I blame the PHP apologists and evangelizing fan-boys like you, who encourage and recruit naive developers and sloppy programmers to use PHP. To paraphrase John Stewart to Tucker Carlson: STOP EVANGELIZING AND MAKING EXCUSES FOR PHP, YOU ARE HURTING THE INTERNET!
You're no better than the NeoCon fan-boys like Anne Coulter and Bill Kristol, who lied and lied to get us into a horrible war, and now blame the Democrats who were elected by the voters to get us out of the war, and call them traitors who should be hanged. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Of course the Gnome focus management is sloppy, because it's implemented with X-Windows and ICCCM, which puts the window manager in a different process than the window system and the application, and communicates with it via an asynchronous network protocol. So it unavoidably takes a lot of time for focus notification to get processed, while all kinds of other stuff can happen in the mean time (like double clicks, raising windows, etc), that would change the outcome of the focus change, so the wrong thing happens if you don't wait patiently between clicking the mouse and seeing the results of the click on the screen.
The NeWS window system had perfectly air-tight focus management, because the window manager ran INSIDE of the window system, and it blocked the input queue using "synchronous event handlers" so that no events or commands that would effect the outcome of the focus change would be processed until the focus change was taken care of -- and it could take care of focus changes very quickly because the code was running inside of the window system where the events were being generated in the first place, so there was no need for so many network client/server round trips between mouse clicks and key strokes.
NeWS also let you totally customize the user interface consistently across all applications, by downloading your own user interface classes to the window system like window frames with tabs, pie menus, scrolling desktop managers, rooms, etc.
But that was in 1986. Now it's 2007, and X-Windows still doesn't support any of that stuff. For shame!
At least Gnome (and practically every other window manager) lets you resize your windows from any corner or edge. But on the Mac, if the resize corner happens to be off the edge of the screen, you first have to move the window onto the screen, then resize it from the lower right corner, then move it back to where you wanted it. Apple got it wrong 23 years ago, and they've had a lot of time to correct the problem, but, like Bush, they won't even acknowledge that there's a problem or admit they made a mistake. Apple is so afraid tat if they ever admitted they made a stupid blunder in their UI design, that will embolden the Windows terrorists. So they have to pretend that it's good for you to only have one resize corner.
Talk about treating your users like idiots! Gnome certainly isn't the only user interface that does that. (Click on that with your one button mouse, while trying to submit a patch to fix Apple's retarded user interface design!)
In recent years, some have asked whether the Democratic Party has a serious "God problem" - an inability to appeal to evangelicals and other highly religious Americans. But the results of this year's election raise the parallel question of whether the Republican Party can appeal to non-Christians and less religious voters. Exit polls find that the Democrats' gains were concentrated among non-Christians and secular voters, indicating an even larger political divide between highly religious voters and the rest of American society.
The GOP held on to voters who attend religious services more than once a week, 60% of whom voted Republican compared with 61% in 2002. A majority (53%) of those who attend church at least once a week also supported Republicans. But less frequent churchgoers were much more supportive of Democrats than they were four years ago. Among those who attend church a few times a year, for instance, 60% voted Democratic, compared with 50% in 2002. And among those who never go to church, 67% voted Democratic; four years ago, only 55% did so. As a result, the gap in Democratic support between those who attend church more than once a week and those who never attend church has grown from 18 percentage points in 2002 to 29 points today.
...
Though white evangelical voters have been the bedrock of the GOP throughout this decade, many wondered in the days leading up to the election if the party's troubles this year would hurt their prospects with this key voter group. But the GOP actually did very well among white evangelicals in 2006: 72% voted Republican in races for the U.S. House nationwide, and they gave strong support -- about two-thirds or more -- to Republican Senate candidates in several key states, including Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Virginia. These levels of support are comparable to those registered by evangelicals in 2004, when approximately 75% voted for Republican congressional candidates.
...
