Jump to content

Is Lisa Pezzolla retarded or just stupid?


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

This week's Kearny Observer treats us to the following "brilliant" analysis from the publisher:

"Once again, Michael A. Newdow (reportedly America's least favorite atheist) is proud to admit that he is an atheist . . ." Nothing like making your biases apparent at the beginning, Lisa. One might say that he proclaims he is an atheist. That would be more accurate. To her, it's an admission. And of course he is "America's least favorite atheist." He's challenging what the majority wants to do. She continues:

" . . . and along with other so-called atheists . . ." So-called atheists? Maybe they're real atheists. If you actually read the complaint, some of them don't call themselves atheists. But hey, why interfere with rock-solid prejudices? “Aaaaaaatheist. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! "

" . . . atempted once again to create controversy and gain media coverage." Now wait a minute. Maybe they really believe that the inauguration of the President shouldn't be a church service. Maybe they really believe that "so help me God" isn't in the Constitution and therefore shouldn't be part of the oath. Maybe they're not interested in media coverage but in being treated equally in their own country. Maybe they really don't like having religion forced on them in public ceremonies like this one. Maybe they actually think they have a legal right not to have it forced on them. And so maybe they're not the ones creating the controversy. Maybe that is being done by the people who keep insisting on shoving their religion down our throats.

"God is a universal preference of many denominations and creeds. . ." Lisa, "universal" and "many" don't go together, especially in this context. If you had actually studied journalism, you might have learned that. Of course, if you had actually studied journalism . . . well, those who read this can finish that thought on their own.

"Not to believe is a choice you have, but where do we draw the line?" What line? What's so hard about rendering under Caesar what is Caesar's? Save your ideas about God for church because Americans don't agree on that subject. What's so hard? There wouldn't be a problem if people like Lisa didn't just have to have their religious beliefs pushed on everyone else. Don't blame the controversy on the few people who have the courage to push back.

"The pledge of allegiance is out of schools." What? The pledge of allegiance is mandated by most if not all the states and is recited by students all over the country every day. Does she have any idea what she's writing about?

"Prayer is a no-no and I guess we have to burn the bible and say there is no such thing as God, just to please a few atheists." No, you don't have to do that, but you do have to treat atheists, agnostics, secularists, freethinkers, humanists, etc., as equal to you in every way if you really believe in "liberty and justice for all." This isn't rocket science.

So I ask: Is this woman ******** of just ******? Case your vote here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This week's Kearny Observer treats us to the following "brilliant" analysis from the publisher:

"Once again, Michael A. Newdow (reportedly America's least favorite atheist) is proud to admit that he is an atheist . . ." Nothing like making your biases apparent at the beginning, Lisa. One might say that he proclaims he is an atheist. That would be more accurate. To her, it's an admission. And of course he is "America's least favorite atheist." He's challenging what the majority wants to do. She continues:

" . . . and along with other so-called atheists . . ." So-called atheists? Maybe they're real atheists. If you actually read the complaint, some of them don't call themselves atheists. But hey, why interfere with rock-solid prejudices? “Aaaaaaatheist. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! "

" . . . atempted once again to create controversy and gain media coverage." Now wait a minute. Maybe they really believe that the inauguration of the President shouldn't be a church service. Maybe they really believe that "so help me God" isn't in the Constitution and therefore shouldn't be part of the oath. Maybe they're not interested in media coverage but in being treated equally in their own country. Maybe they really don't like having religion forced on them in public ceremonies like this one. Maybe they actually think they have a legal right not to have it forced on them. And so maybe they're not the ones creating the controversy. Maybe that is being done by the people who keep insisting on shoving their religion down our throats.

"God is a universal preference of many denominations and creeds. . ." Lisa, "universal" and "many" don't go together, especially in this context. If you had actually studied journalism, you might have learned that. Of course, if you had actually studied journalism . . . well, those who read this can finish that thought on their own.

"Not to believe is a choice you have, but where do we draw the line?" What line? What's so hard about rendering under Caesar what is Caesar's? Save your ideas about God for church because Americans don't agree on that subject. What's so hard? There wouldn't be a problem if people like Lisa didn't just have to have their religious beliefs pushed on everyone else. Don't blame the controversy on the few people who have the courage to push back.

"The pledge of allegiance is out of schools." What? The pledge of allegiance is mandated by most if not all the states and is recited by students all over the country every day. Does she have any idea what she's writing about?

