Religious fascism or just common sense?

My message says I have no new message

On the bar at the top of every page there is a button which indicates if you have any messages. Take a look, please, even if says you have none. Others have had that problem, and messages have sometimes gone unread for days.

I know I have been accused of homophobia which I resent and which is totally unfounded, the fact is that some people will not acknowledge the truth and this is where most of the problems arise.

Ivan, I have now read the message to which you refer, I believe it is pointless discussing anything with those who are afraid of the truth and feel I have done nothing but tell it as it is but if the faint hearted and delluded want to go on pretending then the best thing is to let them get on with it.

those who are afraid of the truth

I'm not afraid of the truth ... I'm afraid of your religion.

Which religion gets its support from Trolls?

And so you should be.

You can always tell when someone is unable to respond in an intelligent manner they resort to insults and childish comments, I think I may be wrong regarding them getting their ideas from the Dandy and the Beano, I think both beyond their understanding and they should just lower their reading material.

You can always tell when someone is unable to respond in an intelligent manner they resort to insults and childish comments, I think I may be wrong regarding them getting their ideas from the Dandy and the Beano, I think both beyond their understanding and they should just lower their reading material.

I'm actually embarrassed *for* you. I've been twirling you around this dance floor through post after post and you have no idea. You don't even have an inkling.

The fact that you've been reduced to ridiculous ad hominem attacks shows you've completely run out of steam.

Metamophosis is accepted as a supernatural occurance, the odds of which are right off the scales regarding the possibility that it came about by chance.

The eyes to which i have previously refered have similar odds regarding the possibility of them coming about without an intelligence being involved, now I know you feel you are better qualified than those who calculate the odds but I prefer to accept their findings rather than yours and I still await your stage by stage reply.

If you are ever in my territory I will give you a fox trot you will never forget
and a tango if you like.

Directly ridiculed by the incompetant does not worry me but it would only do so if the criticism was backed up by facts rather than from the Beano readers.

As I recall you say there should be no direct attacks on anyone on the site where are you.
Just read the last pparagraph of you last post.

As I have intimated previously you are not consistant in anything you say it is alright to ridicule but not acceptable to tell the truth if in doing so someone is upset, why on earth shouild anyone be afraid of the truth I doubt if you are upset when I POINT OUT YOUR SHORTCOMINGS AND INCONSITANCIES, I am sure you are strong enough to accept the facts and no doubt in future attempt to correct them.

Perhaps only a qualified clinician should maintain dialogue with possibly disturbed persons, for fear of making matters worse.

verb sap?

Polyglide. Quote

Metamophosis is accepted as a supernatural occurance, the odds of which are right off the scales regarding the possibility that it came about by chance.

Metamorphosis is accepted as a biological process.
The greatest 'mystery' is not how anything 'evolved' eyes. The greatest 'mystery' in the world is how a sperm and an egg can meet in a woman's body and produce such a wonderful, complicated and individual individual.

The exception being silly me.

oftenwrong wrote:Which religion gets its support from Trolls?

Gnoman Catholics?

Metamophosis is accepted as a supernatural occurance

No, it's not.

now I know you feel you are better qualified than those who calculate the odds

I've debunked this argument a hundred times. One cannot "calculate the odds" of an impossibility, so if any odds are being calculated, then the event must be POSSIBLE! And if it is possible, then it means evolution could have occurred. If the possibility exists, then you have no argument. This logic is so easy, even a Beano reader can grasp it. So why can't you?

Just read the last pparagraph of you last post.

LOL! Accusing you of attacking me is not a personal attack on you ... especially when it is 100% true.

