Posts by BMCDA

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Darwin’s Divisions: The Pope, the Cardinal, the Jesuit & the Evolving Debate About Origins

    05/31/2006 8:41:54 AM PDT · 55 of 73
    BMCDA to Coyoteman; spatso; VadeRetro
    But, Darwin has become a "lightning-rod" for attack from the creationists. They needed someone to demonize, and he makes a suitable target. (Does this mean they have caught up to 1859?)

    No, not just someone but the one who "started it all".
    VadeRetro nailed it pretty good in this post on why this strategy is so popular among creationists (and some ID'ers as well):

    We can number you among those who think science is argued the way religion is argued. That is, the works of the founder are canonical and trump all subsequent scholarship. Furthermore, if any personal dirt on the founder exists then all the works of the founder are discredited.

    Science is not a matter of revealed word. Darwin was only the first Darwinist. He died in 1881 and is quite out of date. It doesn't matter now if you can find evidence that he barbequeued and ate human babies, or even that he married his first cousin. It's not about that.

    Evolution isn't true because Darwin is a famous scientist. Darwin is a famous scientist because evolution proved true.

    You don't even know how people reason these kind of questions. That's not encouraging.

    Or in other words: “To a child with a hammer...”
  • Quebec community cool to Darwin

    05/22/2006 12:53:40 PM PDT · 126 of 985
    BMCDA to js1138
    As they say at DU, freudenschade.

    Pardon my French but this is a Québec thread ;)

  • Quebec community cool to Darwin

    05/22/2006 12:02:34 PM PDT · 106 of 985
    BMCDA to RadioAstronomer
    You have said that about every link I have ever posted so I am not surprised at your remarks about this one.
    I just went back over every post you have made here.

    Since this is the very first crevo thread you have been on with this name, are you a retread?

    Généralement, je ne me réjouis pas du malheur des autres, mais, en ce cas-là... ;^D

  • ORNL [Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab] engineers take page out of nature's playbook

    05/14/2006 2:51:15 PM PDT · 65 of 122
    BMCDA to kinoxi
    i want to see one resulting useful application come from this.

    Do you own a hard drive?

  • Evolution's bottom line

    05/14/2006 2:19:23 PM PDT · 911 of 1,243
    BMCDA to r9etb
    That's true -- no one claims it isn't possible. Until, that is, it's put forth as a hypothesis.

    No, not even then.

    And then it becomes, somehow, a "non-scientific" position. And therein lies the complaint: that the unarguable validity of the hypothesis is dismissed out of hand.

    Wrong, it already is an unscientific position but for completely different reasons which have been presented to you on numerous occasions.

    Verification of the hypothesis is, of course, another matter. However, the "anti- ID claim" is that, essentially, it would be impossible to detect design. Perhaps -- or perhaps not -- but the claim itself is completely unscientific: is it really impossible to detect it, or merely rhetorically convenient to make the claim?

    You cannot determine if a pattern was designed only from the information that is intrinsic to that pattern itself. What you need is additional information i.e. a model of the designer.
    The ID "model" of the alleged designer is one with infinite degrees of freedom which makes it compatible with just about any observation. In other words, from a scientific point of view it is worthless because it doesn't provide any additional information.

    The fact, however, is that design is a perfectly valid hypothesis, precisely because it has been demonstrated.

    Not if the alleged designer is some unknown entity with unknown abilities and limitations, who uses unknown methods and for inscrutable reasons.

  • Evolution's bottom line

    05/13/2006 3:29:52 PM PDT · 755 of 1,243
    BMCDA to r9etb; CarolinaGuitarman
    Demonstrating that design is possible by humans demonstrates that design is possible.

    Huh?? What the...?
    No one claims that design isn't possible. Where you got that from is simply beyond me.

    That something (well, just about anything) could have been designed by an unknown designer with unknown abilities resp. limitations and the right motivation, is trivially true and no one denies that but it's equally worthless as a scientific explanation.

  • Evolution's bottom line

    05/13/2006 12:40:16 PM PDT · 701 of 1,243
    BMCDA to donh
    If one wanted to pick the hotbed of anti-jewish sentiment in Europe at the start of the 20th century, Germany is a pretty prime candidate.

    After WW1 that's quite true but before the war there were countries where antisemitism was far worse.