Most Americans (60%) - including majorities of white mainline Protestants (56%), black Protestants (84%), white Catholics (60%) and seculars (72%) -- say they are happy that the Democrats won the election. Only among white evangelicals did as many express unhappiness as happiness with the Democrats' victory (41% each).
Similarly, by a 50%-21% margin, Americans say they approve of Democratic congressional leaders' policies and plans for the future. Nearly half of white mainline Protestants (48%) and majorities of black Protestants, white Catholics and seculars express approval of the Democratic agenda. White evangelicals express much lower approval for the Democrats' plans, but nearly as many evangelicals express approval (32%) as disapproval (37%). And majorities of all religious groups, including 57% of evangelicals, expect the Democrats to be successful in getting their programs passed into law.
You know my questions are loaded because you know the contradictions in your own beliefs with reality, and you don't want to discuss them, because the topic is TABOO. You SHOULD be embarassed about believing in that supernatural stuff. If you aren't embarassed, then why don't you tell us what you believe in the bible that's supernatural? Or do you reject all parts of the bible that are supernatural, and still call yourself a Christian? Do you really believe in Heaven and Hell? Or just one or the other? Or neither? Simple question! Why won't you answer?
Follow the link and read the rest of the stuff on that web site. No I do not believe it, but I think it's as ridiculous as some of the stuff more "moderate" Christians believe. Just because the Pope claims that Evolution is compatible with Catholic doctrine, doesn't make them truly compatible. He claims a lot of other ridiculous and arrogant stuff, not the least of which is Papal Infallibility. He just said that to keep the Church from hemoraging even more members who were bright enough not to believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, but he'd certainly prefer you take it literally. So why did it take the Church so long to forgive Galileo, if it's so compatible with science?
The foundation of Evolution is the Scientific Method: the quest for NATURAL explanations for events. Science explicitly rejects supernatural explanations. And you can't be Christian without believing in supernatural events and explanations. Certainly you can call yourself Christian but reject all the supernatural parts of the bible, but then you're just a heathen and a liar, not a Christian (and you're going to hell even if you don't believe in it, according the Pope). It's not up to you to redefine Christianity. Make up a new word.
Follow the link. The person I was quoting is a nut job, because they believe the bible proves the Sun orbits around the Earth. But how is that any nuttier than believing that you have to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to get into heaven, or that Christ was the son of God, instead of just a regular human being who had some good ideas? Or all that stuff about Xemu and DC-10 spaceships and nuclear bombs and volcanos that the Scientologists believe? Or that if you fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, you'll get a hundren virgins in heaven? They're all crazy for believing ridiculous superstitious supernatural fairy tales.
Why didn't you simply state your argument in the first place, instead of trying to lead me somewhere then getting disappointed that I "stubbornly failed to follow" your train of though that led to your trick question?
I'm simply taking what Christians say they believe at face value, and following it to its logical and ridiculous conclusions. Because most of them are too intellectually dishonest to perform any thought experiments or exercises in logic that would prove what they have chosen to believe to be wrong.
Religion is a choice, not a genetically programmed mental disability that prevents you from thinking logically, nor a genetic predisposition to believe fairy tales. And it's ironic that so many of the same people who have chosen to disable their mental facilities with religion themselves, actually claim that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic predisposition! They choose to persecute gays, and their belief that being gay is a choice happens to justify their persecution and fuel their hatred. How convenient they happen to believe that, so they can continue thinking of themselves as nice people. But why are they so sure it's a choice, in spite of the medical evidence to the contrary? Maybe it's it because they're actually gay themselves, and "choose" to not act on it like a good Christian? (That's called a "closet case", not a "heterosexual".) Ted Haggard is has now "choosen" to be completely cured of his homosexuality, isn't that nice? Do you really believe him? Maybe he was a liar before, but now that he's cured, he must be telling the truth now, right?
The good news is that unlike homosexuality, religion really is curable!
Seeing as how you said you weren't going to ever respond to me again a long time ago, and you have responded to me many times since then, I'm doing a pretty good job.
