Gay scientists isolate 'Christian Gene'
-
It's a little bit funny this feeling inside I'm not one of those who can easily hide I don't have much money but boy if I did I'd buy a big house where we both could live If I was a sculptor, but then again, no Or a man who makes potions in a travelling show I know it's not much but it's the best I can do My gift is my song and this one's for you And you can tell everybody this is your song It may be quite simple but now that it's done I hope you don't mind, I hope you don't mind that I put down in words How wonderful life is while you're in the world I sat on the roof and kicked off the moss Well a few of the verses well they've got me quite cross But the sun's been quite kind while I wrote this song It's for people like you that keep it turned on So excuse me forgetting but these things I do You see I've forgotten if they're green or they're blue Anyway the thing is what I really mean Yours are the sweetest eyes I've ever seen
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
You are just being plain weird.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo. It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird. Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings. The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Everyone needs believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">John Carson wrote:</div>More generally, I would be confident that in countries like Pakistan and Iran, it is the secularists who provide most of what opposition exists to Islamic extremism. All around the world, people tend to focus on what is in their own backyard, both because that is what they care about most and because that is generally where they can have the most impact. </blockquote> Well, I was just joking around, but I suppose now I have to get all serious. There simply is no parallel between the fight againt radical Islam by a tiny fraction of Middle eastern secularists and the fight against Christianity by a huge number of western secular humanist. They are two completely unrelated social phenomenon. In fact, they are vitually a mirror image of one another. The complete opposites. Those opposing Islam are in fact engaged in an attempt to free middle eastern societies from a truly dangerous, evil, totalitarian opponent. Those opposing Christianity in the west are trying to eliminate all possible competitive sources of moral authority so that they can in fact impose a totalitarian authority over western society all their own. Western humanists use the struggle against Islam as a means of justifying their own efforts at gaining total social hegemony. But there simply is no comparison. In fact, if anything, I represent something far closer to Hirsi Ali in our society than you do. You reperesent a threat to true secularism, not a defense of it.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There simply is no parallel between the fight againt radical Islam by a tiny fraction of Middle eastern secularists and the fight against Christianity by a huge number of western secular humanist.
The parallel is that it is basically the same movement at different stages. Over several centuries, Western secularists have de-fanged Christianity, so that it is now relatively harmless. That task has yet to be accomplished for Islam. Nevertheless, if one is living in the United States and cares about abortion rights or gay rights (I know you don't) or about the provision of effective sex education as a means of combating teenage pregnancies and the spread of AIDS or about the integrity of science education or about a Middle East policy not dominated by concern for the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy, then Christianity is the problem, not Islam. That explains why most US secularists are more focussed on Christianity than Islam. There are exceptions, most notably prominent atheists Christopher Hitchens (author of God is not Great) and Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation), both of whom are strident in their assertion of the need to oppose the threat posed by Islam.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, if anything, I represent something far closer to Hirsi Ali in our society than you do. You reperesent a threat to true secularism, not a defense of it.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There simply is no parallel between the fight againt radical Islam by a tiny fraction of Middle eastern secularists and the fight against Christianity by a huge number of western secular humanist.
The parallel is that it is basically the same movement at different stages. Over several centuries, Western secularists have de-fanged Christianity, so that it is now relatively harmless. That task has yet to be accomplished for Islam. Nevertheless, if one is living in the United States and cares about abortion rights or gay rights (I know you don't) or about the provision of effective sex education as a means of combating teenage pregnancies and the spread of AIDS or about the integrity of science education or about a Middle East policy not dominated by concern for the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy, then Christianity is the problem, not Islam. That explains why most US secularists are more focussed on Christianity than Islam. There are exceptions, most notably prominent atheists Christopher Hitchens (author of God is not Great) and Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation), both of whom are strident in their assertion of the need to oppose the threat posed by Islam.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, if anything, I represent something far closer to Hirsi Ali in our society than you do. You reperesent a threat to true secularism, not a defense of it.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The parallel is that it is basically the same movement at different stages. Over several centuries, Western secularists have de-fanged Christianity, so that it is now relatively harmless. That task has yet to be accomplished for Islam.
