Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Kids

[sinnerx96]

Except that his wit was a thin veil for his attack on religious people.

 

Possibly. Yet it still makes sense, and he didn't say anything that wasn't true. Just writing it off with a sigh and talking about it as if it holds no water, isn't really fair here. Just because he's not talking about people like you, or religious people who don't use their religion for bad things, does not mean that it hasn't happened and it doesn't still happen. Let's just be honest here.

[DVaz]

 

Saw that on Facebook yesterdiddy, and it made me le sigh. All wars ~ and I mean **ALL** wars ~ can be traced to causes that are ultimately economic in nature. Now, that doesn't mean that everybody who fights in (or orders/declares) war consciously realizes that there are economic forces driving the folks involved to war, but ignorance of the true cause doesn't change the true cause.

 

 

This dissonance between the 'true' motivation for war (which highly is disputable, I'm not just taking *CAPS* as evidence or refutation) and the motivators of the population that actually fight and/or back it is immaterial.

 

The fact that epistemologies based on intuition and faith, motivated by demagogy, can mobilise the requisite population to conflict the is key matter. The invalidity of religious and theological motivators to violence because the 'true' cause is economic is no less damning to theological motivation to mass violence than invalidity due to unreality of the theology. Nor is it in the least more absolving of the role of theology in making people do evil things they otherwise wouldnt.

 

That people can be made more aggressive and more violent if they think they have whatever god they believe ins approval to do so, or if they think their god has been affronted or defied, is well documented historically and proved scientifically (my use of google to retrieve the papers, articles and commentary would be just as good as yours: go nuts, its out there and its very clear). Take that away and you take away historically a massively powerful means of getting soldiers to enlist and kids to strap bombs to their chests.

 

Disconnecting the 'true' cause by saying its not doctrinal doesnt help the case of separating theology from the motivation, since the motivation is is achieved through the theology, and through quite correctly interpreted passages of genocidal garbage in its texts. That it *MAY* be that an 'elite' manipulative few merely use this to more materialistic ends is irrelevant.

 

I find it a little surprising given your intelligence that you dont realise that you are making the case Gervais is (somewhat) comedically regurgitating for him.

[JamesPeters]

 

And the point he was trying to make was, nobody misuses "atheism" to incite violence.

 

 

Whether "used" or "misused", atheism probably won't incite violence. There's no irrational belief to attack in atheism, nothing to get personally upset about that requires defense in the realm of violence. The worst insult that someone could say to an atheist about his or her "beliefs" (or lack thereof), would be a statement that is evident on the whole to be false. It's hard to get upset when someone angrily yells at you that water isn't wet, or gravity is a lie. Back to the original subject of this thread, the push to have Creationism taught as an "equal alternative" to evolution in American schools is probably the most insulting anyone has ever been to atheists (or anyone--religious or not--who won't ignore a body of evidence spanning a few billion years). I don't see anyone being killed as a result, any violence at all, or even a single active protest for that matter. I see discussions, and debates.

 

I agree with Chris that religion itself isn't really the root cause of the kind of violence Scott aka Duncan is referring to with that picture. I see the root cause, stated simply, as:

 

1) People being ignorant to evidence and reason,

2) Those same people irrationally deciding to believe in something which is probably not true,

3) Those same people acting out strongly in defense of such beliefs.

 

I'm being literal in everything I said above. My choice of words was deliberate, including the choice of the word "probably".

 

Strong belief without evidence or reason is inherently problematic, and this is a perfect example.

 

Unfortunately we can all see where most religion, especially most organized religion, fits into this.

[JamesPeters]

This dissonance between the 'true' motivation for war (which highly is disputable, I'm not just taking *CAPS* as evidence or refutation) and the motivators of the population that actually fight and/or back it is immaterial. The fact that epistemologies based on intuition and faith, motivated by demagogy, can mobilise the requisite population to conflict the is key matter. The invalidity of religious and theological motivators to violence because the 'true' cause is economic is no less damning to theological motivation to mass violence than invalidity due to unreality of the theology. Nor is it in the least more absolving of the role of theology in making people do evil things they otherwise wouldnt. That people can be made more aggressive and more violent if they think they have whatever god they believe ins approval to do so, or if they think their god has been affronted or defied, is well documented historically and proved scientifically

 

Seems you beat me to the punch.

