Strife767

Because I'm not involved in that conversation at all, and I was just making a personal side comment that is completely unrelated to the actual 'arguments.' The irony just made me laugh, that's all. Believe me--when I'm actually involving myself in the argument, you'll notice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet Matthew was wrong? Oh, come on. The teacher was not speaking of his religion in any historical context. All he did was talk about his dogma and undermine the science curriculum with what he said. Read up around here--it doesn't matter. And there is legal precedent for this. The teacher is in a position of power--asking for consent does not make his actions okay. Preaching in public school is not protected speech. End of story--the law is very clear on this matter. Revealing that a public school teacher is trampling callously on the Constitiution without a drop of remorse is not merely "looking for attention," sorry. Matthew exposed something bad that needed to be exposed. And he will deserve them--if he can't handle the consequences of doing what he did, he should have thought about that before he did it. I might think differently if he at least apologized, but since he didn't...nope, he deserves all the controversy he gets for his shameless actions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say it was right. I said it was deserved. What I've done? What exactly _have_ I done? Just because I don't respond to arrogant, bigoted idiocy with a meek voice doesn't mean I have anything to apologize for, honestly. And that doesn't make me a bad person--that makes me a person who has no intention of letting people like that trample all over the rest of us anymore. You don't spend much time around them, do you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Proof? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a straw man argument: And he's right. Natural selection is the exact opposite of random--referring to evolution as being something that relies wholly on "chance" is a well-known straw man argument intellectually dishonest creationists like to use, because it's a lot easier to attack evolution when you falsely redefine it. That's not what evolution is, and you know it We're not stupid, you know--people stopped truly falling for this decades ago. Really? 'Cause, you know... http://preview.tinyurl.com/y9utye <-- this is a Google search for the phrases "francis crick" and "could not be reconciled with the facts". The only place where those words are attributed to that man are in...surprise, surprise...forum posts made by people like you (some of them worded exactly the same--can't say I'm surprised). I'm going to have to call bullshit on this quote unless you can verify where _exactly_ it came from. ALSO! You do know that this still wouldn't prove anything, right? This is just an argument from authority (which is ironic considering how much you guys hate scientists)--just because someone says something doesn't mean it's right--no matter who that person is. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Hmmm? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Untrue: 1. Not all religions are theistic (Buddhism etc.) 2. Atheism/agnositicism/humanism should not be undermined That's basically it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you, or can you not, refute the evidence? Also, even if you could, the fact that something is or seems "too complex" to have happened one way does nothing to prove it did happen another way (in this case, a creator/designer)--this is the fallacy of the argument from incredulity. Two thousand years ago, the same could be said about rain. Just because we don't know how something works right now doesn't mean "God did it" or that we never well know. But in this case, we do know--you're just ignoring the evidence because it comes from a source you feel so insecurely threatened by. Ignore the evidence and cling to your faith all you want, but don't for a moment act like you could get away with that 'clinging' as some sort of opposing argument or refutation. Uh huh, yeah, whatever--so, can you refute any of the evidence? Put up or shut up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, but keeping "under God" in is unfair to non-theistic religions/agnoticism/atheism/etc. <{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.

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.

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." 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}>

Finally, thank you! <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is why your blind-eye stance deserves to be completely ignored. This is also the reason why creationists who come out with this line: "Everything that contradicts the bible is a lie." (I swear, someone has said this directly to me online just as I quoted it--verbatim) are made fun of so much. You don't WANT to know the facts. Why don't you just admit it and remove yourself from the issue? You're not going to do anyone, including yourself, any good by being so stubborn and closed-minded. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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}>

I heard something very interesting on the radio a few months ago (for everyone's information, it was a 'regular' talk show late at night, nothing politically or religiously driven one way or the other), and the host had on this guy who made a very interesting point about 'the biology of God.' That is, he made a pretty good point about the invention of creator religion as being a primitive response that came about around the time we started to become self-aware. It makes sense to believe that it could be kind of a knee-jerk reaction to one's initial realization of one's mortality, and what's more, it would explain theism from a biological/psychological perspective. Most ironic of all, if this is right, it would strongly suggest people (in a sense) _evolved_ to create gods etc. in order to deal with reality. Pretty neat hypothesis if you ask me.

If he wasn't so arrogant with the idiotic attempt at sarcasm I replied to, I wouldn't have talked that way. You reap what you sow--another line from the bible many fundies seem to forget all about when it comes time to be an apologist for a fellow bible-beater.

Well, duh. That doesn't conflict at all with what I said. Listen--this is what I'm saying. You can say you think the teacher is a good guy, etc. etc. But if one writes a letter that says "I don't think he did anything wrong," then that person _is_ supporting his unconstitutional actions, okay? That's all I'm saying. Just because you didn't get it at first doesn't make it incoherent. Frankly, as a person, I also don't see much to support, since there is an absence of any statement from him even so much as _acknowledging_ that what he did was wrong, or any promise it wouldn't happen again, lack of remorse, etc. But if someone likes him or thinks he's a great guy, that's fine. But anyone who will say he didn't do anything wrong _is_ supporting his transgressions, no? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least one person in Kearny recognizes your bravery. Rock on, Matthew.

