Feeding Frenzy

[Guest Guest]

Never heard of a Marxist-Leninist revolution, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Inquisition

Crusade

Jewish Expulsion

Ghetto

Witch Burning

Scientist Burning

Heresy Burning

White Man's Burden

Colonialism

Abortion Clinic Bombing

And the list go on...

[Guest Guest]

Never heard of a Marxist-Leninist revolution, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you should ask the poster who asked why don't atheists say they are atheists.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, the problem is you haven't read anywhere near enough on evolutionary theory to draw any reasoned conclusions. I'm sure all your arguments dismissing evolutionary theory seem profoundly wise and clever to you, but if you'll read the professional literature on evolution (I've just scratched the surface), you'll see that those arguments don't stand. So instead of responding with your usual "oh yeah!" why not read the literature?

I acknowledged the civility and apparently openness (for a change) in the tone of your previous post, and invited you to do some reading, at which point you reverted to your attack-dog mode. I had earlier quoted a passage from Proverbs, and have decided to heed the wisdom contained therein. So please forgive me if I don't respond again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, Your condescending smugness makes me want to gag. You don't know what I've read or haven't read on any subject. And I don't know your literary proclivity either. So if you want to come down to earth, we can have a debate, otherwise talk to someone that cares.

[Bryan]

Perhaps you should ask the poster who asked why don't atheists say they are atheists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, you mean "Guest"?

[Bryan]

Inquisition

Crusade

Jewish Expulsion

Ghetto

Witch Burning

Scientist Burning

Heresy Burning

White Man's Burden

Colonialism

Abortion Clinic Bombing

And the list go on...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You figure you need some diversion to escape from the truth, or what?

Atheism as a significant world belief has, what, 150 years under its belt?

Don't feel left out. You can stack up your millions of dead and oppressed up there with the best of 'em.

Stalin

Pol Pot

Mao

Forced abortions in China

Soviet expansionism (including a brutal repression of Hungarian resistance)

Soviet Gulags

"Re-education" in South Vietnam

And all in an amazingly short time!

[Strife767]

Paul, Your condescending smugness  makes me want to gag. You don't know what I've read or haven't read on any subject.

Actually, here's the funny thing--we can tell how little you know about it because of the kinds of things you say. It's funny that creationist idiots who attack evolution (not all creationists are idiots--only the ones stupid enough to think that the theory of evolution is atheistic) simply do not realize just how silly their statements are. Let me put it this way:

I may not know much about person x's personal life, but if they tell me that they are confident that 2 + 2 = 9, I dare say I could draw a pretty strong conclusion about their grasp of arithmetic.

Get it?

And I don't know your literary proclivity either. So if you want to come down to earth, we can have a debate, otherwise talk to someone that cares.

Sorry, but debates are not how science is done (of course, I'm not surprised you would suggest this--it's a page right out of that nutjob Hovind's book). Debate only proves who's better with rhetoric (just how many scientific concepts/theories have been established/'started' as a result of winning a debate, hm? Yeesh, get a clue), because a creationist can tell more lies in X minutes than a scientist can correct in that same amount of time, and then an uneducated (relatively) audience (debates are also generally geared toward an audience of laypeople, not scientists) will be led to believe that all the inaccurate statements the scientist didn't get to, were not 'gotten to' because they're true.

No, sorry, but science isn't a battle of wits or words--it's a battle of evidence. When you've got some of THAT, feel free to come on over and refute the theory of evolution. You'll have your work cut out for you, though--that's like telling someone to refute gravity: you've got a mountain of evidence to destroy. Goooood luck.

But here's the funniest part--even if creationists completely debunked the theory of evolution (and that would require scientific evidence, not unfalsifiable supernatural stuff masquerading as science), they have nothing to replace it with. Creationism is not science, and it will never have a place in science classrooms, no matter what happens to ANY of the scientific concepts kids are taught in school today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Paul, Your condescending smugness  makes me want to gag. You don't know what I've read or haven't read on any subject. And I don't know your literary proclivity either. So if you want to come down to earth, we can have a debate, otherwise talk to someone that cares.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A debate on how the dinosaurs slept on Noah's Ark?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Actually, here's the funny thing--we can tell how little you know about it because of the kinds of things you say. It's funny that creationist idiots who attack evolution (not all creationists are idiots--only the ones stupid enough to think that the theory of evolution is atheistic) simply do not realize just how silly their statements are. Let me put it this way:

I may not know much about person x's personal life, but if they tell me that they are confident that 2 + 2 = 9, I dare say I could draw a pretty strong conclusion about their grasp of arithmetic.

Get it?

