"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

joseph brand

Isn't it terrible that the better educated people become, (internet helps), the less chance of them believing in the threats of 'eternal damnation' and all the rest of the uncomfortable hassle that awaits the 'sinner'.

Typical Christian: "Damn those well educated, know-it-all Atheists".

I would like to 'praise' Neil DeGrasse Tyson for bringing science, physics and astrophysics in particular, to the masses.

I think we have all heard the typical response from a Christian which goes like this: "Well, how come we don't see monkeys evolving in front of our eyes?"

Well, here's an even more idiotic question, which had Dawkins thinking "What the absolute fcuk is going on?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Lt5ClxG5Q

Wait a million years to take a leak?
Primary school kids would ask better questions.

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

That's funny, it wasn't mentioned at all in primary, and in secondary only in science class. ... and on TV and every newspaper where the 'working assumption' is that we all have a 'slimeball' common ancestor.

There were no statues of Charles Darwin in each classroom. I never saw any statues of anybody in the state schools that I attended ... but there was a fair bit of talk about Darwin, as I recall!!!

Nobody ever told me that I would go to hell if I questioned evolution. That might be because you would be at a greater risk of going 'down below' if you don't question Evolution!!!

Nobody ever said that evolution should influence all aspects of one's life. They just knew that it would, without having to tell you.

Nobody ever said that people who know about evolution are better or happier people. That's because they probably aren't!!!

Nobody ever made me say daily evolution prayers from age 4, go to a church of evolution, or confess my sin of not believing in it fervently enough. As this thread has shown, discipline is achieved within Evolutionism, by the simple expedient of treating anybody who seriously questions M2M Evolution as a scientific 'heretic' instead!!!

Nobody ever used evolution as a reason to guilt me into giving them money. They don't need to ... as most states tax everyone to provide the money for Evolution Research and education!!!

Weak post. There is a great deal of observable evidence to support evolution*, ... but none has ever been provided

there is precisely zero to support the existence of a god. Everything from the 'ultimate cause' argument ... to the CFSI present in life ... to the requirement for the source of the Universe to be at least as great as the Universe itself ... to the fact that the Universe is observed to be 'running down' ... and therefore some agent(s) had to logically 'run it up' ... to name but a few arguments for the existence of God.

ninja900 wrote:

* but like any scientific theory, it's a best guess based on what we know so far. Science is not set in stone based on a 2000 year old book of riddles.

... M2M Evolution is instead based on a 150 year old book that doesn't even support it!!!

King Mob

JC, you've ignored my post again. I can only assume that means you cannot answer those questions, which means you once again forfeit the point.

You cannot explain how one lipid structure is possible but the other isn't, hence they are both possible.
And since you forfeited the questions, that means you tacitly agree with that.

And this means you just admitted your CFSI crap is just that.

J C

joseph brand wrote: »

Isn't it terrible that the better educated people become, (internet helps), the less chance of them believing in the threats of 'eternal damnation' and all the rest of the uncomfortable hassle that awaits the 'sinner'. The more somebody knows ... the more they know ... that they don't actually know much at all !!!:)
The most humble people that I have had the privilege to meet have been people at the 'cutting edge' of science. The more they discover about the Human Genome, for example, the more they realise they know very little about it!!!

Typical Christian: "Damn those well educated, know-it-all Atheists". I find that Christians of my aquaintance are just as well educated, if not more so, than the Atheists of my aquaintance.
Christians place a very high value on knowledge and education ... that's why there are thousands of Christian-sponsored schools and universities.

I would like to 'praise' Neil DeGrasse Tyson for bringing science, physics and astrophysics in particular, to the masses. Fair enough ... but he doesn't have a monopoly on it ... modern science was first brought to the bulk of the masses in Christian-sponsored schools and universities during the 19th and 20th centuries!!!

I think we have all heard the typical response from a Christian which goes like this: "Well, how come we don't see monkeys evolving in front of our eyes?" ... we see no evidence for M2M Evolution i.e. the spontaneous production of any CFSI!!!
... plenty of evidence for change and speciation within Created Kinds using pre-existing CFSI

Well, here's an even more idiotic question, which had Dawkins thinking "What the absolute fcuk is going on?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Lt5ClxG5Q

Wait a million years to take a leak?
Primary school kids would ask better questions. The interviewer isn't scientifically qualified ... what he should have asked Prof Dawkins ... is how the CFSI that produces a kidney, for example, could be produced by non-intelligently directed processes

.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC, you've ignored my post again.

I answered it here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77025529&postcount=7612

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

NO POPE HERE. Stay at home Benny, we don't want you.

Last time I saw this sectarian slogan was in Belfast about 10 years ago.

I thought that we had left this 'small-mindedness' behind ... but I never expected to see it on the A & A ... of all places!!!

A truly tolerant and liberal society respects the right of religious leaders to visit their churches ... and Irish Roman Catholics are quite entitled to welcome their Pope, just like Irish Anglicans have had the Head of their church visit Ireland last year.

