I know are very own Aye was at the Restoring Honor rally in DC and I’m looking forward to hearing a report from him. Until then, an awesome speech was given by pro-life activist Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, in which she says “I too have a dream!”
Plenty more where that came from….take a look at the turnout:
And the biased MSM is a bit peeved over this turnout, and the reaction to the turnout.
They can be peeved all they want…in fact that can blow it out their a*&. The citizens of this country are pissed and will not just sit idly by as the Democrats tear this country to pieces.
Sarah Palin’s speech is a must see:
An awesome rally that I wish I could of been a part of.
A message was sent tho…..
The one can relax in his ivory tower as long as you can, but we will not stay silent forever because we will be waiting patiently until November.
More videos from The Constitution Club
All three hours and 28 minutes of the rally can be viewed at – Restoring Honor Rally
See author page
@ilovebees – Well said. You have, as usual, showed compassion and a sense of wisdom. I applaud you.
@Gaffa – I knew you wouldn’t let me down. And just for the record, I am not the one who is upset about this…
@Anticrocks
Well you should be embarrassed over the lies and distortions you have made on this thread and the sheer hypocrisy over your comments about my insults to you. And let me guess – you consider yourself a Christian!
@ilovebees
Sorry – I rather believe in credible things which have been proven rather than by any mystical mumbo-jumbo. Some people may believe that wishing upon a star will give them want they want, or finding a 4 leaf clover gives them good luck. That’s superstition. God isn’t found in the brain – he’s a construct given to us by our ancestors.
GAFFA UK: hi, WHO MADE up YOUR FIRST ANCESTOR?.
OKAY, you dont have to answer, monkey, I prefer my SUPER GOD.
SPECIALY when I’m happy or sad. bye
I say OH GOD and YOU SAY OH MONKEY
@Gaffa – You said:
In random order:
1. You call me a Christian like it is a bad thing, it is not a bad thing at all.
2. It is not I who should be embarrassed, I have told no lies. I have not made rash statements that I then had to hastily try and defend by changing the context in which I said them.
3. When I began posting on FA, it was you who, very early on started insulting me. I am just not inclined to look it up; you would merely attempt to deny it anyway.
4. If you keep saying that I am a hypocrite, it won’t make it true.
5. Trying to have a logical debate with you brings two old sayings to mind which actually remark on the spoken word, but I think even you can get the gist of their meanings:
* It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.
and
* Light travels faster than sound, this is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Look Gaffa, I really don’t care what you think about me and you shouldn’t care what I think about you. I attempted to point out that you made a very stupid statement and you got defensive and resorted to denials and flip flopping on the subject. That is fine. If you argument can’t stand on its own, then that really says something.
Have a nice day.
@Anticrocks
Monkeys (or a species similar to monkeys which is the common ancestor to man and monkeys) were not man’s first ancestor – evolution goes back further than that to a point in the tree of life where all living organisms have a common ancestor. Unlike God – there is scientific evidence for evolution so by all means carry on believing in the make believe.
I don’t think being a Christian is a bad thing necessarily – but surely your tone and insults in unbecoming of Christian teaching.
You have told falsehoods…
1) You claim that I said religion it is only a motivation for war. NOT TRUE
2) You claim that I said a religion within a religion calls into question the existence of a God outside their faith. NOT TRUE
3) You claim that a ARIS study clearly shows that in 2001 all U.S. respondents who identified as Christian (no specific denomination) rose from 14.1% in 2001 to 15% in 2008. NOT TRUE.
I haven’t changed the context – I have merely elaborated on my position when I have caught you out on making assumptions – see points 1 & 2 for examples. I will solidly defend my position when someone makes foolish assumptions.
Clearly it has been you on this thread who started the insults. If I have insulted you elsewhere first on this website then prove it. As a rule I try not to insult people using name calling unless they done to me. Therefore your allegation is baseless.
You comment on my insults to you but I find this hypocritical when you started it. If you don’t want the silly name calling then please stop it and I will happily do the same – as I find debates are much better had without them.
As for logic – well as I have said there is no contradiction in…
1) Many or Individuals – as you imply.
2) Saying that religion can have postive and negative impacts
As for flip-flopping – again I have gone into detail about your baseless accusation. There has been no flip flop. Right from the start I have not claimed that religion is all bad. Later I add that religion has a positive side – that isn’t a flip flop at all. I still feel that society would be better off without religion as the negative impacts in my opinion outweight the positive ones. How is that a flip flop? Or would you prefer just to keep saying flipflop ad naseusm rather than actual listen and directly reply to the logical statement I have made on this matter. Do you understand what flip flop means?
btw – let me know when you have reread the 2008 ARIS study and admit you got it wrong. Looks like my ‘cursory grasp of how to use Google’ in finding the report has trumped your ability to read and comprehend English. lol 😀
Page 2 – http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
As for quotes – here’s some you may recognise…maybe you could learn something from them?
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Do not accuse a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm”
“A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger ”
“And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful ”
“Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips”
“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen”
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger; brawling and slander, along with every form of malice”
“Do everything without complaining or arguing”
“If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer”
“Whoever spreads slander is a fool ”
“The Lord detests lying lips but delights in men who are truthful”
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is certainly not the same as Allah. People that say that are ignorant of what the Bible teaches. He is either one or the other, but cannot be both.