As I have intimated previously you are not consistant in anything you say

I asked once before if you would like me to start a poll and let the other members vote on whether I'm inconsistent. Your lack of an answer to this question indicates that you know you're just "whistlin' Dixie" and wish to avoid being embarrassed. That's okay. I understand.

it is alright to ridicule but not acceptable to tell the truth

The "truth." Heh. You should move to America where there are plenty of people who would rather believe in Bronze Age fairy tales about talking snakes and virgin births than accept modern science. They even do reenactments of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee every year. In case you may not be aware of what this trial was all about, it centered around finding a teacher guilty of teaching evolution in school, a criminal offense in those days. Only religious zealots would ever create and enforce such a law since their "truth" is the only version we're allowed to hear. I wonder what they're so afraid of? After all, if the Hand of God was so obviously present in nature, surely everyone ... and I do mean everyone ... would have come to the same conclusion you have?

why on earth shouild anyone be afraid of the truth

Well now, that's a very good question. Thus I would again direct your attention to the criminality of teaching evolution in school. It wasn't until the launch of Sputnik that America realized we just might be losing ground to the Soviets in terms of scientific knowledge and thus repealed this law. The mere existence of such a law, however, shows the fear believers have of scientific truth, a fear so strong that they have to criminalize the teaching of any ideas other than their own. Of course, this isn't the first time this has happened. History is replete with executions, burnings, and inquisitions when secular ideas were either spoken or published. Fear is the weapon of religion, not science.

I am sure you are strong enough to accept the facts

On this, I will agree. Hence why I am not a believer in your God despite the threats of hellfire and brimstone ... or the possibility of non-existence after death.

However, I have already conceded that there is the possibility that "a god" of some kind created the universe. Who knows? I cannot definitively say that this did not occur.

So let's assume that humans were created. Now it's your turn. Prove to me that the Christian God is the creator. Show me evidence outside of the Bible that proves ... or even provides evidence of ... the Christian God's involvement in the creation process.

You can't, can you. That's why you ignored this challenge the first time I presented it, and why you will ignore it this time, as well.

Gnoman Catholics?

Boooo!

Thor will NOT be content with that!

This IS his day of the week after all!

Well let me try.

Iam first of all very pleased that you consider there may be a creator.

That is a very good start.

The next quesion should be why?

I will just add that if you were able to prove evolution I would think very seriously about it.

If we just for the purpose of considering alternatives say the creator was doing it for fun, then he has certainly had his monies worth with just the inability shown on this site towards what should be a reasonable discussion.

The only clue I have to why, is the bible, why I personally accept this is because there is no other logical available reason and I feel there is sufficient evidence to support my belief, than anything else.

It would seem pointless to me to go to all the trouble in creating such a marverlous world without a long term intention and that provided by the bible seem,s and I believe,to be the reason.

I know and I can understand that you feel it to be blind faith, however, no one seems to have a logical alternative that has any credence.

The point is that were we sure without quesion that God created everything. then there would be no need for faith and faith in my opinion is the ultimate test that God has given us.

I am sorry that I cannot be more specific but I have strong feelings we will soon have all the answers and it may be too late for some of us.

Why do religious people always expound as if they are supercilious know it all's!

I will just add that if you were able to prove evolution I would think very seriously about it.

Would you? Somehow I doubt it. If you look it up on the internet you can gain a cursory understanding. Evolution has been proved over and over and over again. How much evidence do you need? There are thousands of resources at your fingertips. So go and teach yourself evolution with an open mind.

There is no proof whatsoever that evolution is the answer to all creation,
just answer the quesion regarding the butterfy or stop talking nonmsense.

If there was proof no one would be considering other alternatives.

There are numerous theories that may seem logical but do not cover all creation, just as in a gigsaw, it is the final peices that determine the end and not the first.

There is no proof whatsoever that evolution is the answer to all creation

There is no proof that the universe was created, either.

At the very least, evolution is a neutral concept. It doesn't "favor" one group of people over another. Claiming that the Christian God is the creator of the universe, and having no evidence for it, is de facto racism. I know that religion isn't a "race" in the traditional sense, but it does suggest a certain superiority over all other views. I have said many times that I hope it is never proven that the universe was created ... because if this ever WAS proven, our planet would descend into a religious nightmare of fascism, repression, and warfare. Why? Because every religion out there would be trying to lay claim to this creator (just as you are doing), and suddenly religion will become law. Religion, by its very nature, is discriminatory, misogynistic, oppressive, and self-righteous. A world dominated by such concepts would be hell in itself unless you conformed and proverbially goose-stepped along with the establishment. No thanks.

If there was proof no one would be considering other alternatives.