[draelyc]

Chris, this one isn't complicated. They don't attack US Embassies in this manner all the time, while bitching about their prophet being ridiculed. This happens whenever they feel that Muhammad is not portrayed in a good light. Whether it be Danish cartoons, or an amateur American movie. They do this for purely religious purposes, and make no bones about it.

 

Again, if it weren't for the pre-existing socio-politico-economic matrix in which those overtly religious "triggers" occur, then the resulting backlash would not be what we witness in the news. That point is pretty simple, too.

 

I would certainly like to hear any argument that lays blame of the crusades and witch burning to economics. I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm going to do some research here, because I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this one.

 

With the Crusades, it was about trade routes to the near & far east, just to oversimplify to a gross degree. That, and the economic boom generated by mounting a war effort.

 

As for the witch burnings, see my edit to the previous post.

 

I aim to please.

 

 

 

And the point he was trying to make was, nobody misuses "atheism" to incite violence. He didn't use it as an argument for the validity of any worldview or anything. I wouldn't agree with him if he were using that as an argument against God existing, or any particular religion being "right", or that all religious people do this.

 

Dig. Understood. And again, I did say he had a sort of a point.

 

I *do* see people misusing atheism all the time to do conceptual violence to ideas and ways of seeing the world that they don't like. I never said that was the same as physical violence. But there is a similarity of spirit there, or at least of intention. Not every atheist is all "live & let live," just like not every theist is a ravening proselyte.

 

Chris, have you ever read the Quran? I find it hard to believe most people can do so and take away from it that it preaches against violence and war as a whole. It can make the old testament sound like My Little Pony. And we can yet again get back to the interpretation issue. Many people don't interpret holy scripture the way you or others may. And I've yet to be convinced of, and there certainly isn't one worldly agreed upon version, any particular interpretation being true to God's word.

 

The Qu'ran is no more violent than the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. And given the number of people who can look at the Christian Bible and see ready "justification" for warmongering & violent atrocity, I find it easy to believe, frankly, that other folks can be just as bad in terms of misreading and misunderstanding and misinterpreting *their* book.

 

See, the problem, IMO, isn't religion, or even interpretation per se; it is fundamentalism, of any stripe, in any field or area. Christian fundamentalism is bad, it's damaging, as is Islamic fundamentalism, as is capitalist fundamentalism, or Marxist fundamentalism, etc., etc.

 

Violence in what way? I don't consider debates, arguments, discussions, etc, to be violent. Truth, and what is more likely to be true, should have no fear of the exchanging of ideas. However offensive it may seem. I don't consider it violence, and it can't be compared to the violence that religion has caused, and is capable of causing.

 

Debates and arguments are not violent in any way, but how many people ~ on whatever "side" ~ actually A) understand what argumentation *is*, and B) actually make the time and effort to engage in real argumentative discourse with the goal of increasing and enhancing UNDERSTANDING?

 

Just look at the egregiously erroneous things that have been proclaimed about religion in this very thread! That is intellectual violence done to an idea. On the flip side, any attempt to call creationism "science" is an atrocious example of intellectual violence. That's what I mean, dig?

 

Possibly. Yet it still makes sense, and he didn't say anything that wasn't true. Just writing it off with a sigh and talking about it as if it holds no water, isn't really fair here. Just because he's not talking about people like you, or religious people who don't use their religion for bad things, does not mean that it hasn't happened and it doesn't still happen. Let's just be honest here.

 

Sigh.

 

Again, I *DID* say he had a point, after a fashion. I didn't say his comment held *no* water. I merely pointed out that it doesn't hold nearly as much water as it purports to. That's all.

