BS: Unfit for SCOTUS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 01:40 PM

like, yer entitled to an opinion.....unless of course that opinion is that the bible is true !

like I said , bill, if you don't think evolutionism is a belief and a faith, take it up with the evolutionists I quoted above. I already outlined why I say it is, so tackle those points. mere assertion that I misuse the words, is falling on deaf ears !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 08:00 AM

I have no right to VOTE in the USA. I have every right to an opinion (bearing in mind that not all opinions are created equal and mine are more logical and world-normal than yours). Even a nutcase like you can surely tell the difference between the right to vote and the right to have an opinion.

And I've told you before why I don't start threads about UK politics. The US based mods delete them all. Perhaps at your age your brain is failing, like other bits of your anatomy, you limpdick jadrool (remember that quote from teh mudcat of old? - oh no, silly me, you're senile so you don't).

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 07:50 AM

You are not a citizen, you have not right to any opinion. Worry about your own country you wanna be yank

Given the foreign policies of the USA and free cultural exchanges with our former colonies over there on The Dark Side of the Earth, we Brits are all Yanks whether we like it or not. As such I think it's only right and proper to be - er - concerned, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 06:10 AM

I'm sure that most US citizens are very nice people, but I'm not sure I'd like to live in a country in which almost half the population think that the world was created in 4004BC, in which several of the people behind me in the supermarket queue are likely to have lethal weapons in their pockets and which can elect George Bush twice. Oh, and Dan, I nearly forgot to mention, a country in which over a tenth of the population have no automatic access to health care, since you mention our NHS. And there's no need to invite me to stay here. I am doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 05:47 AM

What economic stats are like in each separate country is different from the more general point made at the start of this thread which was about individual beliefs so not a good comparison! However saying that I would have no qualms about people from other countries asking how things were in the UK! What does it matter? Especially when you can clear things up and put it right. As a point of fact the nurse is talking rubbish. If we are going to count children under 16 as not being benefit scroungers and retired people no longer in the work force who have already contributed all their lives as not being benefit scroungers then for England the figures are 73.4% of the population between the ages of 16 and 64 are in employment. That is 3 out of 4 people in that age group. Among those from that age group not in employment you can count school kids studying at higher level (ie 16, 17 and 18 year olds) plus university and college students as well as mothers who have decided not to return to work. Again tax payers don't pay for everyone who doesn't work. The unemployment rate is just 5.5%!

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/june-2015/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,My cookie won't take!!
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 02:53 AM

Yeah Dan. It's horrible here. Just like Fox says it is. If any of your neighbours visit here, I'd wear tin foil on my head when they come back, just in case.

It really is surreal to keep agreeing with Bridge but he is right. A judge as a judge has to be objective and concentrate purely on comparing evidence with points of law and how it stands. Judgemental shit such as his superstition cannot be seen to influence him. His comments on loony bollocks such as biblical "truth" denote his ability to judge by a medieval code.

By the way. It is not just important to The USA but to more advanced civilisations too. The USA may be a backward country but we do have an extradition treaty so it is important that we monitor how much we can rely on objectivity of their courts when consisting requests for extradition. We already have clauses to prevent them killing people they ask for, just as we do with other third world countries we encourage to evolve.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 02:29 AM

I was talking to a nurse working here who was from England. According to her yes you have a fine health care and social system but the three people working are paying for ten who don't. Taxed to death. She said. I don't know if that's true or not because I don't live there so I don't comment unlike you dick

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 02:23 AM

Surely everyone has an opinion about what goes on in countries other than their own? It is absurd to suggest someone can't have an opinion! Not having an opinion and not having an actual vote are of course two different things.

It is all the more likely that someone from the UK will have an opinion on events in your country if that country is the US. Basically because the US is such a big and influential country your news events regularly make our national news broadcasts. Normally there is a story about the US at some point. Obviously at the moment there is the church shooting but over the past week or so we've had a lot of coverage re Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton in a way that the US would never get coverage of the Labour Party leadership etc. It is a fact of life so it is basically not credible to expect people not to have an opinion or express it.