Actually, unless the theory of evolution has changed since I attended school, man is considered ascended or descended from apes not monkeys, the major difference being the tale of the tail. Apes and hominids don’t carry tails, but man is often anxious to make up for it by carrying tales, monkeys are a different species altogether.
Twenty years ago, I attended a lecture by a Professor Voorhees from the University of Nebraska. He had recently worked on the excavation of an old lake bed that was covered by a layer of volcanic ash in a few seconds of catastrophic explosion. The explosion wiped out the usual collection of camels and other assorted beasts; but they also found the bones of Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merychippus, and the modern horse. This was very interesting, because these different species of horse were all used to explain the process and proof of evolution; however, there was one problem, millions of years of evolution died within a few seconds and on the evolutionary clock, a million years is but a second and now one of the main tenets of evolutionary theory was consequently destroyed by actual scientific proof.
Perhaps many of you can recall the illustrations of Eohippus, a three toed horse that was about the size moderate sized dog and the development of more modern horses until you achieve the modern horse. Sorry folks, at the very least, that is all a pipe dream, but it helped explain evolutionary theory to generations. I don’t argue for or against evolution, but like the Global Warming Hoax, I hate to see manufactured BS presented as scientific fact.
Many sanctimonious and pious BS artists present the Evolutionary Theory solely as a means to discredit religion with less scientific grounding than religion itself, at least religion has historical reference.
Evolution promoters like to find a portion of a jawbone in the gravel of Olduvai Gorge in Africa and swear that this one fragment explains a major portion of the missing details of the evolutionary development of man. The fact that they might have one of millions of evolutionary dead ends, in their hands, that must exist for the theory to function, doesn’t occur to the man heading up the dig. He has found the one and only piece of the puzzle. Of course, there wont be a lecture tour and stipends if you don’t find that one missing piece in the puzzle, in one of the few places on the face of the earth that will fossilize just the fragment that you need for fame and fortune. Just why did early man or our antecedents so love this one Gorge, when circumstantial evidence identifies man as the perpetual wanderer?
Evolution like religion requires a great deal of faith in the creativity of others and this is what this debate is about, lesser people believing in the creative abilities of others. I know it sounds faintly like religion, but we will discount that for now. Personally, I think relying on the theory of a 19th Century scientist to explain all life, displays a lack of creativity: yet Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Keplar, Aristarchus, and Pythagoras have all developed theories that were well beyond their times, but unlike Darwin they used mathematics to prove their theories, not supposition and faith, at least Global Warming Hoaxsters had the temerity to present false data.
Many of us are still waiting for the mathematical proof of evolution and will allow for the use of the computer, something most of the great minds of science did not use. But in your bewildering explanations of evolution, please, no more horse fairy tales or is it tails?
SKOOKUM: THANK YOU: I am wondering sometimes, WHAT you DONT know;
THIS was very credible,even by GOD [TEASING you here].
WE learned more of EVOLUTION, and know it still happening,
THE real fact is that we havent comprehend yet, the MYSTERYS of the UNSEEN,
BUT many know it’s there, our gutts feeling does’nt lie, since so many choose to sway and lean
toward
beleiving in GOD. bye
GAFFA UK; hi, I was thinking, that in history, there was many THINKERS discovering
ALL kinds of theorys or gadgets or weapons ecetera. BUT they all had limited BRAINS,
AND some tryed to push their knowledge to beyong the limits of brain power, and end up
with a deviation of their brains, and being honored by humanity circling around them,
ready to beleive more of ,end up following the continue false rethoric from that sick brain,
and pass it along the generation ladder. bye
Skookum
Well if you check carefully I didn’t claim man was ascended from monkeys – although we do share a common ancestor.
As for Dr. Michael Voorhies – I did some research. I believe the site you are referring to is the Ashfall fossil beds. It is estimated that the volcanic ashfall happened 12 million years ago. The remains included five genera of horse – Cormohipparion, Protohippus, Pseudhipparion, Neohipparion and Pliohippus. However this did not include the modern horse, equus. The five genera of horse all existed at the same time so it’s no surprise that their remains were found together. This doesn’t destroy a main tenet of evolution – it is further evidence against a specific theory of evolution called Orthogenesis which had been abandoned at least a decade or more before the finds of Ashfall were examined in the 1970s. Darwin didn’t believe in Orthogenesis and Darwinism is a separate theory which still prevails today and clearly Dr. Voorhies also believes in evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
http://www.netnebraska.org/extras/wildhorses/wh_origin/wh_origin.html
Hyracotherium (popularly called Eohippus) did exist and is the modern ancestor of the modern horse. However there are many branches between the modern horse and hyracotherium and the modern horse is only branch that survived.
As for science, it is process where scientists come up with a theory for example, based on their observations and experiments. However scientists (apparently unlike the Pope or Bible!) are not infallible. There may be later theories which adapt or completely overhaul existing accepted theories which have stronger evidence and/or prove the other theory false. That’s the beauty of science.