You can't defend your beliefs, because you know they're wrong. Tell us what you do believe, instead of claiming you're a Christian, and then denying everything the bible says.
"One says God created man and everything else not very long ago. The Bible states this view over 100 times and allows for no other explanation. God created everything fully formed as part of an eternal plan, the Bible teaches. Period."... "Clearly, the evolutionary belief is anti-Bible."
That's what the bible teaches. Period. If you don't believe it, you're not a Christian. You can say you're a Christian, but you're not -- you're just a cherry-picking, intellectually dishonest liar.
I'm not presupposing: I'm asking questions you REFUSE to answer. You are a liar if you claim to be a "Christian", but don't believe in anything supernatural. What do you believe in that is supernatural?
I didn't say that people who don't believe what I believe in are stupid and intellectually dishonest. That's what I hate about "Conservative" thinking: you always have to twist what people say and misunderstand it on purpose. I'm saying that people who believe things that are provably false are idiots and intellectually dishonest.
Please hold up your end of the argument and justify why it's OK to believe things that are provably false. What do you believe that's provably false, and what is your excuse for believing it?
Do you find it convenient to believe that Global Warming is a myth? That Sadam Hussein was working with Osama bin Laden and had something to do with 9/11? That he had weapons of mass destruction? That Bush's latest "surge" is going to work, even though the last three surges were disasters? That Abraham Lincoln said anyone who questions the president should be hanged as a traitor? That gays getting marries will somehow ruin heterosexual marriages? That's a bunch of bullshit that conservatives choose to believe even though they know it's wrong, but their evil politics dictate that it's ok to lie. That's why Christians and Conservatives are so closely aligned with each other: their beliefs are based on lies.
Of course I also believe that Science hasn't explained everything yet, but the people you're apologising for believe that that fact means that Creationism is true, which is bullshit.
Love is not supernatural, it's an emotion.
I'm not accusing you of being Christian, but you certainly are an apologist and an enabler, if you try to come up with lame excuses like your theory of evolution guided by a Christisan God, who you seem to think you know what he'd do. There's nothing scientific about that, and it's extremely arrogant and sacreligious. It's unfalsifiable and doesn't make any predictions. You're trying to nickle-and-dime your way into justifying a book full of lies. The bible doesn't say that God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test your faith, that's just another lame excuse the young earth creationists made of when confronted with the preponderance of evidence that contradicts what they want to believe. You're doing just the same thing: making lame excuses.
Calling a liar on his lies is not bigotry. Asking a member of a religious cult to explain what they believe is open minded, and searching for truth. Why don't you just tell us what supernatural beliefs you hold, so we can discuss your beliefs? Or are you embarassed about your beliefs because you know they are wrong?
I never implied you're afraid of me. You're afraid of your own intellect. You know that if you continue this discussion and answer my questions, then you will be exposed as a fraud, because you know that you believe things that are provably wrong. You're afraid of logic, not me.
So please enumerate which supernatural beliefs you have? Or do you not believe in anything supernatural at all? Then how can you possibly call yourself a "Christian"? If you don't believe in anything supernatural, but you call yourself a "Christian", then you are a liar, and you know it.
My other point is that most of the so-called Christians who don't believe in creationism DO BELIEVE in many other provably wrong things. But they're to stupid and intellectually dishonest to examine their beliefs for contradictions, and throw out the ones that are impossible.
Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God? The virgin birth? The resurrection? The miricles he performed? Do you believe in any supernatural activity at all? If you don't, then you're certainly not Christian by any definition of the term. If you believe in supernatural events, or astrology, or any of the other fairy-tails in the bible, then you're a self-deceiving idiot. It's as simple as that. If you don't believe in any of that mumbo-jumbo voodoo bullshit, then you're certainly not a Christian, and you're a liar if you call yourself one.
Because the so-called Christians who cherry-pick the bible and don't believe it's literally true are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, and stupid to think what they believe is the truth. Nowhere in the bible does it say you can pick and choose what you believe. There is only one "truth" (no matter who believes it).
