Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[Furi]

:snip: Furthermore, I erased the comment immediately. Which in your sanctimonious opinion counts for nothing but which in God's book counts for quite a lot.

So you mean it is OK to be a twunt as long as you repent, this would explain a lot on why theists think that atheists must be immoral we have no higher power to pass our guilt of to, we have to live with ours.

*wondering if this trainwreck will get anywhere back near the topic, or is it another R Paul Evolution thread*

 

[D'rok]

That's hipocritical!

You cunningly ignore his provocation and triumphantly focus on my reaction to it. The devil and his cohorts usually react that way when they feel they have caused a Christian to stumble. They pat one another on the back and celebrate. Unfortunately for them, Jesus died for my sins and despite your objections, I still maintain my good standing before God based on his sacrifice.

As for immorality, all of us are immoral, including you regardless of your holier-than-thou attitude. Threats? That's a lie since I threatened no one. Furthermore, I erased the comment immediately. Which in your sanctimonious opinion counts for nothing but which in God's book counts for quite a lot.

BTW

You are showing surprise at a normal human reaction:

Proverbs 15:1
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

So, if you want to be taken seriously,which I can tell you do based on your ridiculous posturing, then tell your little friend over there to stop trying to provoke. Then maybe, just maybe I might listen with more respect to whatever else you might have to say.

Attacking the argument, even dismissively, is perfectly valid. Attacking the arguer is not. His/her family is way off limits.

Your best argument against evolutionary science is some solipsist nonsense that objective reality doesn't exist? That deserves no response but derision. Note that I derided your argument, not you. Wise up.

 

[DrBaltar]

Proverbs 15:1
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
.

I noticed you are a very frequent bible quoter. I know the book means a lot to you, but can you make your case well enough that your position can stand on it's own merits without constantly searching for validation from the bible?

I think religious people have view points like everyone else that are no more valid than anyone else's (at least without further relevant information/data to back it up), but they try to bolster their view point as one that is sanctioned by god just because they can find a semi-applicable quote in the bible, or whatever book they use.

It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

 

[six7s]

It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

Although I have a hunch you're being a tad too generous with the 'perhaps the general sentiment is valid', I think you've hit the proverbial on the head

 

[wolfgirl]

You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

Yes! Exactly! I hate the smugness of the Bible quote as if that somehow ends all argument. Why does quoting a 2,000-year-old book make you right? I'm going to start dropping relevant-sounding quotes from Homer and see what happens...

 

[RobRoy]

Yes! Exactly! I hate the smugness of the Bible quote as if that somehow ends all argument. Why does quoting a 2,000-year-old book make you right?

Because it's from (all rights reserved, not available in some areas, check local listing) God.

If you believe that, then that ends the debate . . . except for where the Devil can quote scripture to his own purpose (Mathew 4, Luke 4).

So who do I believe? Aarrggh!?! Quick someone, quote me some Bible!

Damn, it must all come down to individual interpretation. I'll just have to think for myself.

I'm going to start dropping relevant-sounding quotes from Homer and see what happens...

You wanna see some rosy-fingered dawns?

 

[godofpie]

Yes! Exactly! I hate the smugness of the Bible quote as if that somehow ends all argument. Why does quoting a 2,000-year-old book make you right? I'm going to start dropping relevant-sounding quotes from Homer and see what happens...

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.

Homer: [drunk] Look, the thing about my family is there's five of us. Marge, Bart, Girl Bart, the one who doesn't talk, and the fat guy. How I loathe him.

Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

Marge: Homer, the plant called. They said if you don't show up tomorrow don't bother showing up on Monday.
Homer: Woo-hoo. Four-day weekend.

Homer: There's your giraffe, little girl.
Ralph Wiggum: I'm a boy.
Homer: That's the spirit. Never give up.

Here's to alcohol, the cause of—and solution to—all life's problems


you meant this Homer, right?

 

[Radrook]

I noticed you are a very frequent bible quoter. I know the book means a lot to you, but can you make your case well enough that your position can stand on it's own merits without constantly searching for validation from the bible?

emphasis mine

Sorry that Bible quotations annoy you. The reason I post scripture isn't because I feel that my point will have been proven to the ones who read it so there. I am well aware that those who are reading are in their majority atheists, agnostics, and possibly even a Satanist now and then. So I am definitely not under the delusion you seem to assume I am. I simply quote because the quote expresses my thoughts in a manner that I find equally effective or more effective than mine. I also quote to demonstrate the applicability of the Bible counsel to our everyday life or to demonstrate that it has value in providing us with guidance on how to behave.

I think religious people have view points like everyone else that are no more valid than anyone else's (at least without further relevant information/data to back it up), but they try to bolster their view point as one that is sanctioned by god just because they can find a semi-applicable quote in the bible, or whatever book they use.

Sorry you feel that way.

It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive[ and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

Sorry you feel that way.


BTW
Deletions of any of my previous comments on this post and the ones below are due to a recent administrator warning and based on what I think he might consider to be rude.

 

[Radrook]

Yes! Exactly! I hate the smugness of the Bible quote as if that somehow ends all argument. Why does quoting a 2,000-year-old book make you right? I'm going to start dropping relevant-sounding quotes from Homer and see what happens...

Sorry that you feel that way.

 

[Radrook]

Because it's from (all rights reserved, not available in some areas, check local listing) God....:You wanna see some rosy-fingered dawns?

Sigh! Ok! Bye! : )

 

[Radrook]

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?....

Aww! Shucks! I thought we wuz friends!