Sorry, but debates are not how science is done (of course, I'm not surprised you would suggest this--it's a page right out of that nutjob Hovind's book). Debate only proves who's better with rhetoric (just how many scientific concepts/theories have been established/'started' as a result of winning a debate, hm? Yeesh, get a clue), because a creationist can tell more lies in X minutes than a scientist can correct in that same amount of time, and then an uneducated (relatively) audience (debates are also generally geared toward an audience of laypeople, not scientists) will be led to believe that all the inaccurate statements the scientist didn't get to, were not 'gotten to' because they're true.

No, sorry, but science isn't a battle of wits or words--it's a battle of evidence. When you've got some of THAT, feel free to come on over and refute the theory of evolution. You'll have your work cut out for you, though--that's like telling someone to refute gravity: you've got a mountain of evidence to destroy. Goooood luck.

But here's the funniest part--even if creationists completely debunked the theory of evolution (and that would require scientific evidence, not unfalsifiable supernatural stuff masquerading as science), they have nothing to replace it with. Creationism is not science, and it will never have a place in science classrooms, no matter what happens to ANY of the scientific concepts kids are taught in school today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Daffy Darwiniacs have one major hurdle they can't get over. There is no evolutionary explanation for the eye. Science is in agreement that the incredibly complicated eye could not have evolved from a sightless organism. It's a "mathematically impossibility" state all the greatest minds in science. "It's not like a bird growing a longer beak" as one put it.

Now of course, all the Darwiniacs will scream that they have evidence to prove otherwise. But any "evidence" is written by commited atheists so we all know the validity of that.

[Guest Radagast]

I respectfully disagree. Some actually do come here to learn something. (Not that you don't have a point, all the same.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only thing that distinguishes this BB from a lot of others is that it is moderated. However, that just means that regardless of how indefensible your point may be, as long as you don't use profanity, you get printed. Almost as if each argument presented here is equal.

I've been here for a long time, too long. I discuss politics. I either preach to the choir or I'm a left wing, defeatocrat, kool-aid drinking moron. There is no in between.

It is much like where we are as a Town and a Nation. The days of a gentlemens' debate ala William F. Buckley has been replaced by the vitriolic slime of Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly and their minions that propagate this board.

Not exactly where one comes to learn... only to vent.

[Guest BushBacker]

The only thing that distinguishes this BB from a lot of others is that it is moderated. However, that just means that regardless of how indefensible your point may be, as long as you don't use profanity, you get printed. Almost as if each argument presented here is equal.

I've been here for a long time, too long. I discuss politics. I either preach to the choir or I'm a left wing, defeatocrat, kool-aid drinking moron. There is no in between.

It is much like where we are as a Town and a Nation. The days of a gentlemens' debate ala William F. Buckley has been replaced by the vitriolic slime of Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly and their minions that propagate this board.

Not exactly where one comes to learn... only to vent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You lament that we don't get along as a nation and a town, then you use as examples "the vitriolic slime of O'Reilly and Limbaugh". You typify the radical left Kool-aid crowd with that statement.

[Guest Guest]

You lament that we don't get along as a nation and a town, then you use as examples "the vitriolic slime of O'Reilly and Limbaugh". You typify the radical left Kool-aid crowd with that statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And YOU typify the idiotic neo-Nazi-con right with your ASININE Kool-Aid remarks.

Why don't you attempt to explain why this pitiful MISleader you back goes on vacation while people are dying for??????????????????

[Guest Guest]

A debate on how the dinosaurs slept on Noah's Ark?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In all fairness, it was a REALLY big ark.

[Guest Guest]

Because unlike the fundies, atheists don't go around screaming about their personal beliefs and try to shove it down the throats of everyone else?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about those screaming about "under God" in the pledge? I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but there are definitely atheists who are shouting about their belief that kids shouldn't have to say "under God", and who are trying to "shove it down the throats" of everyone, are there not? You can say argue that it is or it isn't a Constitutional issue until you are blue in the face. At the end of the day, it's typically an atheists belief AND atheists are trying to change the daily behavior of schoolchildren for the past half-century.

Please at least acknowledge that there are at least some atheists who are acting in a manner very similar to the "fundies", lest you prove that atheists can be every bit as hypocritical as the "fundies".

[Guest Radagast]

You lament that we don't get along as a nation and a town, then you use as examples "the vitriolic slime of O'Reilly and Limbaugh". You typify the radical left Kool-aid crowd with that statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ho hum ... you prove my point again ... this just gets so old

[Guest WilliamK]

What about those screaming about "under God" in the pledge?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of the "screaming" about that wasn't coming from atheists. And it still isn't, as evidenced by your bringing it up now.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but there are definitely atheists who are shouting about their belief that kids shouldn't have to say "under God", and who are trying to "shove it down the throats" of everyone, are there not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me get this straight. Refusing to let someone shove their beliefs down my throat is equivalent to shoving my beliefs down their throat? If I lock my doors to stop you from stealing my stuff, will you accuse me of robbing you?

