Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

Zombie graduates to high school philosophy class.

It will be so exciting when she gets to the half-full, half-empty discussion

the half-full, half-empty discussion

Sure... I often wonder whether you are a half-wit or half-retarded, Vermin.

Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Godless Libertarians like me are even smarter.

"Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent"

"The study excerpted below is amusing. It is coming out in a sociology journal but concentrates on psychology to the exclusion of sociology! Amazing what can happen when you have an axe to grind!

The article is mostly speculation and theorizing but it does have some actual findings about IQ on which to build its house of cards. But the writer totally overlooks the social context in which the findings were gathered. They are not IQ findings from adults but rather findings about adolescents. The fact that data about adults were not presented is of course the giveaway.

The study found that the more intelligent adolescents were more liberal. So what does that prove? As someone who has taught both psychology and sociology at university level, I have little doubt what it means: It means that more intelligent kids are better at picking up and absorbing the lessons drummed into them by our Left-dominated educational system. It means no more than that. The sociological context overlooked is, in other words, the fact that the individuals concerned were still at school. I think that can reasonably be called: "Overlooking the obvious".

Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Vernon enlighten someone?

Atheists tend to have a higher IQ than non-atheists?

An average of 103 to 97?

Meh, a marginal but still statistically significant number.

Men who chose to be sexually exclusive are also smarter as a rule?

Wow. Does that mean Tiger is a fucking moron?

Be Well.

Hmm the question is why are atheists bragging that their average IQ is 103?

Seriously if the average IQ of group A is 97 and group B is 103 that means that we as a society are about as smart as a moderately well designed toaster.

Explains, well, everything.

Does that mean Tiger is a fucking moron?

When it comes to fucking, tiger is brilliant. He might be an idiot from the PR perspective, though.

If they are so smart, why are the vast majority of them are living in California?

they see the hands of God everywhere,

Except in bad things, unless they can blame some non-conservatives like gays.

'Godless Liberals Are Smarter Than You'

Of course they are...

Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion to call themselves atheists. And most of the folks I know are physicists.

#13 Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. This has been my experience as well. Although most of the scientists I know are chemists.

This has been my experience as well. Although most of the scientists I know are chemists.

My experience as well. Except the ones I know are mostly in the life sciences.

Most of the ones I know are beaurocrats dressed as functionaries.

In my vast and circuitous experience on this planet, I have noticed one thing about people everywhere. It cuts across all religions and cultures. And BTW, this is how I classify people in my own head.

When people are young, they think in only concrete terms. Then, as their intelligence grows, they develop the ability to think in abstractions. This development process can go on for your whole life, if you nurture it.

Unfortunately along the development path, people decide they have had enough abstractions and ambiguities and they settle in a nice concrete mode of thinking.

These people, who want the rules spelled out and the reward/punishment prescribed, are attracted to organized religion.

People that are comfortable with the idea that it is okay if the mysteries are unknown, are what the concrete thinkers calls atheists.

So basically, IMHO, if you believe any spiritual or religious thing as absolute, then you have automatically dealth yourself out of any hopes of growth in a spiritual direction. You have 'settled' on this.

Of course, all that works out well for people who have no desire to learn and grow.

Godless heathens have higher IQ's? I doubt it.

"Are what the concrete thinkers call atheists....."

The most unremittingly concrete thinkers I have encountered, ever, are the some of the atheists on these threads.

"The most unremittingly concrete thinkers I have encountered, ever, are the some of the atheists on these threads."

Too rich, when Biblicists defend ludicrous lies like the moon is a light.

"Too rich, when Biblicists defend ludicrous lies like the moon is a light."

Oh no. Not another debate about that.

You know, it's possible to conceptualize everything and anything within the atheist worldview. It's not like it's any very profound thing.

Some atheists, like Dawkins, crow about the merits of atheistic simplicity. Until someone focuses their minds on how really 2X2 it is. Then they assert atheist subtlety and complexity.

You lead your intellect with your egos. Exactly the thing that irritates you about many religionists. If you were "abstract" thinkers in fact, you'd have noticed this, oh, ten or so years ago.

My wife is a light. She rivals the sun. Not Bible, not science, just truth.

"My wife is a light."

Well, yeah, as long as -- like other Biblicists -- you get to make up your own definition.

Tell us...if she's in a room with a mirror, are there now TWO lights in the room?

"If you get to make up your own definition..."

Who made up yours?

"Some atheists, like Dawkins, crow about the merits of atheistic simplicity. Until someone focuses their minds on how really 2X2 it is."

And here we go again. The Bible is inerrant...

(...except for the times it can be easily proven wrong...then it's just a metaphor.)

How convenient.

I wonder how many Liberals send their parents to old folks homes...

...as compared to Conservatives?

Who made up your definition of "light", DANFORTH?

"If they are so smart, why are the vast majority of them are living in California?

#10 | Posted by MSgt"

This type of clueless response just goes further to prove the validity of the study.

"Tell us...if she's in a room with a mirror, are there now TWO lights in the room?"

You ever hear of figurative language? Of all the ludicrous bullshit in the Bible that might be one of the weakest points of attack. Isn't the history of the Catholic Church damning enough?

That's right: you're on the precipice of an abstract conversation. Breath through your nose; exhale through your mouth.

Tiger misread it as male mahogany, not male monogamy.

That's what I like about you: the willingness to jump into any intellectual challenge with both feet.

Godless Liberals Are Smarter Than You

And........ they have real little dicks which is why they don't get a lot of women.

Godless Liberals Are Smarter Than You

And........ they have real little dicks which is why they don't get a lot of women.

#34 | Posted by Sniper

Actually godless liberal women are a lot more "friendly" than retarded conservative women like you.

"Who made up yours?"

The Bible. If the sun is a light, by definition, the moon isn't. You wouldn't call a mirror a light, any more than you would call a reflective white wall a light. But you have to pretend when it comes to the Bible, including the fact you know the authors weren't suggesting their spouses could be "lights". Doesn't it bother you that no amount of factual discovery can make Biblicists admit that the Bible is rife with provable errors?

Every time someone mentions bats aren't birds, there's some metaphorical explanation. When it's shown snakes don't eat dust, the retreat is well, that's not really what it meant. Every time someone points out hares don't chew their cud, someone pretends it looked like they did, so the definition of two stomachs doesn't really count.

But if it bashes gays, for example, well, by God, it's literal. Despite what Jesus said about doing unto others what you'd want done unto you.

"That's right: you're on the precipice of an abstract conversation."

Who needs abstractions when one has the actual bloody,intolerant, repressive history of Christianity to examine?