Equally, when Ken Ham last visited Ireland, he was also treated with respect ... although, because he wasn't a head of state ... it wasn't a state visit, unfortunately.:):D

I don't deny you the right to be sectarian ... but I am exercising my right to condemn you for your intolerance!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I answered it here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77025529&postcount=7612

Nope sorry. I was looking for something substanial and detailed which explained why one form of structure was possible while others were not.
You failed to provide it, and ignored the question even when I warned you that doing so mean you were admitting that you cannot answer the question.

The same applies to the majority of the post you just ignored.

So since you agree that you CFSI crap is unsupported, I trust you'll stop using it as an argument?

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ok, lets try a different angle.

Which is more clear:

a) Gravity is Gravity.

or

b) Gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Now applying the came to CFSI.

a) CFSI is Complex Functional Specified Information

or

b) CFSI is ???????? (this is where you come in)

I'm waiting, J C.

Doctor Jimbob

joseph brand wrote: »

Isn't it terrible that the better educated people become, (internet helps), the less chance of them believing in the threats of 'eternal damnation' and all the rest of the uncomfortable hassle that awaits the 'sinner'.

Typical Christian: "Damn those well educated, know-it-all Atheists".

I would like to 'praise' Neil DeGrasse Tyson for bringing science, physics and astrophysics in particular, to the masses.

I think we have all heard the typical response from a Christian which goes like this: "Well, how come we don't see monkeys evolving in front of our eyes?"

Well, here's an even more idiotic question, which had Dawkins thinking "What the absolute fcuk is going on?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Lt5ClxG5Q

Wait a million years to take a leak?
Primary school kids would ask better questions.

I wouldn't go as far as to say typical Christian, most christians I know have no problem at all believing accepted scientific theories. There is a massive difference between typical christians and creationists.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Last time I saw this sectarian slogan was in Belfast about 10 years ago.

I thought that we had left this 'small-mindedness' behind ... but I never expected to see it on the A & A ... of all places!!!

A truly tolerant and liberal society respects the right of religious leaders to visit their churches ... and Irish Roman Catholics are quite entitled to welcome their Pope, just like Irish Anglicans have had the Head of their church visit Ireland last year.

Equally, when Ken Ham last visited Ireland, he was also treated with respect ... although, because he wasn't a head of state ... it wasn't a state visit, unfortunately.:):D

I don't deny you the right to be sectarian ... but I am exercising my right to condemn you for your intolerance!!!

You're calling someone sectarian for not wanting the pope anywhere near them? I wouldn't say so. Most people's dislike for pope ratzinger has nothing to do with the fact he's a catholic, it's more to do with the fact he's a hypocritical, child molester supporting, gay bashing, AIDS spreading idiot. I don't think any head of state who could be accused of those things could be welcome here, do you? 'Small minded' would be supporting that evil man just because he's the head of the catholic church. I don't remember as much hatred being directed towards the previous pope, do you?

Of course ken ham was treated with respect. Becuase while he might be spreading incorrect ideas, he isn't preaching hatred. Letting him say what he has to say to anyone who wants to listen isn't doing any harm to anyone. The two cannot be compared.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... M2M Evolution is instead based on a 150 year old book that doesn't even support it!!!

And creationism is based on a what, 3-4000 year old book?

Bazinga.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And creationism is based on a what, 3-4000 year old book?

Bazinga.

Neo-Creationism is based on modern Science ... as well as the Word of God.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Neo-Creationism is based on modern Science ... as well as the Word of God.

J C, if you're going to claim evolution is exclusively based on Darwin's work, then it's just as accurate for me to claim creationism is entirely based on the bible.

Edit: More accurate actually, because your statement that ''neo-creationism'', whatever the hell that is, is based on modern science is just not true. Can you give me some examples of what modern science it's based on?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're calling someone sectarian for not wanting the pope anywhere near them? I wouldn't say so. Most people's dislike for pope ratzinger has nothing to do with the fact he's a catholic, it's more to do with the fact he's a hypocritical, child molester supporting, gay bashing, AIDS spreading idiot. I don't think any head of state who could be accused of those things could be welcome here, do you? 'Small minded' would be supporting that evil man just because he's the head of the catholic church. I don't remember as much hatred being directed towards the previous pope, do you?

Of course ken ham was treated with respect. Becuase while he might be spreading incorrect ideas, he isn't preaching hatred. Letting him say what he has to say to anyone who wants to listen isn't doing any harm to anyone. The two cannot be compared.

The point is that no tolerance is required for somebody that you agree with ... tolerance is only required with somebody you disagree with.

The slogan 'NO POPE HERE' is infamous as a statement that No Roman Catholics may live here!!!!
Such slogans led to 'ethnic cleansing' in areas north of the border ... and are grossly intolerant.

I fully support the right of Roman Catolics to welcome their Pope to Ireland ... and to live openly in any part of Ireland as Roman Catholics.

I also fully support the right of Atheists to welcome their philosophical leaders to Ireland ... and to live openly as Atheists in any part of Ireland that they choose to live in.

