The enemies of reason

[Somali]

Australia has cities other than Melbourne or Sidney? Kidding... Geography is sadly one of the subjects I've never been overly enamored in unless there is something else associated with it that piques my interest. No clue it was the capital city.

Thanks though. I generally don't pay attention to the location fields on the board. Mostly due to people like myself that put in completely worthless information there.

[Somali]

I thought the u in favour fell out of the proper English spelling a while back as well. Perhaps old English was an improper statement though. I'll concede that. I wasn't referring to the times of thee and thou, more recently old English spellings. I will attempt to be more clear next time. How would you have stated the question given my assumption that favour no longer has a u in the current English (England) spelling books?

Apologize to Mr Montoya for me as well.

[Xatrei]

The differences are between American English and British English. Commonwealth countries typically use British English spellings, although many American English spellings have become common in some, particularly Canada. The British spellings have only been deprecated in America through Webster's efforts to standardize American spelling (-ise/-ize is another American / British difference if you haven't noticed). You're smarter than most people, so you should be able to figure out how to frame the question properly now that your ignorance on the subject has been (partially) rectified.

[Somali]

I suppose I could have stated that I felt the spelling was no longer the favored method for England or (ex)British colonies.

I made a few assumptive errors in either case. I assumed Zaeleth was in the States. I thought I'd remembered the "proper" English spelling of the word being aged out. I suppose I can't count etymology as one of my strong points.

Clearly the larger of the two errors was assuming Zaeleth to be in the States. Without that, I would have dismissed the alternative spellings entirely rather than assuming he was a pretentious prick. For clarification, I still think he's likely a pretentious prick; the language simply isn't a contributing factor any longer.

[Zaelath]

First up. I agree with Boogz on this one. My experience with religion has likely been different than yours.
I'd also like to say that the original argument was about how faith has made everyone complete morons and hindered the advancement of mankind. While I think that is a gross generalization, I would still prefer arguing that over the whole "You believe in a God so you're a twit" argument. If you want to talk about something "real" then lets talk about the "real" issue here. Is religion bad for the masses? Why.

Back to the current debate.

Well, as long as you recognise it's a story (def: a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events), then we're good.

I recognize there is a good probability that much of any religious text has been muddled through the years. I believe I was fairly clear about that on multiple occasions.

Now lets look at our statements.
I do not believe that any religious text is 100% accurate. What does that mean? I wonder... Perhaps it means that some portion is misquoted, or made up to deliver a better story. "Its not all real."
You believe religious texts are all 100% fiction. Every single word is a bunch of gibberish. Nothing is true.
Given that we are comparing my statement of saying they are not 100% fact, vs your statement that they are 100% fiction. I would say that I win. You sir, are attempting to deal in absolutes. There are no absolutes when we refer to history (religious text or not) aside from perhaps death, but that has also been exaggerated on many occasions to fit the authors need.

Fiction is not gibberish, again, as most fundy retards, you reach too far in order to try and make some fallacy seem true. i.e. restate my position as something so ludicrous the opposite must be the case, well sorry Jimbo, this is not Sunday school and no one here will buy it. And again, because it's just a hypothesis, it's stated as a possibility, not a certainty. There may be some truth in the bible; I'm in favour of taking mouthy kids to the edge of town and stoning them to death, so let's hope that bit of Leviticus is the bit we find is definitely true.

OK, so to restate your position "everything in the bible may or may not be true"; ergo, I submit the entire text is unreliable, and should not be used as a manual for anything, let alone how to live your life. If you picked up an old medical textbook that was translated from aramaic, to greek, to hebrew, to english after being passed by word of mouth for a thousand years first, who would even attempt to treat an ingrown toenail with the information in the text? Only a yoghurt.

First: Are you ignoring my point or was that an attempt to backpedal. You stated you believed [hypothesized] that all religious texts were "100 fiction." My point was that YOU were being the narrow minded one betwixt the two of us.

betwixt? Now who's using "old english" to try and make themselves look more learned? funny stuff. And yes, your point, unbelievably self-serving and innaccurate as it may be, was that you were the bigger man? Is that right? By suggesting that the bible was not quite 100%? No detail, no concept of what might be wrong with it, just some vaguary of giving yourself wriggle room if any particular part might be called into question so that on the whole you can grip it like a life preserver in any argument you have, then dodge behind your cover if the bull gets too close.

Second: I am not a fundamentalist and I take offense to that. I think if you reread ANYTHING that I have said here, you would come to that conclusion yourself. If you are incapable of doing so, I would say you were the one who was We Todd Did. Do you even have a concept of what a "fundy" is? I suppose it is possible for someone not to understand the functional behavior of their own personality. Perhaps I was giving you too much credit.