"Prayer is a no-no and I guess we have to burn the bible and say there is no such thing as God, just to please a few atheists." No, you don't have to do that, but you do have to treat atheists, agnostics, secularists, freethinkers, humanists, etc., as equal to you in every way if you really believe in "liberty and justice for all." This isn't rocket science.

So I ask: Is this woman ******** of just ******? Case your vote here.

I know Mike Newdow and I am a member of his FACTS church here in Sacramento. He IS an atheist but more importantly than that he fights to uphold the Constitution and protect freedom for everyone. I do not always agree with his methodology but overall he is an asset to the protection of the separation of church and state. It's amazing how some people react to the title of "Atheist". I heard is the least popular thing to be. People associate faithlessness as a sign of immorality and dishonesty and figure that anyone who open states they are an atheist must be corrupt, disloyal and UnAmerican. Thanks for your commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
This week's Kearny Observer treats us to the following "brilliant" analysis from the publisher:

"Once again, Michael A. Newdow (reportedly America's least favorite atheist) is proud to admit that he is an atheist . . ." Nothing like making your biases apparent at the beginning, Lisa. One might say that he proclaims he is an atheist. That would be more accurate. To her, it's an admission. And of course he is "America's least favorite atheist." He's challenging what the majority wants to do. She continues:

" . . . and along with other so-called atheists . . ." So-called atheists? Maybe they're real atheists. If you actually read the complaint, some of them don't call themselves atheists. But hey, why interfere with rock-solid prejudices? “Aaaaaaatheist. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! "

" . . . atempted once again to create controversy and gain media coverage." Now wait a minute. Maybe they really believe that the inauguration of the President shouldn't be a church service. Maybe they really believe that "so help me God" isn't in the Constitution and therefore shouldn't be part of the oath. Maybe they're not interested in media coverage but in being treated equally in their own country. Maybe they really don't like having religion forced on them in public ceremonies like this one. Maybe they actually think they have a legal right not to have it forced on them. And so maybe they're not the ones creating the controversy. Maybe that is being done by the people who keep insisting on shoving their religion down our throats.

"God is a universal preference of many denominations and creeds. . ." Lisa, "universal" and "many" don't go together, especially in this context. If you had actually studied journalism, you might have learned that. Of course, if you had actually studied journalism . . . well, those who read this can finish that thought on their own.

"Not to believe is a choice you have, but where do we draw the line?" What line? What's so hard about rendering under Caesar what is Caesar's? Save your ideas about God for church because Americans don't agree on that subject. What's so hard? There wouldn't be a problem if people like Lisa didn't just have to have their religious beliefs pushed on everyone else. Don't blame the controversy on the few people who have the courage to push back.

"The pledge of allegiance is out of schools." What? The pledge of allegiance is mandated by most if not all the states and is recited by students all over the country every day. Does she have any idea what she's writing about?

"Prayer is a no-no and I guess we have to burn the bible and say there is no such thing as God, just to please a few atheists." No, you don't have to do that, but you do have to treat atheists, agnostics, secularists, freethinkers, humanists, etc., as equal to you in every way if you really believe in "liberty and justice for all." This isn't rocket science.

So I ask: Is this woman ******** of just ******? Case your vote here.

I agree with everything she said. Atheists are miserable, hateful people, Newdow is a perfect example of that. My advise to atheists; If you don't like Christian displays, don't look. Don't like to hear "so help me God" ? Stick cotton in your ears. Christians are charitable people, we don't care if you worship Mother Nature or hug a tree, just stay out of our way. We're 80+% of the population, atheists are an insignificant 3%, this is our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Melanie
I agree with everything she said. Atheists are miserable, hateful people, Newdow is a perfect example of that. My advise to atheists; If you don't like Christian displays, don't look. Don't like to hear "so help me God" ? Stick cotton in your ears. Christians are charitable people, we don't care if you worship Mother Nature or hug a tree, just stay out of our way. We're 80+% of the population, atheists are an insignificant 3%, this is our country.

My advice to you is that if you don't like what atheists have to say, then ignore it. Newdow's point is that government shouldn't sponsor or promote religion. Speaking for myself, my ears don't hurt when I hear people talking about God, but it is offensive to use the government to push it on people. That's exactly what's going on.