No, modern scular humanism is an example of civilization coming full circle. Government is about control, those who control it control civilization and are empowered to define the rules and standards of conduct which define a civilization. Separation of church and state created an impediment to those who wish to control civilization and bend it to their own will. Humanism represents an end run around that impediment. It is free to use the state to promote its agenda by simply disassociating itself from the traditional definitions of religion while essentially trying to achieve precisely the same goals.
John Carson wrote:
Nevertheless, if one is living in the United States and cares about abortion rights or gay rights (I know you don't) or about the provision of effective sex education as a means of combating teenage pregnancies and the spread of AIDS
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society. They are a way of creating a conflict within a society between people and traditional moral standards. That weakens the hold those traditions have upon a people and allows the competition to deprive it of any sort of social power. But any conflict will do, they just happen to be the most convenient because of humanity's inherent appitite for sex. Redfining liberty as being somehow about sexuality and you have a very powerful tool for the manipulation of public attitudes.
John Carson wrote:
or about a Middle East policy not dominated by concern for the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy,
Thats is a good example of how the process works. Use any false claim to demonzie the opposition, to make it appear that normal, traditional appeals to a creator are examples of an aberation of our culture in order to legitimize their own desire to control the agenda. The truth is that there is nothing in our current foreign policy that can be even remotely associated with biblical prophesy aside from a few out of context quotes. You might as well say we fought WWII in order to fulfill biblical prop
-
You are just being plain weird.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo. It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird. Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings. The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Everyone needs believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.
He's just such a dick-head. It's amusing, because I know how much he dislikes it.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
He's just such a dick-head. It's amusing, because I know how much he dislikes it.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
"He's just such a dick-head. It's amusing, because I know how much he dislikes it." And you are just a *fool* who refuses to see the truth. Not even an ignorant twirp like you could think (if you are capable of that) that Jesus does not exist (as many of you *claim* to believe), because then you could not exist because Jesus is the creator of everything. It does not take a genius like me to see that. Isn't it funny how easy it is for me to turn your own words against you?
Happy birthday baby Jesus! Please don't burn us all in hell forever.
-
"He's just such a dick-head. It's amusing, because I know how much he dislikes it." And you are just a *fool* who refuses to see the truth. Not even an ignorant twirp like you could think (if you are capable of that) that Jesus does not exist (as many of you *claim* to believe), because then you could not exist because Jesus is the creator of everything. It does not take a genius like me to see that. Isn't it funny how easy it is for me to turn your own words against you?
Happy birthday baby Jesus! Please don't burn us all in hell forever.
:laugh: That's brilliant! I don't think he liked the poems I wrote for him... :(
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
John Carson wrote:
The parallel is that it is basically the same movement at different stages. Over several centuries, Western secularists have de-fanged Christianity, so that it is now relatively harmless. That task has yet to be accomplished for Islam.
No, modern scular humanism is an example of civilization coming full circle. Government is about control, those who control it control civilization and are empowered to define the rules and standards of conduct which define a civilization. Separation of church and state created an impediment to those who wish to control civilization and bend it to their own will. Humanism represents an end run around that impediment. It is free to use the state to promote its agenda by simply disassociating itself from the traditional definitions of religion while essentially trying to achieve precisely the same goals.
John Carson wrote:
Nevertheless, if one is living in the United States and cares about abortion rights or gay rights (I know you don't) or about the provision of effective sex education as a means of combating teenage pregnancies and the spread of AIDS
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society. They are a way of creating a conflict within a society between people and traditional moral standards. That weakens the hold those traditions have upon a people and allows the competition to deprive it of any sort of social power. But any conflict will do, they just happen to be the most convenient because of humanity's inherent appitite for sex. Redfining liberty as being somehow about sexuality and you have a very powerful tool for the manipulation of public attitudes.
