OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[PoliticalChic]

1. Western society remains strongly polarized with respect to God. This is the fundamental conflict, the result of which is a godless secular society. A careful study will convince one that the dichotomy originated in the French Revolution, wherein the efforts to remove the yoke of the monarchy and the Church resulted in an explosive overreaction: the assault on all religion, and the ongoing tirade against God.





2. Finding easy cover, many champion science as the cudgel…even though “ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times

a. “But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.”
Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”

b. Before one accepts the support of such “smart scientists” simply because of their vocation, why not question this scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad, successor to academic Marxism, or feminism, or the various doctrines of multicultural tranquility? Ibid.

3. Charles Darwin knew that the theory of evolution placed religion in doubt, and atheist academics and scientists love to quote Darwin on that account. It is less than curious that Alfred Wallace, co-originator of the theory, is far less cited. Could it be because Wallace was spiritually inclined, and remained so throughout his life?





4. Scientific discoveries serve as formidable weapons in this conflict. For example, Darwinian evolution’s explanation for speciation, natural selection, requires variation, wherein one is superior to another. And science has gone further, with the theory of mutation, errors in transcription of DNA. Certainly, errors are evidence against creation: God’s system must be error free….true?

a. Hardly. If God has set in motion a process, as posited by Rene Descartes posited, in which his building blocks self-assemble, then errors that produce change are purposeful, in fact necessary. And disease and other adverse occurrences become explicable, e.g., “how could God let such things happen?”





5. Now, from the other side….science leaves much to be desired. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Lewontin on materialism - EvoWiki






a. And, yet, Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Perhaps he's not familiar with Professor Lewontin's admissions.

b. Peter Atkins, professor of physical chemistry at Oxford, denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that ’scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest.’
Of course, he is an ardent atheist.






6. So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Berlinski, Op.Cit.

Of the 51%, it could be 6% believe in God and 45% believe in magic (referred to as a "higher power"), they aren't clear. Of course, the 6% would be Republican scientists. Remember, it was PEW who said only 6% of scientists are Republican.

Hey, deanie....congrats! I heard you finished a 200 page book!!

Man....that's a lot of coloring!




1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com



2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.

So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.
(And the coloring, too!)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's review.

You're an angry, self-hating fundie who doesn't understand.

When you post stuff that's patently untrue you add credence to my indictment of you.


Not one thing in the sentence in your post is true.


Every single thing I've writen about you is true.
Proof?

Sure:
I actually quote your words.



You're in way over your head, aren't you.
You haven't the ability to think on your feet....that's why you must make up questions
to answer that haven't been asked.....you need to answer only what you've been programmed to answer.


The old saying that you so aptly demonstrate:
“He knew his way out of the harbor, but after that, everything was open sea.”


It's not too late....you could try to answer.....

....or, would you rather I ask some different ones that you didn't answer?
Say the word.

Still avoiding taking responsibility for the lies and deceit you further.

Not surprising.

Hi, Crazy Collie, the atheist fanatic!


How come you didn't mention any 'lies and deceit ' you say I presented?
No examples??

Heck...in every post, I've quoted you.....

How about you quote me?




Now...enough chit chat....let's get back to grilling you:

1.Remember when I stated that there is an unambiguous reference to Jesus in the Constitution….and while you couldn’t deny it….you did insert a disrespectful reference, here:

“As to you claim that you can provide a reference to hey-zeus in the constitution, I’m left under impressed with such melodrama. If you’re referring to the silly claim that a closing salutation includes “in the year of our lord”, you’ve simply wasted your time.
Now….that wasn’t very nice, was it. But…you’re not very nice, are you.

a. It was great fun watching you pretend that the phrase “…our Lord…” by the founders could mean any but Jesus Christ. You tried this:

b. “The fact is, hey-zeus gets not a single mention in the wording, framework, structure or definition of the constitution.” You just looked silly....and fallacious.
Isn't that true?
You had no way to answer honestly....






2. I bet you realized how poorly you came off, ‘cause then you suddenly claimed that I had lied: “If sticking to the truth is a moral directive of the bibles, why aren't you doing so?”
Of course, there was no lie on my part that you could point to.
I’m almost embarrassed for you.
Almost.


a. Then I really nailed you: ‘Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?
So....why are you claiming that I am not telling the truth?

Obviously you are the one in that situation.’
But you had no answer.






3.OK....see if you can answer today:

a. Can you produce any 'lie' on my part?
No?

b. Other than Jesus...and that would be the respectful reference, what might be a realistic understanding of " the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ.