I suppose it is a bit like the elephant in the bed thing with Scotland and England. For instance Nicola Sturgeon first became a member of the Shadow Cabinet in Scotland a whole 16 years ago and she'd been deputy leader of the SNP for a whole decade prior to taking the leadership and she'd been Deputy First Minister of Scotland for 7 years during that time. Yet during the recent election the UK wide news treated her as if she was a bolt out of the blue new politician on the scene. Basically Scots are fed what goes on in England much more than the other way round - as is what happens re the UK and the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 22 Jun 15 - 01:46 AM

No American would want you here. I find it interesting that every thread you start is about American politics, did England boot you out and now you have no country of your own? That leads me to believe you are a wannabe yank. I see no reason why anyone who doesn't live here and has no voting power to be so obsessed as you Richard. Since you desire to control our political system then become a citizen and pay taxes like we all do. It boils down to a wannabe yank.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 08:17 PM

It can make sense to accommodate even irrational beliefs in some circumstances. Searching out and identifying even a very limited area of agreement can be useful. For example when it comes to being engaged in campaigning on a specific issue you can find yourself working with people with whom you disagree profoundly on just about everything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 07:56 PM

You are not a citizen, you have not right to any opinion. Worry about your own country you wanna be yank

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 05:23 PM

I suppose I might as well try to remind people that my problem with a judge in the US's most senior court giving comfort to irrationality is that judge is supposed to follow the evidence.

The weasel wording that you, Magrath, point out is plainly designed to accommodate the beliefs of creationists. They fly in the face of the evidence. Judges should not do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:56 PM

Pete...for about the 7th time here, I must once again note that this usage:

"there are good reasons why I say your position is a belief, a faith position. "

is an error... a faulty use of the words 'faith' and 'belief'. You cannot simply redefine concepts such as 'have confidence in the basic process when properly done' as **faith or belief**.

That is not what acceptance of the conclusions of science means, and stating that you have "good reasons" for comparing them to the beliefs of religion does not make them good reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:50 PM

What assumptions Pete ?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:47 PM

Well, though I don't know all the details of these dating methods, I do know they take measurements but don't give dates, but assumptions are involved that facilitate the dating. None the less, diverse dating, sometimes spectacularly, occurs with different methods. Even modern formed samples have read millions of yrs.          guest -symbol, care to explain what was awry with my post.....other than your disagreement. Want some real doublespeak. How about evolutionary stasis! And being as you are espousing the general theory of evolution, and only have interpretations of the data, to form a story that contradicts observational science, it seems to me you have further to leap in the faith steaks !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:36 PM

However, creationists believe life only comes from life.

Not so. They believe that all observable corporeality (including, one presumes, the galaxies of the Hubble Telescope's famous Ultra Deep Field Image revealing the universe of 8–10 billion years ago) derives from the actions of a supernatural deity some 4,000 years BCE.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:05 PM

these are arrived at by a refusal to consider common design for homologous structures, and the bait and switch of equating natural selection to the totally unproven microbes . . . . In short, evolutionists believe in a secular miracle

Your religious training appears to have included a course in rhetorical doublespeak. Perhaps a couple of sessions spent on restating what others think in order to make it sound equally as illogical as the leap-of-faith materials covered in your main lectures? You can believe anything you want, but don't expect the world to march to your drummer when he is headed off a cliff. You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not to your own facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:02 PM

On the subject of time frames - what about radiometric dating ? Decay rates are measurable.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:56 PM

I notice that riah tries to claim that it is the creationists who oppose observable science. However, creationists believe life only comes from life. Evolutionists that it arose somehow from matter. Creationists believe organisms produce within the limits of their kind, evolutionists that there is a trans organism progression contrary to observation. Creationists point out that there are calculated limits to how long soft tissue can survive, but evolutionists think those measurements mistaken because it would nullify their time frame to accept them....though I,m sure they did till the paradigm was threatened!.         In short, evolutionists believe in a secular miracle .

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:34 PM

Gillymoor, nothing I ain't seen before of your supposed five proofs of evolution. In short these are arrived at by a refusal to consider common design for homologous structures, and the bait and switch of equating natural selection to the totally unproven microbes to mudcatters.   If you want to engage in discussion, other than opting for the easy option of posting link, so be it, otherwise I have nothing more to add re the link. At least there was not so much to plough through.    Riah, on the other hand waxes long and eloquent without saying very much except excusing himself from engaging in the debate, supposedly because I am closed minded. Thanks ake, for noticing the evasion. Riah places the onus of evidence on the creationist to prove that God exists. However we admit the faith factor wheas you claim that your position does not require faith. Therefore, the greater onus is on you. As I indicated above there are good reasons why I say your position is a belief, a faith position. You and bill, can go argue it with the evolutionists who admit it, as well as the creationist who points it out.    But though we don't claim proof, we do claim that the creation position accords better with observable, testable, repeatable science.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:25 PM

Too true in the literal sense, but don't fall into the trap of using a subjective dictionary as an arbiter of a word used in context. You might end up looking as daft as Keith when he tries that shallow stunt.