Excellent, I'm glad you find that offensive you pretentious little tosser. However, if you want to wave their flag, then I'm going to put you into the box with the rest of them. Not that I actually did, perhaps you should go look up "similie" as your word of the day.

Though I am at a loss as to why you start talking about yourself in the second half of that paragraph.

Personally. I think a good number of the religious text, irrespective of author have a number of good tenets. Since you are so focused on the Bible, we shall use some of those as examples, though I should point out there are some commonalities in other religions as well.
Love thy neighbor as thyself
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal
Honor they mother and father
Do not covet thy neighbors stuff (wife, house, etc...)

On some other notes. David and Goliath. One of the ways this has been presented is to provide hope against "impossible" situations. People regularly use this as incentive to try to overcome their limitations.

Clearly. All of these things are bad. We shouldn't talk about any of them.

OMG? Do you have another tactic, or do you exclusively stick to pretending the other person said something they didn't? There's that fundy retard flag again, wave, wave, wave.

If you would like, I can pull out some stuff from Buddha too. I'd have to look for the stuff from the Koran, or Krishna (I don't recall what their book is called), but I'm reasonably confident it is there.

Did I cherry pick. Of course. Are there things you can point out that perhaps aren't so nice. Absofreakinlutely. This is perhaps where you try to apply a rule to me that I don't apply to myself. You seem to want me to be a fundamentalist that believes EVERY SINGLE WORD is accurate and wasn't modified or added to serve a purpose required by the person or group that modified the text at the time. Just to be clear since you've missed it every time I've said it so far. That's not me. That's not any of the people I know who consider themselves religious people.

Inerrancy is only one part of being a fundy, and I give you extra points to cover that flaw for your impression of Bill O'Reily when it comes to debate. *pat*

One more point. I am not in any way stating that someone who does not believe in religion cannot come to the conclusion that it is wrong to murder/steal/blah blah blah.

By the way, are you a Brit or do you simply enjoy old English spellings in an attempt to make yourself feel more intelligent?

Well, we covered this. And, just as another tip; my spelling is *current* English spelling. Just because a bunch of jumped up puritans want to change the language to be "more consistent" (oh how I laugh at that), doesn't make it "old" English. Haven't they teached (giggle) you nothing in history?

[edit] a comma.

[Zaelath]

No one is arguing that religion is 100% garbage absolutely...

I submit the entire text is unreliable, and should not be used as a manual for anything, let alone how to live your life.

I think thats what he just said. Perhaps I am putting some words into his mouth. Perhaps he would agree that it can offer some moral guidelines.

Read by itself without guidance from an adult? Not really. I don't think the text stands up at all by itself. Does that make it worthless garbage? Depends on how you use it.

Sure, if you're so inclined you can use some of the stories to illustrate your moral view, but it's not taught in that way, it's taught as "this is how it actually happened". Later on when your ability to reason kicks in you have to moderate that back to allegory to avoid.

However, for now, since you just keep a) repeating yourself without responding to any of the counterpoint offered, and b) misrepresenting my view, just do me a favour and stop quoting me at all so I don't have to come back, hold your hand, and read it back to you explaining where you went wrong this time. It's tiring.

[Somali]

betwixt? Now who's using "old english" to try and make themselves look more learned? funny stuff.

Got me on the betwixt. I was attempting to be a smartass and poke some fun.

And yes, your point, unbelievably self-serving and innaccurate as it may be, was that you were the bigger man? Is that right? By suggesting that the bible was not quite 100%? No detail, no concept of what might be wrong with it, just some vaguary of giving yourself wriggle room if any particular part might be called into question so that on the whole you can grip it like a life preserver in any argument you have, then dodge behind your cover if the bull gets too close.

No not really my point. I have plenty of flaws. My point was something more akin to you are being what you accuse religious people of being. A close minded zealot.

I can hypothesise that all religious texts are 100% fiction

You made a very rigid statement here. My counter was to have you restate your opinion on the matter and concede that they are likely not 100% fiction. Even if you assume the overall goal of the work is complete mishmash, you should be able to accept some of the text is based in fact. As for what is wrong with it. You are correct. I do not know for certain which details are incorrect. Sadly, there isn't a plethora of alternative text from the era that gives us alternative view points.
We could talk about details like The Red Sea or a sea of reeds. Better yet, you could ask me to discuss dissimilarities between the God of the Old vs New Testament. (Forgive thy neighbor vs. extinguish this civilization type differences). You haven't wanted to bring many details to the argument yourself there Skippy. Is it because you don't feel familiar enough with the text you would like to persecute people for reading/believing in?