You can say argue that it is or it isn't a Constitutional issue until you are blue in the face.  At the end of the day, it's typically an atheists belief AND atheists are trying to change the daily behavior of schoolchildren for the past half-century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah. So because you've been able to get away with trampling the constitution before, you think it's your right to continue to do so?

Please at least acknowledge that there are at least some atheists who are acting in a manner very similar to the "fundies", lest you prove that atheists can be every bit as hypocritical as the "fundies".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, it happens. Now, how about some of you folks on the religious right exhibit a rare moment of honesty and admit up front some things that have been obvious from your behavior for a long time:

That your real gripe is not that your rights are being infringed, but that the rights of those you disagree with aren't.

That your real gripe is not that ideas you disagree with are over represented, but that they are permitted any representation at all.

That your real gripe is not revisionist history, but that anyone would dare question or correct your own revisions.

That your real gripe is not "activist judges legislating from the bench", but judges who have enough integrity to refuse to do so on your behalf.

That your real gripe is not that Paul and Matthew aren't respecting the principles that this country was founded on, but that they are doing exactly that.

[Guest BushBacker]

Ho hum ... you prove my point again ... this just gets so old

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your words tells me you know I'm right and you don't have an intelligent response.

[Guest Paul]

The only thing that distinguishes this BB from a lot of others is that it is moderated. However, that just means that regardless of how indefensible your point may be, as long as you don't use profanity, you get printed. Almost as if each argument presented here is equal.

I've been here for a long time, too long. I discuss politics. I either preach to the choir or I'm a left wing, defeatocrat, kool-aid drinking moron. There is no in between.

It is much like where we are as a Town and a Nation. The days of a gentlemens' debate ala William F. Buckley has been replaced by the vitriolic slime of Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly and their minions that propagate this board.

Not exactly where one comes to learn... only to vent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For many who come here, you're right. However, as you may have noticed, several of us read, consider and take nuanced positions based on the evidence and sound reason. You can't discuss anything with some people, but that doesn't mean we can't have a useful dialogue.

[Guest Paul]

What about those screaming about "under God" in the pledge?  I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but there are definitely atheists who are shouting about their belief that kids shouldn't have to say "under God", and who are trying to "shove it down the throats" of everyone, are there not?  You can say argue that it is or it isn't a Constitutional issue until you are blue in the face.  At the end of the day, it's typically an atheists belief AND atheists are trying to change the daily behavior of schoolchildren for the past half-century.

Please at least acknowledge that there are at least some atheists who are acting in a manner very similar to the "fundies", lest you prove that atheists can be every bit as hypocritical as the "fundies".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While this post is hardly the most strident I've seen, and I much appreciate its tone, it may just take the prize for the most illogical. Boiled down to its essence, it says that atheists are trying to force freedom on everyone.

Atheists object to "under God" in the pledge because it is a coerced recitation of something they don't believe. Being as good Americans as any of us, they correctly point out that a national pledge should be something every good American can endorse. By putting "under God" into it, a pandering Congress during the McCarthy witch-hunt era made it divisive, including words that some good Americans cannot endorse. The stated purpose of that at the time was to distinguish our country from the old USSR, whose government was anti-theistic; but since when do we define ourselves by our enemies, and now that the USSR is defunct, what is the purpose today? In addition, the mere fact that another country coerces its people toward atheism doesn't justify our coercing people toward theism. Our response should have been to endorse the freedom to worship as one sees fit, not to force people to worship.

Those who oppose the McCarthy-era version of the pledge on these grounds are not objecting to people voluntarily saying these words. They're objecting to the government pushing it on people, thereby denying our history as a nation with a secular government and a commitment to religious freedom, and also undermining the religious freedom on which the nation was founded. The fact that they can opt out doesn't change the fact that they're being pressured into saying words they don't believe, which have nothing to do with their status as Americans.

I remember when this issue arose nationally in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Congress took up the issue, and pandering Congressmen made a point of telling the nation that they would recite the pledge to begin their day. Listening to the recitation, one could clearly hear representatives raising their voices and shouting "under God," making a point with these words in particular. Listening to them, you might have wondered whether they thought God was going deaf. They weren't being patriotic, they were taunting their adversaries, shoving the pledge down their throats. That is not what a pledge to one's country should be about.

You are correct that some atheists act very similar to the "fundies," including the hypocrisy. However, the mere fact that they oppose "under God" in the pledge is not an example of that.

[Guest Guest]

Ho hum ... you prove my point again ... this just gets so old

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not much different than Paul's samo old same old.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

What about those screaming about "under God" in the pledge?  I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but there are definitely atheists who are shouting about their belief that kids shouldn't have to say "under God", and who are trying to "shove it down the throats" of everyone, are there not?  You can say argue that it is or it isn't a Constitutional issue until you are blue in the face.  At the end of the day, it's typically an atheists belief AND atheists are trying to change the daily behavior of schoolchildren for the past half-century.