Intolerance is intolerance. I have no time whatsoever for Sheffield Utd fans.   

Bigotry is to spread your intolerance to affect others, such as this judge using his delusion to judge people who don't go for all that nonsense. Or as in the case of Akenaton, post lies, distortions and hurtful comments about a whole section of society due to his bigotry towards them.

Thinking pete is a fry short of a happy meal or even questioning teaching creationism as anything more than a medieval attempt at understanding science prior to us really beginning to understand the universe..... is not the same as when pete says I shouldn't be allowed to be married because his group leader / vicar / whatever must have had an unfortunate experience when exploring his own sexuality.

Intolerance of any belief or creed can also mean frustration with it wishing to be measured alongside reality. Refusal isn't bigotry any more than refusing dictatorship in a democratic society. If it is incompatible with the subject, it isn't bigotry to say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:13 PM

Fictional

adjective

    relating to or occurring in fiction; invented for the purposes of fiction.
    "fictional texts"
    synonyms:        fictitious, invented, imaginary, imagined, made up, make-believe, unreal, fabricated, concocted, devised, mythical, storybook, the product of someone's imagination
    "a fictional character"
    antonyms:        real, actual

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:08 PM

Rejection of creationism is the application of reason, not stubbornness.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 02:41 PM

Bigotry
noun, plural bigotries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

YThere's a lot of it about...

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 01:51 PM

Reight, got me cookie back. My co musketeers have been enjoying a good laugh, apart from where Akenaton is yet again calling people sub human. The most disappointing part being that nobody is sub human, ironically not even him.

Despite evidence to the contrary.

Riah Sahiltaahk is welcome to take on the somewhat frustrating IQ of both pete and Akenaton. Here's a tip. Logic, reason, fact and common sense are not tools you can deploy in these debates. Any attempt to discuss love, sex and human nature will be met by homophobic nonsense, one through its religious delusion, the other through fear of what it cannot comprehend. Either way, bigotry is what you will be trying to reason with.

Takes lots of your err magma...

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 01:34 PM

I can't see that the latter way of putting it actually is any more of an explanation.

Simples! Because whilst everything, evidently, exists, God, most evidently, does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 01:20 PM

"Everything exists because God creates it".    Or "everything exists because it exists".

I can't see that the latter way of putting it actually is any more of an explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 12:41 PM

'Faith' is the unambiguous word for belief without evidence.

A point I have made at various times here for 15 years.

In science, one eventually MUST change an opinion if it turns out to be less than accurate.... in 'faith', actual evidence is often ignored, and the lack of evidence is often treated as irrelevant when certain beliefs are repeated often enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 10:40 AM

Given that there are 15,000 births every hour (8684 more births than deaths) I don't think procreation is going to go out of fashion any time soon.

How many instances of sexual intercourse I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 10:28 AM

"And I object to having the meaning of a word hijacked."

There's a lot of it about! :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Believer in Evolution
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 10:16 AM

I think that creationism is 'beyond belief'.

And I object to having the meaning of a word hijacked. 'Faith' is the unambiguous word for belief without evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 10:12 AM

Sorry Riah....that was a crossed post to Jim, who actually brought up the subject.

I'll just take your word for the "free love" aspect, I've been married and monogamous for a VERY long time :0)
Without procreation there is only death.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Believer in Evolution
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 10:11 AM

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

BELIEF noun
1        an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. A firmly held opinion or conviction. A religious conviction.
2        (belief in) trust or confidence in.

Phrases
        beyond belief astonishing; incredible.

BELIEVE verb
1        feel sure that (something) is true. Accept the statement of (someone) as true. Have religious faith.
2        (believe in) have faith in the truth or existence of.
3        (believe in) have confidence in.
4        think or suppose: I believe we've already met. (believe in) think that (something) is right or acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Me again
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 10:04 AM

"What has science done for us?"

Clearly fuck all in your hopeless case.

Mind you, the science of the Internet has given your hateful bilge water the oxygen of publicity that you wouldn't get otherwise in the teeming metropolis of your Lochside hovel.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 09:46 AM

PS - What I wrote up there about nature & invention applies to sexuality too; nothing we do is natural, and yet all is nature. How does that work, I wonder? I don't know, but it does. The last thing sex is about is procreation - fucking comes first and foremost; the perfect lust of the joyful occasion - everything else is, essentially, occult. Science and Technology gives us contraception & safe abortions so that heterosexuals might better enjoy what homosexuals have been enjoying for thousands if not millions of years.