How about it, Crazy Collie?

Answers?

Or simply repeat your mantra: "you lie, you lie'?





4. I don't think your capable of answering....


You're stuck in simply repeating, over and over....what you're programmed to say:
Thinking is beyond you, isn't it?


"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "

Poor, poor Crazy Collie....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Incorrect. No conclusive proof. There is plenty of evidence suggesting such an event happened.



We know it existed. Hell, it exist today. The only real question is if that is where life started. The answer may be yes. Hopefully someday soon we will find out.



No proof whatsoever. Not a shred. Nothing that points to god, nothing that implies god. And nothing that even remotely points to any specific god. And no, "it's complicated" does not count as proof.

But yes, he may exist. The chances are much slimmer than the chance of alien life somewhere out there, but it is possible.



See above.

Do you see the difference? On the one side you have evidence, but not proof. On the other no evidence, no proof, god simply complicates an already hard to explain situation.

You are trying to create a false equivalency.

In scientific terms, the big bang, primordial ooze and evolution are theories. Creation and god are hypothesis.

Over and over the oblivious champion science, but deny theology the same language they use to support science.

I couldn't write a funnier defense of science then this:

" No conclusive proof."

"evidence suggesting"

"might have existed"

"it is possible."

"The only real question "

"Hopefully someday soon we will find out."


Imagine, if you had the sense to realize that you're the punchline of your own joke!




Oh....one more thing:

“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times



Luckily you're here to set them right.

Cool. You noticed the relationships with the maybies and could be's.

Was it this or another post where I asked if you had a problem with an almighty setting the uniververse in motion 11 billion or so years ago at the big bang?

That I can see as a theory if for no other reason than the seemingly infinate issue of time. No beginning or end.

Start saying 7,000 years ago and I wonder.

All them maybies and could be's about science can be applied to my "there must be a god because without the supernatural how did time start" belief. And this Jesus stuff could be right. Difficult to prove though.

Exactly my point....the essence of the OP.

....there are just as many could be's and might be's in each.
The atheist fanatics pick a fight where there is no cause to.

Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).

And Einstein: 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'





"Was it this or another post where I asked if you had a problem with an almighty setting the uniververse in motion 11 billion or so years ago at the big bang?"

No prob with such a hypothesis....Descartes would agree:

1. Rene Descartes postulated that, rather than a rapid seven day timeline, the sequence that resulted in the formation of the earth was far more eventful. “1637. Rene Descartes: Discours de la Methode. Descartes constructed a history of the Earth which was quite influential; it was the starting point for many later cosmogonies. Some of the main points of his system were that the Earth formed as a fiery ball, that when it cooled a crust formed over the abyssal waters, and that this crust collapsed, releasing massive volumes of water.” Changing Views of the History of the Earth

a. Interestingly, Descartes continues to see the hand of God in the creation. In chapter six of ‘Le Monde,’ he states that at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/08972/sample/9780521808972ws.pdf

 

[Hollie]

Religion is like having a classroom where the students have to show up every day but there's no teacher.

There are a bunch of books around and no one is even sure which one is the text book. Some students insist on one book; others argue just as hard for another.

Then suddenly, on the last day, the teacher appears and say's he's been watching everybody the whole time.

He praised the ones who chose the right book and sends them off to have cookies and milk.

And then he sets everyone else on fire.

This was an almost perfect analogy that elucidates the moral absurdity of certain extant theologies... *cough* christianity! *cough*

Well done. Anything to rob arrogant theists the grounds for establishing a pathological ego by highlighting the obvious, is a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE ]
Yep. I think there is a pathology that afflicts fundamentalists. It's a pathology of self-hate. I suppose when one believes in the Christian proscription that all of humanity is born evil and base, that is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Just look at the behavior of the two fundie zealots in this thread.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions.

Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a religious ideology that flies the flag of unyielding, literalist acceptance and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn anyone who differs with them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religion is like having a classroom where the students have to show up every day but there's no teacher.

There are a bunch of books around and no one is even sure which one is the text book. Some students insist on one book; others argue just as hard for another.

Then suddenly, on the last day, the teacher appears and say's he's been watching everybody the whole time.

He praised the ones who chose the right book and sends them off to have cookies and milk.

And then he sets everyone else on fire.