 

[draelyc]

This dissonance between the 'true' motivation for war (which highly is disputable, I'm not just taking *CAPS* as evidence or refutation) and the motivators of the population that actually fight and/or back it is immaterial. The fact that epistemologies based on intuition and faith, motivated by demagogy, can mobilise the requisite population to conflict the is key matter. The invalidity of religious and theological motivators to violence because the 'true' cause is economic is no less damning to theological motivation to mass violence than invalidity due to unreality of the theology. Nor is it in the least more absolving of the role of theology in making people do evil things they otherwise wouldnt. That people can be made more aggressive and more violent if they think they have whatever god they believe ins approval to do so, or if they think their god has been affronted or defied, is well documented historically and proved scientifically (my use of google to retrieve the papers, articles and commentary would be just as good as yours: go nuts, its out there and its very clear). Take that away and you take away historically a massively powerful means of getting soldiers to enlist and kids to strap bombs to their chests. Disconnecting the 'true' cause by saying its not doctrinal doesnt help the case of separating theology from the motivation, since the motivation is is achieved through the theology, and through quite correctly interpreted passages of genocidal garbage in its texts. That it *MAY* be that an 'elite' manipulative few merely use this to more materialistic ends is irrelevant. I find it a little surprising given your intelligence that you dont realise that you are making the case Gervais is (somewhat) comedically regurgitating for him.

 

I disagree with your thesis here. There is a galaxy of difference between religion's being the *cause* of said violence, and its merely being a tool of mobilization, as you put it, whereby such violence becomes manifest.

 

I'm not saying EITHER is a "good thing"! Let me be clear about that.

 

But the erroneous conclusion implied in the quote to which I responded is that religion is the root cause, and that just doesn't hold up under historical and/or anthropological scrutiny.

 

That's all, dig?

[draelyc]

Whether "used" or "misused", atheism probably won't incite violence. There's no irrational belief to attack in atheism, nothing to get personally upset about that requires defense in the realm of violence. The worst insult that someone could say to an atheist about his or her "beliefs" (or lack thereof), would be a statement that is evident on the whole to be false. It's hard to get upset when someone angrily yells at you that water isn't wet, or gravity is a lie. Back to the original subject of this thread, the push to have Creationism taught as an "equal alternative" to evolution in American schools is probably the most insulting anyone has ever been to atheists (or anyone--religious or not--who won't ignore a body of evidence spanning a few billion years). I don't see anyone being killed as a result, any violence at all, or even a single active protest for that matter. I see discussions, and debates. I agree with Chris that religion itself isn't really the root cause of the kind of violence Scott aka Duncan is referring to with that picture. I see the root cause, stated simply, as: 1) People being ignorant to evidence and reason, 2) Those same people irrationally deciding to believe in something which is probably not true, 3) Those same people acting out strongly in defense of such beliefs. I'm being literal in everything I said above. My choice of words was deliberate, including the choice of the word "probably". Strong belief without evidence or reason is inherently problematic, and this is a perfect example. Unfortunately we can all see where most religion, especially most organized religion, fits into this.

 

While I would (as you probably guessed) dispute your particular conclusions, I think we might find common ground in the general assertion that the problem, at its most basic level, is a lack of awareness (self-awareness, empirical awareness, cultural awareness, et al.). A lack of awareness is inherently problematic. That statement, I would endorse wholeheartedly and without reservation.

[JamesPeters]

I *do* see people misusing atheism all the time to do conceptual violence to ideas and ways of seeing the world that they don't like. I never said that was the same as physical violence. But there is a similarity of spirit there, or at least of intention. Not every atheist is all "live & let live," just like not every theist is a ravening proselyte. )

 

You're correct that it isn't the same thing. What you call "conceptual violence" is debate, free speech, and the evolution of laws in our society. If that offends you, I don't know if we'll ever agree about anything ever again. You expect atheists should just "sit back and take it", let people with irrational views just run everything their own way? I can't let that stand. If you call that a "misuse of atheism", I think we're done here.

[draelyc]

 

You're correct that it isn't the same thing. What you call "conceptual violence" is debate, free speech, and the evolution of laws in our society. If that offends you, I don't know if we'll ever agree about anything ever again. You expect atheists should just "sit back and take it", let people with irrational views just run everything their own way? I can't let that stand. If you call that a "misuse of atheism", I think we're done here.