I don't know much about you, but if you lump people together as you just did, I know you're a bigot. I also know that you're not charitable toward atheists or people on the left politically. You are consistently rude and have made it very clear that you do not care about the rights of others; you're in the majority so you can do anything you want, and if someone gets hurt, too bad. That's what you wrote and there's nothing charitable about it. What you're saying is that you don't care about those people. Apparently you have forgotten this: "What you do to the least of my brothers you do to me." Or maybe you just don't care. I don't know you well enough to know, but I do know you have some serious issues and don't seem very interested in looking at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything she said. Atheists are miserable, hateful people, Newdow is a perfect example of that. My advise to atheists; If you don't like Christian displays, don't look. Don't like to hear "so help me God" ? Stick cotton in your ears. Christians are charitable people, we don't care if you worship Mother Nature or hug a tree, just stay out of our way. We're 80+% of the population, atheists are an insignificant 3%, this is our country.

Christian are like everyone else-including Atheists. There are good ones and bad ones. They are not all generous and charitable although some are. Humanists and Atheists can also be generous and charitable. Some of the greatest philanthropists in history were freethinkers. The only miserable and hateful people are those ignorant enough to post a message such as yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
My advice to you is that if you don't like what atheists have to say, then ignore it. Newdow's point is that government shouldn't sponsor or promote religion. Speaking for myself, my ears don't hurt when I hear people talking about God, but it is offensive to use the government to push it on people. That's exactly what's going on.

I don't know much about you, but if you lump people together as you just did, I know you're a bigot. I also know that you're not charitable toward atheists or people on the left politically. You are consistently rude and have made it very clear that you do not care about the rights of others; you're in the majority so you can do anything you want, and if someone gets hurt, too bad. That's what you wrote and there's nothing charitable about it. What you're saying is that you don't care about those people. Apparently you have forgotten this: "What you do to the least of my brothers you do to me." Or maybe you just don't care. I don't know you well enough to know, but I do know you have some serious issues and don't seem very interested in looking at them.

Blah, blah, blah. Typical leftist talking points, you're as ignorant as Newdow. The government doesn't sponsor or promote religion, that's part of your paranoia. You have never seen a government paid ad on tv urging anyone to join a certain religion, and you have never been "pushed" to join a certain church. Just the fact that you suggest that and believe that tells me you're the one with serious issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Christian are like everyone else-including Atheists. There are good ones and bad ones. They are not all generous and charitable although some are. Humanists and Atheists can also be generous and charitable. Some of the greatest philanthropists in history were freethinkers. The only miserable and hateful people are those ignorant enough to post a message such as yours.

No, Paul, Christians are not like atheists. Atheists hold up Newdow as some kind of cult figure to be revered. In fact Newdow is a hateful, malicious individual that cringes at the sight of a Christian display. If he's your hero, you need to examine your own life. BTW, all the Christians I know are

freethinkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian are like everyone else-including Atheists. There are good ones and bad ones. They are not all generous and charitable although some are. Humanists and Atheists can also be generous and charitable. Some of the greatest philanthropists in history were freethinkers. The only miserable and hateful people are those ignorant enough to post a message such as yours.

An Ethical Culture leader said it brilliantly: "I have known good people who believed in a god and good people who did not believe in a god. But I have never known good people who did not believe in people."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Paul, Christians are not like atheists. Atheists hold up Newdow as some kind of cult figure to be revered. In fact Newdow is a hateful, malicious individual that cringes at the sight of a Christian display. If he's your hero, you need to examine your own life. BTW, all the Christians I know are

freethinkers.

Well 2smart4patriot,

After reading many of your posts you are not only one of the saddest, mean spirited and ill informed people on here you are probably the worst "Christian" as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
An Ethical Culture leader said it brilliantly: "I have known good people who believed in a god and good people who did not believe in a god. But I have never known good people who did not believe in people."

And Afred E. Newman said: "What me worry, I read Mad." What's your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Afred E. Newman said: "What me worry, I read Mad." What's your point.

My point was obvious to anyone who wasn't fighting not to understand it. Believing in a god won't make you a good person. Being a good person will make you a good person. You just have to do it. As the saying goes: "Decent is as decent does."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah. Typical leftist talking points, you're as ignorant as Newdow. The government doesn't sponsor or promote religion, that's part of your paranoia. You have never seen a government paid ad on tv urging anyone to join a certain religion, and you have never been "pushed" to join a certain church. Just the fact that you suggest that and believe that tells me you're the one with serious issues.

Of course our government is sponsoring and promoting religion. There's no reason to have "under God" in our national pledge. That pledge should speak for us all. Those two words do not. Same with "in God we trust" on our currency. That doesn't speak for the millions of non-theists in this country, and I predict that one day it's going to be removed. It would be one thing if it was necessary, but it's not.

There's no reason for candidates for public office to say "God bless you and God bless America" at the end of every speech. Obama wasn't doing it until you religious zealots started questioning why not; then he started doing it because he had to. That's a tyranny of the majority. The man couldn't even keep his religious beliefs private, which obviously is what he wanted to do. And it's certainly a tyranny against those of us whose public officials are now practically compelled to speak that way. When I was growing up and as a young man, no public officials did that because they understood the importance of separating their religions from their public duties. You like what's going on, so you try to justify it, but if you're really honest about it, it can't be justified.

Be a decent person for once. Instead of fighting us and demeaning us at every turn, try to understand how you would feel if the government was presuming to speak for your religious beliefs in a way you didn't agree with. You truly are demonstrating a real mean-spiritedness here, and it doesn't serve you or the country you claim to love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Paul, Christians are not like atheists. Atheists hold up Newdow as some kind of cult figure to be revered. In fact Newdow is a hateful, malicious individual that cringes at the sight of a Christian display. If he's your hero, you need to examine your own life. BTW, all the Christians I know are freethinkers.

No they don't. Cite one instance of an atheist holding up Newdow as a cult figure. You can't.

I don't know the man personally, but Matthew does and so does Kris, apparently. I don't hear any of that from them. Just because you don't agree with Newdow doesn't make him hateful, malicious or cringing. The person I see cringing here is you. You can't even tolerate that we non-theists believe these things, and even less that we're becoming more vocal about it. I've seen you be hateful and malicious here, quite a lot, but not Newdow.

Finally, I find it hard to believe that all the Christians you know are freethinkers. Feethinkers believe that "beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought] Therefore, anyone who believes that the Bible is the revealed word of God, based on "faith," is by definition not a freethinker. Perhaps you mean something else by the word, but that is its commonly accepted meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
No they don't. Cite one instance of an atheist holding up Newdow as a cult figure. You can't.

I don't know the man personally, but Matthew does and so does Kris, apparently. I don't hear any of that from them. Just because you don't agree with Newdow doesn't make him hateful, malicious or cringing. The person I see cringing here is you. You can't even tolerate that we non-theists believe these things, and even less that we're becoming more vocal about it. I've seen you be hateful and malicious here, quite a lot, but not Newdow.

Finally, I find it hard to believe that all the Christians you know are freethinkers. Feethinkers believe that "beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought] Therefore, anyone who believes that the Bible is the revealed word of God, based on "faith," is by definition not a freethinker. Perhaps you mean something else by the word, but that is its commonly accepted meaning.

Well, since you or SCIENCE can't prove how life began, my LOGIC tells me that an intelligent designer did it. Free-thinking Christians are not being influenced by any authority, tradition or dogma. We make decisions about our faith on LOGIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Paul, Christians are not like atheists. Atheists hold up Newdow as some kind of cult figure to be revered. In fact Newdow is a hateful, malicious individual that cringes at the sight of a Christian display. If he's your hero, you need to examine your own life. BTW, all the Christians I know are

freethinkers.

If you had read my earlier post, you would know that I said I do not always care for Newdow's methodology, so how could I then hold him up as some kind of cult figure? You are just spouting off as usual. I don't know anyone who worships Mike Newdow anymore than they worship god. He is a very educated and intelligent man who knows the law and does nothing more than pass that information on to the rest of us. There were several groups and individuals who were party to this last lawsuit. Mike has the legal background to know how to file the paperwork and so forth. The issues are not his and his alone. I would like to know how you can call Christians Freethinkers? It's an oxymoron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they don't. Cite one instance of an atheist holding up Newdow as a cult figure. You can't.

I don't know the man personally, but Matthew does and so does Kris, apparently. I don't hear any of that from them. Just because you don't agree with Newdow doesn't make him hateful, malicious or cringing. The person I see cringing here is you. You can't even tolerate that we non-theists believe these things, and even less that we're becoming more vocal about it. I've seen you be hateful and malicious here, quite a lot, but not Newdow.

Finally, I find it hard to believe that all the Christians you know are freethinkers. Feethinkers believe that "beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought] Therefore, anyone who believes that the Bible is the revealed word of God, based on "faith," is by definition not a freethinker. Perhaps you mean something else by the word, but that is its commonly accepted meaning.