Life is not a Philip K Dick novel, like Faith of our Fathers, where multiple contradictory universes exist in parallel and the government puts anti-hallucinigens in the water to make everybody believe in the same reality.
What are the odds that the particular set of cherries you choose to pick are the "truth"? Infintesimally small! It's ridiculous and arrogant to believe you're the only one who just happened to throw out all the bad parts and retain all the good parts, and everybody else is wrong.
NASA has a spiritual agenda. Yes, spiritual. It projects the image of cutting edge science opening exciting space frontiers for the good of mankind, but the facts say otherwise. Judge for yourself:
On the Space Administration's Web Page we read: "NASA's ORIGINS PROGRAM will search for clues to help us find our cosmic roots."
"Cosmic roots...?? Origins...???
There are two major beliefs about the origin of mankind and all other life forms. One says God created man and everything else not very long ago. The Bible states this view over 100 times and allows for no other explanation. God created everything fully formed as part of an eternal plan, the Bible teaches. Period. The other belief says everything came to be as it is accidentally and randomly as the result of natural forces acting upon themselves and "evolving" over billions of years. Clearly, the evolutionary belief is anti-Bible, but--more to the point about NASA's goals being spiritual--it is a belief that attributes miraculous powers of creation of all that exists to a "force" or a god known as "matter" (and "gases"). Matter did it all. All hail "matter"! No God who demands recognition and accountability is needed! With "matter" as creator we can do what we want ('cause nothing matters...).
As might be expected, a compromise belief has arisen out of these two opposites. It is called "theistic evolutionism". This view acknowledges that there has to be a God to explain the mind-blowing design that exists any which way we turn. But, says the Theistic Evolutionist, this God did not create everything fully formed but used an evolutionary process over billions of years to do the job. This evolution-dependent compromise allows a Creator God of sorts, but does not allow the Omniscient and Omnipotent Creator God Who authored the Bible. (Of note too is the fact that the Moslem Koran makes no compromise with evolution either....).
Therefore, NASA's stated goal of searching space for clues to man's origins reveals the premise behind their taxpayer supported Origins Program. That premise is that evolution is true and the Bible (along with the Koran) is false. This premise is not secular; it is spiritual. It claims to be scientific and therefore independent of religion. It is not scientific, as we shall see. It is religious, as we shall also see. The evolutionary premise violates all known science and logic. It does not have the first piece of verifiable evidence to support the squirrely evolution myth it calls "scientific". Evolutionism embodies a single spiritual agenda, viz., disqualify and replace the Bible as the source of Truth.
In support of its Origins Program, NASA says it will answer such questions as:
"Are there any planets outside our solar system that are capable of supporting life?"
"How did life originate on earth?"
"Is there life (however primitive or evolved) outside our solar system?"
Under the heading "ORIGINS SCIENCE" we see that NASA makes it plain that its goal of establishing extraterrestrial evolutionism is symbiotically connected to its dependency on another "scientific" hypothesis. Note this connection and the dependency upon the unproven Big Bang hypothesis that NASA is using to achieve its goal of establishing evolutionism as a "fact". From part of its Web Page we read:
"NASA's ORIGINS PROGRAM follows the 15-billion year long chain of events from the birth of the Universe at the Big Bang, through the formation of the chemical elements, galaxies, stars, and planets, through the mixing of chemicals and energy that cradles life on Earth, to the earliest self-replicating organisms and the profusion of life."
Seen in this statement is the unmistakable dependency of NASA's evolutionary agenda upon the Big Bang Myth.
If you "metaphore" is used to justify persecuting gays, teaching creationism in science classes in public schools, prosecute the crusades, and fly airplanes into buildings, then it's a bald faced LIE. Don't be such an apologist. You're just an enabler.
