We see energytrader limping down to the neighbourhood store to get his Lysol. He sees a cloud shaped like a cross, a woman on a bicycle, a young couple in love, a stone in the street. It's the Jews!!! The goddamn Jews!!, he screeches. The he defecates in his clothing. Makes about as much sense as the undecipherable spew he posted above. Talk about faith-based beliefs that are held without a shred of evidence, simply because they give the misguided fool-believer a feeling of warmth
exactly how did they infallibly determine this? its just another case of powerful men telling less powerful men what to think.
this is nonsense. the one thing that keeps the gravy train of american dollars going to israel is the belief of most americans that the bible story that says that the jews are gods chosen people is true. why would jews do anything to undermine that and possibly cut off the money? american christians are the jews best friends.
your obsequious devotion to science is quite charming. every thing you state in the above quote can be said in its reverse while maintaining congruency. surfer
I've never invoked kjkent1's name, arguments, or "facts" in my main argument: this case constitutes a direct attack by Jews against Fundamentalist Christians. I only cited his admission that ID's constitutionality is open to debate. Nothing I posted could even remotely be contrued by a reasonable person as libel. I find it laughable that quants, many of whom cannot make a clear argument or write clearly, judge themselves fit to give legal advice. In fact, kjkent1's threat shines light on two related issues: seizure of local powrers by the federal government and free speech. If Jews, overwhelmingly overrepresented in both the courts and media, are allowed to prosecute for libel anyone who disputes any Jewish claims while Jews use the courts and media to attack non-Jews; liberal democracy necessarily fails. Ironically; the Jews' fears of oppression--an integral, probably organic, part of the Jewish brain--borne by 3000 years' massacres, dispossessions, displacements, ejections; would itself--the fear--impel Jews to oppress others.
Interesting, surfer. Could you go ahead and give us the statement you have in mind; that is, could you take the quote from kjkent and 'say it in reverse'? I read through it but I wasn't quite sure exactly how it would look. thanks
hey nik, ofcourse i did not mean that literally. sorry for any confusion..... what i tried to say is that most pro macro evolution arguments have a flip side that seems to mysteriously point to some type of prime mover when you break them down enough. i am 100% for science and progress, despising the damage religion has done to science over the millenium. however, it seems now, that the roles have been reversed with science taking the role of fundamentalist religion in the USA. best, surfer
Send me your personal contact information via PM, I'll be happy to forward it to to Judge Jones with links to your recent posts, and we can all perform a scientifically verifiable test of your theory that "no reasonable person" could construe your posts as libelous.
Hey surf I assume you meant 'the damage that science has done to religion'. I presume you're in the USA, so you have a better grip on the tide as it is flowing there now. Maybe I am assuming that what I perceive as a general movement to the right in American socio-politics implies a commensurate move towards theism in terms of inquiries into the natural world. I wonder if you would be okay with science taking the role of religion, as opposed to science taking the role of 'fundamentalist' religion. That's a pretty broad charge, when you consider everything that constitutes 'scientific inquiry'. There is a hell of a lot of it going on. I would be curious to know 3 things that you feel represents negative, 'fundamentalist' scientific inquiry as opposed to positive scientific inquiry like __________. (Fill in the blank; better prosthetics for kids with congenital deformities, better computers so that cops can make have access to better databases, better oil-sands extraction techniques to lessen the impact of fossil fuel exploration on the environment... I guess I'll stop there, how long would this list be?) 'Fundamentalist' scientific inquiry... an interesting concept. An important part of day to day life for your average fundamentalist crackpot (like energytrader, for example) is that he believe that everyone else should think as he does. There is no room for debate; his way of thinking is 'godly' and infidels should have their heads chopped off as soon as possible. As far as I can tell, no scientist or scientifically inclined respondent in this thread has claimed that Z or anyone else doesn't have the right to his own beliefs, as long as he doesn't hurt other people. You can believe in the tooth fairy or a world Jewish conspiracy (like energytrader) or any other bit of fantasy that you want. Religious belief is not crackpot, obviously. But which religious belief should we teach? If we teach that 'magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality', should we not also teach that Jews are murderous baby killers and that they deserve to have their heads chopped off? After all, there are a large number of religious people who hold this belief just as strongly as Z holds the belief that 'magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality'. All of these beliefs are just that - personal beliefs. We are here saying 'Let us not teach this in schools'.
Oh yeah, that's made perfectly clear. You said it, so it's true, right? Perfectly clear. A clearly made argument. No, no, it's not pure assertion, it's a clearly made argument! Look at the way he has backed up his claims! yes, clearly... yes, any reasonable person must conclude....another clearly made argument. An assertion, followed by the phrase 'any reasonable person must conclude'...what nonsense. It's funny; all you have to do is sit back and wait for these people to contradict themselves. Usually it takes about 12 hours - less in this case.