I totally agree, which is one reason why evolution became a very popular (and far more evident) alternative to religious myths. I don't think you quite realize the fact that your belief is not proof ... it is not even evidence of ... a creator, and most assuredly it is not evidence of a Christian creator. Your entire argument so far has been attempts at disproving evolution rather than proving creation. This is how ALL creationists argue their point. In the hundreds of debates I've seen on this subject, the premise of the Creationists has always been exactly the same. In a way, it is pretty much the same as an election campaign. Instead of convincing people to vote for you based on your own strengths, you try and convince people to vote for you based on the other guy's weaknesses. Yet it says nothing about why I should vote for YOU.

Both sides have to take certain things on faith. Yet the very LAST thing any religious believer should be telling an evolutionist is: "There is no proof for evolution." That's merely the pot calling the kettle black.

And I'm not going to tell you again. Both Snowyflake and I have told you ... if you want to know about butterflies, go research it yourself. I am neither Charles Darwin or an evolutionary scientist. The information doesn't have to come from me.

There are numerous theories that may seem logical but do not cover all creation

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Does that cover all of creation? Sure it does. But so does this, "In the beginning, Harry Potter created the heavens and the earth." Just because an explanation explains it all in one convenient sentence does not mean it is a valid explanation.

Unfortunately, we have over and over again the same rhetoric, iwith no foundation.

The last pararaph of the above post suggests a total lack of reality.

If someone said Jack built that house and there was evidence to support that then it would be a reliable and accurate remark.

If some one said Jill built the house with no proof then that would be false, and in particular if this was being disputed, and there was alternative evidence to the contrary.

The whole problem I see on this matter is that there are those who just rebut that which is put forward with no alternative of any consequence or credence.

Harry Potter did not claim anything other than a calculation based on the method accepted by those concerned in that particular field and this method is used in many fields when decisions are being made.

This is not the first time these calculations have been made and on all occasions the same result has been arrived at.

The last pararaph of the above post suggests a total lack of reality.

Because Bronze Age myths are packed to bursting with reality, right?

This is not the first time these calculations have been made and on all occasions the same result has been arrived at.

The bottom line here is that religion is based on faith, not facts. It was never meant to be based on facts. You're trying to use science to prove faith ... which is ironic because you would be the first to dismiss science if it did not back up your already preconceived belief system.

As I've already said, one cannot calculate the odds of an impossible thing occurring. No matter how unlikely the odds, if there are odds at all, it *could* have happened. The fact that we're here proves that it *did* happen. The long odds of random chance do not disprove evolution. Nor do they prove creation.

The problem, as always, is focusing on the specific. For instance, let's say you purchase a Powerball lottery ticket here in the USA. The odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 80,089,128. This number can be calculated because there are only so many number combinations that can come up. This is a known quantity, thus, the odds are accurate. Now, if you buy one lottery ticket, the odds of polyglide winning the lottery are, of course, 1 in 80,089,128. However, the odds of *someone* winning are almost a mathematical certainty. I say "almost" because there is always a chance more than one person will pick the same set of numbers while other number combinations are not chosen by anyone which could theoretically cause no one to win. But that doesn't happen very often.

Your logic suggests that because polyglide's - and *only* polyglide's - chances of winning are 1 in 80,089,128, then the odds of anyone anywhere winning the jackpot have the same odds. It simply doesn't work that way.

The problem with the calculation creationists use is that it focuses only on the odds of human existence. We have no idea ... NO idea ... what other forms of life might exist elsewhere in the cosmos; we don't even know how many other forms of life might have existed on earth if our environment had been a bit different. We only have 8 planets to compare ourselves with. Just 8 planets in our own solar system that we have barely explored ... in a universe that we know now is filled with planets. Estimates now say that planets might outnumber stars by 10 to 1.

We humans are like campers huddled around a fire with only the vaguest notion of what might lie beyond the edge of our light, yet creationists assume that our fire is the only fire on the planet. Moreover, they assume that, because humans are the only species huddling around our particular fire, it must stand to reason that only humans will ever huddle around any fire anywhere. In other words, if there is a fire to huddle around, only humans will be there ... but if the odds are long for human existence, then mathematically we must assume that there are no other humans. Ergo, we're back to believing our fire is the only fire on earth.