Strawman. Evolution shows both modern humans and the 'great apes' to have evolved, not one from the other, but both groups from one common hominid ancestor. Let this be a testament to the ignorance of fundies. Call me insensitive as much as you want, but this is the kind of ridiculous behavior/words that just show just how idiotic fundies can be. First off, in that chunk, is someone using his buddy, Mr. Evolution Strawman, to try and insult the person whose post he is replying to. Then, a ridiculous statement in which he thinks he is making a point by 'wondering' why evolution isn't presently occuring according to his strawman. You are a total imbecile, and I have no qualm about stating it outright. Anyone who makes such retarded, intentionally uninformed statements, deserves all the ridicule they get. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How hypocritical. You have no problem whining at someone because you don't agree with what they're doing, but God forbid (sarcasm intended ) that someone ever tell you your prayers, or your worship, or your faith are/is "wasting precious time that you [could be using to] improve your community," and you would explode with fundie rage and whine about how 'persecuted' you are. What happened to "do unto others," huh?

How retarded can you be? Just the fact that you're still whining about "context" when the context is so damned obvious shows just how empty your stance is. Can't any of your fundies _ever_ just admit you're wrong in the face of a mountain of evidence? ...On second thought, never mind...you guys reject the ToE, after all...

o.o! Nicole Romaniak? Holy shit, it must be her! I remember her--we were in the same graduating class, iirc. XD It was just a few months ago that we ran into each other at my job. Her post was quite revealing as to the...persistance of that teacher's religious rantings, once I tracked it (the post) down. Wow...now I wish I had Nicki/y's email address so I could talk to her more about it. The issue could use another Kearnian ally.

Let it be known that I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this. The fundies are the reigning KINGS of circular logic. One need look no further than the assertion that "the bible is the word of god because it says it is" to realize that.

You do know that both the time around the end of December, and the 25th itself, were 'holidays' long before Christianity hijacked it (hijack = declare one of their holidays to be on the same day), right? Same with Easter. "The pagans" definitely had dibs. Also, how do you even know they _do_ celebrate around this time of year? Or that they are celebrating the winter solstice instead of the "birth of Christ?" Or that they're just celebrating along with all the Christians just because it's fun? No, I'm pretty sure they can celebrate whatever they want for whatever reason they want and you can deal with it. The world is in woefully short supply of Matthew LaClairs. We need more people like him--he is no troublemaker. Silly conspiracy theory. How about the more obvious suggestion that the great exposure things like the NY Times gave the story brought a lot of people in to weigh in on the issue, especially those outside of Kearny? Hell, I _live_ in Kearny and I didn't know anything about this until a quote from _this forum_ made its way onto the Fundies Say the Darndest Things website. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give me a break here. First of all, every one of those comments was made in a more general context than the exact situation. Secondly, what the hell has happened to people that no one can understand an analogy without thinking there is a direct comparison being made anymore? "Combining christian with the term 'bastard'"? You know damned well that is not the point I was making (if you actually read the post), and that I never drew a parallel between the two the way you're making it sound. That's very intellectually dishonest of you. The statment _was_ that referring to religion as a "myth" (for example) and to a child of unmarried parents as a "bastard" are both factually accurate statements that can offend because of their connotations. And frankly, I'm sick and tired of everyone assuming the worst possible meaning in everything everyone says. For crying out loud, if you call someone who's overweight "fat" you're labeled as this insensitive, horrible person! I think that kind of thing is just plain bullshit, and that's all I was saying. If you get offended by a factual statement, that is not my problem--there is sensitivity, and then there is being a doormat. Friggin' semantics...tremendous waste of time for people to care about nonsense like this, seriously. See, these are the kinds of statements that annoy me. Let me tell you something, man...it is quite possible to be respectful of someone's beliefs without talking about them in nothing less than glowing praise whenever they're mentioned. People do not have the right to not be offended, okay? There isn't even any comparison. An AP (!) history teacher starts preaching in class, and he gets all kinds of support (that still boggles my mind!), while I make one straightforward comment about what religion is by freaking definition and I'M offensive? I'M insensitive? Now THAT is offensive--to see that incredible double standard. That is ABSURDLY offensive to me. Bullshit. Anyone who tramples on our Constitution without regard or remorse is getting none of my respect, and sure doesn't deserve it, either. Mostly because he just doesn't seem to care! No apology, no admission of guilt, not even a "I didn't mean to cause any problems" or anything like that. He doesn't give a shit. And that, to me, is even worse than the preaching stuff. Maybe because atheists tend not to be as concerned with being perfectly PC than most. That does _not_ mean atheists are less respectful. Are you not above comments like this? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>