Excellent, I'm glad you find that offensive you pretentious little tosser. However, if you want to wave their flag, then I'm going to put you into the box with the rest of them. Not that I actually did, perhaps you should go look up "similie" as your word of the day.

Wow. That is neat. So I should say you are a criminal because you come from a penal colony? I've attempted to show you how you are being the thing you accuse me of and influence you to be either open minded or perhaps even understanding as to why someone could believe alternatively to yourself. Oddly enough, if the board had banged on you for not believing in a god, I would have likely defended your argument instead. I just like the underdog.

Though I am at a loss as to why you start talking about yourself in the second half of that paragraph.

No clue. I ramble sometimes when I get distracted by work mid thought. I also never proofread what I write. Perhaps I was giving you insight into my experiences or personal view to give you insight? No fucking clue.

OMG? Do you have another tactic, or do you exclusively stick to pretending the other person said something they didn't? There's that fundy retard flag again, wave, wave, wave.

Of the two of us, you are the one who chose to make this about Christianity, I was attempting to speak in general terms. Please extrapolate on your meaning for:

I submit the entire text is unreliable, and should not be used as a manual for anything, let alone how to live your life.

if it wasn't intended to mean the tenets are crap. Or are you saying that people shouldn't read it and think they need to build an Ark to escape a great flood?

Inerrancy is only one part of being a fundy, and I give you extra points to cover that flaw for your impression of Bill O'Reily when it comes to debate. *pat*

I don't watch much TV so Bill O'Reily is a name that sounds familair, but I really have no clue about the reference you make with him and I don't have the time to google him and try to learn all about him in 10 minutes or less.
Please point out where I have done any of the following:
Stated my image of creation is the view you should adopt
Stated that my religion is the one you should adopt (Extra points if you can show me somewhere I said you'd go to hell for not worshiping my God)
Stated that any religious text is totally accurate

Now for super bonus points. Read back through the things you've written and do the same.

Well, we covered this. And, just as another tip; my spelling is *current* English spelling. Just because a bunch of jumped up puritans want to change the language to be "more consistent" (oh how I laugh at that), doesn't make it "old" English. Haven't they teached (giggle) you nothing in history?

Yup. I pulled an English dictionary after I found out you were an Aussie. Like I said. I borked that one.

Yet again we diverted from the topic of WHY religion is bad, and moved back to the "God doesn't exist, you're stupid for considering the possibility that he might" argument. Clearly you feel that the existence is paramount to the argument, I really see no relevance. I simply believe you should not persecute those whose beliefs differ from your own.

I've got a new argument against me on that matter though. I'm relatively convinced that religious differences are in fact the cause of many (not quite 99% Winn) of the conflicts around the world and that a single religion would reduce some of that conflict. Previously, I have not considered the "No religion" argument, but some of you here argue the "No Religion" more fervently than any bible thumper I've ever heard about. The "No Religion" may be the only one that everyone could eventually agree on, barring some undeniable "hand of God" type intervention into everyday life.

Edited:
Please point out any argument you do not feel I have properly addressed. I will be happy to answer them.

[rhyae]

Most wars are about money. Religion and nationalism are used as tools to get people to join up.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

It is really not worth arguing with Zaeleth about religion. You might as well be talking to Nick, as they are cut from the same mold. I am hoping there is an HTML filter that I can find that can be embedded much like an ignore feature, except that it will just say "NUH UH!" in place of whatever text he may enter.

[Somali]

Rhyae,
I think you and I can agree on that fact. I'd say that in many instances religion doesn't need to play a part at all. With that said; religion can be a cause for war.

I would argue that Palestine and Israel are at ends because of religious differences. There is a land dispute that drives the struggle itself, but as I understand it, the land dispute would be largely moot if not for the religious implications.

I could be wrong here. The only people I have ever directly spoken to concerning the dispute sided with the Palestinian side. I have of course heard portions of the various stories that pass the news occasionally as well. There may be some underlying cause that is being covered up by the religious excuse and I'd be open to hearing about it if there is.

I could refer to wars from biblical time, but my reference would be the bible in those instances. Clearly it is a resource devoid of fact and 100% fiction, so I'll skip those. I would however accept your statement in those instances Rhyae. It is entirely possible that the cause of the wars could have been for monetary gain and they were later justified as "God's will." Someone else could argue that they were a result of a religious nutjob, who went wacky in the head and liked a killing spree. Someone else might argue they were as they described. It doesn't really matter though. Like I said though, all of the events from the bible and any other religious text are 100% fictional. They never happened.