Origin of the Species was written over 150 years ago and apparently over 99.85% of US scientists believe in the theory of evolution – according to Newsweek in 1987. That’s a solid scientific consensus.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth
As for Oldupai Gorge – there is no such thing as the one missing piece or the missing link as evolution is a gradual non-linear process – every bone of every animal that ever lived is part of the puzzle. Lumping creatures into genus and species is useful for classifications purposes but as evolution is gradual and incremental – you wouldn’t get a situation where there was a point in history where a Homo heidelbergensis gave birth to a Homo Sapien. So finding a fossil from branch that died adds to evolutionary theory – it certainly doesn’t disapprove it. However where do these fossils fit within the Bible? Carbon dating these fossils can prove that they are in some cases millions of years old. And yet even today, even in a first would country, like the US – there are religious people who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Evolution is nothing like religion. Evolution is based on science and evidence whereas religion is based on blind faith. Theories in science adapt whereas holy books make get reinterpreted & to a degree reedited but essentially remain the same – outdated folklore based largely on myths. By the way the theories of Galileo (perscuted by the church for believing that the earth orbited the sun), Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Aristarchus and Pythagoras – had in the main, based their work on earlier theories and in turn had their work also built on in the same way Darwinism has been adapted. You don’t need mathematics to prove evolution. Evolution already has lots of evidence including fossils, DNA & carbon-dating among others.
Can maths prove there is a God? In fact it doesn’t have to be maths – show me any scientific evidence that there is a God?
Talking of BS. Do you believe the universe was created in 6 days? Do you believe God created Eve from Adam’s rib? Do you believe that Noah gathered all the animals onto an ark? It’s this sort of BS that is paraded as ‘the truth’ as told to children all around the world.
GAFFA UK: hi, you want MATH to prove GOD EXIST?
I say, only SOUL would give you proof of GOD,
LOOK into your soul, if you can find the WONDER OF GOD. bye
@ilovebees
And is this a Christian God? You could look into your ‘soul’ and find Allah, Thor, Bhudda, Zeus, Yahweh, Vishnu, Ra or any little voice talking in your head. Which God you find isn’t found by looking in your soul but can more likely be traced to what religion your parents were.
btw…Would you buy a second hand car from this guy?
So why should I believe in a Christian God because someone like you tells me I can find God in my soul over a someone like L.Ron.Hubbard who believe 75 million years ago, an evil dictator alien called Xenu brought billions of his people to earth, positioned them around volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs – who essence today can bring us harm. lol. Neither of you give me evidence.
Both christianity and scientology is unsubstantiated tosh. Instead I suggest you read Richard Dawkins ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ and marvel at how spectacular life in reality is and how the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It’s a shame Glenn Beck isn’t promoting reason rather than God.
GAFFA UK; HI, I like my stepson horse,his name is THOR, I just today read SUEK’S link, and yes THOR look like a nice creature in the fantasy world; but no one can compare to GOD for me,
I never go half way in my choice of who I follow; IT has to be the TOP one
AND THE ONE’s ON TOP. every one else is very far below GOD.
AS you see GOD is unseen, and untouchable, that’s why he is the ultimite GOD of the UNIVERSE.
bye
@ Gaffa – You ARE tiresome, but none-the-less, you said:
Evidently I am unable to read and comprehend the statistics on this table by ARIS which states in part:
You want me to prove that you sling insults anytime you are presented with facts that negate your position? I am sure that I am not the only one on this board that is aware of your M.O. No need to prove the obvious.
So, right from the start you said religion isn’t all bad?
From GaffaUK #6 –
Hmmm, hard to find anything good that you had to say about religion in that statement; and THAT was your first mention of whether the world would have been better off without it. You even started this thread out making fun of Christianity. Just look at GaffaUK #1.
You go from saying that mankind would be better off without religion to saying that there are SOME positive aspects of it. Flip flop? It is in my book. I think that the world would have been better off without Nazi-ism. If I were to then turn around and say that there were SOME positive aspects to it, then I would be flip flopping. Evidently YOU don’t know what flip flopping means.
Finally to this stupid point you are attempting to make that I refuse to answer your question about what you did and did not say about religion and wars. You are saying that I state you SAID religion was the ONLY reason for war. Well you did not, in this thread type the words ONLY and RELIGION and WAR in the same sentence in the context that the only wars fought were holy wars. That being said, your statement that I referred to in GaffaUK #6 sure as hell implies that you think that that is all religion is good for and it further states that mankind would be better off without it.
Funny that you are insulted by my perceived snub of your question when you have failed to respond to anything concerning the Transcendent Moral Order which has been spoken to throughout the ages by Aristotle, Cicero, Montesquieu, Locke, Burk, Smith and our Founding Fathers. They all addressed it in some fashion or another, they all believed in the idea of a Transcendent Moral Order passed down from our Creator to form the basis of our Civil Society. And THAT is the bedrock of our country.
GAFFA UK: I forgot to say, GLEN BECK is doing very well, and he know the AMERICANS
ARE hurting and that’s why he acheve to bring many thousands to gatherd and listen to him
and others talk of GOD,IT was A great success, AND let be no doubt to anyone,
this is only the beginning to get AMERICANS together waiting for NOVEMBER,
JUST like an APPETIZER before a GARGENTUOUS DINNER. bye
@anticsrocks:
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Just a reminder:
AYE CHIHUAHUA: thank you for this good advice, I still owe you. bye
Gaffa: I commend you for reading Wiki: I merely attended a lecture in the mid-eighties. I must admit, I tend to read your posts at hyper speed and misread your quote concerning the monkey.