This was an almost perfect analogy that elucidates the moral absurdity of certain extant theologies... *cough* christianity! *cough*

Well done. Anything to rob arrogant theists the grounds for establishing a pathological ego by highlighting the obvious, is a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE ]
Yep. I think there is a pathology that afflicts fundamentalists. It's a pathology of self-hate. I suppose when one believes in the Christian proscription that all of humanity is born evil and base, that is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Just look at the behavior of the two fundie zealots in this thread.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions.

Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a religious ideology that flies the flag of unyielding, literalist acceptance and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn anyone who differs with them.

Hey.....Crazy Collie......you're not gonna ignore me are you???


How about answering my post?


After all....I made it just for you.

 

[Hollie]

Over and over the oblivious champion science, but deny theology the same language they use to support science.

I couldn't write a funnier defense of science then this:

" No conclusive proof."

"evidence suggesting"

"might have existed"

"it is possible."

"The only real question "

"Hopefully someday soon we will find out."


Imagine, if you had the sense to realize that you're the punchline of your own joke!




Oh....one more thing:

“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times



Luckily you're here to set them right.

Cool. You noticed the relationships with the maybies and could be's.

Was it this or another post where I asked if you had a problem with an almighty setting the uniververse in motion 11 billion or so years ago at the big bang?

That I can see as a theory if for no other reason than the seemingly infinate issue of time. No beginning or end.

Start saying 7,000 years ago and I wonder.

All them maybies and could be's about science can be applied to my "there must be a god because without the supernatural how did time start" belief. And this Jesus stuff could be right. Difficult to prove though.

Exactly my point....the essence of the OP.

....there are just as many could be's and might be's in each.
The atheist fanatics pick a fight where there is no cause to.

Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).

And Einstein: 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'





"Was it this or another post where I asked if you had a problem with an almighty setting the uniververse in motion 11 billion or so years ago at the big bang?"

No prob with such a hypothesis....Descartes would agree:

1. Rene Descartes postulated that, rather than a rapid seven day timeline, the sequence that resulted in the formation of the earth was far more eventful. “1637. Rene Descartes: Discours de la Methode. Descartes constructed a history of the Earth which was quite influential; it was the starting point for many later cosmogonies. Some of the main points of his system were that the Earth formed as a fiery ball, that when it cooled a crust formed over the abyssal waters, and that this crust collapsed, releasing massive volumes of water.” Changing Views of the History of the Earth

a. Interestingly, Descartes continues to see the hand of God in the creation. In chapter six of ‘Le Monde,’ he states that at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same. http://assets.cambrie.org/97805218/08972/sample/9780521808972ws.pdf

For all your frantic cutting and pasting, what you cn't address is that in the world of reason and rationality, evidence is the final arbiter of what we define as knowledge.

Superstition and fear as promoted by religious zealots will allow you to embrace your ancient superstitions but the relevant first world is moving away from such anti-human ideologies.

 

[Hollie]

This was an almost perfect analogy that elucidates the moral absurdity of certain extant theologies... *cough* christianity! *cough*

Well done. Anything to rob arrogant theists the grounds for establishing a pathological ego by highlighting the obvious, is a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE ]
Yep. I think there is a pathology that afflicts fundamentalists. It's a pathology of self-hate. I suppose when one believes in the Christian proscription that all of humanity is born evil and base, that is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Just look at the behavior of the two fundie zealots in this thread.

Morality does carry with it, decision making and responsibility for those decisions.

Convictions about morality (right and wrong) have never been uniform across all people and time, even within a single nation. Today, however, the very nature of right and wrong as absolutes not subject to one's opinion is under challenge from adherents to a religious ideology that flies the flag of unyielding, literalist acceptance and demands "tolerance" of those with deviant moral convictions. The many ironies of this situation begin with that community's perfect willingness to condemn anyone who differs with them.

Hey.....Crazy Collie......you're not gonna ignore me are you???


How about answering my post?


After all....I made it just for you.

I didn't expect you would have the courage to address the comments.

Fundie zealots typically retreat into defensive postures and resort to name-calling when they're befuddled.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cool. You noticed the relationships with the maybies and could be's.

Was it this or another post where I asked if you had a problem with an almighty setting the uniververse in motion 11 billion or so years ago at the big bang?

That I can see as a theory if for no other reason than the seemingly infinate issue of time. No beginning or end.

Start saying 7,000 years ago and I wonder.

All them maybies and could be's about science can be applied to my "there must be a god because without the supernatural how did time start" belief. And this Jesus stuff could be right. Difficult to prove though.

Exactly my point....the essence of the OP.

