »

Why do you think that it is any more acceptable for an Atheist to make the exact same sectarian anti-Roman Catholic remark that is a 'by-word' for the depths of sectarian hostility in Northern Ireland?
... and has thankfully become a 'thing of the past' up there.

Because the fcuking intent is completely different.

MrP