Humanist Crusading

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

The statement was made to address some future comment - always comes up - that if evolution 'rids the waste', and religion is wasteful, why hasn't evolution eliminated religion.

Always comes up? When does it always come up? When you call religion parasitic?

Again solidifying your position as an intolerant bigot.

[bytech]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Why would you respond with that statement to G10's? Did you suppose that G10 thought that correlation equals causation?

In my reading of G10s comment, I got the distinct impression that he believes that the events were so unlikely, they had to be caused by something divine. With that interpretation of his comments, my reply was valid.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

In my reading of G10s comment, I got the distinct impression that he believes that the events were so unlikely, they had to be caused by something divine. With that interpretation of his comments, my reply was valid.

Because he did not accept that a volcano eruption parted the seas, you concluded wildly that he believed a divine intervention? Did he say he believed in divine intervention or did you pull that out of your ass?

[bytech]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Always comes up? When does it always come up? When you call religion parasitic?

Again solidifying your position as an intolerant bigot.

Solidifying my position as someone whom has debated the issue countless times. I know the most common theistic ways of making religion sound real and authoritative, despite the fact that all evidence suggests that it's simply superstition.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

Solidifying my position as someone whom has debated the issue countless times. I know the most common theistic ways of making religion sound real and authoritative, despite the fact that all evidence suggests that it's simply superstition.

Debated what issue? Allowing people to practice religion? Where do people debate that? What kind of ****ed up country do you live in?

[bytech]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Because he did not accept that a volcano eruption parted the seas, you concluded wildly that he believed a divine intervention? Did he say he believed in divine intervention or did you pull that out of your ass?

Re-read G10s comment. Read his last R. Dawkins line incorrectly. My mistake. my comment re co-relation does not equal causation didn't fit. Apologies.

Do bigots ever admit to their mistakes?

[John Scott]

Do bigots ever admit to their mistakes?

Common mistake for bigots to assume things about others.

[bytech]

Theist vs Evolution debates.
People can practise their religion all they want, as long as they keep it out of politics. Christians are not keeping out of politics, and thus get attacked by the likes of Dawkins. Perfectly reasonable response on Dawkins' part, considering what's at stake.

[bytech]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Common mistake for bigots to assume things about others.

Didn't those whole thing start with you assuming Dawkins is a quack? I mean I can see not agreeing with the guy, but to call him a quack? At the end of the day, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, he has the best for humanity at heart. If he wanted to get rich, all he'd have to do is say he believes in creation, and the Templeton 'quacks' would pay him a nice sum of money in the form of the Tempelton Prize.

[John Scott]

Theist vs Evolution debates

Who is debating evolution? I think you got the wrong thread, buddy. This thread is about the right of humankind to practice whatever religion they want.

Christians are not keeping out of politics

Oh, Christians need to stay out of politics. They should lose the right to vote eh? What about bigots like yourself - presidential material?

Perfectly reasonable response on Dawkins' part, considering what's at stake.

What is at stake? Freedom and diversity in thought? Freedom and diversity in intellectual debate? Yes, and perfect reason for Dawkins to be discredited as the bigot and pseudo-scientist that he is.

[bytech]

Anyway, one thing that's kewl about this, I'm still a member. There are many places where such an flame would result in my a nuking of my account. We may disagree on a lot John, but at the end of the day, you're cool with not seeing eye to eye. An awsome quality that probably was likely crucial to the success of V7N.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

Didn't those whole thing start with you assuming Dawkins is a quack?

He is a quack because he is a quack. I did not assume him to be a quack - I read up on him, and concluded that he is a quack.

Originally Posted by bytech

At the end of the day, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, he has the best for humanity at heart.

Oh gross. You're one of those. Hilter only had Germany's interests at heart. Stalin only had the good of humanity at heart.

LOL.

The guy is a megalomaniac. He's one of these tiny little men who get their panties up in a wad a shrill voice going when you don't agree with them.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

Anyway, one thing that's kewl about this, I'm still a member. There are many places where such an flame would result in my a nuking of my account. We may disagree on a lot John, but at the end of the day, you're cool with not seeing eye to eye. An awsome quality that probably was likely crucial to the success of V7N.

Screw that. V7N's success is due wholly to my rugged good looks.

[bytech]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Who is debating evolution? I think you got the wrong thread, buddy. This thread is about the right of humankind to practice whatever religion they want.

Practice it by all means, but tax free religion money should not go towards funding political agendas.

Oh, Christians need to stay out of politics. They should lose the right to vote eh? What about bigots like yourself - presidential material?

Religion needs to stay out of politics. No more of that crap with denying Africa condoms, making abortion illegal, trying to bring in creationism into the classroom, and allowing marijuana for religious reasons while cancer patients suffer without.

What is at stake? Freedom and diversity in thought? Freedom and diversity in intellectual debate? Yes, and perfect reason for Dawkins to be discredited as the bigot and pseudo-scientist that he is.

Dawkins follows the scientific method, therefore a label of pseudo-science is absolutely incorrect. You don't like his popular science side, fine. But calling him a quack or a pseudo-scientist at best suggests your lack of knowing what and how Dawkins is doing.

[bytech]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Screw that. V7N's success is due wholly to my rugged good looks.

Damn, then I'm going for a plastic operation!

[John Scott]

Religion needs to stay out of politics. No more of that crap with.. making abortion illegal

You don't seriously believe that the only people opposed to child murder are religious? I know a lot of people who hate religion with the same bigotry that you do, who are opposed to all forms of murder, including abortion.

[bytech]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You don't seriously believe that the only people opposed to child murder are religious? I know a lot of people who hate religion with the same bigotry that you do, who are opposed to all forms of murder, including abortion.

I don't hate religion. I'd love for it to be taught as mythology, but not as some sort of answer to the universe. I hate what religion has done with this world, but that is not the same as hating religion.

Child murder? Guess we know where you stand on this one. What about condoms in Africa? Right to doctor assisted suicide? Marijuana to ease cancer pain? What about the US prison system where drug offenders on average serve 6+ years, and violent criminals spend only about 4.5? Thank yoouuu organised religion.