  • Evolution's bottom line

    05/13/2006 12:11:28 PM PDT · 688 of 1,243
    BMCDA to mjolnir; Quark2005
    I agree--- such algorithms demonstrate that applying the model of natural selection outside of biology and inside biology has usefulness. But IDers, as opposed to some Creationists, don't dispute that. But as anti-IDers, I think you should admit that design inferences of the sort used in ID have TONS of applications outside of biology, reverse engineering being just one example.

    No, they don't. The design inferences you presented in your post are based on a model of the designer (i.e. in most cases humans or in the case of SETI, aliens who are assumed to be similar to us).

    ID on the other hand explicitly denies the need for a model of the alleged designer. They want to 'detect' design without knowing anything about the designer such as his limitations, his methods or motivations.
    And that's the difference between ordinary design inferences and the "Intelligent Design Inference."

  • Evolution's bottom line

    05/13/2006 7:01:30 AM PDT · 598 of 1,243
    BMCDA to CarolinaGuitarman
    It seems the ID'ers are really fond of the biotech industry. Only the biotech'ers don't do what the ID'ers think they do.
  • Alabama antievolution bills die

    05/11/2006 4:36:02 AM PDT · 147 of 246
    BMCDA to Junior
    Yepp, it seems Salem's hypothesis is being confirmed in the Huntsville area.
  • New Law Allows for Creationism in the Classroom [Mississippi]

    04/30/2006 9:36:53 AM PDT · 212 of 391
    BMCDA to bobbdobbs
    Actually, I don't find much to respect about religions -- they basically consist of people motivated to avoid an eternal spanking.

    And there are some religions - well, actually only one, which is about getting an eternal spanking... uh, of your monkey that is, by uhm... 72 virgins.

  • Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

    04/29/2006 7:23:16 AM PDT · 874 of 962
    BMCDA to backslacker; Ichneumon; Right Wing Professor; Conservative Texan Mom
    Conservative Texan Mom: Likewise, some evos equate the religious to fanatics, and believe that it will lead to ignorance and another dark age.[Post #99]

    RightWingProfessor: Speaking only for myself, my agenda is protecting science, and biological science in particular, a pursuit on which I've spent most of my working life, from political attacks by religious fundamentalists, who seem to think we're still in the Middle Ages and that the Enlightenment never happened. [from post#45].

  • New Law Allows for Creationism in the Classroom [Mississippi]

    04/28/2006 11:14:35 PM PDT · 108 of 391
    BMCDA to JCEccles; PatrickHenry
    In the US you can be sued into bankruptcy by the ACLU for engaging in free and open discussions about darwinism.

    Aw, gimme a break. I mean just what are you doing right now?

  • Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

    04/28/2006 1:52:59 PM PDT · 742 of 962
    BMCDA to pby
    Adam only lived 930 years and Adam and Eve had children when Adam was 130 years old. Adam's creation took long ages of time but Eve's took significantly less than 130 years?

    Hmmm, 930 years? It seems they mixed up 'years' and 'months'.
    Now 77 years makes a lot more sense.

  • Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

    04/28/2006 12:31:08 PM PDT · 702 of 962
    BMCDA to jennyp
    That would not make me a follower of a religion by any reasonable definition.

    Yeah, but by their unreasonable definition you'd be a germ worshipper ;^)

  • Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

    04/28/2006 12:17:53 PM PDT · 695 of 962
    BMCDA to Dimensio
    No wonder, the excerpts on that page were copied from Matt Slick's C.A.R.M. website. His articles on evolution have been debunked time and again on his own message board (this being only the most recent one) as well as elsewhere but as far as I can tell he hasn't seen fit to correct any of them.
    And I should also mention that many evos that post on his message board are no lightweights either (much to his dismay ;^).
  • Scientists Again Debating How Snakes Came to Slither

    04/25/2006 5:46:57 AM PDT · 32 of 94
    BMCDA to 9999lakes
    Where in the world to you guys get photos like that to post so quickly?

    From here or here ;)

    I guess those legless lizards just got in the way when God cursed the snake. First incidence of collateral damage ;^)

  • Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology

    04/25/2006 4:04:49 AM PDT · 1,157 of 1,290
    BMCDA to AndrewC; Right Wing Professor
    Blather noted, but it is my commitment to independent thought and free will that allows me to consider that a person can decide how to treat their own bodies when faced with death. And again, obvious to billions.

    Now that's really nice Mr. C but I read RWP's post again and I can't see where he said that a person can not treat her own body as she pleases.
    Yes, he did say that the choice that lady made was insane from his point of view (as well as mine) but he didn't say that she shouldn't have been allowed (maybe by force?) to make it.
    And as far as I know he's still free to voice his opinion.