"You ever hear of figurative language? "

Of course I have.

Ever notice how convenient it is to be able to go back and forth between claiming something is literal when that backs one's agenda, and figurative when the literal interpretation is provably wrong?

Getting to vacillate between both, while claiming the Bible is inerrant, is bullshit.

Here's a simple yes or no question, Zed:

Is a mirror, a light?

You libs must be real proud of that 103 IQ. You are sooooooooooooooo smart.

DANFORTH---Not only are you distracted by trivia, trivia makes you froth at the mouth.

If your definition of "light" really came from the Bible, it's reasonable to observe your bleeding from the nose for no reason.

But that was pretty much a fib, as illustrated by your cointuing rant.

By the way---I've never told you I thought the Bible was inerrant. I have told you I thought the Bible is inspired.

In other words, the Bible has something in common with "The Maltese Falcon"---Humphrey Bogart was also inspired. He also was a light.

There's no doubt that there are smart people amongst the believers and the atheists. Unfortunately, the people who are too smart to believe in God (or the infinite) dont get to move on to the afterlife. She gives those souls another chance in the hopes that maybe just maybe they'll get it right. Coming back for another try pisses a soul off, which is why all your smart atheist types seem to hold a grudge against God.

Is a mirror a light? Sure. Can be. Are you psychic vampire? Yes. But not inerrantly.

"Is a mirror a light? Sure"

Oh...you mean metaphorically.

Because that's the definition that's convenient, right?

But back to reality, how about a little math question:

If you have one light bulb, and one mirror in a room, you're claiming two lights.

If you then remove the light bulb from the room, how many lights remain?

"By the way---I've never told you I thought the Bible was inerrant."

Then I'm not referring to you.

"You mean metaphorically..."

If I had meant to say that, I would have. Tilt you head back a little, it'll staunch the flow.

Your stupid semantical obsession with lights and mirrors is tiresome. Further, you can't win it. You're basing your arguments on the meanings of words the full meanings of which you don't know.

this really pisses Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly off so they claim its liberalism run amoke when its just intelligent people seeking truth.

underneath these four skanks, are superrich inherited wealth that pay them to bullshit America, so they can continue to fuck everyone through the miracle of compound interest. Do absolutely nothing-take everything. Now that's a miracle.

Let's see---You have ONE light bulb and then you remove ONE light bulb. That's ZERO light bulbs.

"Your stupid semantical obsession with lights and mirrors is tiresome."

Of course. It demands you actually use logic and proof, when you want to be able to invoke metaphors when you can't rely on scientific truth. You'd never claim a white wall is a light, but you're using the same lunacy when you claim the moon is one.

"If I had meant to say that, I would have.

Then you're either a liar or a moron.

"Further, you can't win it. You're basing your arguments on the meanings of words"

Inconvenient, isn't it? Especially when the exact opposite is true. You don't dare do the math equation, because you know a mirror is just a reflector of light, much like the moon. The fact is, if you remove the light bulb from the room, there are NO lights left. Yet you pretend 2 - 1 = 0. Because your unwavering religion demands it, truth be damned.

Of course, it you actually lived the lessons, like The Parable of The Talents, you'd freely admit the human limitations of the Bible.

Seriously if the average IQ of group A is 97 and group B is 103 that means that we as a society are about as smart as a moderately well designed toaster.
Explains, well, everything.

#8 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR AT 2010-02-27 02:54 PM

No, sir.

The very definition of IQ states that it centers at 100.

It's in the 'Q' part.

Of course the lower IQs believe in a big daddy in the sky. A little lower than that and they doubt global climate change. A bit lower yet and they don't understand Darwinian concepts of evolution. You get slightly under that and they swear by fetal rights, that the unborn are people. At rock bottom, at least on the intelligence scale, are those who worship Palin, Bush, Beck, Limbaugh, Cheney and all other testimonials to contraception.. herm

"Evolutionary psychologist" There's a mouth full of bullshit.

HaHaHaHaHa!!

Maybe he can get a job at East Anglia with the other libs fudging the data and butt fucking each other.

I don't know my IQ, but I am praying for all you liberal atheists who aren't getting any strange on the side.

Seriously if the average IQ of group A is 97 and group B is 103 that means that we as a society are about as smart as a moderately well designed toaster.
Explains, well, everything.
#8 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR AT 2010-02-27 02:54 PM

No, sir.
The very definition of IQ states that it centers at 100.
It's in the 'Q' part.
en.wikipedia.org
#51 | Posted by Shmoopty at 2010-02-28 08:06 PM

Aren't intelligence tests merely a barrier to God? Such sweet pain! Who's officially smarter - the long-established and studied clergy or these "tested" upstarts.. whichever has less on his mind!:] When it comes to unity and behavioral conditioning the clergy obviously should pass with at minimum base results. The rest of us are anomalies and cannot appreciate the harmony of such pastoral luminance. I wouldn't dare miss a moment of rose-sniffing amid such intellectual carnage:

"So, honey - how did the test go?"

"I tested against adequacy to such a variant that there is no measure to my failure."

"Oh, you haven't yet achieved failure.."

"Become a priest?":]

"The Clergy" are folks who can't get and/or hold a real job.

Oh, and Zed? John Huston was inspired, not Bogart. Out of all people, I'd think you'd give credit to the director.

"I'd think you give credit to the director...."

Huston did a very good job, indeed. But that movie was what it was because of Bogart and a host of unmatched supporting actors. They just don't make them like that any more.

"It demands you use logic and proof...."

No it's just stupid, and it makes you look stupid. It's a dishonest and sophomoric bit of hookum that maladroitly exploits a junior high understanding of language and vocabulary.

"Let's see---You have ONE light bulb and then you remove ONE light bulb. That's ZERO light bulbs."

Thanks for the intellectual dishonesty. It's telling you have to revert to that.

The question was, how many lights? You're claiming a mirror is a light when the light bulb is in the room. Is the mirror still a light after the light bulb is removed?

Funny. You do know Huston directed African Queen and Treasure of Sierra Madre? And that Truman Capote wrote most of Beat the Devil? John Huston is one of the best directors ever.

"maladroitly exploits a junior high understanding of language and vocabulary."

Posts the guy who has to pretend the moon is a light because his religion won't accept anything else.

Once again, metaphor when needed, literal when needed. The apologists' last refuge.

Wait.. most clergy are generally on the Right, but some are allegedly model father-mothers, having no physical union. Does that increase their chances of spontaneous mitosis, thus birthing their army of men in skirts who shall rectify the worlds ills? Apparently they haven't mastered it yet, as they've done pretty much less of mitosis and more of the birthing.. And not one choirboy joke!

