Federal Judge Rules Against IDFollow

Whoops, my bad. For a minute there I forgot who was and wasn't a complete waste of my time.

/ignore Smash*
/ignore "All of Smashes' butt buddies (i.e. Elderon)"

Morons like me?


That's right.


Man you're an idiot.


Frankly, you're not qualified to make that judgement. To be honest I'm sort of amazed you can type. I've long been in favor of a goverment mandated sterilization program for people as stunningly gulliable as you, make it a merry xmass for me and tell me you haven't bred yet.


On one hand all I listen to from the elitist side of things is how "moronic" all of the bible belt is, because they bite so easily when presented with juicy tidbits like: "Just live this way, and Jesus will love you."


No, mainly it's that you believe that an invisible man in the sky created the Earth, watches over it's inhabitants, sent his son to Earth via a pregnant virgin in a cow shed, the son preformed many miracles, but only in front of his beliver, and not in front of his captors, who nailed him to a tree, he died as a sacrafice for the evil that all men do, but then popped back up, but again, only his cronies saw him, then he went up into the sky with his father, who impregnated the virgin with him because that was apparently the new black what with burning bushes being passe.

That and oh so much more, but I don't want to get too Gbaji on you here.


And now I have to listen to you say the exact oppossite, that all of these bible belt wackos (and they don't all live there) are completely independent in thought and are not the lemmings we believe them to be. Jesus man pick one or STFU.


Oh, I don't think they're independent in thought, just equally immoral if not more so than anyone else.

Let me know which part of that is confusing you and I'll see if I can't bust out some claymation of a boy and a dog to try make it more accessible to you.


Look, I *have* actually met people who take that sort of thing into account when deciding on courses of action on matters of morality. Not to mention the fact that religion has been a method of teaching morality to children for quite some time...they don't emphasize all those "sins" for nothing you know.


No, they empasize them because chidren are easily suckered and shame is a powerfull force, as is fear. It's about controlling people. It has nothing to do with morality. It has a lot to do with money. Kids who go to Sunday school aren't less likely to grow up to be adults who kindap 3 year olds, fu[/b]ck them, kill them, cut them uup into bloddy chunks, fu[b]ck the chunks and then eat the chunks than anyone else is.

Assosiating morality with organised religion at all is assanine. Brainwashing impressionable chidren to ignorantly believe arbitrariy things that were compiled into a series of books a thousand years ago should be criminal.


Organized religions around the world without a doubt have an effect on what is "right" and "wrong" in some (if not all) of our minds, be it directly or indirectly. How can you say otherwise?


Wow, you really are clinically a moron, eh? To think I was being hyperbolic too. Let me try to explain this to you. Religon didn't invent "right and wrong". It created an artificial explination for why people felt things were "right" or "wrong" because you idiots can't deal with things just "being" you need to have some sory of explination for them because you're all xenophobic weak minded fuc[/b]ks.

Do you honestly think, that before religion, people thought killing each other was a good thing? Clearly not. Now afterwards, sure. Just ask Abraham.

Man, so fuc[b]king easy.

give me something more to work with, will you? No one wants to see you like this. I'm embarassed for. Oh well, at least you'll get to swept up in the rapture while I'm left behind here on Earth to face the times of tribuations.

Ahahahhaa. Just fuc[/b]king with you, we'll both just be dead. Man, I'm great.

[b]
Ed. Helps to put the cheapshotting, troll resembling, quote in first.

Not a cheapshot or a troll. I really wish we could feed Christians to lions.

No joke, few things would make me happier.

The only kinda "unfortunate" bit in this rulling is this though:




I know that judges aren't experts in other fields, but this actually bothers me a bit. To me, the determination of whether something is a science should be based on whether it follows scientific methodology (which is broadly how we do something in science and therefore what makes something "science" rather then just randomly coming up with stuff).

Unfortunately, by writing down that list of three reasons ID isn't a science, his ruling could potentially be used by the next generation of creationism folks to come up with something that'll meet those qualifications (exactly as they did with ID in answer to rullings in past decades about creationism).