Edited: Added: Rhyae,

[Somali]

It is really not worth arguing with Zaeleth about religion. You might as well be talking to Nick, as they are cut from the same mold. I am hoping there is an HTML filter that I can find that can be embedded much like an ignore feature, except that it will just say "NUH UH!" in place of whatever text he may enter.

There is always a point in arguing a case. The point is not always enlightenment of the other party. It may be to learn more about the reasoning of the other side. It could be to better refine your elocution. The only wasted argument is one you cannot learn from. Even then they can serve the purpose of entertainment. I've argued on many occasions for entertainment purposes. This has been one of the latter for the most part. I've seen Nick and Zaeleth argue on the boards previously, and I have to hand it to them. They are persistent in their opinions and they express them with a good deal of tenacity. Clearly they do so because neither of them is ever wrong and everyone else suffers from a lack of intellect, so they are justified in their mannerisms. Its fun to argue against the headstrong though.

Edited:
I'm going to clarify a bit after re-reading what I wrote and thinking about how it will be perceived by the above mentioned parties. I imagine both of them are of above average intellect. Both work to illustrate their arguments in a clear manner. I would say that neither is willing to budge, but to some degree I think their "smarter than thou" attitude and lack of acceptance is reflected on their personal understanding and/or feelings toward the speaking party. After all, Zaeleth seemed to acknowledge a statement Booghaz made concerning him applying his view of "many" to encompass "all." Granted he returned to applying blanket statement almost directly afterward, but he at least acknowledged his fault for a fleeting moment. Perhaps the issue is that they cannot argue a point with someone without arguing against the archetype that person represents to them.

At any rate, I maintain that the discussion has been fun.

[Somali]

Oh. I forgot the most important reason to argue a point. To increase post count.

[Nick]

Oh. I forgot the most important reason to argue a point. To increase post count.

Crap, they're on to me.

Moving on, the second episode of the series aired yesterday and went on to examine the effect of new age/scientifically unproven therapies and methods that have actually been integrated into the British National Health Service.

The main one mentioned was homeopathy. Dawkins visited a brand new Homeopathy Hospital thingy that the Government had spent £10,000,000 building (which, as was pointed out, is the equivalent of employing an extra 500 Nurses). Now obviously, employing the 500 nurses would be a whole hell of a lot more useful to the already crap NHS than throwing all that money away on what amounts to little more than voodoo medicine.

The argument being that it is in fact harmful to believe in such ridiculous forms of healing because, in the cases where the Government actually funds the practise with the public purse, everyone gets shafted in favour of the believers. The whole "but it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't valid because the evidence suggests that by not spending that money on actual legitimate medicines or nurses or equipment and instead spending it on blind faith, more people suffer and less people get cured.

As for Dawkins, well its obvious that the hysterical christians like Kilmoll and Hammerstalker will attempt to smear him because he does make a point of highlighting how fucking stupid people like them are. Ultimately however, the main thrust of his argument is that surely its a little more fucking intelligent to actually live your life in reality and not in la la land, especially if living in la la land means you end up fucking people over (such as the NHS example above, or on a wider scale, something like Gay people not being allowed to marry.)

[Zaelath]

Somali: here's a fucking clue. Never start another sentence with "So you are saying"

Apparently "So you are saying" is your cue to say something entirely moronic that isn't representative of the view expressed, or even related.

Here's an example, though it doesn't use your favourite phrase, and why I'm going to stop responding to your verbal diarrhea above.

I can hypothesise that all religious texts are 100% fiction

You say

You made a very rigid statement here.

In fact, that's about the loosest possible statement one could make.

I'll break it down for you.

I can

This is english for "I may", "I might", "I'm able to", in no way does it say "I do", "I firmly", "I absolutely".

hypothesise

Here's a list of synonyms for you: speculate, theorize, theorise, conjecture, hypothecate, suppose

And the definition again: to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds.

So, so far we have "I may or may not believe, with no strong evidence, that all religious texts are 100% fiction"

Like I said, the loosest possible phrasing of a riposte to your conjecture.

Because it takes me that long to assist you with your total lack of comprehension of a single, simple sentence, I think you can see why I'm not going to waste any more time debating you. Get yourself to some remedial reading classes, or stop being deliberately obtuse, and perhaps we can discuss the next topic.

[Hammerstalkerx]

Nick why are you still posting here? You made a bet and lost miserably. Does anyone else notice how easily these two (Zaeleth and Nick) slip into using profanity to try to make a point? Obviously the earmark of a higher intellect and rational reasoning.

