Conservatives rejoice!

[strictlybroadband]

The American religious right has decided they don't like Wikipedia, so they've launched an alternative for conservative morons.

The page on "dinosaur" is especially entertaining, such as... "Some Christians reject the Theory of Evolution and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the Young Earth Creationists believe, based primarily on Biblical sources, but also drawing on archeological and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week[10], approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants[11]; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[12]; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[13]; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today[14]." :)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur

[strictlybroadband]

Oops, it looks like some naughty commies have been messing with the entries... from the page on Jesus: "However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew". :takethat:

[Inbedwithfaith]

The American religious right has decided they don't like Wikipedia, so they've launched an alternative for conservative morons.

The page on "dinosaur" is especially entertaining, such as... "Some Christians reject the Theory of Evolution and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the Young Earth Creationists believe, based primarily on Biblical sources, but also drawing on archeological and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week[10], approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants[11]; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[12]; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[13]; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today[14]." :)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur


Thats funny i could have sworn the first dinosaurs were around 250 million years ago and that they were dead 60 millions years ago. I guess science is wrong and the christians are right.

[Damian]

I may start a Flying Spaghetti Monster wiki

[strictlybroadband]

Thats funny i could have sworn the first dinosaurs were around 250 million years ago and that they were dead 60 millions years ago.

I thought that too. Maybe we should check with Paul Markham - he might remember. :geezer:

[Inbedwithfaith]

Aww it wont let me make an account, i suspect they dont want anyone with logic to log in and put things straight.

[Inbedwithfaith]

I may start a Flying Spaghetti Monster wiki

Lol if dave doesnt beat you to it! He obsessed with FSM.

[Inbedwithfaith]

I have to say this isnt my favourite ipedia.org that honour go's to pilkipedia.org the total history and musings of karl pilkington.

[Vince]

I thought that too. Maybe we should check with Paul Markham - he might remember. :geezer:

LOL :)

BTW Waht do you call a one-eyed Dinosaur ?.....................














A doyouthinkhesaurus

Sorry

[wankmaster]

The American religious right has decided they don't like Wikipedia, so they've launched an alternative for conservative morons.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur

It's all brainwashing, so you just have to decide which brand of soap powder you're going to use. Once you have decided, you just need to call everyone who uses a different brand a "moron".

[Damian]

It's all brainwashing, so you just have to decide which brand of soap powder you're going to use. Once you have decided, you just need to call everyone who uses a different brand a "moron".

Surely more common sense than brain washing.

I would propose anyone that thinks the american religious right are not morons should change their soap powder.

Especially in our business.

Fuck the war on terror, they are fighting the war on sex.

[wankmaster]

While it may be comforting to believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be of low intelligence, I don't think underestimating your opposition is ever a good idea.

[Damian]

While it may be comforting to believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be of low intelligence, I don't think underestimating your opposition is ever a good idea.

Excellent. Old skool usenet arguing!

I never said anyone whoh disagrees with me is stupid. I said anyone who thinks the religious right are not morons is stupid.

[wankmaster]

I never said that you ever said that anyone who disagrees with you was stupid.

What I did do was challenge your ( implied belief ) that because the religious right held certain beliefs that you did not agree with, then they must ( in your view ) be morons.

Now in your latest post you add that you think that anyone who does not agree with you that the religious right are morons must be stupid. Not really a lot of point in debating anything with you, so I won't bother.

[Damian]

I never said that you ever said that anyone who disagrees with you was stupid.

What I did do was challenge your ( implied belief ) that because the religious right held certain beliefs that you did not agree with, then they must ( in your view ) be morons.

Now in your latest post you add that you think that anyone who does not agree with you that the religious right are morons must be stupid. Not really a lot of point in debating anything with you, so I won't bother.

Straw man arguments are the new black

[strictlybroadband]

It's all brainwashing, so you just have to decide which brand of soap powder you're going to use. Once you have decided, you just need to call everyone who uses a different brand a "moron".

So there's no such thing as "true" and "false"? I think that's what's known as post-modernist bullshit.

[wankmaster]

So there's no such thing as "true" and "false"? I think that's what's known as post-modernist bullshit.

No, I'm not arguing that at all.