The judge took something (science) which is based on some pretty hard definitions and legally defined it as something that's really just based on opinion. I can kinda understand that coming from a judge, since that's how the law is worked, but it's a bit poor as a methodology for determining if something is science. Dunno. That part just kinda bothered me.

Just thought that was an ironic word choice.




What an absurdly stupid thing to try to argue...

So you think that every single figure of authority within any religion is not motivated by a spiritually-guided morality, but rather greed and power, eh?

I'll say this, I think that this wonderfully graphic quote:



...Isn't too far from the truth, but I definitely think it has an effect. Many people skew relgious rules (and some rules are misguided to begin with) or ignore them in order to justify or not consider their own behavior, that's true. But many people do use it as their moral compass, and in that sense, it'll have a positive impact. While I don't agree with any religion, I've personally seen people use it as inspiration to do altruistic good.



Killing is of course, the most extreme example, and thusly not a good barometer for what judgements would be affected if religion did not exist.

It's a lot easier to argue my point by noting the good that has been done through religion, rather than debating the wrongdoings. Charities and benefits are central to many religious groups, and some of those people are motivated by the same altruistic desire to do good that drives the non-religious. It's just that their starting point is different, because they believe in judgement.

Edited, Tue Dec 20 20:58:48 2005 by Eske

I think this comic is very poignant.

edit - linking is hard. ha!

Edited, Wed Dec 21 00:54:25 2005 by kundalini

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

But the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank which promotes the idea of intelligent design, dismissed Jones as an "activist judge" trying to censor legitimate scientific debate.

"The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree," said John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, in a written statemen


Talk about a complete disconnect from reality.

Oh, and to the "weak minded @#%^s" thing in particular. You know what? Your mind only goes so far friend, plenty of really intelligent people have gotten themselves very dead before their time. And I'm willing to bet that with all of their intelligence, not a single one of them saw it coming.


Yeah, I have no idea what this means. I'd assume it's not some sort of physical threat or anything, as we both know the sad reaility is that if we met in person you'd run away with tears streaming down your face covered in your own urine.

So I guess I'll take it as a cunning rebuke of intelligent people not being psychic?

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Intelligent Design is plain wrong. I'm not too hung up on evolution as the end-all-be-all, but I think that it does well as a start.


Yeah, me either.

What's a century of consistent and clear proof worth compared to random speculation. About equal, I'd say.

Heh. Right, but for the wrong reasons. Evolution should be taught in a science class because it is the current scientific explanation for a number of things. It's a "science" because it's a theory that resulted from scientific analysis of the data we have available using scientific methods.

ID is a "belief". It was not generated using scientific methods, but by starting with the idea that the Bible is correct and evolution is wrong, and coming up with a justification for that. The day it becomes the most accepted scientific explanation for things like fossils and changes in species, then we can start thinking about it. That's why ID should *not* be taught in a science class. Want to cover it in a world religions class? Go right ahead. But it has no place in a science class because it's not based on science.

/cry

No, it wasn't a threat, but I figured you'd interpret it as such. I have no desire to meet you in person, ever, nor do I feel any need to "threaten" you physically. The only point I was trying to make is that while you do have an obvious high degree of intelligence, in the grand scheme of things it's garbage. You however seem to think yourself in a class above the rest of humanity, so why not do us all a favor, buy yourself an island, and start up your own monarchy. Have fun with that King Nothing.

So my posts will carry more weight when they have a large number to back them up? Look I appreciate your candor, but I enjoy smack talking Smash, he's a God damn pro at it. If anyone can handle the heat I think it would be him.

Hey, it's all in good fun right?

Fairly obvious actually...

I came in here with like 100 posts. Of course I'm so sub-standard and uninteresting usually that nobody takes any notice of me. I certainly don't talk much smack, if any.

That being said, I'm not a completely helpless moron. I'm simply of the complete variety.