....there are just as many could be's and might be's in each.
The atheist fanatics pick a fight where there is no cause to.

Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).

And Einstein: 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'





"Was it this or another post where I asked if you had a problem with an almighty setting the uniververse in motion 11 billion or so years ago at the big bang?"

No prob with such a hypothesis....Descartes would agree:

1. Rene Descartes postulated that, rather than a rapid seven day timeline, the sequence that resulted in the formation of the earth was far more eventful. “1637. Rene Descartes: Discours de la Methode. Descartes constructed a history of the Earth which was quite influential; it was the starting point for many later cosmogonies. Some of the main points of his system were that the Earth formed as a fiery ball, that when it cooled a crust formed over the abyssal waters, and that this crust collapsed, releasing massive volumes of water.” Changing Views of the History of the Earth

a. Interestingly, Descartes continues to see the hand of God in the creation. In chapter six of ‘Le Monde,’ he states that at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same. http://assets.cambrie.org/97805218/08972/sample/9780521808972ws.pdf

For all your frantic cutting and pasting, what you cn't address is that in the world of reason and rationality, evidence is the final arbiter of what we define as knowledge.

Superstition and fear as promoted by religious zealots will allow you to embrace your ancient superstitions but the relevant first world is moving away from such anti-human ideologies.

Speaking of evidence.....

Do you recall this:


Other than Jesus...and that would be the respectful reference, what might be a realistic understanding of " the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ.


How about it, Crazy Collie?


I provided evidence.....you, bloviation.


So......since you cannot deny the existence of the this '" the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ...in the United States Constitution.....


...You must be willing to retract your previous insistence that it wasn't there....right?


Time for a strategic retreat, Collie.....?

...looking forward to it.

 

[koshergrl]

Underhill is in another thread whining about my reference to supporting evidence that I brought into the thread and he didn't bother to read. The fact that I expected him to read it and then I referred to it later in the thread is evidence of my ignorance, not his, he seems to believe.

They're so stupid it stretches the boundaries of human comprehension. You can't be that stupid without help, I swear.

 

[koshergrl]

Well that explains the increased stupidity factor.

You are exactly right.

The stupidity of Americans in not knowing the difference between faith and science.

Yes...atheists.

"The study, published Monday in the journal Trends in Genetics, argues that humans lost the evolutionary pressure to be smart once we started living in dense agricultural settlements several thousand years ago."

Theory says humans losing intelligence - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News

 

[Hollie]

Exactly my point....the essence of the OP.

....there are just as many could be's and might be's in each.
The atheist fanatics pick a fight where there is no cause to.

Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).

And Einstein: 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'





"Was it this or another post where I asked if you had a problem with an almighty setting the uniververse in motion 11 billion or so years ago at the big bang?"

No prob with such a hypothesis....Descartes would agree:

1. Rene Descartes postulated that, rather than a rapid seven day timeline, the sequence that resulted in the formation of the earth was far more eventful. “1637. Rene Descartes: Discours de la Methode. Descartes constructed a history of the Earth which was quite influential; it was the starting point for many later cosmogonies. Some of the main points of his system were that the Earth formed as a fiery ball, that when it cooled a crust formed over the abyssal waters, and that this crust collapsed, releasing massive volumes of water.” Changing Views of the History of the Earth

a. Interestingly, Descartes continues to see the hand of God in the creation. In chapter six of ‘Le Monde,’ he states that at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same. http://assets.cambrie.org/97805218/08972/sample/9780521808972ws.pdf

For all your frantic cutting and pasting, what you cn't address is that in the world of reason and rationality, evidence is the final arbiter of what we define as knowledge.

Superstition and fear as promoted by religious zealots will allow you to embrace your ancient superstitions but the relevant first world is moving away from such anti-human ideologies.

Speaking of evidence.....

Do you recall this:


Other than Jesus...and that would be the respectful reference, what might be a realistic understanding of " the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ.


How about it, Crazy Collie?


I provided evidence.....you, bloviation.


So......since you cannot deny the existence of the this '" the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ...in the United States Constitution.....


...You must be willing to retract your previous insistence that it wasn't there....right?


Time for a strategic retreat, Collie.....?

...looking forward to it.

I can't help but notice your relentless spamming with the same cut and paste babble.

It's an oft-used tactic of fundie zealots when their arguments have been exposed as fraudulent.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure it is, nut.

That's not cut and paste, nor is it spam. Using those big terms you don't understand again, apparently.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For all your frantic cutting and pasting, what you cn't address is that in the world of reason and rationality, evidence is the final arbiter of what we define as knowledge.