Please at least acknowledge that there are at least some atheists who are acting in a manner very similar to the "fundies", lest you prove that atheists can be every bit as hypocritical as the "fundies".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

If the pendulem swings to far to the right it is inevitible that it swing back too far to the left. Hopefully it will find a place in the center.

[Guest Guest]

In all fairness, it was a REALLY big ark.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. But where did the dinosaur poops go?!

[Guest Guest]

What about those screaming about "under God" in the pledge?  I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but there are definitely atheists who are shouting about their belief that kids shouldn't have to say "under God", and who are trying to "shove it down the throats" of everyone, are there not?  You can say argue that it is or it isn't a Constitutional issue until you are blue in the face.  At the end of the day, it's typically an atheists belief AND atheists are trying to change the daily behavior of schoolchildren for the past half-century.

Please at least acknowledge that there are at least some atheists who are acting in a manner very similar to the "fundies", lest you prove that atheists can be every bit as hypocritical as the "fundies".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're one misguided individual. Fundie adding "under God" to the Pledge was their attempt to shove their beliefs down others' throats. If the wording was changed to "under Allah", would you think someone's shoving their belief down your throat? People who resist the 'under God" wording is fighting for their (and hence everyone's) religious freedom. They're not forcing anyone to agree with their atheist belief. All they're saying is: they don't belief in god, this is not a christian country, the government should not force them to acknowledge a god they don't belief it. After all, that is what religious freedom is all about - free to believe or not believe whatever you choose.

The Atheist equivalent of "under God" would be if they somehow managed to add "there is no God" to the Pledge. To my knowledge, that has not happened.

For you to say that the atheists who resist saying "under god" are "shoving" their belief down others throats just show how biased and misguided you are.

[Guest Guest]

You figure you need some diversion to escape from the truth, or what?

Atheism as a significant world belief has, what, 150 years under its belt? 

Don't feel left out.  You can stack up your millions of dead and oppressed up there with the best of 'em.

Stalin

Pol Pot

Mao

Forced abortions in China

Soviet expansionism (including a brutal repression of Hungarian resistance)

Soviet Gulags

"Re-education" in South Vietnam

And all in an amazingly short time!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of your examples are caused by communism, which just happens to be officially atheists. Mao conducted his atrocities in the name of class struggles, not religious struggles. Same for other communist regimes.

To equate communist atrocities with atheism is akin to equating Nazi atrocities with christianity.

[Strife767]

The Daffy Darwiniacs have one major hurdle they can't get over.  There is no evolutionary explanation for the eye. Science is in agreement that the incredibly complicated eye could not have evolved from a sightless organism.  It's a "mathematically impossibility" state all the greatest minds in science.

LOL!

Get with the times, moron. Even most creationists aren't still using this argument, as it has failed miserably long ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

The eye is in no way a hurdle to the theory of evolution. There is indeed an evolutionary explanation for the eye. Science is most certainly NOT "in agreement that the...eye could not have evolved from a sightless organism." And there is ABSOLUTELY nothing resembling any sort of consensus in the scientific community (I can't speak about the willfully ignorant creationist community, though) about it being a "mathematically (sic) impossibility."

"It's not like a bird growing a longer beak" as one put it.

  Now of course, all the Darwiniacs will scream that they have evidence to prove otherwise. But any "evidence" is written by commited atheists so we all know the validity of that.

Oh, I see--so you realize that the evidence is right there in front of you, but you will

1. Assume that anyone who provides/discovered it is an atheist. Nice strawman.

2. Attack that strawman and use the reverse of the fallacious argument from authority to conclude that all of the evidence is automatically invalid. You do this obviously because you have no real refutation for the actual evidence. Stop being such a wimp and admit it.

And you wonder why people like you are such a laughingstock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Strife767]

What about those screaming about "under God" in the pledge?  I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but there are definitely atheists who are shouting about their belief that kids shouldn't have to say "under God", and who are trying to "shove it down the throats" of everyone, are there not?  You can say argue that it is or it isn't a Constitutional issue until you are blue in the face.  At the end of the day, it's typically an atheists belief AND atheists are trying to change the daily behavior of schoolchildren for the past half-century.

Please at least acknowledge that there are at least some atheists who are acting in a manner very similar to the "fundies", lest you prove that atheists can be every bit as hypocritical as the "fundies".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Atheists are not automatically perfect people or anything, but the whole "under God" thing is not shoving anything down anyone's throat--it is a call for the religious neutrality our Constitution is supposed to uphold. That's all. I hate it when someone (atheist or not) says they want to remove some unconstitutional element of theism from a state institution, and all these people take it as some attack on theism, or that they feel that removing an unconstitutional 'chunk' of theism is somehow "promoting atheism" and somehow 'just as bad.' It's ridiculous.