Of course this is erroneous because this paradigm ignores any possibility of other forms of intelligent life which may thrive under different circumstances. To them, we may be the extremophiles. Granted, there is no proof that other life exists, but most scientists agree that the odds are certain that it does. The universe is just too vast to believe we're the only oasis of intelligent life. Interestingly, one of the greatest questions asked about life elsewhere is: What will happen to religion if humans discovered that we are not alone?

The reason this is such a massive question is because the whole idea of Creation is predicated on the belief that we *are* alone ... and this predication is absolutely essential for this calculation of yours to have any meaning.

It all boils down to one immutable fact: Even if the calculation is accurate, the entire paradigm is based more on what we *don't* know rather than what we do. Because of this, it stands on exceedingly shaky ground. Just one new discovery can send it into a tailspin.

The Law of Probability suggests that the chances of you winning the Lottery are not "1 in 80,089,128" but 50-50.

Either you'll win the Lottery, or you won't. It's an Evens bet.

but 50-50.

Well damn, in that case, I better get to the store and buy a ticket.

Of course, I'll have to share my winnings with half the players (tens of millions of people) so I might win just enough to buy another ticket.

Some people are just plain greedy.

I am willing to accept anything that can be proven to be true or the odds are beyond those accepted as possible, what I will not accept is speculation, supposition and theories that are groundless.

I have given my own feelings on how all things were created and the only thing that is in dispute is that some will not accept a creator.

Put a cake on a table, there are only two options how it became a cake [as I have said before I try to keep things simple to accomodate those with varying amounts oof intelligence] it came about by evolution or it was created.

Take your pick.

The government is always pretending that it wants us to have more choice. They must be pleased that at least someone is listening.

what I will not accept is speculation, supposition and theories that are groundless.

Too late! You already have.

and the only thing that is in dispute is that some will not accept a creator.

Actually, everything is in dispute. It's just that some will not accept science.

In fact, I've already said that there *could* be a creator, but there is no concrete evidence of one. What I don't accept is your religion.

as I have said before I try to keep things simple to accomodate those with varying amounts oof intelligence

Simplicity is why religion has such mass appeal.

Put a cake on a table, there are only two options how it became a cake

Actually, there's a third option, one most sane Christians believe in. That is, the cake evolved, but a creator (or God in your case) created the evolutionary process.

Believing that the Adam and Eve story is literal truth is just plain bizarre.

Polyglide.
You seem to have a very poor opinion of people. Rather than blame people in general for their attitude I would suggest that you look at the behaviour of the Church over the last 2 millenia. It has not been a very good example of Christian love or forgiveness. For at least 1500 years it held it adherents in ritualistic ceremony and dogma. It refused the right to read the Bible to the general public, mainly by having it in Latin. Plus the fact that people could not read. Not forgetting the 'in-fighting' of course.

Can you blame people for mistrusting 'religion'.

Snowflake.
I do not subscribe to the belief that most wars in history have been religious. Most have been about territory, power and possessions. Only in 'recent' history have religious wars become a major factor.

I agree many churches have long ago lost their way and I have no time for most of them.

But just bacause someone abuses, say medication, it does not make the medication wrongly prescribed and the same applies to the abuse of the bible by the churches.

Sherina you have long ago made it very clear you have no idea what science realy means and it is obvious it is going to be a long haul to attempt to make you understand even the most simple form.

Blessed are the ignorant, for they know not the depths of their ignorance.

Sherina you have long ago made it very clear you have no idea what science realy means

Okay, just for shits and giggles, why don't you tell me what science really means. I'll wait.

Hold the Front Page!!

Corr, this should be good!

The End Is Nigh,
How very right you are and you are apparently a prime example.

I told you you did not know what science was all about now you want me to expain it.

What is the point you would not understand the answer?

Here is a correspondent consistently displaying the characteristics of a Troll, e.g. "The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that you truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous."

Why does anybody care?

Can't it just be ignored?

Why does anybody care?

Nothing better to do at the moment?