    So free choice is insanity to you.

    Huh? How did you get that from his post?
    Some choices can indeed be seen as stupid or insane but that doesn't mean that he thinks free choice in general is stupid or insane.

    Ireland must be a wonderful place in which to grow up.

    Never been there so I can't comment on that.

  • Does this evolutionary claim have any legs? (The fish fossil)

    04/23/2006 11:05:09 AM PDT · 23 of 28
    BMCDA to andysandmikesmom; Right Wing Professor
    When did it come out...the AIG stated that it had not yet come out...or did I read the wrong I wonder?...well, hopefully, soon enough, we will have the article to read for ourselves...

    Here is a link to the abstract. The date on the abstract is "20 April 2006". AiG on the other hand published their article on April 21.

    BTW, here is the link to the full text, for those who can access it:

  • Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

    04/18/2006 9:47:52 AM PDT · 695 of 727
    BMCDA to Lucky Dog
    Summary #3 is pointing out that, in fact, the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life of which it purports to explain the mechanism of change. This lack of comprehensive explanation in the theory of evolution leaves open the possibility that the originating phenomenon of life may be continuing to operate.

    Yes, and why is this a problem?
    New life may indeed originate abiogenetically even today, however the conditions have changed drastically.
    Today, our planet is replete with life and any organic compound is a convenient food source, so the chances that it's swallowed up by already existing life forms before you get some primitive cell are pretty high.

  • Freep a poll! (Get organ transplants from China?)

    04/18/2006 7:45:21 AM PDT · 4 of 6
    BMCDA to dynachrome
    Maybe if the organs came from aborted babies, the libs would be all for it.

    Now if the organs came from executed commies I'd take them.
    On the other hand those old farts are past their seventies, so their organs aren't worth crap. But I can still feed them to my dog ;)

    Mmmmhhh... chopped commie liver </drool>

  • We believe in ET, not ID [Darwin, SETI, & ID in one thread!]

    04/18/2006 7:28:33 AM PDT · 30 of 98
    BMCDA to trebb; RadioAstronomer
    Nope. SETI is actually looking for the simplest of signals; a very narrowband "tone".

    Yeah, you can pick up complex signals by the billions. We also call them white noise.

    And unlike ID, SETI actually proposes a model of the "intelligent designer" i.e. their means of communicating is similar to our own (and not by mind-rays or some such).

  • Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

    04/16/2006 3:03:22 PM PDT · 451 of 727
    BMCDA to tortoise

    Hey! Welcome back ;^)

  • His online slogan: ‘Killem All Let Allah Sort Em Out’

    04/16/2006 2:43:07 AM PDT · 34 of 49
    France's last truly successful general was probably Charles Martel.

    Except of course, France didn't even exist back then.

  • Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

    04/15/2006 2:46:36 PM PDT · 174 of 727
    BMCDA to Coyoteman
    Indeed. It seems creationists are unable to separate the dynamics of a system from its origins.
    Or at least they seem to be "unable" to do so wrt life.
  • Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

    04/14/2006 1:27:43 PM PDT · 176 of 400
    BMCDA to Right Wing Professor
    Darn! Scooped again!

    Don't worry, the same happened to me some time ago.
    On the other hand if this is so obvious, there must be some truth to it.

  • Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

    04/14/2006 1:14:57 PM PDT · 159 of 400
    BMCDA to andysandmikesmom
    Excellent...'the Al Capone school of witnessing'...thats priceless...I have been looking for a phrase that describes exactly, those folks who do enjoy gloating over the eternal damnation of others...

    LOL! I have to keep that one in mind...

    I have run into many of the students of this school on these threads...I think they graduated with honors, as they take such grim delight in what they perceive to be the terrible fate of others...

    ...while humming: "What bliss will fill the ransomed souls, when they in glory dwell, to see the sinner as he rolls, in quenchless flames of hell."


  • Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

    04/14/2006 12:35:57 PM PDT · 126 of 400
    BMCDA to Right Wing Professor; Thatcherite
    I find it significant that so any anti-evos are engineers or programmers, and so few are actual scientists.

    You aren't the first one to notice this correlation ;)
    -> Salem hypothesis

  • ‘Healthy skepticism’ bill appears to be ailing [Intelligent Design in Missouri]

    04/02/2006 12:14:20 PM PDT · 27 of 82
    BMCDA to ml1954
    The part that jumped out at me was the 'that occurred previous to written history' part. Sounds like it covers astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, anthropology, etc. as well as biology.