When you "use metaphors, analogies and allegories" to justify the persecution of gays, the stoning on women, the crusades, flying planes into buildings, manipulating people, taking their money, etc, then THAT IS A HORRIBLE LIE.
You're just an apologist for a bunch of liars. You're just trying to perpetuate the lies. You can't nickle-and-dime the lies in the bible with apologies and half-baked self-contradictory made-up explanations.
God is the final word, and the Bible is the word of God. If you disagree with that, you're certainly not a Christian. That's my point. Most people who call themselves "Christians" disagree with the bible. And they're intellectually dishonest idiots.
You're just on the wrong end of a losing argument. You know you're intellectually dishonest, and your beliefs are self serving bullshit. Why don't you tell us what you really do believe, so we can openly discuss it? Unless you're too embarassed because you know it will be torn apart by logical arguments.
You're just afraid to defend you faith, because you're embarassed about all the contradictions. Doesn't the bible tell you to go out there and try to convert people? Don't you feel bad that my eternal soul is going to roast in hell because you were too weak to stand up for what you believe and convince me to change my mind?
Do you believe in the virgin birth? The resurection? That Jesus ascended to heaven? How many miles up is heaven? Is there an oxygen atmosphere all the way up, or did Jesus suffer from explosive decompression on the way? How do you reconcile all that supernatural bullshit with you belief in science, cause and effect?
Slashdot Mirror
I blame the PHP apologists and evangelizing fan-boys like you, who encourage and recruit naive developers and sloppy programmers to use PHP. To paraphrase John Stewart to Tucker Carlson: STOP EVANGELIZING AND MAKING EXCUSES FOR PHP, YOU ARE HURTING THE INTERNET!
You're no better than the NeoCon fan-boys like Anne Coulter and Bill Kristol, who lied and lied to get us into a horrible war, and now blame the Democrats who were elected by the voters to get us out of the war, and call them traitors who should be hanged. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-Don
Of course the Gnome focus management is sloppy, because it's implemented with X-Windows and ICCCM, which puts the window manager in a different process than the window system and the application, and communicates with it via an asynchronous network protocol. So it unavoidably takes a lot of time for focus notification to get processed, while all kinds of other stuff can happen in the mean time (like double clicks, raising windows, etc), that would change the outcome of the focus change, so the wrong thing happens if you don't wait patiently between clicking the mouse and seeing the results of the click on the screen.
The NeWS window system had perfectly air-tight focus management, because the window manager ran INSIDE of the window system, and it blocked the input queue using "synchronous event handlers" so that no events or commands that would effect the outcome of the focus change would be processed until the focus change was taken care of -- and it could take care of focus changes very quickly because the code was running inside of the window system where the events were being generated in the first place, so there was no need for so many network client/server round trips between mouse clicks and key strokes.
NeWS also let you totally customize the user interface consistently across all applications, by downloading your own user interface classes to the window system like window frames with tabs, pie menus, scrolling desktop managers, rooms, etc.
But that was in 1986. Now it's 2007, and X-Windows still doesn't support any of that stuff. For shame!
-Don
At least Gnome (and practically every other window manager) lets you resize your windows from any corner or edge. But on the Mac, if the resize corner happens to be off the edge of the screen, you first have to move the window onto the screen, then resize it from the lower right corner, then move it back to where you wanted it. Apple got it wrong 23 years ago, and they've had a lot of time to correct the problem, but, like Bush, they won't even acknowledge that there's a problem or admit they made a mistake. Apple is so afraid tat if they ever admitted they made a stupid blunder in their UI design, that will embolden the Windows terrorists. So they have to pretend that it's good for you to only have one resize corner.
Talk about treating your users like idiots! Gnome certainly isn't the only user interface that does that. (Click on that with your one button mouse, while trying to submit a patch to fix Apple's retarded user interface design!)