-
The ice is melting.

DANFORTH---You remind me of earnest folk I have met who argue for HOURS about (for instance) whether or not a Gatling really is or really is not a machine gun.

The debate appears to mean a lot to them, but at the end of it all both Gatlings and machine guns are unchanged and it just emphasizes what dweebs they are.

"Because his religion won't accept anything else...."

DANFORTH---Religion doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. You're engaging in a debate about language you lost ages ago. It's not merely that you are incorrect, it's that you are flamingly incorrect. It's like you want someone to admit that semi-colons are really used to administer enemas. Pardon us while we laugh.

Translation: I refuse to admit mirrors or moons aren't really lights, but btw...have I mentioned my wife IS?

Talking with you reminds me of WASHBOARD on another thread. He's attempting (I think) to prove Obama is a Nazis by stating the Russians engaged in mass rape in Austria.

Yes, these sorts of things appear to carry great weight with the both of you. But to most of the rest of us it's just strange and tedious.

"You're engaging in a debate about language you lost ages ago."

Lost? To whom? A guy who thinks a mirror is still a light in a dark room?

Too fuckin' funny.

"you are flamingly incorrect."

Then answer the question directly: Since the sun and the moon are two lights, how many lights would be left if you removed only one: the sun?

"Is a mirror a light? Sure."
~Zed

And this guy tells me I'm incorrect.

You can't make this shit up.

"Lost..."

Yes, my boy, you lost. The problem being you don't know enough to understand you've been whipped. So what we're left with is you repeating the same silly thing over-and-over-and-over again and my telling you that repetition impresses no one. The irony is, and it's a doozy, is that I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF.

Which I'm done doing. After a certain point, beating your head against a brick wall does start to sting a bit. Good night.

"Yes, my boy, you lost. "

Sorry, idiot, you lost the minute you claimed a mirror was a light.

Nice try, though, to claim victory when the dictionary disagrees with you. The desperation is amusing.

"The problem being you don't know enough to understand you've been whipped. "

Posts the guy who had to retreat to claiming a mirror is actually a light.

Classic.

"Which I'm done doing."

Of course. Run away rather than give a direct answer to a direct question in Post #69. Typical.

John Huston directed "Treasure of Sierra Madre"? Dude, you gotta be shitting me. Next thing you'll be telling us is that he had a part in "Chinatown".

I give a lot of credit to directors. But if Ronald Reagan had played Rick in "Casablanca" instead of Bogart (as was considered), even Huston couldn't have saved it.

Speaking of Ronald Reagan, check out this hilarious video:

You libs must be real proud of that 103 IQ. You are sooooooooooooooo smart.

#40 | Posted by Sniper

Actually, the last time I was tested it was 135 but I'm so proud of you for trying.

Let's see---You have ONE light bulb and then you remove ONE light bulb. That's ZERO light bulbs."

Thanks for the intellectual dishonesty. It's telling you have to revert to that.

The question was, how many lights? You're claiming a mirror is a light when the light bulb is in the room. Is the mirror still a light after the light bulb is removed?

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-28 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Danforth, if you have two lights in a room, and you turn them both off, how many lights do you have in the room?

When the Sun is not able to be seen does that mean it does not exist anymore?

Can a light be off and still be a "light"?

Can you think past your middle finger?

SNIPER,

The fact that libs have a 103 IQ helps explain why all the programs they created actually led to more human misery. Oh I forgot, we are not supposed to judge those low IQ MFers on their results only their good intentions.

The study defined liberalism as concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people, not other factors.

"Hey Danforth, if you have two lights in a room, and you turn them both off, how many lights do you have in the room?"

Gee, yet another Biblicist who can't answer a direct question directly.

"When the Sun is not able to be seen does that mean it does not exist anymore?"

No, dipshit, that's called nighttime. But pray to your Biblical God, and I'll bet he'll let you see it the next morning.

Only idiots believes in impotent invisible sky fairies. And only idiots believe in Gigantic fish swallowing men. Boats that fit 2 of everything and world-wide floods. Adam and Eve. Splitting the Red Sea. Walking on Water. Ressurections. etc.

It's almost like Survival of the Fittest is an atheist's best revenge: Just sit back a few generations and watch the Religious become obssolete.

Something to look forward to.

It is my perception that people are instinctually religious/spiritual. Therefore, it takes an act of intellect to reach a conclusion that it is all untrue. Usually only smart people tend to engage in those type of thought processes. So it doesn't surprise me that on average atheists have a higher IQ.

Ironically, I am not an atheist.

Danforth, I like how you attack people but don't answer their questions and yet accuse them of the same thing in the same post.

It must be your superior logic. Remember when you could not use your superior logic to figure out my age when I gave you all the information that you needed.

You were clueless. It was pretty funny.

Either way,

Are a light and a source of light considered the same? I can imagine someone in the time before electricity rigging up a mirror to reflect sunlight back into their dark home so that they could see, saying, Hey, turn on the light.

All they would need to do is sufficiently turn the mirror to bring in the reflection of the light and they would have some light. With more mirrors, they would have more light. Turn off the original mirror and you turn of the lights.

Think of it as a circuit. If the connection is broken, the electricity for the light goes off, it is still a light, but it cannot light, as its source of energy and light is disconnected, It does not meat that there is no "light" just no light from the light.

What is a light anyway?

NO matter how high or low your IQ, you can still be absolutely wrong, yet brilliantly or idiotically so.

"Remember when you could not use your superior logic to figure out my age when I gave you all the information that you needed."

I remember you were cryptic and then a pussy.

"I can imagine someone in the time before electricity rigging up a mirror to reflect sunlight back "

If you weren't so math-challenged, you'd admit that's ONE light, and a reflector of that ONE light.

"All they would need to do is sufficiently turn the mirror to bring in the reflection of the light "

Yes. A reflection of that ONE light. Not two lights. Tell us...is a white wall a "light", since it also reflects light?

"With more mirrors, they would have more light."

But still only ONE numerical light. You seem as clueless as the authors of the Bible, before science discovered the moon only reflects the light of the sun.

Answer the direct question in Post #69, please.

Yes, my boy, you lost. The problem being you don't know enough to understand you've been whipped. So what we're left with is you repeating the same silly thing over-and-over-and-over again and my telling you that repetition impresses no one. The irony is, and it's a doozy, is that I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF.

Which I'm done doing. After a certain point, beating your head against a brick wall does start to sting a bit. Good night.

#71 | Posted by Zed

I luv these threads though they can get a bit painful to watch. Sorry Zed if there is a loser here it is you...