    Well, that's all evolution. If it contradicts Genesis in any way it simply must be evolution.

  • Central American Songbird Provides Confirmation of Intelligent Design

    04/01/2006 1:01:27 PM PST · 54 of 132
    BMCDA to PatrickHenry
    I wonder what the Designer had in mind when this novel gene was slipped into this bird?

    I don't know but sooner or later he had to make a mistake ;)

  • The Miracle of Evolution

    03/29/2006 4:32:30 AM PST · 217 of 304
    BMCDA to bondserv; Ichneumon
    Believe, then you will see.

    Or in other words: convince yourself that A is true and you will see that A is true.
    Well, thanks, but I guess I will keep seeing first and believing second (if whatever I just saw is compelling).

  • The Miracle of Evolution

    03/29/2006 4:24:49 AM PST · 216 of 304
    BMCDA to dread78645; Conservative Texan Mom
    Indeed, being right by accident is pretty worthless without a possibility to demonstrate the correctness of your conjecture.
    Heck, I can trot out wild-assed hypothesis by the dozen and maybe some of them just happen to be correct but if at the moment there is no way to tell whether they are true or false they aren't of much use.

    Oh, and if those villagers had scurvy then the fruit cocktail would have been the cure but I guess postulating the existence of a benevolent scientist who doesn't want to be detected is still the best answer ;^)

  • Skull discovery could fill origins gap

    03/26/2006 8:50:21 AM PST · 413 of 449
    BMCDA to Condorman

    The loggerhead turtle. Properly classified as a fish.

    Another fish. Also known as manatee ;)

  • Why English is de Rigueur in Many French Boardrooms

    03/26/2006 6:23:42 AM PST · 80 of 93
    BMCDA to ccmay; Atlantic Bridge

    LOL! Never seen that one ;^)
    However, as far as I know such long words aren't something you encounter in everyday German and especially these extra-long words are just made up for fun because you can and not because you have to.

  • Why English is de Rigueur in Many French Boardrooms

    03/26/2006 6:17:15 AM PST · 79 of 93
    BMCDA to TonyRo76
    This sentence really says it all. In the bizarre French lexicon, liberalism means Anglo-American style capitalism (freedom!) while French social model is code for their statist, stagnant socialism.

    Well, in this case, it's rather the American lexicon which is bizarre.

  • Judge in Dover case reports hostile e-mails

    03/24/2006 12:28:39 PM PST · 123 of 210
    BMCDA to RightWingNilla
    Sorry, Schawrtzchild.

    Schwarzschild, actually.

    Ironic, doesnt that mean "Black Shield" in German?

    Coincidentally, yes. But it's really named after Karl Schwarzschild who did some important work on black holes.

  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/23/2006 1:15:50 PM PST · 289 of 358
    BMCDA to MineralMan; RinaseaofDs
    It's a simple thing. You believe, without proof, that some deity exists. I disbelieve, also without proof.

    Well, actually the latter also should be the default position. If disbelief required proof, we'd start believing just about anything.

  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/23/2006 11:51:06 AM PST · 259 of 358
    BMCDA to Thatcherite
    I live in a mostly atheistic community (Britain) and hardly anyone ever talks about religion at all. I have never come across a single instance of anti-Christian bigotry, despite Christianity having become essentially a fringe minority religion in my country. On these threads OTOH I see a great detail of anti-atheist bigotry from self-professed Christians.

    That's also been my observation. See #98 ;)

  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/23/2006 10:00:32 AM PST · 241 of 358
    BMCDA to Stone Mountain
    You really seem to relish the prospect of atheists suffering in the afterlife. Whatever makes you happy, I guess...

    What bliss will fill the ransomed souls,
    When they in glory dwell,
    To see the sinner as he rolls,
    In quenchless flames of hell.


  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/23/2006 9:18:39 AM PST · 213 of 358
    BMCDA to Thatcherite

    Oh, but you must be 100% certain or else the apologists cannot play their gotcha-game and paint you into the "intellectually dishonest" corner.

  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/23/2006 8:45:04 AM PST · 198 of 358
    BMCDA to Brytani
    A typical argument is that Atheists become "militant" to counter fundamental Christian exerting some supposed control over everyones live. I'm giving you an example of how ridiculous that belief really is.