Superstition and fear as promoted by religious zealots will allow you to embrace your ancient superstitions but the relevant first world is moving away from such anti-human ideologies.

Speaking of evidence.....

Do you recall this:


Other than Jesus...and that would be the respectful reference, what might be a realistic understanding of " the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ.


How about it, Crazy Collie?


I provided evidence.....you, bloviation.


So......since you cannot deny the existence of the this '" the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ...in the United States Constitution.....


...You must be willing to retract your previous insistence that it wasn't there....right?


Time for a strategic retreat, Collie.....?

...looking forward to it.

I can't help but notice your relentless spamming with the same cut and paste babble.

It's an oft-used tactic of fundie zealots when their arguments have been exposed as fraudulent.

"I can't help but notice...."
You're not supposed to 'help but notice....'

That's why I wrote it. And now that you've admitted to noticing.....

I can't help but notice that your prevaricating, and afraid or unable to answer questions about what you posted.

That's correct: what you posted.

Now...you didn't believe you'd simply get away unscathed, did you?

Well....prepare to be scathed.


The question to you is, since you've denied that "in the year of our Lord...." refers to Jesus Christ.....

...to whom do you believe it refers?



Your quote.....

....afraid to answer, because it defeats your rant?


Honesty demands you answer.....or, retract.

 

[Hollie]

Speaking of evidence.....

Do you recall this:


Other than Jesus...and that would be the respectful reference, what might be a realistic understanding of " the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ.


How about it, Crazy Collie?


I provided evidence.....you, bloviation.


So......since you cannot deny the existence of the this '" the year of our Lord,'.....and a date that pinpoints Jesus Christ...in the United States Constitution.....


...You must be willing to retract your previous insistence that it wasn't there....right?


Time for a strategic retreat, Collie.....?

...looking forward to it.

I can't help but notice your relentless spamming with the same cut and paste babble.

It's an oft-used tactic of fundie zealots when their arguments have been exposed as fraudulent.

"I can't help but notice...."
You're not supposed to 'help but notice....'

That's why I wrote it. And now that you've admitted to noticing.....

I can't help but notice that your prevaricating, and afraid or unable to answer questions about what you posted.

That's correct: what you posted.

Now...you didn't believe you'd simply get away unscathed, did you?

Well....prepare to be scathed.


The question to you is, since you've denied that "in the year of our Lord...." refers to Jesus Christ.....

...to whom do you believe it refers?



Your quote.....

....afraid to answer, because it defeats your rant?


Honesty demands you answer.....or, retract.

I see you're embarrassed at your fraudulent claim of your gods having any relevance or even mention in the wording of the constitution.

Your stuttering and mumbling is again apparent.

Yours is a pattern of behavior often displayed by fundie zealots. Your angry gods have no place in the relevant world of reason and rationality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can't help but notice your relentless spamming with the same cut and paste babble.

It's an oft-used tactic of fundie zealots when their arguments have been exposed as fraudulent.

"I can't help but notice...."
You're not supposed to 'help but notice....'

That's why I wrote it. And now that you've admitted to noticing.....

I can't help but notice that your prevaricating, and afraid or unable to answer questions about what you posted.

That's correct: what you posted.

Now...you didn't believe you'd simply get away unscathed, did you?

Well....prepare to be scathed.


The question to you is, since you've denied that "in the year of our Lord...." refers to Jesus Christ.....

...to whom do you believe it refers?



Your quote.....

....afraid to answer, because it defeats your rant?


Honesty demands you answer.....or, retract.

I see you're embarrassed at your fraudulent claim of your gods having any relevance or even mention in the wording of the constitution.

Your stuttering and mumbling is again apparent.

Yours is a pattern of behavior often displayed by fundie zealots. Your angry gods have no place in the relevant world of reason and rationality.

You keep saying the same thing over and over.....why?

How about you simply answer the question?

After all...it is your statement I'm asking you to explain.



With all due respect.....you appear feeble-minded.....

I ask you to explain your comment, and you keep obfuscating with "Your stuttering and mumbling is again apparent" when it is apparent that I've done neither.

I must admit I get a guilty pleasure in forcing you to repeat inanities.


So....go ahead, embarrass yourself again.

And I'll nail you with your own quotes.
OK?

 

[Hollie]

"I can't help but notice...."
You're not supposed to 'help but notice....'

That's why I wrote it. And now that you've admitted to noticing.....