From my perspective it really looks like Danforth nailed you to the cross and then beat the shit out of you with a light bulb and a mirror and all did was deny that anything at all happened!

I think he made it clearest and simplest when he used math to make his point (2-1=0?) and you tried to deflect with the two lights formula (2-2=0) that had nothing to do with his statement about 1 light and 1 mirror.

"Put a light and mirror in a room... remove the light and how many lights remain?"

Don't think it can get any clearer than that.

Good job Dan... excellent logic. Just wanted to let you know I saw what you did there!

Now for some real fireworks have Zed explain how God created day and night before he created the sun and stars. THAT should be entertaining as well! I will get the popcorn!

But, as we all know the bible and logic cannot coexist in the same place and time. This creates a warping of the time space continuum and can make The Christian Brain explode. So be careful! If Zed's brain explodes we could all be sucked by the vacuum!

#87 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-01 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, it is one light portrayed from two sources and therefore in that understanding becoming two lights.

There would be one objective source of light, in terms of space, however from the earth, it would subjectively be two sources of light, as one source shed light on one side, and the other source shed light on the other side.

ON the dark side of the planet, which is the more direct source of light on the surface of the earth, the Sun or the Moon?

"Put a light and mirror in a room... remove the light and how many lights remain?"

One light remains in the room yet no light remains in the room, as the connection between the first light and the second light has been broken.

If you have to light in a room and they are connected in a direct circuit and you turn of the primary light, how many lights do you have in the room?

"it is one light portrayed from two sources "

Portrayed?!? I've been in the arts over 30 years, and I've never seen such tap dancing. It's not TWO sources, it's ONE source, unless, as usual, you have to make up definitions of words.

"and therefore in that understanding becoming two lights"

Oh, you mean the metaphorical, non-scientific, untrue understanding. Got it. So now, if you take ONE of those alleged "two sources" away -- the sun -- how many lights do you have left? And, as my physics professor used to say, show your math.

"and the other source shed light on the other side."

The moon doesn't "shed" light, it reflects light. Again, your statement requires a made-up definition.

"ON the dark side of the planet, which is the more direct source of light on the surface of the earth, the Sun or the Moon?"

The "source"? The sun. Oh, wait...you were making up definitions again, weren't you?

"One light remains in the room yet no light remains in the room"

My head just exploded.

"the connection between the first light and the second light has been broken."

I rest my case.

All of these cockamamie arguments about the moon being a light hinge on a complete suspension of truth, definitions, and any common sense.

Dan dusts off this same tired old theist-bashing canard a couple of times a year.... kinda like Bboob does the rabbit chewing cud quote.

They never get tired of it somehow.

This is not God speaking in the texts, it is an ancient writer, non-scientific, describing what he sees, the same thing anyone can see when they look at the sky, a light in the day and a light at night.

Nothing to do with anything other than simple description of observable phenomena.

"ON the dark side of the planet, which is the more direct source of light on the surface of the earth, the Sun or the Moon?"

The "source"? The sun. Oh, wait...you were making up definitions again, weren't you?

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-01 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

The most direct source of light on the dark side of the planet would be the moon.

I was portraying that objective and subjective nature of the discussion here. If you cannot grasp it, don't think about it, as you have done thus far.

What does it mean to "shed" Danforth?

If a dog sheds hair on you, and later the hair falls off of you, then you shed hair in the subjective sense of the situation. If you want to be objective, you shed the dogs hair which the dog shed on you.

However, both cases can be uttered correctly as there are two different perspectives. You refuse to understand that.

Danforth,

The your argument is flawed in the way that you want to make it anyway, as the Sun, the physical body that the light is seemingly emanating off of, is not a light. Light is produced from the reactions and combustion on the surface of what we call the Sun, but it is not simply a light.

Can what we call the sun exist without light as a physical body?

If it had not light emission, would it still be a light?

So how many lights are there in the sky in Genesis?

If you were really arguing that, you would so 0.

so=say

Which is worse? The fool or the man who attempts to argue with a fool?

"The most direct source of light on the dark side of the planet would be the moon. "

Now you've made up a different definition for the word "direct". Reflective light is indirect light.

"I was portraying that objective and subjective nature of the discussion here."

No, you were ignoring the convenient bullshit of being able to conjure new definitions at will.

"If you want to be objective, you shed the dogs hair which the dog shed on you."

Following that "logic"...take the dog completely out of the equation, and tell me how much dog hair would I be shedding?

"the Sun, the physical body that the light is seemingly emanating off of, is not a light."

But the moon "sheds" light?!?

Forgive me as I laugh at you tripping all over yourself.

"Pardon us while we laugh.
#66 | Posted by Zed"

"But to most of the rest of us it's just strange and tedious.
#68 | Posted by Zed"

Who the fuck do yuo think you speak for, Zedly? "We"? "Us"? No wonder you think a mirror is a light. What a dumbfuck.

"Dan dusts off this same tired old theist-bashing canard a couple of times a year"

It's not a theist-bashing canard, it's an idiot-bashing canard.

Only idiots believes in impotent invisible sky fairies.

It's almost like Survival of the Fittest is an atheist's best revenge: Just sit back a few generations and watch the Religious become obssolete.

#83 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2010-03-01 12:20 PM

For those of you fooled by Danforths cunning cut and paste fallacy he is well known for, this is my post in context:

The your argument is flawed in the way that you want to make it anyway, as the Sun, the physical body that the light is seemingly emanating off of, is not a light. Light is produced from the reactions and combustion on the surface of what we call the Sun, but it is not simply a light.

Can what we call the sun exist without light as a physical body?

If it had not light emission, would it still be a light?

So how many lights are there in the sky in Genesis?

If you were really arguing that, you would so 0.

Realize that he has failed to answer the questions. The he characterizes the reason and purpose for which I have made statements.

Danforth is guilty of bearing false witness.

If you are calling people idiots who don't read into texts things that are not there.... well, then you must be a genius.

" the same thing anyone can see when they look at the sky, a light in the day and a light at night."

Sure, if they're too ignorant to know the moon is merely reflecting the single-source light of the sun.

"things that are not there"

You mean, like the number two?

-Sure, if they're too ignorant to know the moon is merely reflecting the single-source light of the sun.

This was 3500 years ago. Written by agrarian non-scientists.... if you missed that part.

"the Sun, the physical body that the light is seemingly emanating off of, is not a light."

Using that logic, the Bible is wrong in calling the sun a light.

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"
~KJV

What is it about two and light you morons don't understand?

ONE light and ONE reflector.