Remember that science has the advantage of ‘evolving’ with new evidence and new fossil evidence and of course it should. It also becomes necessary to rewrite history now and then. As a University student of the late 60’s and early 70’s, that worked on several digs, I can attest to the fact that Orthogenesis was at that time accepted as fact; thankfully, my professor, a major leader in his field, who drank himself to death at an early age, explained the nature of being published for the Lilliputian type professors, for whom he had no respect. (He had a 12 page bibliography.) The need to identify fossils as the ‘one’ to settle all disputes and the need to advance theories that were merely hypothesis waiting to be developed. It was from this professor that I learned that all is not harmony among those who write the theories that you and others like you accept as fact. How funny and silly it seems now, but this was an actual man of science, not a pulp fiction writer, who needed to satisfy the curiosity of faculty administrators and a gullible public. I have been much deeper into academia than the superficial musings of wiki.
Yes, it was not me, but the Leakey family who considered every piece of skull and jaw fragment a part of the evolutionary line towards man. (No I didn’t mention the Missing Link Theory). A process that continues today, every fragment is displayed on popular literature and examined as part of a line that must have included millions of branches that ‘died out’.
Of course, you realize after turning to wiki, that there is no DNA present in fossils and that Carbon dating can be unreliable due to several factors including contamination from intrusions in situ: you must also realize that numerous aspects of Darwin’s Theory have been abandoned, just as all science must evolve to fit the data. Like you, many scientists who have really never studied Darwin or ‘current theory’ on Evolution, will say, “Yes of course, I believe in Evolution” without even reading the basic premises except in superficial reports that are a little more in depth than Wiki.
I never argue for or against religion or evolutionary theory: to avoid being a bore, I would never consider attacking someone’s religion, but it is fun to point out the faith based segments of evolution. When someone holds up two skull fragments and says this was man three million years ago and this was man two million years ago and these two fossils are conclusive evidence. I must laugh at him like you laugh at people who base their life on faith.
The appearance and disappearance of species is a major factor that can’t be argued by the evolutionist except with blind faith. There is no fossil record or evidence to explain this blip on their screen. To assume that we evolved from the same single cell is a bit of a stretch of faith, but then it is only a theory that is waiting to be proved or disproved. Yet unlike other theories, this theory is accepted on blind faith as gospel.
Keplar wrote music that he said was produced by the planets in their orbits, of course he was mad, but who is to say that the music isn’t out there. Just as to say there might be antecedents to man and maybe man just appeared one day, like many other species seem to have accomplished, who knows, not me; but you have that spark of faith in the musings of others and evolution has replaced your need for a spiritual connection.
I am sorry for messing up your monkey correction, but I thought the tale of the tails to be clever for a spur of the moment musing, just as this post has been a spur of the moment musing, relying on previous readings that are 40 years old. If I become desperate, I could call on Wiki: if I needed pinpoint accuracy, I would never use Wiki. Wiki is a faith based initiative.
Now, after exposing my history, I must work with some horses to retain my sanity.
@ Aye Chihuahua:
Thank you! 🙂
@ Skookum:
Thank you, as well! 🙂
SKOOKUM: hi, ONE thing I always wonder about the INDIANS being here before anyone else: DO we know how long they where here before us, I wonder if they might have A knowledge given from generation to generations as they did pass their custom way of life in many ways. bye
@Anticrocks
I’m glad you have come to realise that your assertion that ‘all U.S. respondents who identified as Christian (no specific denomination) rose from 14.1% in 2001 to 15% in 2008’ was factually incorrect – and instead it was those who didn’t specific a religion which actually rose from 14.1% in 2001 to 15% in 2008. These are the sum total of agnostic, atheist and individuals who stated no religion!!
I want you to prove that I have used name-calling on this thread or any other thread before you started it whilst engaged in debate with you. As you are unable to do this (even though apparently it’s my MO – so surely there would be lots of examples) shows to me it’s a fallacy.
Hmmm – compared these sentences…
GaffaUK
Anticrocks
Please – can you seriously not understand the difference in the above?
Definition of flip-flop
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flip-flop
I haven’t changed my position. I could quite easily post my thoughts on the Nazi’s and all of it could be damning – although not necessarily exhaustive. However if later I choose to put in what I thought they did positive – or if someone asked me whether I thought they did anything positive – and I replied that the building autobahn system was a good thing (as I do) – do you really think that really negates my position or represents a reversal or ‘flip-flop’???? Of course not. I’m sure there are plenty of Christians who happen to be good people, or who are motivated to do good things due to the Bible teachings – or may even be trying to buy their way into heaven by doing good things. That’s all fine and dandy. But in my personal opinion – weighing up all the good and bad things that are caused by religion – I would still rather have no religion – as I believe we would be better off without it. No flip flop there.
Nope – that is the implication you saw that wasn’t there. Wars are caused for various reasons and religion can have variety of good aspects. Few if any non-believers would dispute that. You made a rash assumption on what I believe and I have corrected you on that.
Did you miss the below…? #49
Btw – Aristotle also believed that the central part of the universe was composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water and that the earth is the centre of the universe. Lol. I don’t expect people to believe in evolution because Darwin believed in it or because 99.8% of scientists believe in it – but because of the evidence. Whereas if you show the scientific evidence of a Transcendent Moral Order as uncovered by Aristotle, Cicero, Montesquieu, Locke, Burk, Smith or your Founding Fathers then please show me otherwise it’s just made up theory.