Oh and one more thing about Dawkins which I find hilarious. Science is under attack! What a complete load of nonsense that is. How much funding does the scientific community get compared to charities? Please anyone who gives this guy the time of day really needs to take a hard look at what the term Zealot means.

[Nick]

Yeah, for example Science sure isn't under attack with that whole cerraazy Intelligent Design thing eh Hammer?

[Zaelath]

Nick why are you still posting here? You made a bet and lost miserably. Does anyone else notice how easily these two (Zaeleth and Nick) slip into using profanity to try to make a point? Obviously the earmark of a higher intellect and rational reasoning.

Oh and one more thing about Dawkins which I find hilarious. Science is under attack! What a complete load of nonsense that is. How much funding does the scientific community get compared to charities? Please anyone who gives this guy the time of day really needs to take a hard look at what the term Zealot means.

We don't live in the puritan states of America. We have "profanity" on free-to-air television, and it's a normal part of our casual language, and rather than "using it to make a point" it's a natural reaction to the frustration caused by the stellar levels of stupidity exhibited occasionally.

Frankly, I'd find most of the stuff you post far less offensive, if you actually made any sense, and swore like a marine.

[Hammerstalkerx]

Nick you lost the bet but I am willing to make a concession. Stop posting as Nick and instead use the name "IAMADUMBASS" for one week. Then you can resume posting your drivel under your name. Deal?

[Zaelath]

I think you need to hold a vote on that one. I personally don't think "God is in the realm of fairies at the bottom of the garden" or whatever the quote was is "categorical" as required by the bet. So I guess you're welching...

[Nick]

Nick you lost the bet but I am willing to make a concession. Stop posting as Nick and instead use the name "IAMADUMBASS" for one week. Then you can resume posting your drivel under your name. Deal?

You fail, get fucked Dumbass.

[Hammerstalkerx]

You lost Dumbass! Just not man enough to honor your bet. Just what I expected from someone like you.

[Somali]

Somali: here's a fucking clue. Never start another sentence with "So you are saying"

Apparently "So you are saying" is your cue to say something entirely moronic that isn't representative of the view expressed, or even related.

(Blah blah blah crap where you take your own statement and use it out of context)
Like I said, the loosest possible phrasing of a riposte to your conjecture.

Because it takes me that long to assist you with your total lack of comprehension of a single, simple sentence, I think you can see why I'm not going to waste any more time debating you. Get yourself to some remedial reading classes, or stop being deliberately obtuse, and perhaps we can discuss the next topic.

So, do you make a habit of backpedaling by taking your own statement out of context? Its a tactic that I don't see that often. If you would like to say that it was a simple misunderstanding and that you don't believe that the bible is entirely fiction, you can do that now if you like.
Perhaps I misunderstood

I do have good reason to doubt any and all of them

or

I have as much reason (perhaps more) to believe that hypothesis

or

a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events

.

I could say, I hypothesize you are a twit that likes to back out of his arguments. Taken out of the context of my argument, I could similarly defend the statement by saying I never really said it. I only said that I could say that I think you may or may be a twit. Given the context of the surrounding text, I think we could safely imply that it was more than a maybe. I would argue that the same could be said for your argument. I'll concede that you tried to comment on the fact that it wasn't what you meant. I even think you allowed at one point that there was some possibility of truth in the statements. Go you for stepping up on that and not attempting to argue that the hypothesis was valid. Nonetheless, you made a hypothesis was one which implied belief. It was also a statement I felt would be given my a "fundy retard."

Incidentally, it was your use of "certainty" with a figure like 100% that cause me to badger you on semantics. Who uses an absolute when speaking hypothetically? Anyone? Really? If you had hypothesized that nearly all, or virtually everything was fiction, I would have likely made the statement that I thought there was some fact, but I would not have stated you made a rigid statement because you would have left some room for error.

As for me being obtuse... How the hell do you want me to argue the point. There really is no way I can prove "God" to you. Hell I can't even point to the bible and scream about how I have a reliable source to show you. Not only do you not believe in the text, but I've stated myself that the text is unreliable when it comes to the details. So what does that leave me with? I've attempted to steer the discussion to something we could debate without the context of "Is there a God," but you just keep coming back to the "It's stupid to believe" argument, which leaves me with a singular defense of, "you're being the fundy retard that you accuse me of" retort. While it is helping with the post count to drive to circular argument, there really isn't much room to argue. I honestly do believe you should be more accepting of the religious sects as they serve a purpose, but that would be something we could argue with the "why is religion bad" argument if you want to take it there.

If you do elect to stay on the current path:
I've yet to see you point out where I did not address your statements. Please do so that I may properly respond.

