Firestarter

Anything may be possible. For any statement to be substantive you must offer and defend a probability. God isn't important enough for me to wish for Armageddon.

Why, how long do you think it took to write? Everything I've ever read about it suggests that it began at least half a century after Jesus's death. Faith is personal for me. And no, I don't mean that in the sense that I make an exception to my homosexuality for Jesus every Sunday. I'm not a female version of SpiderPoet. I mean simply that my faith is my business; I'm conflicted about it and I don't think my doubts lessen my faith. I think my doubts of, my confusion about, and my anger towards God make my faith stronger. As far as I know, the Roman records don't mention Jesus even once.

No. I'm nowhere near his "fucking nuts," and beliefs, however strong, are not immune to criticism. If he continues to make his beliefs his central argument against evolution I will continue to address his beliefs in detail and the shameful ignorance in which they have developed. (By the way, try not to use words you can't define. "Facetious" makes no sense in context.) In which case you would be missing an arm by now. What was the point of all that? "Excuse me, I'd like to suck SpiderPoet's dick; could you please stop kicking his ignorant ass around the rhetorical block for a few minutes?" Next time, just ask politely and I'll let you indulge your whimsy.

Someone once called Bob Barron a vulture, piling on the bandwagon to attack posters whenever it seemed safe to do so - ie, whenever someone else was already on the front line. It seems to me that that description is at least equally applicable to you. If you've developed a problem with me since the time you were drooling over my every word, I suggest you take it up with me yourself.

Because most other Christians denigrate my religion through association, by their stupidity, their intractability, and their dishonesty. And I don't argue against the existence of God because it can neither be proven nor disproven. I sometimes express my reasons for doubt but I have few firm convictions either way. Just a lot of questions. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein: The Human Side, ed H Dukas, B Hoffman 1954 If by "reliable" you mean a fairly decent moral guide for the most part, I agree. If by "reliable" you mean "historically accurate and independently corroborated," I do not.

Okay. It's completely impossible to tell apart different types of tobacco ash by sight.

Sez you. I am the Grand Poobah of Harems.

Like that Dark Dungeons nonsense? Why?

Just use the damn Quote button. You learn something new every day. I'm a Jesuit. Heaven forbid. Fascinating; that's not the catechism I recall. The Church isn't a democracy and according to doctrine if its parishioners disagree with its leadership, even if it's 1,000,000,000 to 124, the leadership is right and the parishioners are sinning. The Apostolic Succession is guided by the Holy Spirit. Are you sure you're a Catholic? According to Plato, that is exactly what evil is: ignorance or misunderstanding of the good. Not for the dead. Don't try to justify or excuse it. And in the same breath you were claiming that it's unfair to call people who do agree "wackos" and "extremists." As I said, I don't care about the reasons. I don't care why they think as they do. They are wrong, they are willfully causing needless death and suffering, and because of that they are evil. I try not to too often. It makes me break out in a horrible rash. Wonderful. Yet you still justify their message through their beliefs and pretend that people who despise them and the institution they represent are being irrational. That is also what apologists do. Cf Munich, 1938. Yes you are. Billy Graham is also a wacko. In fact, he's a fucking lunatic, as well as anti-Semitic filth. Continue defending such trash if you must, but don't imagine it enhances your credibility. No proof. Welcome. It doesn't matter what you are. Not to me, and not to your church.

Israel is our ally. She's a just, transparent, and accountable democracy. Right. And like Tom said, I'm sure your local Catholic priest would be happy to answer any questions you might have on the official church policy about raping little kids. I can't wait. "We know that the Jews have manipulated the Sept. 11 incidents and turned American public opinion against Arabs and Muslims. We still ask ourselves: Who has benefited from Sept. 11 attacks? I think they (the Jews) were the protagonists of such attacks." - Western Herald article - MEMRI dispatch Not necessarily. Tell that to the little girls they burned alive for daring to show their ankles. That's nice. I'm not. I expect evil people to hate us. I just don't care.

If so, it might be working. Because I think this is bloody hilarious.

Join the club. But don't presume to speak for it. Because you have a vested emotional and ideological interest. Their beliefs and their advocacy of their beliefs causes human suffering and death. At that point I stop caring about their intentions. What they are is evil. And you don't talk to evil and you don't reason with evil, you destroy it. Fuck the church, fuck their false "reason," and fuck you. The Cardinal is a liar, plain and simple. He is lying to ignorant people and his lies are killing them. Benefits? WHAT BENEFITS? More people dying of AIDS? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you really think someone's going to go up to heaven after lying in a bed for a few months wasting away in his own filth and St Peter will glad-hand him through the pearly gates, saying, "At least you never put latex on your cock?" What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you really this deluded? It's a sad day when people like you, apologists for conscienceless liars, ignorant ideologues, and murderers by proxy are taken seriously by anyone. It's a sad day when human life is considered so worthless that upholding some idiotic rule in a moldy old "holy" book is raised above it. And it's a sad day when the leaders of a church, supposedly people who look out for their flock, LIE to them and their lies kill them. Calling fundamentalists extreme wackos? Doesn't even compare. It's just the fucking truth. That's dandy. I know exactly where they're going, and if there's a God they won't need mittens. To hell with you and to hell with the horse you rode in on. And to hell with the church.