John Carson wrote:
or about a Middle East policy not dominated by concern for the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy,
Thats is a good example of how the process works. Use any false claim to demonzie the opposition, to make it appear that normal, traditional appeals to a creator are examples of an aberation of our culture in order to legitimize their own desire to control the agenda. The truth is that there is nothing in our current foreign policy that can be even remotely associated with biblical prophesy aside from a few out of context quotes. You might as well say we fought WWII in order to fulfill biblical prop
I think you have a paranoia about secularists that is immune to reason. You seem to have trouble distinguishing liberty from oppression.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats is a good example of how the process works. Use any false claim to demonzie the opposition, to make it appear that normal, traditional appeals to a creator are examples of an aberation of our culture in order to legitimize their own desire to control the agenda. The truth is that there is nothing in our current foreign policy that can be even remotely associated with biblical prophesy aside from a few out of context quotes.
You don't seem to keep up with many of the developments on the religious right. Much of the support for Israel on the religious right is because of a belief that the restoration of Jewish control of Palestine is a necessary precondition for the second coming. Historically, Christians have been hostile to the Jews. The love affair they currently have is for reasons of prophesy. http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/10336.htm[^]
The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming.
http://sparkfactory.com.au/nfn/?page_id=103[^]
John Carson
-
:laugh: That's brilliant! I don't think he liked the poems I wrote for him... :(
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't think he liked the poems I wrote for him...
I bet he does like them as they feed his huge self-importance complex.
Happy birthday baby Jesus! Please don't burn us all in hell forever.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't think he liked the poems I wrote for him...
I bet he does like them as they feed his huge self-importance complex.
Happy birthday baby Jesus! Please don't burn us all in hell forever.
Yeah, he's probably secretly printed them out and stuck them on his wall, and every night from now on he dims the lights, plays some favourite romantic music and pleasures himself over them and the large picture of himself[^] he has stuck next to them. Ah well, there are plenty more opportunities to confess my undying love for him. :)
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Exactly. I honestly have no idea why he keeps blathering about science not being about truth, when he's the only one that's tried to point out a correlation between the two.
I keep "blathering" because you people don't really believe (nor probably even really understand) what you youselves are saying. Look at yourselves! Look at your reactions to the straigh-forward (and true) statement that "Science isn't about truth."
We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is. It's the never ending pursuit of understanding. Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg). Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds. And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
Truer words were never spoken. I suspect his reply would be something along the lines of "You don't see how stupid you are", however. Blah. What a waste of space.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Ilíon wrote:
If you kiddies would ever take a moment to think two steps ahead, you wouldn't constantly find yourselves in predicaments like this.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
Eyiyiyi wanna cum too mey 20 storee uh uhuhpartment sow i can hayng yoo frum muh balkanee buy yor leg mikel dgaksun stiyal? EYEYEYE WOOOOOP UH NIGGUHZ ASS!!!!
-
We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is. It's the never ending pursuit of understanding. Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg). Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds. And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is. It's the never ending pursuit of understanding. Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg). Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds. And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours.
What a fool you continuously insist upon acting! "We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is." You acknowledge that 'science' isn't about truth -- while falsely claiming that "we all know" this and that no one has claimed otherwise. You all continuously claim otherwise ... even as you deny you are doing so. You (singular and plural) have your panties in a twist precisely because I am "insulting" ( :rolleyes: ) this "science" thingie. THEN: "It's the never ending pursuit of understanding." Then you demonstrate your inability to even think ratinally. Apparently, for you scientistes "understanding" is a wholly meaningless term. Apparently, you scientistes imagine that one can have "understanding" without actually having knowledge. THEN: "Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg)." Then, using a very faulty "argument-by-authority," you make a self-refuting assertion. The very claim is a truth-and-knowledge-claim. It happens to be false, but it is, nonetheless, the claim to know some truth -- in fact, and even more damning, it is the claim to know a universal truth. What absolute *fools* humans make of themselves when they refuse to reason! "Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds." Only a fool would imagine that *your* "science" even matters at all -- "understanding" without knowledge. Of what use is that to anyone? This "science" thingie sounds just like something 13-year-olds arguing about different versions of the "Superman universe" might care about; certainly like nothing an adult would care about. But then, I do frequenly say that "Science is a toy for little boys." LASTLY: "And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours." You (singular and plural) continuously demonstrate that your view of "science" is one that only a fool could entertain.