You know you want to Zae. Don't stop the fun train now. I'll be bored as hell at work otherwise.

[Somali]

and swore like a marine.

Perhaps your flavor is based upon the region, but here we would use sailor in place of marine. I think the alliteration is better with sailor at a minimum.

[Zaelath]

Somali: here's a fucking clue. Never start another sentence with "So you are saying"

Apparently "So you are saying" is your cue to say something entirely moronic that isn't representative of the view expressed, or even related.

(Blah blah blah crap where you take your own statement and use it out of context)
Like I said, the loosest possible phrasing of a riposte to your conjecture.

Because it takes me that long to assist you with your total lack of comprehension of a single, simple sentence, I think you can see why I'm not going to waste any more time debating you. Get yourself to some remedial reading classes, or stop being deliberately obtuse, and perhaps we can discuss the next topic.

So, do you make a habit of backpedaling by taking your own statement out of context? Its a tactic that I don't see that

You know you want to Zae. Don't stop the fun train now. I'll be bored as hell at work otherwise.

Just quoting the bits I read, to be sure you know how much effort you're wasting. I might read your piss poor attempt to explain why you feel you know what I meant by what I said better than I do... but I seriously fucking doubt it. Idiot.

[Somali]

Yeah, for example Science sure isn't under attack with that whole cerraazy Intelligent Design thing eh Hammer?

Science should always be questioned. Its how we grow the field. When we stop questioning the validity of certain principles we close another door on another potential advancement.

Question the idea of God or some other intervention all you want as well. I wouldn't ask for wholesale acceptance of ID as a theory anymore than I accept Abiogenesis as a proven model.

There are differing opinions within the world of ID as well. Some would argue ID as a way of explaining a 6k year old world. Others would argue it as a way to explain gaps in evolution, or even evolution itself and have no thought of this planet as a 6k year old habitat.

[Somali]

Just quoting the bits I read, to be sure you know how much effort you're wasting. I might read your piss poor attempt to explain why you feel you know what I meant by what I said better than I do... but I seriously fucking doubt it. Idiot.

True. Its always best to make judgments without proper information. That truly is the educated path now isn't it.

[Somali]

Oh. I forgot the most important reason to argue a point. To increase post count.

Crap, they're on to me.

I've got a lot of catching up to do.

[Moving on, the second episode of the series aired yesterday and went on to examine the effect of new age/scientifically unproven therapies and methods that have actually been integrated into the British National Health Service.

The main one mentioned was homeopathy. Dawkins visited a brand new Homeopathy Hospital thingy that the Government had spent £10,000,000 building (which, as was pointed out, is the equivalent of employing an extra 500 Nurses). Now obviously, employing the 500 nurses would be a whole hell of a lot more useful to the already crap NHS than throwing all that money away on what amounts to little more than voodoo medicine.

Having not watched the episode, could the 10M be interpreted as grant money for research purposes? Or would that be too far of a stretch? I've heard of homeopathic medicine being associated with a lot of things. Acupuncture and some of the old school Chinese herb treatments get tossed in there regularly as well. Doesn't work for everything but some of those old school chinese herbs have things we use in modern medicine.

[Somali]

Zaeleth,

How can you say you do not believe in god. Clearly you have talked to him: http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... =1&t=20954

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

It is not worth an effort to establish any kind of argument with someone that is just flat out an asshole. Just relish the fact that his realm of expertise is religion and how to survive living in a 3rd world country. I do like the little personal jabs he throws at you to bait you into responding. You do have more restraint than I.....although it is humorous that interweb pissants like Zaelath and Nick would never in a million years act the same way face to face.

[Somali]

It is not worth an effort to establish any kind of argument with someone that is just flat out an asshole. Just relish the fact that his realm of expertise is religion and how to survive living in a 3rd world country.

This is a point in which we differ. I won't credit either of them with being religious experts. I will credit Nick with knowing some trivia on the matter that I was unaware of, but I've yet to see anything from Zae to indicate him as an expert.
I also wouldn't consider Ireland or Australia 3rd World. (I believe that is where both parties live.) The particular city Zae claims to live in actually looks quite nice albeit a bit small.

I do like the little personal jabs he throws at you to bait you into responding. You do have more restraint than I...

Oh. I did get bothered at one point. When Zae called me a "fundy retard" that irked me quite a bit. Partially because I felt he was missing the point of my argument and partially because I was being identified with something that I do not feel I represent. I will comment that generally when someone results to personal jabs it indicates they feel they are losing ground in the debate, irrespective of whether slippage was perceived in that manner by the onlookers. Name calling indicates an inability to express oneself in a constructive manner. (I imagine I'll here a retort about how name calling was the only option because I was "too dense" to understand him when he spoke "rationally." Or maybe he'll just call me a poopy head)

...it is humorous that interweb pissants like Zaelath and Nick would never in a million years act the same way face to face.