 

[Radrook]

Delted Double post

 

[DrBaltar]

Sorry that Bible quotations annoy you. The reason I post scripture isn't because I feel that my point will have been proven to the ones who read it so there. I am well aware that those who are reading are in their majority atheists, agnostics, and possibly even a Satanist now and then. So I am definitely not under the delusion you seem to assume I am. I simply quote because the quote expresses my thoughts in a manner that I find equally effective or more effective than mine. I also quote to demonstrate the applicability of the Bible counsel to our everyday life or to demonstrate that it has value in providing us with guidance on how to behave.

The bible quotes themselves do not annoy me. I just think you could speak for yourself. I have young twins, a boy and girl. When I ask him a question, my daughter (being a woman ) answers for him. He probably feels that her answers are equally effective or more effective than his. But that's not the point. I want to hear the answer from him. He should step up and speak for himself.

Sorry you feel that way.

Is that what you say when you cannot find an applicable bible quote? You do not need to apologize for my feelings.

 

[RobRoy]

Sigh! Ok! Bye! : )

LOL. I love how my comment, which wasn't aimed at him, was taken as a personal attack by him.

 

[six7s]

Sorry that Bible quotations annoy you

The biblical quotes don't annoy me

Your steadfast refusal to address the issue annoys me

Either way, you don't have to apologise

However, it would be appreciated if you were to simply change your posting style to the extent that you did address the issues

I am well aware that those who are reading are in their majority atheists, agnostics, and possibly even a Satanist now and then

Indeed

Y'ain't preaching to the choir here

Satanists? We have satanists here? Woooooooooooo Hoooooooo!

So I am definitely not under the delusion you seem to assume I am

There's a whole-lotta-assuming going on

I assume that you are deluded into thinking that sceptics think reading your biblical quotes is a worthwhile exercise

For me, it ain't

As the bi(b)le reads like pure, unadulterated nonsense as a whole, then it hardly makes sense to pretend that cherry-picking from it will support an argument on a sceptics forum

I also quote to demonstrate the applicability of the Bible counsel to our everyday life or to demonstrate that it has value in providing us with guidance on how to behave.

You may as well quote from tabloid horoscopes

Woo is woo is woo is woo

 

[articulett]

What six7's said.

 

[PBTree]

Sorry that Bible quotations annoy you. The reason I post scripture isn't because I feel that my point will have been proven to the ones who read it so there. I am well aware that those who are reading are in their majority atheists, agnostics, and possibly even a Satanist now and then. So I am definitely not under the delusion you seem to assume I am. I simply quote because the quote expresses my thoughts in a manner that I find equally effective or more effective than mine. I also quote to demonstrate the applicability of the Bible counsel to our everyday life or to demonstrate that it has value in providing us with guidance on how to behave.

.

Either the whole book is true or none of it is.

People can't (as someone succinctly stated) "cherry pick" pieces out of it. Providing someone with guidance on how to live their life, also means they have to stone gays and shrimp eaters. The bible says so! (I realise it doesn't say that but you get my point)

And a silly question; wouldn't a satanist be a theist?
To follow the ways of beezlebaub wouldn't you also have to believe that the sky fairy started it all?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It's also like seeing a congressman constantly quoting ancient Greek scholars or Aesop's Fables while debating a bill in the House that is meant for modern times. i.e. perhaps the general sentiment is valid but is often naive and doesn't take into account current relevant situations and events or benefit from modern research. You just drop some random quote from 2 or more millennia ago and smugly move on as if saying "I believe my point has been made".

I have a real problem with this.

I mean, senators, knowledgable enough to quote ancient Greek scholars?

Talk about fantasy.....

 

[Radrook]

Either the whole book is true or none of it is.

People can't (as someone succinctly stated) "cherry pick" pieces out of it. Providing someone with guidance on how to live their life, also means they have to stone gays and shrimp eaters. The bible says so! (I realise it doesn't say that but you get my point)

And a silly question; wouldn't a satanist be a theist?
To follow the ways of beezlebaub wouldn't you also have to believe that the sky fairy started it all?

I understand the point you are trying to make-yes. However, you
are mistaken. You can't cherry pick. Some things were applicable to ancient Israel and some are applicable to mankind in general. If you know which is which then you will avoid that cherry-picking mistake. Knowing which is which is a simple matter of becoming
familiar with the book one is using for guidence. One would know, for example, that the stoning you mention is no longer required
just as circumcision is no longer required as well as the dietary laws. When they were, they were required of the Jews and not mankind in general.


As for fairies, I could ask the same about abiogenesis-wouldn't I have to believe Mother Goose? And believe me from where I stand that's the way the whole idea seems to me.

BTW
What does the theist question have to do with all this?

 

[six7s]

...also means they have to stone gays and shrimp eaters. The bible says so! (I realise it doesn't say that but you get my point)

I understand the point you are trying to make-yes

You could have fooled me!

However, you are mistaken. You can't cherry pick

Nope... YOU are mistaken

Sure, people shouldn't cherry pick, but, unless you live under a rock, you can't have failed to notice that people can, and do!

Knowing which is which is a simple matter of becoming familiar with the book one is using for guidence.

Go and tell that to your god-fearing, neighbour persecuting bretheren

As for fairies, I could ask the same about abiogenesis-wouldn't I have to believe Mother Goose?

I have a hunch that the leading minds focused on the origins of life don't want you to believe anything, preferring that you think instead... and, if you find any significant errors with the current model(s), to let 'em know