Also Norse mythology used to be central to the Swedes but fortunately they grew out it and now only about 23% believe in God.
@Gaffa: I think you actually tried that time. Tried but failed. Your tactics are tiresome and predictable and very lame.
You want scientific proof of the Transcendent Moral Order. You want measurable proof of a belief. First of all, who in the blue hell are you to demand proof of anything faith based? You scoff at all us silly believers, looking down your nose at us, thinking that your insults put you on a higher plane.
I pity you Gaffa, I truly do. It is sad that you have no better life than trolling blogs and making fun of any and everyone who disagrees with you – Sad.
You ramble on about things that aren’t even the topic of the OP thinking that proves you’re an intellectual – Sadder.
I attempted to end this before, and then decided to continue using you as my foil. But for now, I have had my fill of you.
Just mark it down to my unwillingness to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed person.
@Anticrocks
Ah I see you finally ran out steam now that I used facts and evidence against you and all you have is petty insults. What’s wrong with wanting proof? Of course – you have none. You didn’t even attempt to give one lame piece of ‘evidence’. I guess some Christians are happy to criticize other religions and non-believers but then suddenly get thin skinned and ultra sensitive when someone dares to criticise their religion. Boo hoo. Your sheer hyprocrisy when you whine is breathtaking. If you are christian maybe you should try and at least follow the teachings – some of which I posted above for your benefit. Yes I guess when you yourself are witless (the ARIS report in particular) you can’t have any battle of wits with anyone. Sad really. But still I leave you to run away.
@Skook
Wikipedia – like google – is great:) If any of the points I put across where I reference wikipedia are incorrect then please let me know. Compared to such encyclopedias such as Britannica – Wikipedia doesn’t rate too badly. However with your lecture in the mid-eighties I felt compelled to point out an error you made that the modern horse (equus) was found in the old lake bed. I recommend checking wikipedia as it could help with your memory;)
Meanwhile let me know if you dig up any scientific evidence for God…
Gaffa – Talking with you is like banging one’s head against a brick wall; at some point you realize that it isn’t getting you anywhere. When I present facts, you try to distort them.
I went back and looked at that ARIS chart I quoted and I see your point. I read the table wrong. When I saw No Religion Specified, I took that to mean non-denominational. When I am wrong, I am big enough to admit it.
So I looked at my other sources which I did not quote.
Christianity is on the rise in the world.
Jesus in China: Christianity’s rapid rise
As for the United States –
You were wrong about religion making mankind worse off.
You were wrong about “a” civil society.
You were wrong about the Transcendent Moral Order not needing or coming from our Creator.
If you think my ending this was an admission of anything you are wrong yet again. You do not seem to be able to discuss things in a logical manner, yet you cry about insults that get directed back at you. Then you try to cloud the issue with facts that are not germane to the discussion, e.g. “Also Norse mythology used to be central to the Swedes but fortunately they grew out it…
Then you take two quotes, one from me and one from you and try to compare them. I went back and re-read your first comments on this thread and showed that you started off bashing religion and God and then made the asinine comment about the world being better off without religion.
THAT is you starting off with the point that religion is so bad that it should never have happened. Yet you take a comment that you made AFTER I called you on it and try to use that as your base line.
Your FIRST comments on religion on this thread:
Tell us, where in those first comments are you saying that religion isn’t all bad? Stop being disingenuous and just own up to the fact that you shed no positive light on religion in this thread.
I admitted my mistake and owned up to it. Do you have the temerity to do the same?
Now now…
Gaffa is a missionary for atheism. Obviously, he has a certainty that there is no God. I’m not sure how he can prove that, any more than any of us can prove that there _is_ a God, but I’m sure he can offer _some_ proof. Otherwise, why would he be so certain that atheism is so good for humankind? I offered numbers in the millions of murders done by atheists just within the 20th century, but he says that although they may have been atheists, it wasn’t done “in the name of atheism” so it doesn’t count. Ok…I find that a bit bizarre, but ok.
So…what does atheism have to offer to us in way of improving our lives, or giving us direction in how we interact with one another? What guidelines for morality does it offer?
@Anticrocks
Ah good – you have come back to discuss the points rather than purely making ad hominen attacks.
Hurrah – finally! How many times did I have to point this out to you on this thread until you actually looked at it properly again?
Except I was saying it is in decline in the US. I reckon the developing world will see a high and like the developed world will also in time decline.
The insults started with you. Why don’t you take responsibility for that? I’m more than happy to lay off any personal attacks of you if you are capable of doing the same thing. All you have to do is not make ad hominen attacks on your next reply and I will do that same.
That was a direct reply to your comment that a Transcendent Moral Order is the bedrock of our country. The pilgrims may be considered the bedrock of what would become the US – but now the percentage of protestants continues to decline. Things change.
*sigh* Let’s take this slowly for you…
Questions…
1) ‘Right from the start I have NOT claimed that religion is all bad.’
(Not is capitialised to help your comprehension) Is that true or false?
If false where did I say this?
2) Have I claimed that at the start of the thread that I stated that I believe religion isn’t all bad?
Yes or No? If yes – where did I say this?
3) Can someone criticise something e.g. the Nazi’s and still believe they made have done something positive? Yes or No?