Belief in anything depends on trusting something that you cannot show objectivly to be true. I just don't think that holding a particular belief qualifies anyone to be a moron, or in itself says anything about their intelligence. We all start out from a set of axioms we believe to be true and from those we can usually argue a case. How well we can argue it has something to do with intelligence, but the selection of core beliefs is nothing more than predudice.

[Damian]

No, I'm not arguing that at all.

Belief in anything depends on trusting something that you cannot show objectivly to be true. I just don't think that holding a particular belief qualifies anyone to be a moron, or in itself says anything about their intelligence.

I disagree with you here.

For example, I can objectively show it to be true that Bernard Manning is a dispicable, racist, sexist cunt. I have a belief that this is true, and I can site examples that prove it to be true. viz:

"I came second in a Robert Redford lookalike contest once. {pause} A fucking nigger won . . . There's a fellow, John Lennon, He wanted peace, he fucking g got it. Married a Jap, Yoko Poko, right ugly bastard, face like a blistered piss pot . . . What's two miles long and eats bananas? The fucking dole queue in Bradford."

QED.

On top of that if anyone believes that the religious right in america are not stupid, that creationism is accurate and that the war on sex is A Good Thing for the teenagers in America, I think they are stupid. And dangerously stupid at that.

I would defend to the death your right to agree that Creationism is accurate. But it doesn't stop me thinking you are an idiot.

Unless of course the dinosaurs is just a big conspiracy. DAMN YOU PALIANTOLOGISTS!

:)

[wankmaster]

If you were to ask "How did the universe start and where did we come from?"

One person gives you the theory of the big bang, and dark matter ( the matter we can't detect, but it must be there ( honest ), or the "Standard Model" is a crock of shit ). Then they give you all the stars forming and planets, and that life either just sprang up by chance, or it came in on a meteor. Then all the stuff about DNA and Darwin, and why the dinosaurs died out. An how man evolved etc.

The other person says "God did it".

Which takes the most faith to believe? The simple explanation or the complicated one?

[Damian]

If you were to ask "How did the universe start and where did we come from?"

One person gives you the theory of the big bang, and dark matter ( the matter we can't detect, but it must be there ( honest ), or the "Standard Model" is a crock of shit ). Then they give you all the stars forming and planets, and that life either just sprang up by chance, or it came in on a meteor. Then all the stuff about DNA and Darwin, and why the dinosaurs died out. An how man evolved etc.

The other person says "God did it".

Which takes the most faith to believe? The simple explanation or the complicated one?

I'd take the science route over the patently bollocks religious one anyday. More to do with fossils than faith. Each to his own though. Until it comes to teaching that dinosaurs were 'an interesting theory' in schools though.

Flying Spaghetti Monster is a different story, that should be taught everywhere.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/250px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

[strictlybroadband]

If you were to ask "How did the universe start and where did we come from?"

One person gives you the theory of the big bang, and dark matter ( the matter we can't detect, but it must be there ( honest ), or the "Standard Model" is a crock of shit ). Then they give you all the stars forming and planets, and that life either just sprang up by chance, or it came in on a meteor. Then all the stuff about DNA and Darwin, and why the dinosaurs died out. An how man evolved etc.

The other person says "God did it".

Which takes the most faith to believe? The simple explanation or the complicated one?

Yes, I think you're taking a post-modernist stance - in other words your position is that ultimately, science is no more credible than religion because you have to have faith in either one. But science was created as a way of building a set of truths, using a rigourous method and assuming nothing.

People who have no understanding of science do have a 50/50 choice: believe the scientists or the religious lot. But if you understand what science is about, you know you can put your "faith" (no, let's call it trust) in the scientific method, because UNLIKE religion, a scientific claim can be traced back, step by step, to basic principles. So when science claims something complicated - like life evolved - you can believe it, knowing that if you have the time and the will you can trace evolution back to basic principles and evidence.

Belief in something for which there is no evidence - like God - is laziness of thought. Perhaps "moron" is a harsh term, but it IS a fact that atheists are better educated and have higher average IQs than religious people (see Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion for the research).

[wankmaster]

Yes, I think you're taking a post-modernist stance - in other words your position is that ultimately, science is no more credible than religion because you have to have faith in either one. But science was created as a way of building a set of truths, using a rigourous method and assuming nothing.



