THE THING IS . . .

I see Set has taken his football and gone home (the 'Other' thread) Damn holy rollers...

If he isn't the referee and winning by playing against inferiors, I don't think he really cares for the game, Leddy. It's all about WINNING, and that's it.

The knight in shining armor routine is laughable. No one is bullying the holy rollers. They are not obliged to come to this thread, and if they do, and they are offended, it's much the same as stepping off the curb into traffic and then trying to blame the drivers in the street for your mishap. The fact that holy rollers have rushed to this thread to whine, vilify and make any number of stupid remarks and specious arguments is simply evidence of how intolerant they are of dissentient opinion. The pervasiveness of holy roller attempts to take over the conversation here is nowhere more clearly displayed than in the Richard Dawkins thread. Dawkins is clearly a scientist--he is Oxford educated, he has held various positions at Oxford and elsewhere for which his credentials were examined and he was vetted. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, another honor for which he was vetted. He is published in his field. That others in the field may not agree with him is not evidence that he is not a scientist, but it is evidence of the method of naturalistic science in operation. All that the holy rollers there have attempted to do is to slander him--he is accused of turpitude, a claim which is not substantiated, and even if it were, is a claim which would not invalidate his credentials as a scientist. He is accused of being incorrect in his position and claims as an evolutionary biologist--once again, that does not mean that he is not a scientist, it simply demonstrates that the ordinary and necessary operations of scientific inquiry continue to operate. A truly wild and hilarious charge has been made against him to the effect that he is strident (a personal slur with no relevance to the right or wrong of what one does or says) and militant, in a context suggesting that he is the most militant of atheists. Anyone who makes that claim has not, apparently, ever heard of Sam Harris. In fact, the holy rollers love to hate Dawkins because he began to openly criticize theism in published works beginning about 30 years ago. That's what sets off the holy rollers--mention Dawkins' name and they begin to fulminate. The question of Dawkins' credentials and their validity is left by the wayside as the holy rollers rant, attempting to shout down everyone else.

The holy rollers introduce this sort of distortion into a host of topics which have nothing to do with their preferred superstitions. They attempt to dominate conversations by shouting the loudest and employing truly puerile insults and sophomoric sarcasm, which they apparently consider clever. They tend to ruin the site. Jespah has pointed out how page ranking works. I knew this, and i was not asking questions about why the holy rollers come here. One thing about page ranking which also very likely attracts them is the prevalence of the words atheist and atheism at this site. The holy rollers tend to hunt down those whom they consider their inveterate enemies. Personally, i don't care if the holy roller live or die. I just hate to see this place overrun by them.

"They" do this, eh?

It aint for no damn reason that you is knowwed as "the king of irony," eh?

As far as Dawkins goes, there is often a significant difference between "is" and "was."

If there is such a thing as a "scientist," and if there is such a thing as a "scientific mind," then surely one must have the latter to be considered the former.

According to many of his homeys (atheists and scientists) poor Richard just aint got no "scientific mind" no more. Aint likely he will ever get back to his usta be, neither.

Happy to be of service. The recent history:
>Holy roller observation started here
http://able2know.org/topic/300225-3#post-6059549
>Which, with research, landed here
http://able2know.org/topic/300225-6#post-6060665
>Bringing attention to this post here Now at 28 thumbs up, I believe. Is it an a2k record? could be.
http://able2know.org/topic/169651-8#post-4552129

Oops.
Looks like Layman hit the three pointer while I was dribblin in the back court.
'Course, at my age, I expect a lot of dribblin

Now that my idiocy has been discovered, I hereby resign my Mensa membership.

I've noticed that also.
http://able2know.org/topic/221950-6#post-5437640

The thread title there was "Is Jesus God" with the opening post noting that "Christians are divided on that question."

Just the kinda topic our boy professes to have no interest in. No wonder his presence there was questioned, eh? Of course he had the perfect reply:

Sedentary said:

Of course it wasn't "his" thread. He was only the holy rollin idiot who started it, that's all.

They can't never make it stick if they aint got no evidence, Neo.

Hint: There's a "delete post" thang there that ya can click on, if ya want.

While on the topic of IQ clubs, I'm very proud to announce that I got an engraved invitation to join a new one they're startin up. It's called Densa. The invite said it was based strictly on "widespread reputation!"

I hate to have to keep sayin it, but it's the damn truth.

VICTIMIZED, yet again, eh?

Why caint they just leave the poor boy be, I ask ya?

The thing is, most posters here are not interested in debating anything. They are interested in maintaining human relations: internet friendships, age-old inimities and the likes. And for them, that trumps everything. It's not about the issues, it's about who is friend with whom, most of the times. Once in a while, a real debate errupts and a few feathers get ruffled, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

If you assess A2K as a social network, it ain't doing that bad.

I forgot about that.

I'm actually quite bad at that social thing....

Re: Dawkins

Anybody know who said - "The most brilliant scientist, when out of his own field, is as dumb as the next guy".

Found it.


"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." - Richard P. Feynman quotes ...

I became convinced of God not long after my first conversation with my imaginary friend when I was 7.

You can imagine what a dorky kid that made me.

So God became your second imaginary friend? Lucky you... :-)

In my opinion, if one sees a bumper sticker with the statement, "If this car doesn't have a driver, he may have been raptured up," or some such phrase, the added benefit might not even be known by the person that put the bumper sticker on the bumper. While this might be perceived as a holy roller, the "medium is the message" (Marshall McCluhan) might conclude, "others really might not want to move to these parts; leave us alone."

Similar to the enclaves where everything revolves around the church and Sunday Mass (i.e., A Tree Grows In Brooklyn).

The benefit of over zealous religion is also the ability to deter other groups from invading one's turf. Or, possibly to take over a turf.

One's criteria for holy roller might just exclude those that come from a more mainstream demographic. However, many religions incorporate theologies that are very alien to those of other faiths, regardless of how mainstream one is. Just my opinion, of course.

ha! I think I agree with Foofie on something

<gets out calendar and pencil crayon>