You wouldn't say a room with one bulb, three black walls, and one white wall had TWO lights in it, any more than you would say one bulb and four white walls would be FIVE lights. But according to the definition-shifters, mirrors are lights, reflectors are lights, and indirect light is direct light.

"This was 3500 years ago. Written by agrarian non-scientists.... if you missed that part."

I didn't. I'm merely pointing out the fools who believe the Bible is inerrant have their head in the sand. As you've seen, the arguments range from making up new definitions, to ignoring basic math, to demanding a word mean the exact opposite of what it means.

What is it about an agrarian writer 3500 years ago recording observable natural phenomena, the sun during the day and the moon at night, without having a scientific understanding of lunar reflection, that you don't understand?

Come on Corky, all the ancient writers of Genesis had to do was crack open a high school astronomy book and they would have known better.

Light is produced from the reactions and combustion on the surface of what we call the Sun, but it is not simply a light.

But it is a light.

Saying the sun is not a light but merely a source of light is a distinction without a difference.

The Ex-man is guilty of specious sophistry in the first degree.

Book 'em, Plato.

Be Well.

-I'm merely pointing out the fools who believe the Bible is inerrant have their head in the sand.

Is that kinda like the fools that quote ancient texts out of their rudimentary context and try to impose modern scientific understanding on them?

The text doesn't say, "and God said...", so it has nothing to do with the inerrancy of God or the book it is printed in.

I like bashing fundamentalists, theists or atheists, as much as the next guy, but let's try for a little context, eh?

- the book it is printed in.

Which only fundies believe inerrant, btw.

"Is that kinda like the fools that quote ancient texts out of their rudimentary context and try to impose modern scientific understanding on them?"

No, that's kinda like the fools that quote ancient texts out of their rudimentary context and try to impose modern moralistic understanding on them?

If the ostriches would admit what you did, I'd be fine. Continuing to claim the moon is a light by mangling known definitions because they have to pretend That Book is inerrant deserves ridicule.

"Which only fundies believe inerrant,"

Have you read this thread, where it's been claimed a mirror is a light, a wife is a light, the sun isn't a light, and the moon's "light" is direct?

"The text doesn't say, "and God said...", so it has nothing to do with the inerrancy of God or the book it is printed in."

So the Bible isn't the inspired Word of God?

It's not just fundies who'll disagree with you on that.

Send your cards and letters to Corky, folks.

"moralistic understanding on them?"

My error...the question mark should be a period.

Danforth, what this communicates is that you are unable to grasp the flexibility of language, that is all.

And I don't think the Bible is inerrant. There really are no lights in Genesis if we follow your argument.

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night" - KJV

What is it about two and light you morons don't understand? - Danforth

What about "rule" or "govern" don't you understand? The whole phrase is metaphoric.

Paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic, "the light" HaOrr is anything that gives comfort.

While not a religious supporter, but understand its place in the world and don't bash the fundies. Your faulty semantic desconstruction of Genesis 1:16 clearly implies it is you that is dragging down the average intelligence of athiest liberals everywhere.

-Send your cards and letters to Corky, folks.

Bring it on!

"The whole phrase is metaphoric. "

But other parts are literal, right? And you get to choose which is which, right?

"Paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic, "the light" HaOrr is anything that gives comfort."

Then I guess that opens up a lot of the Bible for re-interpretation. For example, did you know -- according to Leviticus -- being gay is as bad a sin as having a shrimp cocktail?

"Your faulty semantic desconstruction of Genesis 1:16"

Yeah...silly me, not knowing that by TWO and LIGHT, God really meant ONE and REFLECTOR.

"clearly implies it is you that is dragging down the average intelligence of athiest liberals everywhere."

Yeah, I'm sure my 138 is really hurting the average, and that grade I skipped and the two others I was offered to skip were just flukes. But feel free to show your mental prowess and answer the direct math question in post #69.

"There really are no lights in Genesis if we follow your argument."

No, dude, that was your argument. Can't seem to keep anything straight, can you?

Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion to call themselves atheists. And most of the folks I know are physicists.

#13 | POSTED BY ZATOICHI AT 2010-02-27 06:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#13 Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. This has been my experience as well. Although most of the scientists I know are chemists.

#14 | POSTED BY SCHMANCH AT 2010-02-27 07:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

This has been my experience as well. Although most of the scientists I know are chemists.
My experience as well. Except the ones I know are mostly in the life sciences.

Chalk up a fourth (and second for biologists).

Although I do know a few who have no problem reconciling their faith with the careers.

You libs must be real proud of that 103 IQ. You are sooooooooooooooo smart.

#40 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Coming from someone who probably scores in the 50 range that post is hilarious.

No, my argument was following your rigid linguistic understanding of what lights are.

"While not a religious supporter, but understand its place in the world and don't bash the fundies. Your faulty semantic desconstruction of Genesis 1:16 clearly implies it is you that is dragging down the average intelligence of athiest liberals everywhere."

Ouch. I don't know who's right, but this seems one of the more trivial absurdities or problematic statements that one can find in the bible. I would think the viciousness of the old testament God might be a little more important.

"There really are no lights in Genesis if we follow your argument."

No, dude, that was your argument. Can't seem to keep anything straight, can you?

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-01 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag: Bearing False Witness the very thing he decries so often.

I said if we FOLLOW your argument basically, using the way you are using light. following your argument to it's end. Yet when we do so and find that the Sun would not be a light in itself, in terms of direct source, you say "Nu uh... that is your argument..." because if you were to admit it that far, you you would have defeated your own argument.

The text doesn't say, "and God said...", so it has nothing to do with the inerrancy of God or the book it is printed in.

God "said" he did all this...including making yer lights and mirrors...

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

several lines later (some say days some say millions of years pass)

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so..."

How did God divide the light from the darkness without any actual lights?

God apparently was not a very good physics student.

" said if we FOLLOW your argument basically, using the way you are using light. following your argument to it's end. Yet when we do so and find that the Sun would not be a light in itself, in terms of direct source"

The light is emanating from what makes up the sun. It's the source of the direct light.

WTF are you babbling about?

"my argument was following your rigid linguistic understanding of what lights are."

By making up new definitions, and turning others, such as "source" and "direct", on their heads.

Words have meaning
-Rush Limbaugh

#127 | Posted by donnerboy

You are conflating one text with another. Dan was quoting a different text.

I know about a dozen or so physicists. None of them are overtly religious, 1 of them overtly nonreligious, and 1 of them included as a detail in an otherwise nonreligious discussion that he goes to church. He didn't seem too conflicted; no one seems to give a shit. (well, except the 1 overtly nonreligious one)

1 overtly nonreligious one

Oops, my religious IQ is showing...