No you're right-we do not. Mike is a very educated and informed person and I admire his knowledge in regards to the issues. I do not always agree with him. The people who come to FACTS meetings are all intelligent and freethinking individuals who are not looking for a hero to worship. We do not follow blindly on his every word. But, aside from the issues which can get Mike pretty fired up, he is really quite a soft spoken individual otherwise. All these people posting this garbage are why there is so much hatred in the world. So quick to make a decision about someone based on what they are rather than who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since you or SCIENCE can't prove how life began, my LOGIC tells me that an intelligent designer did it. Free-thinking Christians are not being influenced by any authority, tradition or dogma. We make decisions about our faith on LOGIC.

That's not LOGIC! You're just making an ASSUMPTION.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since you or SCIENCE can't prove how life began, my LOGIC tells me that an intelligent designer did it. Free-thinking Christians are not being influenced by any authority, tradition or dogma. We make decisions about our faith on LOGIC.

So do grits cook faster on your stove than they do in the rest of the grits-cooking world? "Your LOGIC" isn't logical. The very fact that you call it "my LOGIC" should tell you something.

Also, you're missing the point that freethought relies on science and logic. It doesn't pit one against the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since you or SCIENCE can't prove how life began, my LOGIC tells me that an intelligent designer did it. Free-thinking Christians are not being influenced by any authority, tradition or dogma. We make decisions about our faith on LOGIC.

That’s not logical. The logical conclusion is that you don’t know how all things began. Settling on an answer without information to support it is not logical. The essence of freethought is that you need both science and logic. Read the Wikipedia definition again.

As for how life began, your hypothesis leads nowhere. By contrast, the hypotheses and theories of science do lead somewhere. The best explanation for the beginning of life is that amino acids formed proteins, which then formed the first cell. That's a very general explanation, but unlike your hypothesis it can be tested. Whether scientists are right or wrong, their method holds more promise for uncovering the truth than yours. And if scientists are wrong, eventually they will learn why they were wrong, and that will lead to useful discoveries.

What you’re doing is called metaphysics. That was discredited and abandoned by practically everyone who understands and values science centuries ago.

Furthermore, there is not a single recorded instance of consciousness without an organic brain. By all the evidence, consciousness is a product of the material body, specifically the organic brain. Therefore, there isn’t a single shred of evidence to support the idea of consciousness creating matter, which is what so-called intelligent design proposes. It’s exactly the other way around. Matter produces consciousness under the right circumstances.

The other element here is your claim that every Christian you know is a freethinker. I made the point that by definition anyone who takes the Bible as an extrinsic authority isn’t a freethinker. Of course, you just ignored that, just like you seem to ignore everything you don’t agree with but don’t know how to address. Many Christians take the Bible literally and on “faith,” which means that they believe it because they wish to believe it. That’s completely contrary to an essential principle of freethought, which is that beliefs should be based on evidence, not just unsupported metaphysical suppositions strung together by a claim to logic.

Anyone who reads your posts with a little intelligence can see how your way of thinking distorts every conclusion you draw. You don’t base your arguments on evidence. Quite often you don’t even make an argument. You just assert what you wish to believe, call it an absolute fact, refuse to consider the alternatives and call names of anyone who doesn’t agree with you. That’s not logical, scientific or even Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Well, since you or SCIENCE can't prove how life began, my LOGIC tells me that an intelligent designer did it. Free-thinking Christians are not being influenced by any authority, tradition or dogma. We make decisions about our faith on LOGIC.

Actually logic-oops-LOGIC would tell you that you've committed a fallacy. That's a false dichotomy. Science is fine with saying "we don't know" because if you don't know something that is the only appropriate response. Only the religious insist that we should know everything now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since you or SCIENCE can't prove how life began, my LOGIC tells me that an intelligent designer did it. Free-thinking Christians are not being influenced by any authority, tradition or dogma. We make decisions about our faith on LOGIC.

My logic tells me you don't understand science or logic at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
My logic tells me you don't understand science or logic at all.

Your logic is flawed. Science cannot say how life began, that's a fact. Because of the vast complexity of the various life forms, I opt for an intelligent designer. As a freethinker, therein lies my religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
If you had read my earlier post, you would know that I said I do not always care for Newdow's methodology, so how could I then hold him up as some kind of cult figure? You are just spouting off as usual. I don't know anyone who worships Mike Newdow anymore than they worship god. He is a very educated and intelligent man who knows the law and does nothing more than pass that information on to the rest of us. There were several groups and individuals who were party to this last lawsuit. Mike has the legal background to know how to file the paperwork and so forth. The issues are not his and his alone. I would like to know how you can call Christians Freethinkers? It's an oxymoron.