And since when was it a game of numbers? As individuals, we exist in uniquely exquisite editions of one.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 09:36 AM

"Science, is actually bringing us home, whilst preparing us for a greater destiny, supposing we don't fuck it up once and for all. "

You have great faith my friend, :0) nice to talk with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 09:30 AM

You may be correct in saying that some homosexuals will not admit to their sexual preference, but there are also many unregistered guns in circulation which do not come into the 3.45 in 100 which I already posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 09:22 AM

You say that as if we have any sort of choice in the matter. There has always been science and technology - they are amongst the signifiers of our very humanity, and necessity is, indeed, the mother of invention. The very EVOLUTION of technology, as beautifully depicted in the classic jump-cut from bone tool to space-craft in the film 2001, is part / parcel of the evolutionary process that governs everything anyway.

Without it we wouldn't be having this discussion. To be sure, given the amount of medicaments my life is currently dependent upon, I wouldn't be here to have it at all, at all.

I might similarly despair at the disrepair we've wrought on poor old mother earth, but we parted company from Nature's Rule many thousands of years ago. Science, is actually bringing us home, whilst preparing us for a greater destiny, supposing we don't fuck it up once and for all. But my folklore is that of the Cold War; the Bomb is part of nature too and it isn't about to go away any time soon.

We are the alchemists of nature, able to transfigure the mineral deposits of a billion years into a mighty ocean going liner, or a spacecraft bound for the outer reaches of interstellar space. As someone might have said: 'They say God created Mankind; but Mankind, sir, Mankind invented the Steam Engine!

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 09:21 AM

Jim, the Office of National Statistics says that the UK has a population of app 64 million and that 1.5 of that population are homosexuals.......what do you not understand?
Where do you get your figures from?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 08:52 AM

Riah, I would estimate that "science and technology" has done little for the common good of humanity, on the contrary, "science and technology" will have, in the long term, contributed greatly to our demise as a species.

Primitive peoples survived for many thousands of years without any help from technology or recognised "science", although they always had some sort of belief system.
Our society has had the benefit of technology and science for only a few hundred years and the environmental damage is already un-repairable, our dependency on drugs, terminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 08:30 AM

"The "believer" is not obliged to provide evidence Riah, whereas you and other evolutionists are."
Who authorized you to set the rules for this discussion?

I understand Riah's reluctance to try to enlighten a close-minded individual like Pete as I have several fundamentalist christians in my immediate and extended families and they are so wrapped up in their dogma that not only will they not even consider the veracity of evidence that contradicts their beliefs they vehemently reject it, oftimes without examination. At any rate here you go, Pete. Pearls before swine, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 08:27 AM

The "believer" is not obliged to provide evidence Riah, whereas you and other evolutionists are.

On the contrary, the onus is entirely on the believer to provide evidence contrary to that provided by observable, empirical common Godless reality. Of course they can't, other than their entrenched delusion that reality, and everything in it, is the work of their God that news no proof and can be accounted for by the events in an allegorical misanthropic & misognistic folk tale.

In this sort of discussion, strength, weakness, evidence, become meaningless as there will never be ultimate proof.

On the contrary, the proof is in the reality our very existence. It is everywhere and in everything. It is the cause of multidiscipline scientific thought the whole word over and is the reality in which we all share whether we choose to believe it or not. It's name is Nature; and Nature, unlike God, is self-evident and needs no creator. Indeed, we do both it and ourselves great disservice by giving it one, however picturesque the creation myths that have come down to us might be.   

It's whatever makes you happy free from fear, and a contributor to the greater good which really matters.

On the contrary, because the fundamentalist believes in a very different reality to the actual one and persists in the absolute conviction that their delusion is correct, however so contrary to, and in denial of, all objective empirical commonality. Fundamentalism engenders fear - it is rooted in a cause that will forever run contrary to the common good by a denial of that which is common to us all. The root of fundamentalist faith is fear of the greater good from which they elect to exempt themselves in the promotion of lies as truth, anti-science as science, and folkloric allegory as absolute literal law.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 07:28 AM

The "believer" is not obliged to provide evidence Riah, whereas you and other evolutionists are.
As you say lack of evidence is to the "believer" a sign of the strength of his stance, to you lack of evidence is weakness and vulnerability.

In this sort of discussion, strength, weakness, evidence, become meaningless as there will never be ultimate proof.

It's whatever makes you happy free from fear, and a contributor to the greater good which really matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 07:10 AM

I think you've opted out Riah, I'm not a creationist, but it would be good for the discussion if you could accede to pete's quite proper request?