-Don
Exit Poll Results - The "God Gap" Widens
In recent years, some have asked whether the Democratic Party has a serious "God problem" - an inability to appeal to evangelicals and other highly religious Americans. But the results of this year's election raise the parallel question of whether the Republican Party can appeal to non-Christians and less religious voters. Exit polls find that the Democrats' gains were concentrated among non-Christians and secular voters, indicating an even larger political divide between highly religious voters and the rest of American society.
The GOP held on to voters who attend religious services more than once a week, 60% of whom voted Republican compared with 61% in 2002. A majority (53%) of those who attend church at least once a week also supported Republicans. But less frequent churchgoers were much more supportive of Democrats than they were four years ago. Among those who attend church a few times a year, for instance, 60% voted Democratic, compared with 50% in 2002. And among those who never go to church, 67% voted Democratic; four years ago, only 55% did so. As a result, the gap in Democratic support between those who attend church more than once a week and those who never attend church has grown from 18 percentage points in 2002 to 29 points today.
Though white evangelical voters have been the bedrock of the GOP throughout this decade, many wondered in the days leading up to the election if the party's troubles this year would hurt their prospects with this key voter group. But the GOP actually did very well among white evangelicals in 2006: 72% voted Republican in races for the U.S. House nationwide, and they gave strong support -- about two-thirds or more -- to Republican Senate candidates in several key states, including Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Virginia. These levels of support are comparable to those registered by evangelicals in 2004, when approximately 75% voted for Republican congressional candidates.
Most Americans (60%) - including majorities of white mainline Protestants (56%), black Protestants (84%), white Catholics (60%) and seculars (72%) -- say they are happy that the Democrats won the election. Only among white evangelicals did as many express unhappiness as happiness with the Democrats' victory (41% each).
Similarly, by a 50%-21% margin, Americans say they approve of Democratic congressional leaders' policies and plans for the future. Nearly half of white mainline Protestants (48%) and majorities of black Protestants, white Catholics and seculars express approval of the Democratic agenda. White evangelicals express much lower approval for the Democrats' plans, but nearly as many evangelicals express approval (32%) as disapproval (37%). And majorities of all religious groups, including 57% of evangelicals, expect the Democrats to be successful in getting their programs passed into law.
You know my questions are loaded because you know the contradictions in your own beliefs with reality, and you don't want to discuss them, because the topic is TABOO. You SHOULD be embarassed about believing in that supernatural stuff. If you aren't embarassed, then why don't you tell us what you believe in the bible that's supernatural? Or do you reject all parts of the bible that are supernatural, and still call yourself a Christian? Do you really believe in Heaven and Hell? Or just one or the other? Or neither? Simple question! Why won't you answer?
-Don
Follow the link and read the rest of the stuff on that web site. No I do not believe it, but I think it's as ridiculous as some of the stuff more "moderate" Christians believe. Just because the Pope claims that Evolution is compatible with Catholic doctrine, doesn't make them truly compatible. He claims a lot of other ridiculous and arrogant stuff, not the least of which is Papal Infallibility. He just said that to keep the Church from hemoraging even more members who were bright enough not to believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, but he'd certainly prefer you take it literally. So why did it take the Church so long to forgive Galileo, if it's so compatible with science?
The foundation of Evolution is the Scientific Method: the quest for NATURAL explanations for events. Science explicitly rejects supernatural explanations. And you can't be Christian without believing in supernatural events and explanations. Certainly you can call yourself Christian but reject all the supernatural parts of the bible, but then you're just a heathen and a liar, not a Christian (and you're going to hell even if you don't believe in it, according the Pope). It's not up to you to redefine Christianity. Make up a new word.
-Don
Follow the link. The person I was quoting is a nut job, because they believe the bible proves the Sun orbits around the Earth. But how is that any nuttier than believing that you have to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to get into heaven, or that Christ was the son of God, instead of just a regular human being who had some good ideas? Or all that stuff about Xemu and DC-10 spaceships and nuclear bombs and volcanos that the Scientologists believe? Or that if you fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, you'll get a hundren virgins in heaven? They're all crazy for believing ridiculous superstitious supernatural fairy tales.