It's what's known as religious tolerance ... and all civilised societies support it.

You are completely out of line here ... and you are confusing the right to peacefully protest (and engage in debate) against somebodys views ... with the right of people of all faiths and none to visit and live freely in Ireland!!!:(

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

J C, if you're going to claim evolution is exclusively based on Darwin's work, then it's just as accurate for me to claim creationism is entirely based on the bible.

That was actually my point!!!:)

I was responding to this 'gem' from ninja900

wrote:

Originally Posted by ninja900
* but like any scientific theory, it's a best guess based on what we know so far. Science is not set in stone based on a 2000 year old book of riddles.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The point is that no tolerance is required for somebody that you agree with ... tolerance is only required with somebody you disagree with.

The slaogan 'NO POPE HERE' is infamous as a statement that No Roman Catholics may live here!!!!
Such slogans led to 'ethnic cleansing' in areas north of the border ... and are grossly intolerant.

I fully support the right of Roman Catolics to welcome their Pope to Ireland ... and to live openly in any part of Ireland as Roman Catholics.

I also fully support the right of Atheists to welcome their philosophical leaders to Ireland ... and to live openly as Atheists in any part of Ireland that they choose to live in.

It's what's known as religious tolerance ... and all civilised societies support it.

You are completely out of line here ... and you are confusing the right to peacefully protest against somebodys views ... with the right of people of all faiths and none to visit and live freely in Ireland!!!:(

Excellent deflection from my point J C, take a bow. How about answering my question instead of tarring me as sectarian? Again I'll ask, if it's a sectatian thing, how come the previous pope wasn't met with such hostility? Roman Catholics are entitled to live wherever they want, to claim that anyone in this thread is suggesting otherwise is absolutely ludicrous.

You say that thing about atheist leaders as if all atheists are part of a large group. They aren't. Atheism is lack of belief in a god, not a religion in it's own right.

I'm not completely out of line, if you'd actually read my post instead of what you want to read from it you might understand that.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm waiting, J C.

Still waiting.

J C wrote: »

That was actually my point!!!:)

I'm sure it was. Why did you avoid the question in my post?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Again I'll ask, if it's a sectatian thing, how come the previous pope wasn't met with such hostility? Roman Catholics are entitled to live wherever they want, to claim that anyone in this thread is suggesting otherwise is absolutely ludicrous.

As I recall the last pope couldn't cross the border when he was here in 1979 ... because of 'NO POPE HERE' types at that time!!!

I disagree with many things that the Pope stands for ... but I fully support his right to visit his church in Ireland ... and to be welcomed with respect.

wrote:

You say that thing about atheist leaders as if all atheists are part of a large group. They aren't. Atheism is lack of belief in a god, not a religion in it's own right.

Creationists and Atheists are both a minority in Ireland ... so it is all the more perplexing that a member of any minority should take it upon themselves to start campaigning to exclude the religious leader of the majority population in Ireland.
I've heard of 'reverse discrimination' ... but this is ridiculous. Minorities have a greater need for tolerance to be shown them by the majority than the other way around ... so your post is as unwise as it's intolerant.

wrote:

I'm not completely out of line, if you'd actually read my post instead of what you want to read from it you might understand that.

Supporting, in any way, a slogan that begins 'NO POPE HERE' is both unwise and intolerant.

... so I guess we can now add intolerance of Roman Catholocism to intolerance of Creationism on this thread!!!

... and all the talk about Creationists being very different to 'mainstream' Christians (as a way of isolating Creationists and currying favour with mainstream Christians) ... is just 'hot air'!!!

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

As I recall the last pope couldn't cross the border when he was here in 1979 ... because of 'NO POPE HERE' types at that time!!!

You're twisting things here and you know it. You know that was a sectarian incident. Saying the pope is not welcome as a result of things he actually has done wrong is not sectarian.

I disagree with many things that the Pope stands for ... but I fully support his right to visit his church in Ireland ... and to be welcomed with respect.

Respect has to be earned.

Creationists and Atheists are both a minority in Ireland ... so it is all the more perplexing that a member of any minority should take it upon themselves to start campaigning to exclude the leader of the majority population in Ireland.
I've heard of 'reverse discrimination' ... but this is ridiculous. Minorities have a greater need for tolerance to be shown them by the majority than the other way around ... so your post is both unwise as well as intolerant.

This is just nonsense. You're suggesting that people should just bow to the catholic church because they make up the majority?

Supporting, in any way, a slogan that begins 'NO POPE HERE' is both unwise and intolerant.

Lol.

King Mob

So that's a yes to never using your CFSI nonsense again JC, seeing as you yet again forfeit the question?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're twisting things here and you know it. You know that was a sectarian incident. Saying the pope is not welcome as a result of things he actually has done wrong is not sectarian.

As far as I know, Cardinal (now Pope) Ratzinger was the previous Popes 'right hand man' ... so I'm not twisting anything!!!