I can't make a judgment about their ability to back up their views in person, but I have limited experience with either of them.
I think that part of the reason you're getting poked at may be that you're allowing yourself to get emotionally charged by them. They enjoy taking advantage of the fact they are able to bother you by it.

[Hammerstalkerx]

Well so far the idiot twins Zaeleth and Nick have each made a bet with me and lost humiliatingly. I think Somali is correct they are just a couple of baiters trying to get a rise out of anyone they can.

[Zaelath]

Just quoting the bits I read, to be sure you know how much effort you're wasting. I might read your piss poor attempt to explain why you feel you know what I meant by what I said better than I do... but I seriously fucking doubt it. Idiot.

True. Its always best to make judgments without proper information. That truly is the educated path now isn't it.

No, the judgement was already made from vast quantities of information. You're a) trolling, b) have the comprehension of Sean Hannity, c) just thick. In any case, there's no point in "debate" with someone that fits any of these categories, so I decline to participate.

[Zaelath]

Well so far the idiot twins Zaeleth and Nick have each made a bet with me and lost humiliatingly. I think Somali is correct they are just a couple of baiters trying to get a rise out of anyone they can.

Pardon? What bet have I made.

Oh, and just because *you* believe something is true doesn't make it so.

[Markulas]

OMG! He got you guys on the internet!

[Zaelath]

Oh noz, and he finished his sentence with LOL so it must be true!

[Somali]

Just quoting the bits I read, to be sure you know how much effort you're wasting. I might read your piss poor attempt to explain why you feel you know what I meant by what I said better than I do... but I seriously fucking doubt it. Idiot.

True. Its always best to make judgments without proper information. That truly is the educated path now isn't it.

No, the judgement was already made from vast quantities of information. You're a) trolling, b) have the comprehension of Sean Hannity, c) just thick. In any case, there's no point in "debate" with someone that fits any of these categories, so I decline to participate.

I would say that it is clear you didn't read anything I said and merely skimmed it to gather enough information to respond using preconceived notions about me based on the relative position I was arguing from. If that is not the case, then I'm not entirely certain what to say to you, other than thanks for coming back into the discussion. I believe if you would actually read my position on the matter you would find it quite reasonable, but that could be giving you too much credit. Perhaps you really are the "fundy" you would so very much like for me to be.

You've still not responded by the way.
You've yet to point out where I did not respond to any of your arguments.
You've yet to argue your case that there is an adverse affect on humanity or science as a result of theology.

I understand you decline because I'm too dense to understand your clearly superior intellect, but perhaps you're incredible understanding would enlighten others who frequent the board. Please grace us with your overwhelming intellect Zaeleth. Perhaps even I could learn from your greatness.

[Sylvus]

I understand you decline because I'm too dense to understand your clearly superior intellect, but perhaps you're incredible understanding would enlighten others who frequent the board. Please grace us with your overwhelming intellect Zaeleth. Perhaps even I could learn from your greatness.

So is it biological programming or influence from a higher power that causes one who is attacking another's intelligence to make spelling or grammatical mistakes, without fail?

Do you think you're above that?
Does your belief system point you in one way or the other?
Did these kinds of things happen in the days of yore?
Will they still happen to Yor, the hunter from the future?


Don't mind me, I'm just being an asshole because I find your posting style irritating and it's funny to me when someone attacks someone else's intelligence and makes stupid mistakes at the same time. It's quite possible I've done the same thing in this very post. Carry on.

[Boogahz]

I understand you decline because I'm too dense to understand your clearly superior intellect, but perhaps you're incredible understanding would enlighten others who frequent the board. Please grace us with your overwhelming intellect Zaeleth. Perhaps even I could learn from your greatness.

So is it biological programming or influence from a higher power that causes one who is attacking another's intelligence to make spelling or grammatical mistakes, without fail?

Do you think you're above that?
Does your belief system point you in one way or the other?
Did these kinds of things happen in the days of yore?
Will they still happen to Yor, the hunter from the future?


Don't mind me, I'm just being an asshole because I find your posting style irritating and it's funny to me when someone attacks someone else's intelligence and makes stupid mistakes at the same time. It's quite possible I've done the same thing in this very post. Carry on.

[Somali]

I understand you decline because I'm too dense to understand your clearly superior intellect, but perhaps you're incredible understanding would enlighten others who frequent the board. Please grace us with your overwhelming intellect Zaeleth. Perhaps even I could learn from your greatness.