Why didn't you simply state your argument in the first place, instead of trying to lead me somewhere then getting disappointed that I "stubbornly failed to follow" your train of though that led to your trick question?
I'm simply taking what Christians say they believe at face value, and following it to its logical and ridiculous conclusions. Because most of them are too intellectually dishonest to perform any thought experiments or exercises in logic that would prove what they have chosen to believe to be wrong.
Religion is a choice, not a genetically programmed mental disability that prevents you from thinking logically, nor a genetic predisposition to believe fairy tales. And it's ironic that so many of the same people who have chosen to disable their mental facilities with religion themselves, actually claim that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic predisposition! They choose to persecute gays, and their belief that being gay is a choice happens to justify their persecution and fuel their hatred. How convenient they happen to believe that, so they can continue thinking of themselves as nice people. But why are they so sure it's a choice, in spite of the medical evidence to the contrary? Maybe it's it because they're actually gay themselves, and "choose" to not act on it like a good Christian? (That's called a "closet case", not a "heterosexual".) Ted Haggard is has now "choosen" to be completely cured of his homosexuality, isn't that nice? Do you really believe him? Maybe he was a liar before, but now that he's cured, he must be telling the truth now, right?
The good news is that unlike homosexuality, religion really is curable!
-Don
Remember what I said about flip-flopping? You're flip-flopping again!
-Don
Seeing as how you said you weren't going to ever respond to me again a long time ago, and you have responded to me many times since then, I'm doing a pretty good job.
You can't defend your beliefs, because you know they're wrong. Tell us what you do believe, instead of claiming you're a Christian, and then denying everything the bible says.
-Don
"One says God created man and everything else not very long ago. The Bible states this view over 100 times and allows for no other explanation. God created everything fully formed as part of an eternal plan, the Bible teaches. Period." ... "Clearly, the evolutionary belief is anti-Bible."
That's what the bible teaches. Period. If you don't believe it, you're not a Christian. You can say you're a Christian, but you're not -- you're just a cherry-picking, intellectually dishonest liar.
-Don
I'm not presupposing: I'm asking questions you REFUSE to answer. You are a liar if you claim to be a "Christian", but don't believe in anything supernatural. What do you believe in that is supernatural?
-Don
Well answer the question, stop trying to avoid it: As a so-called "Christian", what supernatural events do you believe in?
-Don
I didn't say that people who don't believe what I believe in are stupid and intellectually dishonest. That's what I hate about "Conservative" thinking: you always have to twist what people say and misunderstand it on purpose. I'm saying that people who believe things that are provably false are idiots and intellectually dishonest.
Please hold up your end of the argument and justify why it's OK to believe things that are provably false. What do you believe that's provably false, and what is your excuse for believing it?
Do you find it convenient to believe that Global Warming is a myth? That Sadam Hussein was working with Osama bin Laden and had something to do with 9/11? That he had weapons of mass destruction? That Bush's latest "surge" is going to work, even though the last three surges were disasters? That Abraham Lincoln said anyone who questions the president should be hanged as a traitor? That gays getting marries will somehow ruin heterosexual marriages? That's a bunch of bullshit that conservatives choose to believe even though they know it's wrong, but their evil politics dictate that it's ok to lie. That's why Christians and Conservatives are so closely aligned with each other: their beliefs are based on lies.
-Don
Of course I also believe that Science hasn't explained everything yet, but the people you're apologising for believe that that fact means that Creationism is true, which is bullshit. Love is not supernatural, it's an emotion.
I'm not accusing you of being Christian, but you certainly are an apologist and an enabler, if you try to come up with lame excuses like your theory of evolution guided by a Christisan God, who you seem to think you know what he'd do. There's nothing scientific about that, and it's extremely arrogant and sacreligious. It's unfalsifiable and doesn't make any predictions. You're trying to nickle-and-dime your way into justifying a book full of lies. The bible doesn't say that God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test your faith, that's just another lame excuse the young earth creationists made of when confronted with the preponderance of evidence that contradicts what they want to believe. You're doing just the same thing: making lame excuses.