You need to differentiate between quite legitimate differences of opinion that you may have with the Pope ... and the right of the Pope to visit his church in Ireland and be welcomed with respect.
NO POPE HERE slogans don't do that ... they state unambiguously that the Pope will not be allowed to visit Ireland, if the sloganeer can do anything about it ... and because all 'fully paid up' Roman Catholics believe the Pope to be the absolute leader of their church this slogan also unambiguously means that ordinary Roman Catholics themselves aren't welcome to live near the sloganeer.

The NO POPE HERE slogans in Northern Ireland weren't primarily directed at the pope personally ... but at the presence of his Church and its members in these areas.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Respect has to be earned.

Support for ones beliefs and actions has to be earned ... respect is a necessity in all successful human relations ... and its absence leads to all kinds of nasty difficulties ... of the 'you disrespect me, so I'll disrespect you' variety.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This is just nonsense. You're suggesting that people should just bow to the catholic church because they make up the majority?

I'm suggesting no such thing ... but I'm saying that respect for your fellow man is a very good idea in general ... and an imperative when you are dealing with the majority population ... especially if you expect them to show respect and tolerance to you.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ok, lets try a different angle.

Which is more clear:

a) Gravity is Gravity.

or

b) Gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Now applying the came to CFSI.

a) CFSI is Complex Functional Specified Information

or

b) CFSI is ???????? (this is where you come in)

Planning to respond to this?

J C wrote: »

As far as I know, Cardinal (now Pope) Ratzinger was the previous Popes 'right hand man' ... so I'm not twisting anything!!!

Yes you are.

You need to differentiate between quite legitimate differences of opinion that you may have with Pope ... and the right of the Pope to visit his church in Ireland and be welcomed with respect.
NO POPE HERE slogans don't do that ... they state unambiguously that the Pope will not be allowed to visit Ireland, if the sloganeer can do anything about it ... and because all 'fully paid up' Roman Catholics believe the Pope to be the absolute leader of their church this slogan also unambiguously means that ordinary Roman Catholics themselves aren't welcome to live near the sloganeer.

No, you need to differentiate between people not welcoming a leader who condones disgusing things and people not welcoming someone purely because of his religion.
And the pope shouldn't be allowed to visit Ireland. He has turned a blind eye towards wrongdoing against the people he's supposed to represent in this country. If he does visit it should be to issue a grovelling apology. A lot of the people I know who also have no time for the pope are Catholics. Are they sectarian too?

The NO POPE HERE slogans in Northern Ireland largely weren't directed at the pope personally ... but at the presence of his Church and its members in these areas.

Straw man argument. The slogans in Northern Ireland (which I am against) have absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

Support for ones beliefs and actions has to be earned ... respect is a necessity in all successful human relations ... and its absence leads to all kinds of nasty difficulties ... of the 'you disrespect me, so I'll disrespect you' variety.

That's your belief. Mine is that respect has to be earned.

I'm suggesting no such thing ... but I'm saying that respect for your fellow man is a very good idea in general ... and an imperative when you are dealing with the majority population ... especially if you expect them to show respect and tolerance to you.

Yes, I'm all for respect and tolerance for my fellow man. The man who keeps telling africans not to use condoms despite the AIDS epidemic, and who likes to regularly remind us of the evils of homosexuality on the other hand.....not so much.

robindch

J C wrote: »

I suspect that Robin and Ken will actually become friends if they meet here on Earth ... or in Heaven.

I've already met and spoken with (diploma-mill-doctor-doctor) Ken Ham and I have no wish to repeat the exercise.

If a man is known by the company he keeps, then I have no wish to be thought of as a deceitful, thunderingly ignorant wanker.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I've already met and spoken with (diploma-mill-doctor-doctor) Ken Ham and I have no wish to repeat the exercise.

Irreconcilable differences ... it happen.:D

robindch wrote: »

If a man is known by the company he keeps, then I have no wish to be thought of as a deceitful, thunderingly ignorant wanker.

Don't worry Robin ... I don't think any less of you than I already did.:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Planning to respond to this?

Please go look up the words Complex Functional Specified Information in a dictionary ... and come back to me if you still have problems understanding.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes you are.

A Pope is a Pope ... and the current one is also the previous one's 'right hand man' ... so I'm twisting nothing.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, you need to differentiate between people not welcoming a leader who condones disgusing things and people not welcoming someone purely because of his religion.
And the pope shouldn't be allowed to visit Ireland.

... so who are we going to ban next from Ireland ... because we have issues with what they (or their predecessors) have said or done???
The point is that the Pope has every right to come and speak to his church ... and indeed the Irish people, if he wants to.
What the Irish people make of it is their own business ... but banning people smacks of the Medieval Papacy ... which is a strange (and ironic) 'bedfellow' for you to find yourself alongside, on this issue.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

He has turned a blind eye towards wrongdoing against the people he's supposed to represent in this country. If he does visit it should be to issue a grovelling apology.

The inter-nicene issues involved should be left between Irish Roman Catholics and their Pope ... and any non-Roman Catholic would be well advised to allow this particular debate to proceed between Irish Roman Catholics (who were the ones affected) and their Pope (with whom most Irish Roman Catholics are still in communion).