#128 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-01 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#134

Dude, make up your mind. If the Sun isn't a light, the Bible was wrong calling it that. If the Sun IS a light, the Bible was wrong calling a reflector of that light, a light.

Why you want to go off on tangential bullshit when you can't address the core issue is telling: you can't handle the truth.

"You are conflating one text with another. Dan was quoting a different text."

But all part of Genesis. Good God, you're stretching.

How did God divide the light from the darkness without any actual lights?

God apparently was not a very good physics student.

#127 | Posted by donnerboy

If the Universe began as an explosion of light, then "dividing light from darkness" can be simply a matter of separating lights amid the darkness.

Now, was that so difficult?

What are you calling the Sun, the actual base and body of the star, or simply the light that is produced from one facet of it's composition?
Teacknically the sun can go out and still be the sun, the question is, would it still be a light?
If not, then the sun is not a light, however light emanates from elements that make up a portion of the sun.
If this is true, then the sun is not a light any more than the moon is a light. The real light is only part of the sun, so in the Bible there would be 0 actual lights in the way that you are referring to them.
If you still consider the sun itself as a light, then you have defeated your argument.

Careful there.

That sort of stretching often results in serious injury.

-But all part of Genesis. Good God, you're stretching.

No, sweetie. Genesis had at least 3 authors.

Sometime is was written as God speaking, sometimes not. That is the difference between the two texts being quoted.

Did you want to conjugate a few old Hebrew verbs with me, or is reading a 500 year old translation what makes you so expert on what these texts really say?

"The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors,"

Atheism would not have benefited our ancestors?

Try telling that to all of the people who died in religious wars.....try telling that to the people who were killed by the church.

#134

Dude, make up your mind. If the Sun isn't a light, the Bible was wrong calling it that. If the Sun IS a light, the Bible was wrong calling a reflector of that light, a light.

Why you want to go off on tangential bullshit when you can't address the core issue is telling: you can't handle the truth.

#135 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-01 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danforth, are you really telling me that you don't have the mental capacity with your superior logic to understand that I am proposing two separate arguments. One of them is stating that linguistically speaking in terms of possibilities the moon can be a "light"

In the other instance I am following your logic of what the sun is and what light is, and how the sun could not be a light.

You refuse to answer my questions in regard to that because you know that it will take your argument away from the moon.

You are the one that needs to decide as to whether the sun is a light or not,

If you can't follow two separate lines of thought one delineated as "this is how this can be considered in both the objective and subjective way" and the other "based on your argument of what a light is, the sun is not a light, what do you say about that," you are the one with the issue of not being capable of thinking through a tough subject.

It is not my fault that you cannot understand the difference between the objective and the subjective aspects of a situation.

Try telling that to all of the people who died in religious wars.....try telling that to the people who were killed by the church.

#140 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-03-01 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think you are missing the point. His post is suggesting that the human race would not have gotten that far if his proposed situation was fact.

"One of them is stating that linguistically speaking in terms of possibilities the moon can be a "light" "

Then you mean "metaphorically", which is just another way of saying when the Bible is provably wrong, you'll have some place to retreat. You're not talking scientific fact, you're talking poetry.

"I am following your logic of what the sun is and what light is, and how the sun could not be a light."

No, you're not. You're pretending that big yellow-orange ball of fire in the sky isn't the source light.

"You are the one that needs to decide as to whether the sun is a light or not"

WTF are you babbling about? I've never pretended it wasn't. It is, by definition. And the moon is just a reflector of that light, not light number two.

"It is not my fault that you cannot understand the difference between the objective and the subjective aspects of a situation."

It's not my fault you have to bastardize definitions because you don't know the difference between direct and indirect light, or the difference between a source of light and a reflector of light.

A reflector will become a source of light to those experiencing the light if the source is not seen. The light would be coming more directly from the moon on the dark side of the earth than it would be coming directly from the sun would it not?

Reflected or not, the moon is more directly directing the light at the dark side of the earth. If you cannot accept that it's a personal problem.

I never said the bible was inerrant. I also don't propose myself to know how God would have meant to convey Genesis to the people. I am not so pompous to think I know that, although we all know that you have no problem being so pompous.

Which definition of light came first, the biblical definition from the Hebrews and possibly cultures before them, or our American definition of light?

You are correct, the big orange ball of fire is the source of light, however that is only the gaseous exterior atmosphere and plasma layers of the whole mass which we call the sun.

Is the sun just a giant (any color you please here) ball of fire, or is there more to it?

I don't care as to whether the Bible says there is 0, 1, 2 or 40,000 lights according to your definition and understanding. I am just giving you a means to understand what you might be misunderstanding.

"A reflector will become a source of light to those experiencing the light if the source is not seen."

Pure idiocy. It may be erroneously perceived as the source, but it doesn't "become" the source. Again, your lack of precise language skills has failed you.

"Reflected or not, the moon is more directly directing the light at the dark side of the earth. "

Strike two. Indirect is not direct.

"If you cannot accept that it's a personal problem."

So your stupidity is my personal problem? Interesting.

"we all know that you have no problem being so pompous."

Yeah, me and those pesky dictionary definitions, and that nasty hard science.

"You are correct, the big orange ball of fire is the source of light, however that is only the gaseous exterior atmosphere and plasma layers of the whole mass which we call the sun. "

That's like saying a candle is a source of light, but not really, because there's a wick in the middle. Do you actually think you've scored some kind of intellectual point?!?

"Which definition of light came first, the biblical definition from the Hebrews and possibly cultures before them, or our American definition of light?"

OMG, I think my head is going to explode.

"I don't care as to whether the Bible says there is 0, 1, 2 or 40,000 lights according to your definition and understanding."

Of course not. Because once it comes down to specific numbers, you can't sustain your argument. You believe a mirror is a light, the moon is a light, and -- by extension -- any reflector of light is a light. And you also believe if you take away the solitary source of light, the only reason the reflector is no longer a light is because the "connection" has been lost.

"I am just giving you a means to understand what you might be misunderstanding."

Dude, here's a hint: try not to comment on others' intelligence after you've proven you don't know the definition of some very basic words.

Well Danforth, you have succeeded in misrepresenting everything that I said, and not even attempting to understand what I was saying.

Congratulations.

In terms of your argument of the sun not being a light,
Fire is a source of light, not the candle. The candle does not produce fire, fire has to be applied to it first, before light is given off.

The sun is not only fire. The fire (energy, whatever you want to call it) is the source of light, not the actual physically solid portion of the sun.