I have what I think is a healthy distrust of both science and religion. My knowledge of theology is very poor, but I did have a good scientific education. Belief in science I think is chiefly the province of those who know a little bit about it, the more you study it the more you realise that what is given out for public comsumption and what scientists take to be "fact" are pretty different kettles of fish. For instance, which model of particles you accept to be "true" really depends on what problem you are trying to solve, and a scientist may well use several models to explain an experimental result, while knowing that none of them are "true" in the sense that Joe Bloggs would understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_to_children

The majorty of Ameican rightwing christians are unlikely to be materially effected be evolutionary theory true or not. A simple Biblical explination is in my view good enough for most people.

Folk like to take things on trust. Witness the recent Global Warming debate. Maybe people believe that "all scientists agree", or "it has been 90% proved", when I would say knowing what I know about science, the case for man made global warming is still not sufficiently made to warrent any of the actions currently being proposed, and looks to me like a neat attempt at political control cloaked in the "god" of science's lab coat.

[wankmaster]

Belief in something for which there is no evidence - like God - is laziness of thought. Perhaps "moron" is a harsh term, but it IS a fact that atheists are better educated and have higher average IQs than religious people (see Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion for the research).

Correlation alone cannot show cause and effect.

[Damian]

The majorty of Ameican rightwing christians are unlikely to be materially effected be evolutionary theory true or not. A simple Biblical explination is in my view good enough for most people.

That point of view scares me so much I really can't continue in this discussion.

[strictlybroadband]

The majorty of Ameican rightwing christians are unlikely to be materially effected be evolutionary theory true or not. A simple Biblical explination is in my view good enough for most people.

I disagree - one theory is true and one is false. The evolutionary theory benefits nobody, while religion is used to generate money, control and power.

There is such thing as fact - it's to mankind's benefit that all people are well educated so they can learn to differentiate between fact and fiction for themselves, and so can avoid being duped by crooks - whether evangelists or snake oil salesmen.

Science itself is the study of universal fact. It's true that fake science is used to hoodwink the uneducated - all the more reason to ensure that people are properly educated and that religious brainwashing of children becomes a thing of the past.

[wankmaster]

There is such thing as fact - it's to mankind's benefit that all people are well educated so they can learn to differentiate between fact and fiction for themselves, and so can avoid being duped by crooks - whether evangelists or snake oil salesmen.



A society must be kept in order. There must be something to believe, once you lose that then the ship begins to sink, as I think is the problem in the UK today. Even socialist societies substitute a belief in socialism for a belief in religion as a tool of social coherance.

Islam seems to have got it all pretty well covered with a full program of religion + how to live every aspect of your life, and if you could institute this way of life in a state you'd be heading for a stable society with a low crime rate. Do people want "freedom"? Or do they want "peace"? Judging by how things were in Iraq before and after the "liberation" I'd say they were happier living under a ruthless dictator. ( Well, most of 'em ).

[strictlybroadband]

A society must be kept in order. There must be something to believe, once you lose that then the ship begins to sink

Society has to be ordered, but by belief in falsehoods?

I'd like to think that the more civilised humans become, the less control the state needs to exert, until at some stage (in the distant future) the state becomes redundant. Part of taking mankind towards civilisation is education, and then the choice about what to teach people is important.

Your argument was in vogue before the birth of science - remember that science was once controversial and was suppressed by people who didn't want truth to emerge into the public domain. We should have moved on since then.

[-HF]

there were times, when scientists suggested the planet was flat.
there were times, when scientists suggested they could make gold from lead.
there were times, when scientists warned not to ride on these newfangled things called trains, because the human body was not built to travel at speeds over 20 mph and will take harm.
there were times, when spinach was scientifically proven to be very rich on iron. until it was checked again and the first time round was shown to have a comma error and it's in fact 10 times less iron in spinach.

we know all these once 'true' stances to be wrong. today. they weren't then.

it's a bit arrogant to assume that scientists are working flawlessly nowadays. especially with more and more accepting sponsoring from private bodies, often large companies.

[wankmaster]

Society has to be ordered, but by belief in falsehoods?

I'd like to think that the more civilised humans become, the less control the state needs to exert, until at some stage (in the distant future) the state becomes redundant. Part of taking mankind towards civilisation is education, and then the choice about what to teach people is important.

Your argument was in vogue before the birth of science - remember that science was once controversial and was suppressed by people who didn't want truth to emerge into the public domain. We should have moved on since then.