You and I don't know why the Pope may wish to visit Ireland (or indeed what he may say to his church when he is here).
The point is that you and I need to differentiate between differences of opinon that we may have with the Papacy (or indeed any other institution) ... and the right of institutional leaders to visit and speak to their institutions in this country. This is such a fundamental principle underpinning any civil pluralist society, that I'm surprised that we are even debating it.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

A lot of the people I know who also have no time for the pope are Catholics. Are they sectarian too?

Some may have ceased to be Roman Catholics ... indeed, if their differences with the Pope are of a fundamental nature, they cannot be considered to be Roman Catholics, due to the absolute authority vested in the Pope within that particular Church.
In any event, the same logic would apply to disaffected Roman Catholics ... they have every right to make their differences with the Pope known to him and to anybody else, who will listen to them ... but they don't have the right to ban the Pope from visiting Ireland and talking to anybody who will listen to him.
That's what tolerance and pluralism is all about ... and tolerance has to cut both ways ... or it will rapidly cease to exist.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Straw man argument. The slogans in Northern Ireland (which I am against) have absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

What is the difference between the slogan 'NO POPE HERE' in Belfast or Dublin? Could I suggest that there is no logical difference ... and such slogans are deeply sectarian ... and have the same ultimate potential for strife wherever they are found.

wrote:

That's your belief. Mine is that respect has to be earned.

It isn't a belief, its a fact that respect cuts both ways ... and human relations rapidly break down when disrespect is shown by one person to another. I respect you and your right to hold and express your Atheistic viewpoint ... while still fundamentally disagreeing with almost everything you believe.

wrote:

Yes, I'm all for respect and tolerance for my fellow man. The man who keeps telling africans not to use condoms despite the AIDS epidemic, and who likes to regularly remind us of the evils of homosexuality on the other hand.....not so much.

I don't think that these issues are as stark and simple, as you make them out to be. For example, the Pope is saying the exact same thing about condom use to Irish Roman Catholics as he is to African ones ... and condom sales in Ireland don't seem to be suffering because of this.
Equally, as a Christian, I must say that chastity before and fidelity within Christian Marriage is the best way of preventing the spread of STDs. I would also point out that condoms aren't a panacea and they don't prevent the spread of all STDs ... genital warts, herpes and crabs, for example, aren't prevented by the application of micro-thin latex to less than 1% of the male anatomy!!!
Burst condoms and condoms coming off are also significant risk factors, especially where people are drunk or under the influence of drugs.
Equally, any STD that has manifested itself in clinical ulceration of the mouth or groin, for example, will be infective whether a condom is used or not. Condoms have a role to play in reducing the risk of STD transmission ... but any reduction in risk may be eliminated if the rate of promiscuity increases because people perceive that their use prevents all infection.

In any event, you may have quite legitimate differences of opinion with the Papacy on this and many other issues. You and I are quite entitled to express these differences of opinion ... but the Pope ... and anybody else, with an alternative opinion on these issues, has every right to present their opinion and have it listened to with respect and tolerance.

I would suggest that you respect all ... but believe few!!:)

... and please ease off on gratuituous sectarian insults like 'NO POPE HERE'.

MrPudding

Respect is a word that I used to, well, respect… Unfortunately it seems to me that it, along with words like persecution, have been hijacked by the religious. Simply being the head of a religion, or believing in a particular thing does not entitle one to respect.

There are many things in this world I respect, but religion is not one of them. By extension, the head of a particular religion, in the absence of any other reason to be shown respect, will receive no respect from me.

Just because the religious demand that we must respect them and their idiotic views is not reason enough to earn respect. Why should we respect someone for believing something stupid? Would you respect an adult for believing in santa? Of course not. It deserves no respect and should not receive any.

The religious these days seem to think that they deserve respect merely because they are religious. The slightest sign of this lack of respect and the other word they have hijacked kicks in, persecution. So not only must we show respect to peoples ridiculous belief but when we don’t we are persecuting them.

The religious need to cop on. You don’t deserve belief by default. You may have had it in the past, but times are changing and you better get used to it. Respect must be earned and simply believing in something is not enough. And not being shown respect is not persecution. Calling it such is an insult to people, religious and otherwise, who are actually suffering from persecution.


And another thing, the NO POPE HERE comment is, I am certain you know, very different to how it was used in NI. Further more, it is a very valid position to hold given his and his predecessors behaviour.


Of course, given you impressive ability to twist and misuse comments from a wide variety of sources, in combination with your ability to ignore that which you have no answer for, is too difficult or you simply don't like, I expect nothing better from you.


MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Respect is a word that I used to, well, respect… Unfortunately it seems to me that it, along with words like persecution, have been hijacked by the religious. Simply being the head of a religion, or believing in a particular thing does not entitle one to respect.

There are many things in this world I respect, but religion is not one of them. By extension, the head of a particular religion, in the absence of any other reason to be shown respect, will receive no respect from me.