    That wasn't so much an argument as simply an observation I made. I don't know why exactly atheists in many European countries, in Australia, NZ or Japan are less "militant" than those in the US but that's the impression I got. It's also quite obvious that theists in the US are more "militant" than those in those other countries. So maybe that's the reason why American atheists are more in-your-face about their atheism or maybe it's just a coincidence.

    We are not a Muslim Country, in that you are correct. However, look at what some Muslim Countries do to Christians.

    Yes, I am quite aware of what happens to Christians in some Muslim countries and I condemn that just as anyone else here. However, you should also be aware that it's not just Christians who are treated badly but also members of other religions. For instance if that guy converted to Buddhism or Hinduism or even deconverted entirely and became an atheist he'd be screwed just the same.
    Actually it can be much worse to be an atheist in those Muslim countries than to be a Christian.

    Convert to Christianity and you can be put to death. Building a Church is illegal in many Muslim Countries. Speaking against what the Mullah-of-the-Day says and you and your family is in serious danger. Again, extreme behavior but not much different than what goes on in the US from militant atheists.

    OK, now this is just nonsense. I can see from your posts that you love to exaggerate but this should be even beneath you.

    Instead of laws forcing people to pray a certain way under penalty of law, they want to force an entire country to stop expressing their religious beliefs. The only difference is the severity of punishment they want for openly expressing a belief in God.

    Well, this is just as false. People can express their faith as much as they want. They are still free to do so, there are only certain restriction when it comes to officers of the state or state sponsored events.

    If you remember from the beginning of this thread most people said they had no problem with Atheists unless they were militant about their belief. Think Madalyn Murray O'Hare when she was alive, Michael Newdow etc. They have gone much further than wearing their atheism on their sleeve. They, and others all around the US, have done everything they can to legally prevent people from expressing their freedom of religion.

    Oh please! Exaggerating again?
    I agree that those two were assholes on a personal level but they didn't prevent you from expressing your faith. Unless of course you need the state to do it for you.
    If you remember, it was Engel(not an atheist) v. Vitale that got government-sponsored prayer out of schools and not all prayer. You can still pray in school, take your bible with you or wear clothes with religious motifs. That's all legal and no one's trying to change that.
    Further, Murray O'Hair was only the second litigant in a case involving school sponsored Bible reading in public schools. The primary plaintiff was Ed Schempp who wasn't an atheist either.
    And there are many other cases where no atheists were involved (only Catholics, Jews, Mormons) but for some reason people tend to forget that.

    You said this was found to be unconstitutional. You may want to check again. Go on any government site with a job listing for a Police Officer and see the requirements to get the position. "Good Moral Character", extensive background checks, no convictions for Moral Turpitude, etc etc will be on it. Morality requirements are in place to join certain Gov Depts. The FBI is the first that comes to mind. Sorry but it has not been found to be unconstitutional as you claim. At least not yet.

    Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I thought that what I meant was obvious from the context.
    Doing background checks on a person who wants to join certain Gov. Depts. is not unconstitutional but to include his religious beliefs most certainly is. And it's the same with a law that prevents atheists from holding a public office.
    And to be honest, I've never heard that the FBI rejects atheists.

  • "Intelligent design" legislation in New York reborn

    03/22/2006 9:23:48 PM PST · 495 of 859
    BMCDA to b_sharp
    I believe that was my point.

    Uhm, I think you're right ;-)

    Just which washroom at DC do you frequent? I still have a few exploding urinal cakes...

    Exploding urinal cakes... Uh, sounds dangerous.
    Oh, and I'm not that often at DC since I've been transfered to the DOD (Disciples of Darwin).

  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/22/2006 9:15:15 PM PST · 148 of 358
    BMCDA to Brytani
    So proselytizing Christians break into peoples homes, hold them at gun point and force them to listen?

    Where, oh where did I claim that Christians break into peoples homes and force them at gun point to listen to their preaching? Being in-your-face with your faith is one thing but being at-your-throat as is the case in many Muslim countries is a whole different issue.
    And remember, theist does not automatically mean Christian.

    Please, if a Christian starts to preach to someone, walk away. There is plenty of language I don't like to hear on the streets/television/radio so I walk away. If a Christian says they will pray for you, either say Thank You and leave it at that or tell them not to do it. No different from any other speech we hear.

    Now that's all true but that wasn't my point. All I said was that where there are more proselytizing Christians (or theists in general) you will also find more outspoken atheists whereas in countries where religion is not that much of an issue, atheism isn't that important either and you won't notice many atheists who wear their atheism on their sleeves.