 

 

No, James, there is a qualitative difference between debate, free speech, argument, discourse, etc., on one hand, and what I'm terming "intellectual violence" on the other.

 

To call my worldview "inherently irrational" because I realize there is more to "reality" that that which is merely tangible is to do violence, intellectually, to my views. It is not the same as debating my views, or arguing about my views. It is a violent attack, with intent to damage ~ whether that intent is conscious or not.

 

Personally, I happen to find it foolish to pretend that intangible things don't "really" exist, but you may have noticed in all our conversations that I have always stopped short of telling you that your worldview is inherently foolish. I may honestly feel that to be the case, but for me to throw that at you would be an act of intellectual violence, because I would be refusing to take your views and examine them on their own terms.

 

Think of it in terms of cultures and my point becomes clearer. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "ethnocentrism," yes? It was ethnocentric of the white European explorers to label the indigenous peoples of Africa and the Americas as "savages" merely because they didn't dress, act, and believe the same way the Europeans did. Applying the pejorative label "savage" was an act of cultural violence (which was generally accompanied by horrific physical violence, btw).

 

For you to label my worldview as inherently irrational, for example, simple because it doesn't conform to your *choice* (and I use that word VERY deliberately) to limit yourself to certain modes of knowing/experiencing/verifying is to judge my worldview through the warped, distorted lens of intellectual ethnocentrism.

 

That is a wholly different matter than an open, honest (if aggressive) debate or discourse on a subject. It is a matter of an entirely different essence and nature.

[DVaz]

I disagree with your thesis here. There is a galaxy of difference between religion's being the *cause* of said violence, and its merely being a tool of mobilization, as you put it, whereby such violence becomes manifest. I'm not saying EITHER is a "good thing"! Let me be clear about that. But the erroneous conclusion implied in the quote to which I responded is that religion is the root cause, and that just doesn't hold up under historical and/or anthropological scrutiny. That's all, dig?

 

Nope. Is the 'root cause' some semi-visible, inferred political or material motivation for each given act of violence?

 

You already accept that these factors are not the thing in ostensibly religious conflicts that make each man on the ground kill.

 

Which is the more important motivation? Lets say there are 10,000 troops per politician that acts due to the 'true' motivation. For argument sake. One might equally say 0.1 cell leaders per terrorist bomber, depending how competent you think al qaeda are, or the IRA were, or whatever, doesnt matter.

 

How much killing do you think the politician (in particular) or the cell leader (who may be more willing to get their hands dirty) are gonna get done without the ideologically malleable footsoldier?

 

And dont even try to tell me that their motivations are somehow the superior one, that outrank those that motivate the actions of the people that do the actual violence leg work, not with your subjective reality solipsistic background

 

The faith in imaginary friend based, doubt, evidence and reason eschewing epistemology is the problem here. Those that want their wars for economic reasons under religious guises would be {censored}ed without it, and to those that actually fight the wars, yes, religion and theology are absolutely the true motivators and your own viewpoint of introspectively derived truth backs up the reality of that.

[draelyc]

Nope. Is the 'root cause' some semi-visible, inferred political or material motivation for each given act of violence? You already accept that these factors are not the thing in ostensibly religious conflicts that make each man on the ground kill. Which is the more important motivation? Lets say there are 10,000 troops per politician that acts due to the 'true' motivation. For argument sake. One might equally say 0.1 cell leaders per terrorist bomber, depending how competent you think al qaeda are, or the IRA were, or whatever, doesnt matter. How much killing do you think the politician (in particular) or the cell leader (who may be more willing to get their hands dirty) are gonna get done without the ideologically malleable footsoldier? And dont even try to tell me that their motivations are somehow the superior one, that outrank those that motivate the actions of the people that do the actual violence leg work, not with your subjective reality solipsistic background The faith in imaginary friend based, doubt, evidence and reason eschewing epistemology is the problem here. Those that want their wars for economic reasons under religious guises would be {censored}ed without it, and to those that actually fight the wars, yes, religion and theology are absolutely the true motivators and your own viewpoint of introspectively derived truth backs up the reality of that.