Do you think you're above that?
Does your belief system point you in one way or the other?
Did these kinds of things happen in the days of yore?
Will they still happen to Yor, the hunter from the future?
Don't mind me, I'm just being an asshole because I find your posting style irritating and it's funny to me when someone attacks someone else's intelligence and makes stupid mistakes at the same time. It's quite possible I've done the same thing in this very post. Carry on.

your you're... whats the difference. One implies ownership, one says you are... Are they really that different? I don't know I suppose all of us make errors occasionally. Interrupted posting often hoses my train of thought.

I know I'm not above posting stupid shit whether it be concept, grammar, or spelling
I'm not entirely certain what you meant with the question of my belief system. I assume it has a clever meaning.
Doesn't days of yore traditionally refer to the distant past? Then I'm pretty sure people have always made said errors.
I'm not sure about Yor. Is it worth watching? Maybe I'll rent it and give you an opinion on whether or not spelling/grammar is an issue in the future.

Out of curiosity, what is it about my posting style that you find irritating? Some of it may be deliberately so, but some may be unintentional.

[Funkmasterr]

This somali/zaelath arguing thing is starting to look like it's going to keep going and going until they don't remember what they were originally fighting about, not too unlike nick's countrymen.

[Somali]

I hope it does my post count could use an increase.

[Nick]

This somali/zaelath arguing thing is starting to look like it's going to keep going and going until they don't remember what they were originally fighting about, not too unlike nick's countrymen.

LOL PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE SAME LANDMASS AS THIS GUY DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER THAT NEVER HAPPENS HERE IN THE GOOD OLD US OF A

[Somali]

Just as a reminder though. I think the original argument was that religious people are the cause of all that is wrong with the world and impede the growth of science.
I've pointed out a few times that I'd like to take the argument to that arena, but Zae would rather talk about how I'm a fundy retard, and I end up talking about how if he'd read what I've said compared to what he said, he see that he's placing the label incorrectly between the two of us. I'd also like to address whatever issues Zaeleth believes he has brought up that I have yet to respond to, but he can't seem to find them so he's forced to say "[I'm] to stupid" to get it, or that I'm a troll. I suppose I should be happy to have progressed up the evolutionary latter from "fundy retard" to stupid or a troll. Perhaps if I had some closure as to which I'd become I could feel more satisfied in the matter.

Summation for the people who don't like to read:
I'd like 2 things:
Argue the "religion = bad" argument. Either direction, but preferably whichever has the least support. (There should be a lot of possible debate here and my post count could skyrocket.)
I would like to know which issues I haven't addressed from Zae's argument.
Oh.. and I could hypothesize that Zaeleth is a "fundy retard."

[Somali]

Just curious, but what was that reference about Funk? The IRA?

Sort of a stretch here but if so then he could be correct to some degree Nick. We settled our civil war within a short time by comparison. I think the point he was attempting to make was with regard to the duration, not so much the ramifications.
Have they [the IRA] really forgotten the cause though? If I'm off base with the IRA thing, then oopsies.

Edit: Now this is even more derailed than the discussion between Zaeleth and I.

[Funkmasterr]

This somali/zaelath arguing thing is starting to look like it's going to keep going and going until they don't remember what they were originally fighting about, not too unlike nick's countrymen.

LOL PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE SAME LANDMASS AS THIS GUY DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER THAT NEVER HAPPENS HERE IN THE GOOD OLD US OF A

Oh relax dude, smoke a little or something, I was just fuckin with you.

[Somali]

Or I could be offbase and he could have been just "fuckin with you"

[miir]

I just got finished watching Screw Loose Jesus.
You guys need to just shut the fuck up and watch that.
It explains everything.

[Somali]

That sounds like an extremely sacrilegious pr0n flick title.

(I get the reference, but I still found the coincidence interesting)

[rhyae]

up the evolutionary latter

The evolutionary what?


_{I never correct spelling/grammer 'cos I don't care, but in this case, I can't help myself}

[Somali]

roflmonkeys... The evolutionary "previously mentioned thing" of course. Sometimes I wonder where the disconnect between my brain and hands occurs. Ummm. English isn't my native tongue. Its because I'm mexican. Yeah. That's it. Yeah....
I suppose I should take the time to proofread these. Then again that would take time, and it would prevent me from being able to make yet another post about how I was a dolt for making the error.

So instead allow me to ask yet another question. Do you feel spelling errors are a true indicator of someones understanding of a given subject or their relative intellect?

Edited to remove words