    We also have rules/laws that don't allow people who have bad credit to hold certain positions within government (Police for one). Or people who have not lived "moral" lives can be kept from obtaining certain positions in government. No difference at all between the two.

    Uh huh? So that's where you're coming from?
    Too bad that they've been found to be unconstitutional, eh?

    The rest of your post I'll address tomorrow. It's late and there are too many points that are either miscaracterizations or simply not under dispute, so I don't know why you brought them up in the first place (I mean even the ACLU agrees with those points).

  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/22/2006 7:35:41 PM PST · 121 of 358
    BMCDA to Brytani
    I can not think of a single time I've read a news story where a group of armed Christians has gone door to door forcing non-belivers to attend church.

    That would rather be the at-your-throat scenario I mentioned in my previous post.
    With "in-your-face" I meant the proselytizing by certain Christians.

    I can't think of a single state of federal law that makes not being a Christian a crime.

    Well, they don't make it a crime but someone mentioned that in some states they exclude atheists (who don't believe in the existence of a supreme being) from holding office.

    I can think of many court cases where Atheists think their ears will bleed if they happen to hear the word God mentioned in public. After all, free speech for me, none for thee.

    Really? I think the issue is a bit more complex than simply free speech. As far as free speech is concerned I don't think that any of those atheists might object if you mention God or Vishnu or Allah in public.
    As far as I know it had more to do what with pronouncements made by persons while acting as officers of the state and not as private citizens. Other cases had to do with religious monuments on public property and not religious monuments in public but on private property.

    Not all Atheists anymore than all Christians are like Fred Phelps.

    Agreed. However, I never said that that's the case.

  • "Intelligent design" legislation in New York reborn

    03/22/2006 7:34:10 PM PST · 484 of 859
    BMCDA to b_sharp
    I say they can only when the designer is human and that their current methods of determining a non-human designer fail miserably.

    The problem of the ID'ers is not that they want to determine design by a non-human designer (which could be done if you had a fairly good model of said designer) but that they want to determine design without a model of the alleged designer.

    In other words it's just: an unspecified designer with unknown abilities and limitations did X for inscrutable purposes using mysterious methods, which, of course, is absolutely useless because it doesn't tell us what we should or (even more important) shouldn't expect.

  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/22/2006 6:49:24 PM PST · 98 of 358
    BMCDA to Right Wing Professor; Brytani
    I don't think people would have as much of a problem with atheists if we didn't have off-the-wall atheists trying to change the basic foundations of our country.

    It's also been my observation that the number of off-the-wall atheists is somehow correlated with the number of off-the-wall theists (usually Christians). In countries with fewer in-your-face theists there are usually also fewer in-your-face atheists.
    Of course, the situation is a bit different in places where the theists are more at-your-throat ;-)

  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/22/2006 6:42:19 PM PST · 97 of 358
    BMCDA to Right Wing Professor
    Yes, it's indeed silly but it's a common tactic used by apologists. They simply try to define "atheism" out of existence.
    So, either there are no "true atheists" or if you still claim to be one you must be intellectually bankrupt.
  • Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

    03/22/2006 6:19:26 PM PST · 90 of 358
    BMCDA to Mushinronshasan; Right Wing Professor
    Certainty may be weighted heavily in favor of the lack of evidence, but I have never encountered any atheist, myself included, who would not be convinced if credible evidence existed. An atheist would tell you he/she does not think a god exists.

    Well, it seems that according to certain theists you can only be an atheist if you're as convinced that gods (actually their god, to be precise) do not exist as a mathematician is convinced that there are no even prime numbers greater than 2.

    However, when we say that something does not exist we usually mean that it does not exist for any practical purpose. People use this expression quite often in their everyday language if the evidence isn't compelling and the probability that the object in question exists is very low.
    Usually no one is accusing them of being intellectually bankrupt because they are not omniscient, etc.
    This is only trotted when the existence of the god of certain theists is denied.

  • Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

    03/16/2006 3:45:54 AM PST · 541 of 769
    BMCDA to joyspring777; From many - one.
    I don't see them saying "we think", "we believe".

    Oh wait, you mean something like this, eh?

    I guess it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

  • (School) Board votes down evolution analysis

    03/10/2006 11:05:06 AM PST · 81 of 226
    BMCDA to curiosity; Dimensio
    His logic is faulty because it implies there is an intrinsic conflict between being an animal in the biological sense and not being one in the religious sense. But this is obviously false; both can, and are true.

    And he's also mistaken to imply that there is something like a uniform animal behavior.