 

Dude, come back to Earth if you want to discuss this... You're already indulging in your tendency to argue against things (and people) that aren't actually present in *this* conversation...

[DVaz]

Oh, while were here: Dr Dre, you know I respect your views and appreciate the manner in which you participate in threads such as these. As much as I could go on for some considerable time about apologism and the moderate shielding the extreme, my comments are on....how shall we say, more sinister characters, and I dont wish to tarnish you with that brush. But if you position yourself to defend, frankly, evil, you cant expect to come out without critique.

 

James, your posting in this thread has been excellent. I knew you made good amps and are a generally clever chap, but way to broadside with the erudite and eloquent socio-religious commentary. Much props.

[DVaz]

Dude, come back to Earth if you want to discuss this... You're already indulging in your tendency to argue against things (and people) that aren't actually present in *this* conversation...

 

Elaborate on this or make a decent refutation. Thanks in advance.

[draelyc]

Elaborate on this or make a decent refutation. Thanks in advance.

 

Before I risk further wrist injury (lol, ), let me ask you this: are you familiar with the differences between the materialist school of anthropology and the idealist school?

[DVaz]

In passing. Be brief, but not too esoteric.

 

Oh, and on the evil part: I'd have thought I'd made myself pretty clear about that now. Killing people over territory/oil/whatever = evil. Facilitating that through manipulation of people to violence that they would otherwise not countenance = bond villian x galactus hyper evil. Defending or defusing those manipulative means = aiding and abetting.

[draelyc]

 

In passing. Be brief, but not too esoteric. Oh, and on the evil part: I'd have thought I'd made myself pretty clear about that now. Killing people over territory/oil/whatever = evil. Facilitating that through manipulation of people to violence that they would otherwise not countenance = bond villian x galactus hyper evil. Defending or defusing those manipulative means = aiding and abetting.

 

 

Yeah, I gotcha on that second part ~ just highlight for me any quote of mine that you think falls into that category, because I'm not aware of having apologized for or defended any of that.

 

Okay, crash course in the two main approaches to anthropology. Take a phenomenon like the Hindu taboo on eating beef. An anthropologist wants to understand that taboo. There are two ways to go about understanding it: one, from the inside, and the other, from the outside.

 

From the inside, in grossly oversimplified terms, the Idealist would say that Hindus refrain from eating beef (even when there is starvation in their land) because the cow is a highly sacred animal and it would be profane and blasphemous to break the taboo.

 

From the outside, the Materialist would say that the cow is (traditionally) the source of livelihood in the culture, providing milk, fertilizer, clothing, etc. and serving as a measure of wealth and currency, etc., etc., and that there must be a strong (i.e., divinely strong) taboo against consuming one's cows, because if there weren't, the first time "times got rough," everybody would eat their cows and the entire society would come crashing down, since cattle are the lynchpin of the society.

 

Now, which explanation is "right"?

 

The answer is both and neither. If you *really* want to understand a cultural phenomenon, you *must* understand it both as the members of the culture themselves understand it, on their own terms and according to the "realities" of their culture as expressed in their beliefs, definitions, worldviews, etc. ... AND you must understand it from the external perspective, which allows you to see how that phenomenon fits into the functioning of the culture, what practical purpose it serves, etc., even though the members of the culture would NEVER see it that way.

 

You see how that applies to our discussion of the cause(s) of war?

[ComOp]

If he was real...

 

Jesus farted.