-
John Carson wrote:
The parallel is that it is basically the same movement at different stages. Over several centuries, Western secularists have de-fanged Christianity, so that it is now relatively harmless. That task has yet to be accomplished for Islam.
No, modern scular humanism is an example of civilization coming full circle. Government is about control, those who control it control civilization and are empowered to define the rules and standards of conduct which define a civilization. Separation of church and state created an impediment to those who wish to control civilization and bend it to their own will. Humanism represents an end run around that impediment. It is free to use the state to promote its agenda by simply disassociating itself from the traditional definitions of religion while essentially trying to achieve precisely the same goals.
John Carson wrote:
Nevertheless, if one is living in the United States and cares about abortion rights or gay rights (I know you don't) or about the provision of effective sex education as a means of combating teenage pregnancies and the spread of AIDS
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society. They are a way of creating a conflict within a society between people and traditional moral standards. That weakens the hold those traditions have upon a people and allows the competition to deprive it of any sort of social power. But any conflict will do, they just happen to be the most convenient because of humanity's inherent appitite for sex. Redfining liberty as being somehow about sexuality and you have a very powerful tool for the manipulation of public attitudes.
John Carson wrote:
or about a Middle East policy not dominated by concern for the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy,
Thats is a good example of how the process works. Use any false claim to demonzie the opposition, to make it appear that normal, traditional appeals to a creator are examples of an aberation of our culture in order to legitimize their own desire to control the agenda. The truth is that there is nothing in our current foreign policy that can be even remotely associated with biblical prophesy aside from a few out of context quotes. You might as well say we fought WWII in order to fulfill biblical prop
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society.
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society. More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
Truer words were never spoken. I suspect his reply would be something along the lines of "You don't see how stupid you are", however. Blah. What a waste of space.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick Sears wrote:
Truer words were never spoken.
And you can't even see what you've just done.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I suspect his reply would be something along the lines of "You don't see how stupid you are", however.
You think this only because you, yourself, are so described. My response to Stan will be that he isn't thinking deeply enough about what he's saying. That is quite a different thing from calling someone stupid. You people are simply amazing! You (singular and collective) want to call me stupid -- the only proof needed being that I disagree with your silly ideas. And then you want to bitch if I return the favor (though, with evidence). Is that what you're bitching about? That I don't merely *call* you stupid, but rather help you demonstrate it?
Patrick Sears wrote:
Blah. What a waste of space.
Is that like being a "waste of protoplasm?"
modified on Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:56:16 AM
-
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? What good are these "questions?" What in the hell use are they? What can we do with them? We can't even put them on a shelf to admire them, as they are literally immaterial. ;P
-
Eyiyiyi wanna cum too mey 20 storee uh uhuhpartment sow i can hayng yoo frum muh balkanee buy yor leg mikel dgaksun stiyal? EYEYEYE WOOOOOP UH NIGGUHZ ASS!!!!
Phhh....like you could.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society.
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society. More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Ilíon wrote:
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society.
I wonder what you think motivates this desire to "demolish traditional society". If not a concern for gay rights and other standard items on the liberal agenda, what then?
Ilíon wrote:
More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think either side really cares about them. I think they merely represent weak points that can be exploited to gain control of society.
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society. More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Ilíon, do you actually have friends?
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. What the hell would we do with truth? Put it on a shelf and admire it?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? What good are these "questions?" What in the hell use are they? What can we do with them? We can't even put them on a shelf to admire them, as they are literally immaterial. ;P
Are you stealing someone else's thoughts again? Basically you repeated the post, only you made it a lot crappier by it having 'Ilíon' next to it.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan