Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 23:47 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:igi8j2tmonmnsklrgqsh5dds73npt22g6m(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > >>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than >>>their >>>Muslim counterparts. >> >>More so, because they (through political influence over the power of >>US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They >>are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here >>and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as >>well.) >> > > And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You > seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing > among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too. Yeah, but the fundamental difference is that a religious organization, which gets special tax breaks because of the special protected position that religion holds in the Constitution, is supposed to stay out of the business of governing the country. Mother Jones, and the liberal organizations associated therewith enjoy no such special protection. Any church that dabbles in politics by telling their congregation how to vote should have their tax-exempt status revoked. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 23:50 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:51 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats >the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or ID >or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical >position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions on >exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example) evolutionary >theory. > Why so? If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out how it works? If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to scientific inquiry. It might even lead to insights in basic physics; Lord knows we need some. John
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 23:50 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1161055552.800809.247610(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <45205022.CCB68B6B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> > > [....] >> >> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go >> >> away. >> > >> >It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity >> >but a 'view'. >> > >> That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. >> > What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war > on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though > somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat. Once the "war on > terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war > on limerence". Point very well made. (And wow, it's not often I see a word I've not seen before. Good job.) Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 00:03 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> > >> > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not > >> >moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be > >> >a crime. > >> > >> You are lying. > > > >I suspect it's what he learnt at Church. > > > >American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than their > >Muslim counterparts. > > Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers. Yup, your military kindly do it for them. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 00:11
MooseFET wrote: > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > > Eeyore<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >Someone else said > > >> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go > > >> away. > > > > > >It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable entity but a 'view'. > > > > > That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. > > > > What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war > on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though > somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat. Once the "war on > terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war > on limerence". How about a 'war on gullibilty about imaginary threats' ? Graham |