[sinnerx96]

 

No, James, there is a qualitative difference between debate, free speech, argument, discourse, etc., on one hand, and what I'm terming "intellectual violence" on the other. To call my worldview "inherently irrational" because I realize there is more to "reality" that that which is merely tangible is to do violence, intellectually, to my views. It is not the same as debating my views, or arguing about my views. It is a violent attack, with intent to damage ~ whether that intent is conscious or not. Personally, I happen to find it foolish to pretend that intangible things don't "really" exist, but you may have noticed in all our conversations that I have always stopped short of telling you that your worldview is inherently foolish. I may honestly feel that to be the case, but for me to throw that at you would be an act of intellectual violence, because I would be refusing to take your views and examine them on their own terms. Think of it in terms of cultures and my point becomes clearer. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "ethnocentrism," yes? It was ethnocentric of the white European explorers to label the indigenous peoples of Africa and the Americas as "savages" merely because they didn't dress, act, and believe the same way the Europeans did. Applying the pejorative label "savage" was an act of cultural violence (which was generally accompanied by horrific physical violence, btw). For you to label my worldview as inherently irrational, for example, simple because it doesn't conform to your *choice* (and I use that word VERY deliberately) to limit yourself to certain modes of knowing/experiencing/verifying is to judge my worldview through the warped, distorted lens of intellectual ethnocentrism. That is a wholly different matter than an open, honest (if aggressive) debate or discourse on a subject. It is a matter of an entirely different essence and nature.

 

 

Chris, it is not intellectually violent (whatever this means) to not accept claims or assertions that don't stand up to scrutiny or that don't have sufficient evidence. Intellectual violence sounds like a red herring to me. It seems like you can throw that new term out at anyone who won't accept (what they consider) your insufficient evidence. If you claim to have evidence of this intangible, non-material realm, please provide it or explain it so we know what you're talking about. If you can't demonstrate it, there's no point in even discussing it or going further. Not to say it doesn't actually exist, but that we see no evidence of nor reason to believe it. That is not unreasonable. Please explain to me how it is. If you can't provide physical evidence, and I'm assuming you can't, then provide some reasoning or even a philosophical argument for it.

 

And your analogy of ethnocentrism is off the wall. It's not part of any ethnicity or culture to only believe things with evidence or reason to believe. That's called reason. It's called taking the default stance. It's not choosing your beliefs. It has nothing to do with what we WANT to believe, and it certainly has nothing to do with ethnocentrism. Are you really trying to portray yourself as the "savage" in this case?

 

Please demonstrate what you are talking about when you speak of these intangible and non-material things. It's not enough to claim that it is so, and just use the excuse that we don't want to understand it. It's a cop out. If I were to tell you that I have a pet invisible pink unicorn, I would have to demonstrate that to you before I get to call you foolish for not believing it. I only use that analogy to show how that line of reasoning is faulty. At least when it pertains to an argument.

 

It has nothing to do with CHOICE as you keep saying. I have to admit that it's getting to be a bit insulting. I'm not choosing my beliefs. I either believe something, or I don't. I have no investment in what I want to believe. Other than what is more likely to be true. That's the only lens I'm looking through. So please, demonstrate it to me.

[Stevetemp]

Dude, come back to Earth if you want to discuss this... You're already indulging in your tendency to argue against things (and people) that aren't actually present in *this* conversation...

 

Certainly..because we need to only stay on the narrow focus of previous comments....never to stray to uncharted an unthought territory....that way lays madness.

Maybe we should ask Miles Davis how he would approach this.

 

I realize that things could accelerate and escalate beyond control...but I think a few of you guys are capable...just not willing....to "go there". Dvaz seems capable and mostly willing. Why not live life on the edge? Why not push it to the edge? How else do we explore the uncharted territory, and solve unsolvable problems?

 

Just put your wrist brace on.

[Stevetemp]

 