You're all missing the point. This isn't about economic benefits or economic burdens, the ease of securing a visa or its difficulties. This is pure and simple about security and the rule of law. Do we live in a society which is governed by and respects the rule of law or not? Speed limits are an exact parallel. Right now, whether or not the vast majority of people get tickets essentially depends on the mood of the cops who pull them over. The speed limit is technically 55 mph on the highways, but NO ONE drives at 55 mph. 65-70 mph is normal (65 is actually pretty slow) and most of the time if you pace traffic as you're supposed to you'll find yourself going at 80-85 mph. The other day, my wife went to traffic court to fight a ticket (and successfully got it reduced), and there was a guy before the judge who had been driving BEHIND A POLICE CAR at 65 mph for over 5 miles. A bunch of other people were also pacing them. Eventually, the police car moved to the next lane to let him pass, and when he did so, the cop turned on his lights and pulled him over. That should constitute entrapment, plain and simple. It doesn't. Why? Because the law is out of touch with reality. My wife has noted that this creates a vicious cycle for poor people. If they drive with a suspended license they can go to jail. If they don't drive with a suspended license they lose their jobs, and if they don't have the money to pay the fine, they go to jail. We've created a system which makes it extremely difficult, if not absolutely impossible, for poor people to redeem themselves. One suspension, and your life begins to spiral downwards. If you don't have the resources to stop it, you're out of luck - because the laws themselves work in concert to drag you down. The exact same situation prevails in the case of illegal immigration. We wink at it most of the time, and then isolate a case here, a case there, and come down on them like a hammer. If the people we target are poor, uneducated, or unskilled, they suffer far more than they would if they weren't. That's wrong. The laws should be changed, enforced, or both. Personally, I'm for both. No, the United States are not overpopulated. Yes, immigrants provide a wealth of benefits. But we STILL need to screen them to make sure they're not security risks. Or health risks. Or any other kind of risks. 9/11 should have been a wake-up call. We need to screen every last immigrant and we need to repeal the various state and county legislations which make it illegal to inquire into someone's immigration status. At the same time we need to streamline the system and make it faster and a lot less labyrinthine. But not at the expense of compromising our safety. And paramount in such reform must be a reinstitution of the respect for the rule of law.

Jobber, what your insensitive comment fails to acknowledge is that I'm sure that SpiderPoet is part of the "congregation of the SAVED," to borrow some sarcasm from Ama Ata Aidoo. So you know that's got to be a bugger, carrying that damn Holy Spirit around all the time. What, he can't walk on his own two feet? Take a taxi? Get a room? Hell, I'd charge rent.

You did not answer the question. I will restate it. Do you believe that a scientist's religious stance per se has ANY direct bearing on the validity of his scientific research? No. Mike is a Christian and he holds many beliefs I do not share. Nevertheless when he talks about politics I take his data, opinions, and analyses at face value, because he has proven himself to be knowledgeable, intelligent, earnest, and sincere. If the hypothetical scientists had a decent reputation among their peers and presented sound, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, and independently corroborated studies without reference to the Bible as the inerrant word of God, I wouldn't hold their Christianity against them. Much though your ilk tempts me to do so. Yes yes yes. We all know about your personal fucking relationship with God. You've only told the entire board about it a few hundred times. And yes, we all remember the time Jesus saved you from the Prince of Darkness by His Divine Grace when you called on the power of His Most Holy Name. Shut your yap.

This CLEARLY shows that he believes in the story of Newton and the apple, which NEVER happened. I assume you're being sarcastic. It's highly likely that the apple story is made out of the whole cloth, but Gould is obviously just using a well-known (albeit probably mythical) image for dramatic effect there. No, Galileo used an inclined plane and he rolled balls down it. Dropping things wouldn't have worked in any case because falling objects accelerate too quickly to easily measure. (I guess those history of science classes at St John's have turned out to be of some minimal use after all.) Sic is Latin for "thus." It is used to indicate an error, idiosyncrasy, or ambiguity in the original text that has been preserved in a quotation. &c is an abbreviation of "et cetera," which is Latin for "and others." Why? Albert Einstein said: "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty." Einstein was like a genius too, y'know? That's gotta count for something as well, right? And in 1794, Thomas Paine wrote: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." He was also like a genius, y'know? So are you going to dismiss the genius of Einstein and Paine in favour of Frye's because Frye said something more to your liking, or accept the fact genius in a particular field doesn't necessarily give instant validity to everything that comes out of a person's mouth?