I really don't have any purpose in saying anything as you will only simplify it to fit what you want it to fit. When you don't get the answers you like you get pissed off,

Danforth, does light hit the dark side of the earth directly from the sun or is it reflected first from the moon?

So is the light directed at the dark surface of the earth more directly by the moon or more directly by the sun?

You can' or won't answer that, and you call me an idiot. Alright. Again, like I said, you can't see the objective nature of the situation as well as the subjective nature of the situation.

I can see that, so what I am saying is that, subjectively you are bearing false witness, objectively you just don't understand.

"In terms of your argument of the sun not being a light,"

You're a moron.

"Fire is a source of light, not the candle."

You're trying to say the sun isn't a source of light, but the stuff burning around it is. Are you drunk?

"The fire (energy, whatever you want to call it) is the source of light, not the actual physically solid portion of the sun."

You're arguing points not in contention.

"Danforth, does light hit the dark side of the earth directly from the sun or is it reflected first from the moon?"

Since you don't know the answer, as evidenced by your earlier posts, I'll tell you: Light comes from the source (the sun, or -- for your tastes -- the burning stuff around the sun), reflects off a large reflector (in this case, the not-a-source-of-light moon), and then reflects to the earth via indirect light. Reflective light is indirect light.

"You can' or won't answer that"

I DID. You're the one who can't seem to grasp the concepts of direct light and indirect, reflective light.

"subjectively you are bearing false witness"

This, from the guy who claimed a mirror is a light.

"objectively you just don't understand."

Objectively, you're an idiot.

1,763,452,190,005 miles

If the Universe began as an explosion of light, then "dividing light from darkness" can be simply a matter of separating lights amid the darkness.

First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

Ok this could be the big bang...

Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:67]the second command to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "skies".

Ok this could be matter congealing into a planet.

Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:910] "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).

Ok we definitely have an Earth now.

Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:1415] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

The lights in the "firmament" are obviously the sun the moon and the stars.

But you cannot have "day" or "night" without a rotating planet.

So, according to God the earth was made first then the stars? And then he started the earth spinning to divide the light from the darkness to mark the days?

From our understanding as to how solar systems are formed the sun forms first then planets congeal out of matter that is spinning around the sun in an accretion disk.

Your God sure works in mysterious ways all right. Do really you think the Earth was made first then the Sun? What are the odds that God would create the Earth differently from how all other planets in the Universe are normally formed i.e. Sun first then planets?

"From my perspective it seems DANFORTH nailed you to the cross...."

I see I've gathered a few allies in dealing with DANFORTH'S and now DONNERBOY'S semantic and logical strangeness.

One problem with your approach to this rather arcane debate is that you lead with your hatred and intollerance of religion and the religous.

To bigots round will always appear to be square.

"So according to God the earth was made first and then the stars....?"

I am really afraid to ask this---But can't you imagine a light source other than stars? A giant glowstick, for instance?

"You can't have night and day without a rotating planet...."

You really, really, really can't see how that might be done?

This gets into, not only your limitations in regards to language, which are severe and arbitrary, but your frankly limited understanding of what's possible even in the materialistic world you want so badly to beat others over the head with.

"Fire is a source of light, not the candle. The candle does not produce fire, fire has to be applied to it first, before light is given off.

The sun is not only fire. The fire (energy, whatever you want to call it) is the source of light, not the actual physically solid portion of the sun.

#146 | Posted by ExpsRedemption"

Dude, tell the truth - are you on schrooms?

"semantic and logical strangeness. "

Why is it, when the Bible is proven wrong, it's always a matter of someone else's "semantic and logical strangeness" (as if science and actual definitions are "strangeness"), and never the fact the book was written by a bunch of guys who only had the knowledge of their day?

"One problem with your approach to this rather arcane debate is that you lead with your hatred and intollerance of religion and the religous."

You're so full of shit it's embarrassing. I have no hatred of the religious. I have no intolerance for religion. I have intolerance for superstitious idiots who can't admit simple provable truths like the moon is not a light. It's telling you can't discern the difference, and it must be frightening to be so insecure in your beliefs you can't admit the obvious. The fact the Bible is not inerrant, and some aspects can be dismissed as being uninformed does not invalidate the extraordinary lessons contained within.

"This gets into, not only your limitations in regards to language, which are severe and arbitrary, but your frankly limited understanding of what's possible even in the materialistic world you want so badly to beat others over the head with."

Posts the guy who wants the Bible to be a capricious tome in which it's literal when it serves his purpose, and when it doesn't, it's the fault of others who don't have the requisite imagination. If the meaning sways in the wind depending on the momentary need, what's the point? If you want to call it all metaphor or poetry, that's fine. However, the minute someone wants to pretend definitions must change to mean the opposite of what they really mean, or that actual definitions of words are "arbitraty", just to avoid a few uncomfortable truths, they open themselves up to well-deserved criticism.

"arbitraty" = arbitrary

And their gonna dye.

Liberals always thought they were smart aleck,
Bible says salvation is given to everyone, but the poor and downtrodden are the ones who accept.
Rich people who think they nknow it all will dye.
Worms sweatly feasting on their brains, bought right.

So, glad I only have an IQ of 156.

They are trying to prove that you must be stupid to be religious.
Well, I say you must be stupid if you believe in evolution.
Explosion in a watch factory makes new watches all wound up right?
120,000 dalton protein all left amino acids just happened randomly right?
Y'all are idiots.

And their gonna dye.[sic]

Liberals always thought they were smart aleck,[sic]
Bible says salvation is given to everyone, but the poor and downtrodden are the ones who accept.
Rich people who think they nknow it all will dye[sic].
Worms sweatly[sic] feasting on their brains, bought right.

So, glad I only have an IQ of 156[sic].

#157 | Posted by richardrhine

What TF just happened here?

Wow. Does that mean Tiger is a fucking moron?

Be Well.

#7 | Posted by dethspud

Yes, it does and so are the trampy whores who like him simply because he is "Tiger Woods."

Humans are basically simpletons, at least they have been conditioned to be such.

"Why is it, when the Bible is proven wrong, that it is always someone else's.....?"

Why is it you can't see how silly and shallow your line of argument has been? Like one of your atheist brothers upthread chided---Why pick on something like this when there are fatter fish to fry?

"Simple proveable truths like the moon is not a light...."

Ye gods. You're not a human being, you're tar baby.

You've had a dozen people now explain to you much, much more patiently than I have attempted what the very severe problems are with such silliness.

Each and every time you've blown off their reasoned points by asserting there must be something wrong with them. When someone offers that perhaps, just perhaps, there might be something wrong with you instead, you're insulted and angry.