Chris, it is not intellectually violent (whatever this means) to not accept claims or assertions that don't stand up to scrutiny or that don't have sufficient evidence. Intellectual violence sounds like a red herring to me. It seems like you can throw that new term out at anyone who won't accept (what they consider) your insufficient evidence. If you claim to have evidence of this intangible, non-material realm, please provide it or explain it so we know what you're talking about. If you can't demonstrate it, there's no point in even discussing it or going further. Not to say it doesn't actually exist, but that we see no evidence of nor reason to believe it. That is not unreasonable. Please explain to me how it is. If you can't provide physical evidence, and I'm assuming you can't, then provide some reasoning or even a philosophical argument for it. And your analogy of ethnocentrism is off the wall. It's not part of any ethnicity or culture to only believe things with evidence or reason to believe. That's called reason. It's called taking the default stance. It's not choosing your beliefs. It has nothing to do with what we WANT to believe, and it certainly has nothing to do with ethnocentrism. Are you really trying to portray yourself as the "savage" in this case? Please demonstrate what you are talking about when you speak of these intangible and non-material things. It's not enough to claim that it is so, and just use the excuse that we don't want to understand it. It's a cop out. If I were to tell you that I have a pet invisible pink unicorn, I would have to demonstrate that to you before I get to call you foolish for not believing it. I only use that analogy to show how that line of reasoning is faulty. At least when it pertains to an argument. It has nothing to do with CHOICE as you keep saying. I have to admit that it's getting to be a bit insulting. I'm not choosing my beliefs. I either believe something, or I don't. I have no investment in what I want to believe. Other than what is more likely to be true. That's the only lens I'm looking through. So please, demonstrate it to me.

 

 

You are doing pretty good...but resorting to being"insulted" Sheesh...how the {censored} can you be "insulted" in a conversation? Maybe if I ran up to you and kicked you in the ballsack...that would be insulting. But people who care enough to participate THIS far into this...you're insulted by? Come on.

Again....I am going to insult you for your use of demanding "evidence" when discussing "religion" and "god". God does not provide "evidence" that suits only you. It does not provide a back rub and hand job at your convenience. You have to WORK for it. Come one...I know you can do it. You are almost there. It may be you need to redefine your definition of "evidence". It could be WAY WAY different than what your little tiny brain assumes.

[Stevetemp]

 

If he was real... Jesus farted.

 

 

 

When Jesus farts...Chuck Norris is insulted.

[sinnerx96]

 

You are doing pretty good...but resorting to being"insulted" Sheesh...how the {censored} can you be "insulted" in a conversation? Maybe if I ran up to you and kicked you in the ballsack...that would be insulting. But people who care enough to participate THIS far into this...you're insulted by? Come on. Again....I am going to insult you for your use of demanding "evidence" when discussing "religion" and "god". God does not provide "evidence" that suits only you. It does not provide a back rub and hand job at your convenience. You have to WORK for it. Come one...I know you can do it. You are almost there. It may be you need to redefine your definition of "evidence". It could be WAY WAY different than what your little tiny brain assumes.

 

 

{censored} off already, 17 Tubes. Seriously. Your posts are like nails on a chalkboard. But stupider. Put the helmet back on and lay back down underneath the musical baby mobile.

[Stevetemp]

 

{censored} off already, 17 Tubes. Seriously. Your posts are like nails on a chalkboard. But stupider. Put the helmet back on and lay back down underneath the musical baby mobile.

 

 

Okay... I was kidding you a little bit. Chill dude....calm down. Relax. You aren't going to find God wound up like a bitch. Have a sense of humor for God's sake.

 

I was, however....insulted that you were insulted by Chris....he's a good dude.....and very genuine.

 

You joined in Feb of 2001 huh? Weird....that like less than 150 posts a year. You'd think you would hav emor eposts than that. Unless you only log in to fight and argue.

 

 

What amps and guitars do you play? Maybe we can find common ground there...rather than arguing about God.

[sinnerx96]

Okay... I was kidding you a little bit. Chill dude....calm down. Relax. You aren't going to find God wound up like a bitch. Have a sense of humor for God's sake. I was, however....insulted that you were insulted by Chris....he's a good dude.....and very genuine. You joined in Feb or 2001 huh? Weird....that like less than 150 posts a year. What amps and guitars do you play? Maybe we can find common ground there...rather than arguing about God.

 

I know Chris is a good dude. I don't have any problem with him. Yes, it can get a little insulting when people keep telling you that you just don't want to accept something because you "choose" not to believe the truth. Insulting and offensive are very different things. I'll give you an example. I don't know which one this is. I just think it's funny.

 

[Stevetemp]

You didn't hurt yourself with that did ya? Looks like a lot of work. See my edited post.