Two can play that particular game ... of mutual disrespect ... but where precisely does that get us?
It reminds me of the mutual excommunication pronounced on each other in 1054 by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Humbert and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople Cerularius.

I respect your right to your views ... but I disagree with most of them ... and, if you adopt the same attitute to me and my beliefs, this facilitates normal civil discource between us. The alternative, of mutual disrespect, is usually not very nice for eiither party involved.

For example, if society were to suddenly start disrespecting you and your rights as an Atheist ... then it could be a very short step to society 'doing something about you' ... because of your beliefs (as religious persecution down the years amply illustrates). The same logic applies the other way around ... as Atheistic Communist tyrrany against Russian Christians also illustrates.

MrPudding wrote: »

Just because the religious demand that we must respect them and their idiotic views is not reason enough to earn respect. Why should we respect someone for believing something stupid? Would you respect an adult for believing in santa? Of course not. It deserves no respect and should not receive any.

Respect the person ... and politely disagree with their views (giving reasons, if you wish to do so).

MrPudding wrote: »

The religious these days seem to think that they deserve respect merely because they are religious. The slightest sign of this lack of respect and the other word they have hijacked kicks in, persecution. So not only must we show respect to peoples ridiculous belief but when we don’t we are persecuting them.

Atheists also (rightly) demand respect for themselves and their beliefs ... and should be accorded respect as the sovereign beings that they are. I think that their beliefs don't stand up to close scrutiny, but I respect their right to hold their beliefs, without any threat to their freedom or their job security, for example.

MrPudding wrote: »

The religious need to cop on. You don’t deserve belief by default. You may have had it in the past, but times are changing and you better get used to it. Respect must be earned and simply believing in something is not enough. And not being shown respect is not persecution. Calling it such is an insult to people, religious and otherwise, who are actually suffering from persecution.

Not showing another person proper respect can mean anything up to and including verbal or physical assault, the summary rejection of them for employment and any other form of discrimination that you can think of.
If I start thinking of you as a 'lesser being' ... and disrespecting you ... then it is a very short step for me to start actively discriminating against you!!!

MrPudding wrote: »

And another thing, the NO POPE HERE comment is, I am certain you know, very different to how it was used in NI. Further more, it is a very valid position to hold given his and his predecessors behaviour.

The words and the sentiments are the same ... and the guys in the North aslo thought it was "a very valid position to hold given his and his predecessors behaviour" ... and, as history records, active discrimination against Roman Catholics followed 'hot on the heels' of this and similar slogans!!!

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course, given you impressive ability to twist and misuse comments from a wide variety of sources, in combination with your ability to ignore that which you have no answer for, is too difficult or you simply don't like, I expect nothing better from you.

I'm twisting nothing ... I'm just presenting the truth ... and you guys are helping me by 'shooting yourselves in the foot'!!!!:pac:
... and some of ye even come back to 'finish-off' the other foot!!!:D

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Two can play that particular game ... of mutual disrespect ... but where precisely does that get us?
It reminds me of the mutual excommunication pronounced on each other in 1054 by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Humbert and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople Cerularius.

I couldn’t care less if you don’t respect my views. To be perfectly honest I ma probably happier that you don’t.

J C wrote: »

I respect your right to your views ... but I disagree with most of them ... and, if you adopt the same attitute to me and my beliefs, this facilitates normal civil discource between us. The alternative, of mutual disrespect, is usually not very nice for eiither party involved.

I respect your right to hold you views. I do not, however, respect your views. They are idiotic and retarded and not worthy of respect. It should be noted, I only grudgingly respect your right to hold your views. My right to hold my views flows from your right to hold yours.

J C wrote: »

For example, if society were to suddenly start disrespecting you and your rights as an Atheist ... then it could be a very short step to society 'doing something about you' ... because of your beliefs (as religious persecution down the years amply illustrates). The same logic applies the other way around ... as Atheistic Communist tyrrany against Russian Christians also illustrates.

I think your are going a little far here… I am not talking about disrespecting a person or that persons rights. Disrespecting someone is not the same as not respecting them. Further, I suggest that a person’s right to hold an opinion should be respected, but the opinion itself does not and should not attract such protection.

Please don’t go down the ISAW route in this thread.

J C wrote: »

Respect the person ... and politely disagree with their views (giving reasons, if you wish to do so).

No. I will respect a persons right to hold an opinion. I will not be forced to respect the person. On this board I will do my best to stick to the charter, though I do fail occasionally and the lovely Robin keeps me on the straight and narrow.

I don’t have to respect you. I don’t have to respect your beliefs. I respect your right to hold and opinion and I try to keep my opinions of you to myself. There is no respect.

J C wrote: »

Atheists also (rightly) demand respect for themselves and their beliefs ...

Do they? I don’t. I demand respect for my right to hold my beliefs. I don’t care if someone does not respect me or my actual belief. Why would l care? The type of person likely to disrespect my belief is a religious believer. Do you really think it bother me what they think?