I can't help but notice that your prevaricating, and afraid or unabule to answer questions about what you posted.

That's correct: what you posted.

Now...you didn't believe you'd simply get away unscathed, did you?

Well....prepare to be scathed.


The question to you is, since you've denied that "in the year of our Lord...." refers to Jesus Christ.....

...to whom do you believe it refers?



Your quote.....

....afraid to answer, because it defeats your rant?


Honesty demands you answer.....or, retract.

I see you're embarrassed at your fraudulent claim of your gods having any relevance or even mention in the wording of the constitution.

Your stuttering and mumbling is again apparent.

Yours is a pattern of behavior often displayed by fundie zealots. Your angry gods have no place in the relevant world of reason and rationality.

You keep saying the same thing over and over.....why?

How about you simply answer the question?

After all...it is your statement I'm asking you to explain.



With all due respect.....you appear feeble-minded.....

I ask you to explain your comment, and you keep obfuscating with "Your stuttering and mumbling is again apparent" when it is apparent that I've done neither.

I must admit I get a guilty pleasure in forcing you to repeat inanities.


So....go ahead, embarrass yourself again.

And I'll nail you with your own quotes.
OK?

You're not paying attention.

You embarrass yourself again.

That seems to be a pattern for fundie zealots.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see you're embarrassed at your fraudulent claim of your gods having any relevance or even mention in the wording of the constitution.

Your stuttering and mumbling is again apparent.

Yours is a pattern of behavior often displayed by fundie zealots. Your angry gods have no place in the relevant world of reason and rationality.

You keep saying the same thing over and over.....why?

How about you simply answer the question?

After all...it is your statement I'm asking you to explain.



With all due respect.....you appear feeble-minded.....

I ask you to explain your comment, and you keep obfuscating with "Your stuttering and mumbling is again apparent" when it is apparent that I've done neither.

I must admit I get a guilty pleasure in forcing you to repeat inanities.


So....go ahead, embarrass yourself again.

And I'll nail you with your own quotes.
OK?

You're not paying attention.

You embarrass yourself again.

That seems to be a pattern for fundie zealots.

"You're not paying attention."
Sure am....I'm paying attention to your statement....the one you can't explain.


What is the term for you....brain-dead?

Cowardly?

Incompetent?

Ah! It's atheist fanatic.



Here....let's give you another chance: You claimed that the sentence in the United States Constitution, i.e., "in the year of our Lord...." did not refer to Jesus Christ.


Do you still stand by your statement?


In every post, you pretend to be oblivious to the question you are being asked....With your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

 

[Hollie]

You keep saying the same thing over and over.....why?

How about you simply answer the question?

After all...it is your statement I'm asking you to explain.



With all due respect.....you appear feeble-minded.....

I ask you to explain your comment, and you keep obfuscating with "Your stuttering and mumbling is again apparent" when it is apparent that I've done neither.

I must admit I get a guilty pleasure in forcing you to repeat inanities.


So....go ahead, embarrass yourself again.

And I'll nail you with your own quotes.
OK?

You're not paying attention.

You embarrass yourself again.

That seems to be a pattern for fundie zealots.

"You're not paying attention."
Sure am....I'm paying attention to your statement....the one you can't explain.


What is the term for you....brain-dead?

Cowardly?

Incompetent?

Ah! It's atheist fanatic.



Here....let's give you another chance: You claimed that the sentence in the United States Constitution, i.e., "in the year of our Lord...." did not refer to Jesus Christ.


Do you still stand by your statement?


In every post, you pretend to be oblivious to the question you are being asked....With your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

How is it you're not paying attention?

 

[Underhill]

Here....let's give you another chance: You claimed that the sentence in the United States Constitution, i.e., "in the year of our Lord...." did not refer to Jesus Christ.


Do you still stand by your statement?


In every post, you pretend to be oblivious to the question you are being asked....With your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

It's the English version of Anno Domini... and a designation used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts."

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not paying attention.

You embarrass yourself again.

That seems to be a pattern for fundie zealots.

"You're not paying attention."
Sure am....I'm paying attention to your statement....the one you can't explain.


What is the term for you....brain-dead?

Cowardly?

Incompetent?

Ah! It's atheist fanatic.



Here....let's give you another chance: You claimed that the sentence in the United States Constitution, i.e., "in the year of our Lord...." did not refer to Jesus Christ.


Do you still stand by your statement?


In every post, you pretend to be oblivious to the question you are being asked....With your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

How is it you're not paying attention?

How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?