As I said in another post, science cannot prove how life began. I believe life is far too diverse and vastly complicated to have evolved from pond scum or whatever, therefore I believe it was designed and science can't refute that. Therein lies my freethinking Christian beliefs, based upon logic. No oxymorons here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s not logical. The logical conclusion is that you don’t know how all things began. Settling on an answer without information to support it is not logical. The essence of freethought is that you need both science and logic. Read the Wikipedia definition again.

As for how life began, your hypothesis leads nowhere. By contrast, the hypotheses and theories of science do lead somewhere. The best explanation for the beginning of life is that amino acids formed proteins, which then formed the first cell. That's a very general explanation, but unlike your hypothesis it can be tested. Whether scientists are right or wrong, their method holds more promise for uncovering the truth than yours. And if scientists are wrong, eventually they will learn why they were wrong, and that will lead to useful discoveries.

What you’re doing is called metaphysics. That was discredited and abandoned by practically everyone who understands and values science centuries ago.

Furthermore, there is not a single recorded instance of consciousness without an organic brain. By all the evidence, consciousness is a product of the material body, specifically the organic brain. Therefore, there isn’t a single shred of evidence to support the idea of consciousness creating matter, which is what so-called intelligent design proposes. It’s exactly the other way around. Matter produces consciousness under the right circumstances.

The other element here is your claim that every Christian you know is a freethinker. I made the point that by definition anyone who takes the Bible as an extrinsic authority isn’t a freethinker. Of course, you just ignored that, just like you seem to ignore everything you don’t agree with but don’t know how to address. Many Christians take the Bible literally and on “faith,” which means that they believe it because they wish to believe it. That’s completely contrary to an essential principle of freethought, which is that beliefs should be based on evidence, not just unsupported metaphysical suppositions strung together by a claim to logic.

Anyone who reads your posts with a little intelligence can see how your way of thinking distorts every conclusion you draw. You don’t base your arguments on evidence. Quite often you don’t even make an argument. You just assert what you wish to believe, call it an absolute fact, refuse to consider the alternatives and call names of anyone who doesn’t agree with you. That’s not logical, scientific or even Christian.

The problem with biblical "logic" is there is nothing new being added to it. Science is always in motion and new things are learned every day. Theories are tested and retested and studies continue and new books are written. Science can admit that it is not perfect and needs to keep an open mind. Christianity only leaves you with one answer to everything-god did it. I find that as illogical as any theory can be.

Another musical theatre anecdote; remember in "The King and I" when the King is pondering all the new ideas that are being thrown at him by Anna and he sings what I believe is the basis of a scientific mind and why it is dangerous to think you have all the answers

There are times I almost think I am not sure of what I absolutely know

Very often find confusion in conclusion I concluded long ago

In my head are many facts that, As a student, I have studied to procure

In my head are many facts of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!

When my father was a king he was a king who knew exactly what he knew

And his brain was not a thing forever swinging to and fro and fro and to

Shall I, then be like my father

And be willfully unmovable and strong?

Or is it better to be right?

Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?

There are times I almost think noboby sure of what he absolutely know

Everybody find confusion in conclusion he concluded long ago

And it puzzle me to learn that though a man may be in doubt of what he know

Very quickly he will fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
The problem with biblical "logic" is there is nothing new being added to it. Science is always in motion and new things are learned every day. Theories are tested and retested and studies continue and new books are written. Science can admit that it is not perfect and needs to keep an open mind. Christianity only leaves you with one answer to everything-god did it. I find that as illogical as any theory can be.

Another musical theatre anecdote; remember in "The King and I" when the King is pondering all the new ideas that are being thrown at him by Anna and he sings what I believe is the basis of a scientific mind and why it is dangerous to think you have all the answers

There are times I almost think I am not sure of what I absolutely know

Very often find confusion in conclusion I concluded long ago

In my head are many facts that, As a student, I have studied to procure

In my head are many facts of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!

When my father was a king he was a king who knew exactly what he knew

And his brain was not a thing forever swinging to and fro and fro and to

Shall I, then be like my father

And be willfully unmovable and strong?

Or is it better to be right?

Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?

There are times I almost think noboby sure of what he absolutely know

Everybody find confusion in conclusion he concluded long ago

And it puzzle me to learn that though a man may be in doubt of what he know

Very quickly he will fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

"Science is always in motion....." Wonderful. So when science proves all life began in pond scum, I'll reconsider my belief in intelligent design. Until that day I'll use my superior intellect and logic and place my bets with God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...