J C wrote: »

and should be accorded respect as the sovereign beings that they are. I think that their beliefs don't stand up to close scrutiny, but I respect their right to hold their beliefs, without any threat to their freedom or their job security, for example.

Everyone should be accorded respect simply because they are a person. There is an additional bundle of rights which we are entitled to under the law. This bundle includes a right to believe whatever you want, it does not, however, extend to respect for the belief, as a number of your fellow christians have found out in the courts.

J C wrote: »

Not showing another person respect can mean anything up to and including verbal or physical assault, the summary rejection of them for employment and any other form of discrimination that you can think of.
If I start thinking of you as a 'lesser being' ... and disrespecting you ... then it is a very short step for me to start actively discriminating against you!!!

As I said, people attract certain rights, these rights are not dependent on what that person believes.

J C wrote: »

The words and the sentiments are the same ... and the guys in the North aslo thought it was "a very valid position to hold given his and his predecessors behaviour".

it is completely different and you know it. In the north it was, as you mentioned earlier, a statement about catholics in general. In this case it is about the actual pope himself as an individual. You are very well aware of this.

J C wrote: »

I'm twisting nothing ... I'm just presenting the truth ... and you guys helping me by 'shooting yourselves in the foot'!!!![IMG]file:///Users/Chris/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image002.png[/IMG]
... and some of ye even come back and 'finish-off' the other foot!!![IMG]file:///Users/Chris/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image004.png[/IMG]

Rubbush.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I couldn’t care less if you don’t respect my views. To be perfectly honest I ma probably happier that you don’t.

I respect your right to hold you views. I do not, however, respect your views. They are idiotic and retarded and not worthy of respect. It should be noted, I only grudgingly respect your right to hold your views. My right to hold my views flows from your right to hold yours.

I'm glad that you recognise that the guarantee of your rights lies in the universality and equality of the scope and enforcement of everyones rights (including yours and mine).
However, the fact that you only grudgingly respect my right to hold my views means that you don't really respect me or my rights at all ... and this implies that, if given the opportunity, you would therefore discriminate against me if you were in a position to do so!!!
Your use of words like 'idiotic and retarded' about my beliefs are deeply prejudicial personal remarks ... and completely unfounded given my conventional University qualifications - and eminent career to date.
... and please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that these remarks were describing my ideas ... and not my person.
An idea may be wrong ... but it cannot be 'retarded' ... only a person can be 'retarded' ... although I wouldn't use such an insulting prejudicial word to describe a person with special needs, myself.:(

MrPudding wrote: »

I think your are going a little far here… I am not talking about disrespecting a person or that persons rights. Disrespecting someone is not the same as not respecting them. Further, I suggest that a person’s right to hold an opinion should be respected, but the opinion itself does not and should not attract such protection.

Disrespecting somebody is exactly the same as not respecting them.

MrPudding wrote: »

Please don’t go down the ISAW route in this thread.

I will protest naked sectarianism wherever I find it ... and irrespective of who it is aimed at.

MrPudding wrote: »

No. I will respect a persons right to hold an opinion. I will not be forced to respect the person. On this board I will do my best to stick to the charter, though I do fail occasionally and the lovely Robin keeps me on the straight and narrow.

You've got this back to front ... you should respect the person because respect for his/her rights flows from the respect for the person themselves.
You are free to reject or support their beliefs, as you wish.

MrPudding wrote: »

I don’t have to respect you. I don’t have to respect your beliefs. I respect your right to hold and opinion and I try to keep my opinions of you to myself. There is no respect.

Disrespect can range from sullen contempt (which you are exibiting), which can escalate to verbal or physical assault in inter-personal situations ... and thus it is highly anti-social behaviour.
You don't have to share my beliefs ... nor me yours ... but I respect you and your right to hold them without fear or favour from me or anybody else ... and you should reciprocate.

MrPudding wrote: »

Do they? I don’t. I demand respect for my right to hold my beliefs. I don’t care if someone does not respect me or my actual belief. Why would l care? The type of person likely to disrespect my belief is a religious believer. Do you really think it bother me what they think?

A Christian would respect you God-given free will to not believe in God, if that is what you want to do.

MrPudding wrote: »

Everyone should be accorded respect simply because they are a person. There is an additional bundle of rights which we are entitled to under the law. This bundle includes a right to believe whatever you want, it does not, however, extend to respect for the belief, as a number of your fellow christians have found out in the courts.

It all depends ... I don't think, for example, that any court would disrespect the beliefs of Jews and Moslems by setting aside their right to follow their belief in abstaining from eating Pork.

MrPudding wrote: »

As I said, people attract certain rights, these rights are not dependent on what that person believes.

... and one of these rights is the freedom to believe and express ones belief without being personally attacked or discriminated against.

MrPudding wrote: »

it is completely different and you know it. In the north it was, as you mentioned earlier, a statement about catholics in general. In this case it is about the actual pope himself as an individual. You are very well aware of this.

I am aware of no such thing ... The NO POPE HERE slogan is just as offensive to ordinary Roman Catholics, who view him as their spiritual leader, as it is to the Pope himself (who probably won't have read it anyway).