I have another "good question" for you then, o esteemed college student. Why will you "[check] into Christian looks (sic) at neanderthal (sic) man and the like?" (emphasis added) What does Christianity have to do with science? You are in essence saying that Hindoo, Moslem, Buddhist, agnostic, pagan, and atheist scientists inevitably reach conclusions which are inferior to those of Christian scientists. Why? What is your reasoning? How does a scientist's belief (or lack thereof) in the Christian God affect the validity of his work? Science is defined as a process "devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena... for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena." (pp 22-23 of amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court by J Lehman et al, in Edwards vs Aguillard 1986) Science has nothing to do with religion. Again, how is a scientist's religion relevant? Why do you intend to restrict yourself only to "Christian" studies of Neanderthal man? Do you think that anyone who isn't a Christian is automatically a liar? No. I don't mistake you for such a person at all. I think the former possibility is by far the more probable.

"Since I'm a famous person, the threshold is a lot higher than it would be if I were an ordinary citizen." Fucking amazing. O'Reilly's so taken with himself he can't even understand how utterly ridiculous he sounds. "Is this what Fresh Air is... [Al Franken's book was] satire now, was it? Calling people liars and distorting their faces on the book cover, that's satire now, is it... you're easy on Franken and you challenge me. This is NPR. I think we all know what this is. I think we all know where you're going with this, don't we? Don't we... you gave Al Franken a complete pass on his defamatory book. And if you think that's fair, Terry, then you need to get in another business. I'll tell you that right now. And I'll tell your listeners if you have the courage to put this on the air. This is basically an unfair interview designed to try to trap me into saying something Harper's can use. And you know it! And you should be ashamed of yourself. And that is the end of this interview." No, Bill. You're the one who should be ashamed. You're not only a bully; you've just shown that you're a coward as well. Like all bullies.

Eh.. It's temporary. That's what they all say. No... no, I don't think I shall. I think 2004 will go by the numbers.

If you're ever in DC, look me up and I will. Gladly. Welcome to the Dark Side, young Jedi. Indeed. The schizophrenic "No on recall, yes on Bustamante" slogan parrotted by our own Tyler McClelland is probably responsible for a large portion of Schwarzenegger's votes. Thanks, guys!

Missed this earlier. Quoting Stephen Jay Gould yet again: Click here for more explanations. Creationism isn't an "opponent" of evolution. It is nothing more than a very old, very bad, and very tired joke. Don't give yourself airs.

He's not going to answer you, chaosrage. He won't. He can't. It's the same situation Hilaire Belloc found himself in when HG Wells wrote his Outline of History. In Mr Belloc Objects, he wrote: SpiderPoet can't answer the evidence either, so he too just walks away. Is that same apparition haunting his nights, I wonder? What answers does he have for it that Mr Belloc did not? Does he dare to cast it to the dogs? No reply.

This is just too good. "Both have plenty of evidence?" What evidence? Every single piece of evidence we have flatly contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. The world was not made in seven days. Man evolved from lower animals. Not one species was created by some bearded guy in the sky; they all came into being through descent with modification. The earth is one hell of a lot older than 6000 years. There was no massive worldwide flood. Ever. No. Not if you define "information" as "SpiderPoet's retarded religious dogma." They're supposed to be learning science, not your asinine brand of Christianity. WHAT EVIDENCE?! What the hell is this part of the sentence supposed to mean? More bullshit. Science says NOTHING about whether or not God exists. The Bible says a lot of things about history, biology, geology, astronomy, and countless other sciences which are quite frankly just plain flat-out WRONG. Yes. Yes, you are. If there were ONE IOTA of evidence for a flood I would give you the benefit of doubt. If there were one iota of evidence for a special creation of man I would give you the benefit of doubt. If there were one iota of evidence for a young earth rather than the deep time theory (which is a result of the convergence of nuclear physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and many other sciences, and predates by the theory of evolution through natural selection by DECADES) I would give you the benefit of doubt. But there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE. And your entire belief system rests on a POSTULATION of the Bible being the perfect and immutable Word of God. NO EVIDENCE against it will ever change your mind. True or false? Given a scientific conclusion, however sound, based on physical and historical evidence which you don't understand because of your massive ignorance, and a verse in the Bible which flatly contradicts it, you will ALWAYS choose to believe in the Biblical verse. Right? It's the Word of God, after all. It can't be wrong. Is this or is this not a central, indeed the primary tenet of your belief system? Yes. You are close-minded. You're also willfully ignorant, and deeply disrespectful of God. Because you have chosen to ignore his greatest gift to humanity: independent intelligence and the courage to use it.

In which particular pipe dream does that happen, with or without Prop 54?

As I said, and documented, try 98%. That's true. No, really, I agree with you. The war was ultimately about slavery. That is why we do not have monuments to the Confederacy per se. That is why we do not have Confederate flags flying over state capitols. We have monuments to the men and women who died fighting on the wrong side, not for ideologies, not for hatred, and not for self-interest; not, in fact, for anything more evil than their families and their homes. They were our brothers and sisters, and we have not only a right but a duty to remember them, and not only to remember them, but to honour their dead and respect their descendants. This issue is exactly as divisive as you choose to make it. No more.