4) If someone make criticisms of a subject (e.g. Obama)- does that therefore automatically mean that they cannot believe there are any positive aspects of the subject of their criticism unless they immediately state those positive aspects in their original criticism? Yes or No?
5) If someone criticises a subject (e.g. Obama) and then later adds what they believe are the positive aspects of that subject does that automatically mean that is a reversal of position? Yes or No?
You seem to deal in absolutes – either something is all black or all white – which fogs your ability to think logicaly. When I criticised religion it seems you ASSumed that therefore I believe religion is ALL bad and when I later said that religion does have positive aspects you think that this is a reversal of position! lol. You give an example of the Nazis – and yet I shown that it is perfectly possible to criticise the Nazi and later give an example where they did something positive which clearly is not a flip-flop. Do you believe the autobahn system wasn’t a positive development for the people of Germany? Do you believe everything the Nazis did was negative?
As for absurd Transcendent Moral Order do you believe the husband has authority of his wife?
@Suek
I’m not certain that there is no God – that is why I call myself an agnostic/borderline atheist. I don’t see how anyone can be absolutely certain that there is a God or that there isn’t a God. However as I don’t see that there is any credible scientific evidence for a God or Gods and that throughout history mankind has a prospensity to come up with Gods to explain things they didn’t understand (a lot of which we do understand today) – then chances are there isn’t a God.
How do you prove a negative in this context? Can you prove that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster in the universe?
So do you believe that any mass-murder or tryant’s religion is always the motivational factor for their deeds? It’s perfectable possible for people who are religious or non-religious to do good and bad deeds irrespective whether they are religious or not. That’s not bizarre. It seems you are treating communism as being synonymous with atheism.
It doesn’t. Atheism is simply rejects that there is one or more God. However you don’t need religion to have your own set of morals or choose to belong to wider movements such a secular humanism.
@suek: Well said!!!
@Gaffa:
I KNEW you didn’t have the cojones to admit you were wrong. Bottom line is, you said religion was evidently so horrendously bad that mankind would be better off without it. Now if something is so bad that we are better off without it, then just how is that statement saying something positive?
You have yet to answer that, but I will do it for you.
It isn’t. Period.
I also knew you would make more personal attacks and throw a few insults. It matters not, I could not possibly care any less what you think. I have proven my point.
By the way einstein (with a small “e” on purpose), the Transcendent Moral Order has nothing to do with a husband having “authority” over his wife. You have just shown how little you know about the subject.
One wonders how you can get about in your sad little life with one foot in your mouth all of the time…
So if that is true, which is most certainly is not; what sets one person’s morals apart from the next person’s? How is one to decide which is right? What if the fellow next to you says that his morals that come from his simply being human tell him that it is okay to murder people named GaffUK? If there is not TMO, then how can a society say that it is wrong to murder, lie, cheat, steal? What are the moral codes a society conducts itself based upon, then? If everyone has their own set of morals based on whatever the hell they want to base them on, who is right? Why does society have the right then to force you to live by the next guy’s morals?
These are all questions that prove your premise is short sighted at best and ill thought out at any rate.
Is life black and white… absolutely. Either something is or it isn’t. I call this binary logic. Even with regards to shades of gray… either it is a particular shade of gray or it isn’t.
Can one prove the existence of God? Does proving the existence of God matter to anyone other than the holder of the viewpoint. Contrary to what Obama espouses, salvation is not a communal event. I’m wondering what flavor of Christianity he actually practices to come up with the idea of communal salvation to begin with. My salvation is not dependent upon anyone’s belief system or actions but my own.
To thine own self be true… and to everyone else…. f’off.
@Anticrocks
I see you are incapable of answering my 5 simple questions.
Easy – do you think the US would be better off without Barack Obama as President? If you do then do you believe that he has done nothing positive absolutely as President? Again you can only deal in binary black and white. My position remains prefectly intact.
I have answered that several times now – but I’m not going to be bullied into having you say I said something when patently I didn’t. Again you have problems with English if you cannot see the difference between ‘Right from the start I have not claimed that religion is all bad’ which what I said and ‘So, right from the start you said religion isn’t all bad?’ which you claim.
If your point is that you are an unchristian-like hypocrite – then yes well done.
Re-read your post #42
If a husband having authority of his wife has nothing to do with Transcendent Moral Order then why did you mention this??? lol.
You seem to do pretty well when you use the rise of atheists, agnostics and individuals who stated no religion as proof that the number of Christians on the rise! lol:D
Most people have their own set of morals. If you take two people from the same religion I doubt if they would share identical morals. They are probably influence (heavily or not) from their religion – but we all live and cope with different set of morals.
How do you decide which religion is right? You make your own choice.
Most countries have this concept called laws. Something can be deemed by representative government (or by dictatorship, monarchy etc) as unacceptable and is made illegal. Somethings can be considered immoral but legal.
Do you mean if there wasn’t a God people wouldn’t be incapable of deciding that it wouldn’t be in their best interest to outlaw murder and stealing? Plenty of religious people still lie & cheat – or/and break the law.
A society is quite capable of creating it own laws and as I say morals aren’t shared by all.
If it’s not illegal – then that is the situation we have now when it comes to morals with a multiculture which has more than one faith. Even within a monoculture – there will be differing views on morals. And we cope fine.
Again if it’s not illegal – society can’t force you to live by an unwritten set of morals.