Why do you think that it is any more acceptable for you to make the exact same sectarian anti-Roman Catholic remark that is a 'by-word' for the depths of sectarian hostility in Northern Ireland?
... and has thankfully become a 'thing of the past' up there.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Please go look up the words Complex Functional Specified Information in a dictionary ... and come back to me if you still have problems understanding.

JC that answer just doesn't cut it. I know what each of the words mean. I'm asking you what they, as a group mean in a scientific sense.

A Pope is a Pope ... and the current one is also the previous one's 'right hand man' ... so I'm twisting nothing.

Thats all well and good, but the twisting I was talking about was you comparing people not wanting a pope in their country for sectarian reasons and people not wanting a pope in their country because he's a hate spreading asshat.

... so who are we going to ban next from Ireland ... because we have issues with what they (or their predecessors) have said or done???
The point is that the Pope has every right to come and speak to his church ... and indeed the Irish people, if he wants to.
What the Irish people make of it is their own business ... but banning people smacks of the Medieval Papacy ... which is a strange (and ironic) 'bedfellow' for you to find yourself alongside, on this issue.

Didn't a college in Ireland recently cancel a talk by Nick Griffen recently because he's a hate spreading lunatic? Are you supporting his right to come talk to his followers too?

The inter-nicene issues involved should be left between Irish Roman Catholics and their Pope ... and any non-Roman Catholic would be well advised to allow this particular debate to proceed between Irish Roman Catholics (who were the ones affected) and their Pope (with whom most Irish Roman Catholics are still in communion).

As a former Roman Catholic who turned against the church partly because of my issues with people like Ratzinger, I think I'm fairly entitled to have an opinion on this.

You and I don't know why the Pope may wish to visit Ireland (or indeed what he may say to his church when he is here).
The point is that you and I need to differentiate between differences of opinon that we may have with the Papacy (or indeed any other institution) ... and the right of institutional leaders to visit and speak to their institutions in this country. This is such a fundamental principle underpinning any civil pluralist society, that I'm surprised that we are even debating it.

They have a right to speak wherever they want. Just as I have a right to oppose it.

Some may have ceased to be Roman Catholics ... indeed, if their differences with the Pope are of a fundamental nature, they cannot be considered to be Roman Catholics, due to the absolute authority vested in the Pope within that particular Church.
In any event, the same logic would apply to disaffected Roman Catholics ... they have every right to make their differences with the Pope known to him and to anybody else, who will listen to them ... but they don't have the right to ban the Pope from visiting Ireland and talking to anybody who will listen to him.
That's what tolerance and pluralism is all about ... and tolerance has to cut both ways ... or it will rapidly cease to exist.

Like I said, I'm all for tolerence. Ratzinger isn't. I'm intolerant of his intolerant views though. I don't see why tolerence should be universally applied, regardless of the hate spewing from someone.

What is the difference between the slogan 'NO POPE HERE' in Belfast or Dublin? Could I suggest that there is no logical difference ... and such slogans are deeply sectarian ... and have the same ultimate potential for strife wherever they are found.

Context is key.

It isn't a belief, its a fact that respect cuts both ways ... and human relations rapidly break down when disrespect is shown by one person to another. I respect you and your right to hold and express your Atheistic viewpoint ... while still fundamentally disagreeing with almost everything you believe.

I've told you before I'm not an atheist. Not in the sense you mean it at least. I am however strongly against organised religion.

I don't think that these issues are as stark and simple, as you make them out to be. For example, the Pope is saying the exact same thing about condom use to Irish Roman Catholics as he is to African ones ... and condom sales in Ireland don't seem to be suffering because of this.
Equally, as a Christian, I must say that chastity before and fidelity within Christian Marriage is the best way of preventing the spread of STDs. I would also point out that condoms aren't a panacea and they don't prevent the spread of all STDs ... genital warts, herpes and crabs, for example, aren't prevented by the application of micro-thin latex to less than 1% of the male anatomy!!!

Condom sales weren't even allowed in this country until fairly recently because of the church's influence. I'd call that suffering sales.

Burst condoms and condoms coming off are also significant risk factors, especially where people are drunk or under the influence of drugs.
Equally, any STD that has manifested itself in clinical ulceration of the mouth or groin, for example, will be infective whether a condom is used or not. Condoms have a role to play in reducing the risk of STD transmission ... but any reduction in risk may be eliminated if the rate of promiscuity increases because people perceive that their use prevents all infection.

Irrelevant to my point. Surprising.

In any event, you may have quite legitimate differences of opinion with the Papacy on this and many other issues. You and I are quite entitled to express these differences of opinion ... but the Pope ... and anybody else, with an alternative opinion on these issues, has every right to present their opinion and have it listened to with respect and tolerance.

I don't see why anyone who spreads intolerence should be tolerated.

I would suggest that you respect all ... but believe few!!:)

... and please ease off on gratuituous sectarian insults like 'NO POPE HERE'.

I never said 'no pope here'