-Don
Calling a liar on his lies is not bigotry. Asking a member of a religious cult to explain what they believe is open minded, and searching for truth. Why don't you just tell us what supernatural beliefs you hold, so we can discuss your beliefs? Or are you embarassed about your beliefs because you know they are wrong?
-Don
I never implied you're afraid of me. You're afraid of your own intellect. You know that if you continue this discussion and answer my questions, then you will be exposed as a fraud, because you know that you believe things that are provably wrong. You're afraid of logic, not me.
So please enumerate which supernatural beliefs you have? Or do you not believe in anything supernatural at all? Then how can you possibly call yourself a "Christian"? If you don't believe in anything supernatural, but you call yourself a "Christian", then you are a liar, and you know it.
-Don
My other point is that most of the so-called Christians who don't believe in creationism DO BELIEVE in many other provably wrong things. But they're to stupid and intellectually dishonest to examine their beliefs for contradictions, and throw out the ones that are impossible.
Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God? The virgin birth? The resurrection? The miricles he performed? Do you believe in any supernatural activity at all? If you don't, then you're certainly not Christian by any definition of the term. If you believe in supernatural events, or astrology, or any of the other fairy-tails in the bible, then you're a self-deceiving idiot. It's as simple as that. If you don't believe in any of that mumbo-jumbo voodoo bullshit, then you're certainly not a Christian, and you're a liar if you call yourself one.
-Don
Because the so-called Christians who cherry-pick the bible and don't believe it's literally true are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, and stupid to think what they believe is the truth. Nowhere in the bible does it say you can pick and choose what you believe. There is only one "truth" (no matter who believes it).
Life is not a Philip K Dick novel, like Faith of our Fathers, where multiple contradictory universes exist in parallel and the government puts anti-hallucinigens in the water to make everybody believe in the same reality.
What are the odds that the particular set of cherries you choose to pick are the "truth"? Infintesimally small! It's ridiculous and arrogant to believe you're the only one who just happened to throw out all the bad parts and retain all the good parts, and everybody else is wrong.
-Don
Certainly! Here's what the "bible experts" have to say: Copurnicus was wrong!
If you "metaphore" is used to justify persecuting gays, teaching creationism in science classes in public schools, prosecute the crusades, and fly airplanes into buildings, then it's a bald faced LIE. Don't be such an apologist. You're just an enabler.
-Don
And you name would be Condaleeza Rice.
-Don
When you "use metaphors, analogies and allegories" to justify the persecution of gays, the stoning on women, the crusades, flying planes into buildings, manipulating people, taking their money, etc, then THAT IS A HORRIBLE LIE.
You're just an apologist for a bunch of liars. You're just trying to perpetuate the lies. You can't nickle-and-dime the lies in the bible with apologies and half-baked self-contradictory made-up explanations.
-Don
God is the final word, and the Bible is the word of God. If you disagree with that, you're certainly not a Christian. That's my point. Most people who call themselves "Christians" disagree with the bible. And they're intellectually dishonest idiots.
-Don
You're just on the wrong end of a losing argument. You know you're intellectually dishonest, and your beliefs are self serving bullshit. Why don't you tell us what you really do believe, so we can openly discuss it? Unless you're too embarassed because you know it will be torn apart by logical arguments.
-Don
You're just afraid to defend you faith, because you're embarassed about all the contradictions. Doesn't the bible tell you to go out there and try to convert people? Don't you feel bad that my eternal soul is going to roast in hell because you were too weak to stand up for what you believe and convince me to change my mind?
Do you believe in the virgin birth? The resurection? That Jesus ascended to heaven? How many miles up is heaven? Is there an oxygen atmosphere all the way up, or did Jesus suffer from explosive decompression on the way? How do you reconcile all that supernatural bullshit with you belief in science, cause and effect?
-Don