So unless there is a God that created you and this universe – would you suddenly become immoral? Would you cheat on your wife, would you covet your neighbour’s ass, would you steal, would you commit murder, would you disrespect your parents etc etc? Is God the only thing that keeps you moral? If so then I deeply pity you – for clearly you are in a child-like state where you only know right and wrong as dictated by a religious text.
@Anticrocks
btw here’s some of the morality which appears in the Bible…
* Noah’s ark – wiping out entire human race including children – except Noah & his family
* Exterminating Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Again include children.
* Mass murder of the first born of Egypt
* 42 little children murdered by two bears as a result of a curse from Elisha
* Israelites stoned and burned Achan’s sons, his daughters, his animals and his tent for the sins of Achan.
* Mass murder of the Midianite children
* Mass murder of Babylonian babies
* Murdering people for looking at the Ark of the Covenant
* Murdering a person because she looked the wrong way
* Murdering people for taking a census ordered by God:
* Murdering people for worshiping another God
* Mass murder of men involved in inter-faith relationships
* Murder of 450 priests:
* Murder of those who do not follow Jesus
* Killing the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah including children
* God killed Onan because he avoided his cultural duty to impregnate his sister-in-law:
* God killed Jews at Taberah:
* God killed Jews at Kibroth-hatta’avah
* God sent a plague which killed 14,700 Jews
* God killed 250 Jewish leaders and their families:
* God permits a human sacrifice:
* Instruction to murder religious leaders of other faiths:
* Instruction to murder any of your relatives or friends if they spread other religious faiths:
* Instruction to murder persons of other faiths, by stoning:
* Beating and killing slaves
* Noah laids a curse of Canaan and enslaves his descendents due to his son’s sinful act.
* Tamar is ordered to be burnt alive for being without a husband and pregnant
http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl2.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/intol_bibl1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_trans.htm
This is the sort of cruel morality I don’t want my kids accepting
@Gaffa: Once I dug through all the hogwash and incoherency that you put forth in your last two posts, I felt that you came close to making one point –
Yes they do. Tell me, where do most countries’ laws come from? From what are they derived?
I will answer for you, in a manner that you find it impossible to do; hence I will be A. succinct and B. honest.
Most countries derive their laws from religious values.
And BTW, the Transcendent Moral Order is quite different from what Aristotle proposed. The TMO actually came to fruition as a result of those early philosophers’ work. Only in relatively modern times (as compared to Aristotle’s era) does one find the completed philosophy or belief of the Transcendent Moral Order. It has much more to do with the way a society functions as related to its government, rather than the familial dynamics Aristotle wrote about.
Have a nice day.
@Gaffa: You ask:
I already answered this. When you said, “Right from the start I have NOT claimed that religion is all bad.” You had already claimed it was so horrendously awful that mankind would be better off without it. Therefore you cannot start your rant with the premise that religion is so bad we would all be better off without it and then turn around LATER, after I called you on it and claim you never said that.
Let me refresh your VERY SELECTIVE memory.
From GaffUK #1:
In your first comment you are making fun of God, religion and Christianity in general.
From GaffaUK #6:
There, I have yet again answered your first two questions.
To your insipid questions number 3-5:
3. So you are unable to say that Nazi-ism was all bad? Hmmm, that speaks volumes. Or were you just using that as an analogy?
Yes, it is possible to say something was 99% bad and 1% good. But then that wasn’t your initial premise, now was it?
4. That is just your way of giving yourself some wiggle room on your first inflammatory comment about religion being so bad mankind would be better off without it.
5. Yes, that constitutes a flip flop; which is what you started doing once I called you on it.
LOL, it is like pushing buttons with you. I write something and you go off on not only one tangent, but several.
Have a nice day, if that is possible for you dear Gaffa. BTW, appropriate name you chose.
anticrock: hi, I am amase of your patience, tolerance, and intelligence and writting skil.
bye
GAFFA UK: hi, I have visit your blog some times ago, and I have read that you favor the DEMOCRATS: NOW, would I be wrong to think that YOU took this post HOSTAGE bye pounding
from NO1 all the way down to discredit PURPUSLY the UGE and SUCESSFUL RALLY OF GLEN BECK
and SARAH PALIN AND MISS KING,plus others DITINGUISH GUESTS
for pushing the cause of your favored PARTY. And your allegance to ATHEIST group.
You wrote
“3. So you are unable to say that Nazi-ism was all bad? Hmmm, that speaks volumes. Or were you just using that as an analogy?
Yes, it is possible to say something was 99% bad and 1% good. But then that wasn’t your initial premise, now was it?”
Here’s another way of looking at this….
I’m Italian American so I’ll use this analogy
If I a make a perfectly fresh, homemade pot of pasta sauce, all the best ingredients, home made meat balls, saugage & then added just a little cat shit from the litter box, would you still eat it? 😡
that would be the Christian point of view. Even just a little bad, is still bad.
Istell3: hi, WOW you had me hungry, until the last ingredient, bye
@Anticrocks
I said
And you turn that into so HORRENDOUSLY AWFUL and that I claim religion is ALL bad! I didn’t say horrendously awful nor that religion is ALL bad. But keep saying it anyway you will probably believe in your own lies. lol. I feel if you weigh up the pros and cons of religion that on balance we would be better off without it. Have you thought about a career as a gutter tabloid journalist as you are able to tell such exaggeration, assumption and out right lies.