"If meaning sways in the wind according to momentary need...."

You put your finger on it with that one. Except that the "momentary need" has been and is yours.

A little bit of romaine, a little grilled chicken, a raw egg, with Parmesan makes a good lunch.... and that folks, proves that the Bible has mistakes (even though most don't claim that the versions we have now are inerrant.)

#165 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-03-02 08:29 AM | Reply | Flag: Winning ab Oscar for best actor playing the role of Danforth.

Bible says salvation is given to everyone, but the poor and downtrodden are the ones who accept.

The rest of us have sense enough to recognize bullshit when we see it.

"The rest of us have enough sense to recognize bullshit when we see it...."

How are your grades this semester? And do you intend to take them with you when you die?

How are your grades this semester?

The semseter is going great so far, thank you.

And do you intend to take them with you when you die?

Huh? I'll be dead. Dead people don't "take" anything anywhere, much less give a shit about what goes where (that's why skullfucking is a victimless crime).

I'm making the most of my time here, which is all anyone can do.

"I'll be dead..."

Yes, you will be. But when you're nineteen or twenty you never quite believe that. Never. How old are you again?

"An average of 103 to 97?"

hahah both are weak iq's

Anyone who argues about the level of the IQ shows without a reasonable doubt that they are lying.

Even if they were telling the truth, there are plenty of people with high IQ's that are subjectively morons.

Whether you have a high IQ or a low IQ you can be incorrect, just brilliantly or idiotically so.

But when you're nineteen or twenty you never quite believe that.

Lol, I'm quite sure of my mortality. I'm not looking forward to being dead, but I'm also not deluding myself into believing in fairy tales based on empty promises of immortality.

Are you suggesting that God is only useful as a crutch for those at death's door... a bit of philosophical morphine to ease their passing? Who cares if you're pushing a bolus of ad hoc garbage if it brings a dying person peace? You may have a point there...

How old are you again?

Old enough to know bullshit when I see it.

Anyone who argues about the level of the IQ shows without a reasonable doubt that they are lying.

The IQ test is not a very good measure of intelligence. The differences in the study may be statistically significant, but they're minor.

Notice I'm not interested in touching that topic. I just enjoy pissing off the Christian supremacists to no end.

"And their gonna dye.

#157 | Posted by richardrhine"

Dickrind is obviously a liar. Their/dye indeed.

Liberals are more intelligent? Why can't they balance a checkbook?

To believe in God is to be self deluded, but to believe the Universe is eternal is to have a superior intelligence? LOL

Yeah, and super intelligent scientist once believed that rats were generated from dirty rags. Such smart folk them scientists! LOL...LOL

One problem with your approach to this rather arcane debate is that you lead with your hatred and intollerance of religion and the religous.

To bigots round will always appear to be square.

#150 | Posted by Zed

one thing you got correct. This is indeed an arcane argument.

This kind of debate had been going on since before Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered Galileo an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre.

Well It is interesting to think that the earth moves but so does the sun, which is also mentioned in the Bible.

Someone can misunderstand something, say that wrong thing, and yet not have that wrong thing actually be what the text is communicating.

People are often wrong, those who believe people who are wrong, or ever more wrong.

Someone can misunderstand something, say that wrong thing, and yet not have that wrong thing actually be what the text is communicating.

My favorite (next to "Play it again, Sam") is "Money is the root of all evil."

That's true, the love of money causes the evil. To understand this statement we have to look at what money is, money can be power, goods, precious metals, today it is paper, etc. Anything that can be exchanged for a favor can be considered money.

The desire to love having things in order to have power over others would be a root of evil if you ask me.

I agree Exp.

The quote is "the love of money is the root of all evil," and it is saying that it is the love and the actions the love causes that is the root of all evil, and not the item loved. It is akin to "the path to Hell is paved in good intent." Nobody ever sets out to do evil.

Nobody ever sets out to do evil.

#182 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-02 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would say most never intend to do evil.

I can see how no one ever sets out to do evil if you speak in terms of perspective, as someone would always, in the least, seemingly try to do good for themselves, however that might render evil upon someone else.

Even if that was their intention, they never set out to do evil in regard to themselves, yet set out to do evil in regard to others.

Look at the definition of liberal used here, "support for private resources that help those people" that is NOT the Obama Liberal you bunch of ass clowns, the Obama liberals want government to do it all, that would be "public resources" so quit pretending like you have a high IQ you cant even read the fucking article correctly besides the article was written by a fucking psychologist, thats about as much science as palm reading or Al Gore writing about global warming

#184 | Posted by reinsurelaw a

Man u0pon a quick glance your name has the power to make one hungry for coleslaw.

#184 | Posted by reinsurelaw a

Man u0pon a quick glance your name has the power to make one hungry for coleslaw.

WTF?

Talk about a "feel good" article. Libs value intelligence. Cons believe that stupidity is a virtue. Everybody wins.

"Look at the definition of liberal used here, "support for private resources that help those people" that is NOT the Obama Liberal you bunch of ass clowns, the Obama liberals want government to do it all, that would be "public resources" so quit pretending like you have a high IQ you cant even read the fucking article correctly besides the article was written by a fucking psychologist, thats about as much science as palm reading or Al Gore writing about global warming
#184 | Posted by reinsurelaw"

"Man u0pon a quick glance your name has the power to make one hungry for coleslaw.
#185 | Posted by ExpsRedemption"

"WTF?
#186 | Posted by reinsurelaw"

Jesus Fucking Christ. These two make 97 look like an overstatement, to say the least.

I didn't read all the posts, but it seems the researchers have also proved that Liberals don't believe in God.

"LOL. I'm quite sure of my mortality...."

That depends entirely upon what age you are, and you've always refused to state your age. I think you are no older than twenty-one.

Kids don't think they will die. They think dying is what happens to other people. Just like they think substance abuse problems are what happens to other people.

Kids are, of course, forever asserting things like they are sure of their own mortality. Just like they are forever asserting they control drugs, drugs don't control them.

A kid is never certain about ther own mortlaity unless they've seen combat. You've never seen combat; chances are the greatest risk you'll ever consciously undertake is to parasail off Cancun.

"I know bullshit when I see it...."

Then you can stop producing it, now that you've learned.

And, I just have to say it---The Moon is now, and forever has been, a light.

To be honest, this thread is a textbook case illustrating unconscious biases:

Clergy bad, doctors good? A lot of you never begin your analysis with the truism "people are people". This must have bitten you on the ass before now.

Whups---Wrong thread.

Whups---Wrong thread.

#193 | Posted by Zed at 2010-03-03 08:04 AM | Reply | Flag: < 97