There can only be discussion with common ground, and common ground needs common language born from a common understand of a common reality. Thus the request is, I fear, far from a proper one; on the contrary, it is improper in the extreme. Can we ask the creationist, I wonder, to provide evidence of God? I think, perhaps, not. In their blind faith they don't require evidence; indeed, even the very lack of evidence is considered to be evidence in itself, and thus any logic is rejected in favour for the baseless absolutism that is the cornerstone of any fundamentalist delusion.         

We are, each of us, privileged to live in this material cosmos of wonder, elegance, marvel and beauty, and the more we discover, so the more wonderful it gets. The more we acknowledge and consider it, so the more our very lives are enriched by it. Everything from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to Darwin's Theory of Evolution to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity are enrichments to our understanding of the universe and our place therein. All this has taken aeons of great ingenuity, vision, wit, cunning, insight, genius and intuition to bring into being, with minds as sharp as that of Stephen Hawking taking their place in a tradition of inspirational enquiry that in the very best of all that is human. Thus we may imagine the very limits of our Solar System defined by the vast Oort Cloud which no one has ever seen, nor yet will ever see - indeed, the Voyager 1 spacecraft (currently travelling at around 11 miles per second) won't emerge from therefrom for a conservative estimate of another 20,000 years. And what of that missing 85% without which none of it would work anyway? Questions, questions! And questions are the very meat of it.

And yet, to the creationist, it is all accounted for by a myth made up around 1,400BC, which, by my calculation, is round about the time the photons now reaching us from NGC 2353 (AKA Avery's Island) set out from that distant cluster to inspire further the dreaming wonder without which our very humanity would be meaningless. Which, of course, to the creationist mired in the rank superstition of their noxious theology, it is anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 05:40 AM

Personally, I don't think humanity will ever discover the origins of the universe....and I am certain that such comprehension, should it ever come, would be destructive.

In the meantime I am coming to the conclusion that belief in a benevolent provider like the sun is the best and happiest way forward on the road to ultimate and inevitable self destruction.

Belief in a life force is not unlike creationism in many respects?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 05:32 AM

I think you've opted out Riah, I'm not a creationist, but it would be good for the discussion if you could accede to pete's quite proper request?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 04:24 AM

ok, riah, how about demonstrating it. maybe just a couple of things that can only have Darwinian interpretation of the data. not too much to ask to balance all the science that demonstrates it is impossible, or at least highly improbable.

No point, pete. You have elected to believe in a supernatural origin of life and the cosmos. In such a model anything is possible because of your faith in the existence of an omnipotent deity who brought all things into being one weary October back in 4004BC. There is, therefore, nothing I can share with you of the material wonders of cosmic Godless reality as revealed to us by the various disciplines of science that can possibly convince you otherwise.

In short, you've opted out.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:58 AM

There are at least two GUESTs and this one will tag his posts if they need linking to make sense. He thinks this is less confusing than, say, the Muskets yet aids focus on the content rather than the speaker.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,The cookie crumbled
Date: 21 Jun 15 - 03:48 AM

Good point Kevin. You cannot lump real Christians in with real Christians.

The problem is, pete reckons his delusion is because he is a Christian whilst on these pages, pick n mix Christians such as Joe Offer and Keith A of Hertford are quick to say Christian this and Christian that but don't recognise pete's stance.

I've said before that there is a huge difference between traditional and literal belief. One reason why I personally feel systemic superstition to be a hangover from another age and not given the credibility it demands is that many poor buggers can't tell the difference and get their minds fucked up.

I love the idea of old ladies doing the altar flowers each week, (if they did such things at, say, a local nursing home as well it would be a better contribution to society but hey ho) and I have been in the position of defending chaplaincy budgets in The NHS as the comfort they offer those who wish it aids recovery or makes the palliative journey more comfortable.

But the petes and ISIS types spoil it for normal people who don't mind a backdrop of faith to help them face the day.

We all have comfort blankets. Mine are Sheffield Wednesday and spoiling my grand daughter. Some of Mrs Musket's relations find theirs in Jesus. Many of our friends find it in Islam. Others I know find it in a pint glass.

It's a beautiful garden if you tend to it, but trust me, there are no fairies at the bottom of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 15 - 07:17 PM

"Creationists" who believe human beings, or the world itself, is only a few thousand years old are a fringe set among Christians, highly untypical and unrepresentative. That may not be the case among some Americans, but that's an untypical country in a lot of ways, not all good.

Setting them up as if they represented Christians in general, or religious believers in general, is a bit like doing the same with Isis.