I also see that you use the word ‘so’ bad. Yes I do think religion is ‘so’ bad we would be better off without it. Didn’t deny that. I am denying that I said religion is ALL bad.
lol yep…I no doubt that the proportion of Christians in the US will continue to fall (especially those going to church) and the number of atheists/non-believers will continue to rise. I think Beck is on more solid ground attacking Obama than trying to revive people turning back to God.
Nope – I’m making fun of Glenn Beck in that comment. But I have and will continue to make fun of Christianity and criticise it. Free speech y’know. Plenty of comments on this forum where people of Christian, Muslim and othe faiths + non-believers may find insulting. And you use this quote to prove that I have said religion is ALL bad? Do you have problems reading?
So I ‘ll ask you again – show me where I said religion is ALL bad. Not ‘so’ bad.
My initial premise was that Glenn Beck was wasting his time. Later I said ‘If people weren’t trying to carry out changes in the name of their ‘God’ for the last few thousand years – I’m sure we all be in a better state than we are now.’ So that gives me PLENTY of room IF I wanted to later say religion was 51% bad and 49% good OR that religion would be overall good if they didn’t try to change things in the name of their God. That’s not just wriggle room – that’s MASSIVE gap compared to your ASSumprion that I belive religion 100% bad just because I have the temerity to criticise religion. If I hear someone criticise their partner I don’t ASSume that therefore they must hate their partner 100% and believe there is nothing positive about their partner.
As I have demostrated above I have a massive amount of room here. I can claim that I believe religion is 49% good IF I wanted. So answer the question please.
Except I’m the one trying to focus you on taking responsibility for your comments and trying to get you to think logically without making ASSumptions. Example – see how long it took for you take responsibility for misreading the ARIS 2008 report. What gaffe on your part…lol
antics
plural noun
clowning, tricks, foolishness, silliness, buffoonery
rocks
plural verb
To disturb the mental or emotional equilibrium of
A mentally disturbed buffoon describes you perfectly 😛
btw – still waiting for that scientific proof that God or a TMO exists. I guess that one got you stumped. Oh I know – you can’t answer that because you know that no such proof exists.
Anticrock: hi, GAFFA want the last WORD, you may as well give it to him,
HE’s a SPOILED BRAT, and is having a TANTRUM, if he does’nt get that last WORD. bye
@ilovebees: Yes, you are right. Every time I hit him with facts and present him with his very own words, he just tries to distort the issue and that way he can fool himself into thinking he won the argument or scored some points of some kind.
You see I recognize what Gaffa is trying to do, but I don’t let him get away with it. He is employing two of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
#5 Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
– and –
#11 If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counter side.
Gaffa is quite an enigma, on the one hand he spews just enough information to appear to be quasi-intelligent, but then he cannot resist himself and he lets loose with some asinine comment that reveals he is just a moonbat. A drone, if you will; he is simply a far lefty with the usual ultra liberal agenda.
I toy with him at the expense of nearly taking it too far, but it can be fun. I almost know what he is going to say before he makes his next entry in the thread.
But thank you for the compliments, ilovebees. You are full of wisdom and wit in your own right.
@lstell3: LOL you hit the nail on the head with that one!! Good analogy.
@Ilovebees
Well you must have a very bad memory as I haven’t written anywhere on my blog that I have favoured the US Democrat party. I did support the UK Liberal Democrats which is a completely different party and who aren’t spreading dirt all over America. lol
You have a problem with free speech? And again I haven’t pushed the cause of the UK Liberal Democrats on this page. Btw – the Liberal Democrats are currently propping up the Conservative Party in the UK in a centre-right coalition – having pushed out the socialist Labour Party which I’m very happy with.
I haven’t given my allegance to any atheist group.
Still I’m happy to clear up any confusion you clearly have.
lol – so when you post your posts that’s fine but when I do – I’m somehow a spoiled brat? I see like Anticrocks you are incapable of having a debate without lame insults. 🙄
@Istell3
The Christian point of view really depends on which random quote from the Bible you happen to cherry pick.
A Christian might make their own cat shit pizza and serve that back up as revenge to the cook.
Or the Christian may be delighted at the lovely gift of a cat-shit pizza and give the cook a big sloppy kiss.
Or if the Christian may get angry at the cat-shit pizza and stone the cook to death.
Or if the cat-shit pizza was forced upon the Christian they might submissively eat it and ask for another one.
Or maybe Jesus could pop by and feed 5000 Glenn Beck followers with the cat shit pizza.
😆
I see that Gaffa continues to prove what a class act he is by repeating the word sh*t over and over. His mother must be so proud.
BTW, I am happy to be compared with ilovebeeswarzone; I consider myself in fine company.
@Anticsrock
lol- you find the word catshit so bad you have to stick an asterisk in it? lol
Here’s another quote for you…
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged.”
Going by the lame ad hominen attacks you try to aim at me – seems like you can’t even follow the morality of your own religion 😆
GAFFA UK: hi, YOU know, YOU’r showing your qualitys as you go,
even if you dont want to, and one of them is never give up.
JUST to say, that YOU are showing US to never give up also,
And you’r still a good buddy of the group. bye
Gaffa…. quoting the Old Testament as Christian doctrine proves your ignorance on the subject of Christianity.
99….
Woohoo…. 100 I win… this thread is now closed