Bible vs. Science

I have never made a secret of my contempt for the religiously fanatical. As far as "agreeing" not to respond to the drivel with which you typically clog this web site, you can forget that. As i've pointed out before, i have the right, and will exercise the right, to respond to any post i see. That you call me childish is meaningless to me--i have absolutely no respect for you or your opinions based upon an ignorant adherence to a narrow view of religion and society. I consider you a homophobe and a liar, as well as a dangerous religious fanatic. If you don't like reading my posts, don't read them. Don't expect that you can bully me into no responding to the sh!t you post here, though.

Typical hogwash, Bill--what scientific discussion do you allege would be subjective? What value do you assert would be derived from discussing religion "subjectively." In fact, your false and silly accusations about my attitudes strongly suggests that you accuse me of subjective prejudice--so, as usual, you make little to no sense. I've always pointed out that my beef is with the religiously fanatical, because their adherence to a canon means that their minds are closed. This is definitely as case of "if the shoe fits," Bill.

Typical drivel, MOAN. What is closed minded is the assertion that there is a god, and that anyone who does not agree has a closed mind. What is dangerous about the likes of you is your desire to impose your beliefs, such as your disgust with homosexuality, upon society. I haven't the least doubt that you are dangerous on that basis, all the lies about how you might vote notwithstanding.

No complaint. Just pointing out the obvious. People can make their own conclusions and opinions.

You routinely accuse me of being fanatically opposed to religion. I'm not. I'm only opposed to fanatics. Once again, Bill, if the shoe fits . . .

My considering a non-believer closed minded is in no way different than you considering a believer closed minded. No harm. No foul.

What is also dangerous about the likes of you (if I may borrow your words here a second) is your desire to impose your beliefs, whatever they are, upon society.

Quote:

That is also false. I do not seek to interfer in the behavior of other adults based upon adherence to superstitious belief. You do, as you have made abundantly clear from your hateful posts about homosexuals and homosexuality. I have no desire to impose on society, and accept the imposition of the social contract. In pursuance of that ethos, i oppose all attempts to relegate any adults to a special category of persons to be denied the full benefits of society--which is what you intend with your hatefulness toward homosexuals.

Quote:

Shall I also consider you dangerous because of your beliefs?

I don't give a rat's ass if you do.

Quote:

Point the finger right back at ya' Buddy because there is no difference.

I'm not your Buddy, what a disgusting thought. Please, i just ate lunch. THere is indeed a difference. I have no canon of belief which i believe society ought to adopt. I believe only in the maintenance of equity in society. Look the word up, learn something.

Quote:

We merely have opposing views.

Amond which is the view that you should be entitled to burden society with the results of your supersitious beliefs.

Quote:

You, however, are just more aggressive about your views than I am. So what?

That's a laugh. If you're less aggressive than i, why are you continuing to respond after promising for the umpteenth time that you would stop responding to me?

I can go along with that to a point, Chumly. However, when dealing with the religiously fanatical, all one can learn is the extent to which a particular individual is fanatical. Unless one began knowing nothing about Chrisitianity or Islam, there is little to nothing to be learned from the fanatics at this site, who are often not as well informed about scripture and theology as those who criticize them.

Setanta wrote:

You routinely accuse me of being fanatically opposed to religion. I'm not. I'm only opposed to fanatics. Once again, Bill, if the shoe fits . . .

I'm just trying to get a fix on what you're angry at.

So, I know you "oppose" people like Intrepid and M.A. and RealLife, who clearly believe Christianity is the only way to go.

And now you're saying that you don't oppose religion.

If I've accused you of anything, it had to be because of the intensity of the haymakers you throw (c'mon - you know you do).

Sometimes I swear to God (no offense) Setanta, I'll look at a thread and I'll see you throwing blows left and right, while the object of your attention is writing post after submissive post, trying to lower the heat. sometimes it looks like you have no cause, but just to draw blood.

I admire your mind and erudition, I truly do. But it seems to me that there doesn't have to be a big fight all the time if no one wants it. I don't know if you respect my judgement at all, but sometimes it appears to me as if you really just want to fight.

This is patently false. A believer of necessity cannot entertain ideas outside the received canon without commiting heresy. A non-believer is free to explore ideas inimical to the canon, and may well have decided to discard belief precisely because her open mind caused her to question the recieved canon. This is an attempt to equate belief and the rejection of belief. It is absolutely necessary to the weak position which the believer holds against rational criticism, but it is false, which is why it is weak.

That is also false. I do not seek to interfer in the behavior of other adults based upon adherence to superstitious belief. You do, as you have made abundantly clear from your hateful posts about homosexuals and homosexuality. I have no desire to impose on society, and accept the imposition of the social contract. In pursuance of that ethos, i oppose all attempts to relegate any adults to a special category of persons to be denied the full benefits of society--which is what you intend with your hatefulness toward homosexuals.

I'm not your Buddy, what a disgusting thought. Please, i just ate lunch. THere is indeed a difference. I have no canon of belief which i believe society ought to adopt. I believe only in the maintenance of equity in society. Look the word up, learn something.

Amond which is the view that you should be entitled to burden society with the results of your supersitious beliefs.

That's a laugh. If you're less aggressive than i, why are you continuing to respond after promising for the umpteenth time that you would stop responding to me?