Yes, it would be nice to think that the state needed to exert less and less control, but it seems not to be the case at the moment. It is all the more worrying because there is now a vacuum of belief in the UK, as the CofE believes less and less each year ( wasn't it the Bishop of Durham who said he didn't belive in God? ), Islam goes from strength to strength gaining converts among White and African/Carribean black people. A recent poll showed that the young muslims were more religious than their elders. Like it or not, people follow strong leadership, so long as you can found that leadership in some moral principle.

[wankmaster]

there were times, when scientists suggested the planet was flat.
there were times, when scientists suggested they could make gold from lead.
there were times, when scientists warned not to ride on these newfangled things called trains, because the human body was not built to travel at speeds over 20 mph and will take harm.
there were times, when spinach was scientifically proven to be very rich on iron. until it was checked again and the first time round was shown to have a comma error and it's in fact 10 times less iron in spinach.

we know all these once 'true' stances to be wrong. today. they weren't then.

it's a bit arrogant to assume that scientists are working flawlessly nowadays. especially with more and more accepting sponsoring from private bodies, often large companies.

Yes, almost all scientific truths are "up for grabs".

They thought they could turn lead into gold.
It was "disproved", they could not.
Now of course we know that lead CAN be turned into gold, and in fact it has been achieved.

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm

As I said before, a childlike faith is science is just that, it's a faith.

[strictlybroadband]

there were times, when scientists suggested the planet was flat.
there were times, when scientists suggested they could make gold from lead.
there were times, when scientists warned not to ride on these newfangled things called trains, because the human body was not built to travel at speeds over 20 mph and will take harm.
there were times, when spinach was scientifically proven to be very rich on iron. until it was checked again and the first time round was shown to have a comma error and it's in fact 10 times less iron in spinach.

we know all these once 'true' stances to be wrong. today. they weren't then.

it's a bit arrogant to assume that scientists are working flawlessly nowadays. especially with more and more accepting sponsoring from private bodies, often large companies.

But that's what distinguishes science from dogmatic thought. Scientists can be wrong. Religion on the other hand, starts with an absolute claim (God created the universe) and then invents the "evidence" to fit. Religions can't admit they're wrong, or they cease to exist. Sure, individual scientists can be dogmatic in their views, but the very nature of science eventually unmasks these people.

BTW - name the scientist who thought the earth was flat. Science is only a few centuries old - the earth was known to be round before then. But maybe Wankmaster thinks that believing the earth's flat is equally valid to believing it's round?

[AllRuth]

.

[wankmaster]

I've really no idea who thought the earth was flat, the Greeks knew it was round, and they even knew the size of it to within a good margin. I think the flat earth thing comes from a Cole Porter ( or somebody ) song, "Who's had the last laugh now?".

Interestingly tho, most geo-modelling packages work on a flat earth theory because within what they have to do that is "good enuff". At larger dimensions we work in three dimensional Euclidean Space, but even that idea pegs out when we go to astronomical distances and have to account for the effects of gravity.

[strictlybroadband]

.

That's a pretty minimalist argument.

[-HF]

if memory serves, Pythagoras was the first one to suggest Earth was not flat but a sphere, that was around 600 BC, he didn't get much support on this view though. only around 300 BC it was becoming 'general knowledge' and accepeted as such. if you want more names, you'll hav to look them up yourself.

in Mesopotamia for example they thought Earth was a disc floating on water. which is sort of interesting, considering how advanced their astronomy and mathematic knowledge was.

claiming science was only a few centuries old is another expression of arrogance, BTW. 360° in a circle, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, 12 months in a year, all this has been introduced by the mesopotamians aöready.
also the Pythagorean theorem will ring a bell or two.

maybe there we see why i for one rate atheists as just as bad as religious folks. they tend to replace one belief system with another. atheism is just the belief there is no god of any sorts. not proof has been provided as of yet.
i'd happily see one, so i could switch my agnostic state to a knowing one. ;)

[wankmaster]

To return to the original question for a while...

I find the arrogance of belief quite interesting. I've spoken to American fundamentalists who have had an absolute belief that they were right, they could argue the point and within their belief system they could not be shaken.

On the other hand we have the modernist "science is the truth" brigade who also can argue their point within their belief system. These people are also absolutly sure they are right and that the other lot are "morons". To me there's not a lot to chose, both are arrogant enough to claim a monopoly in the truth and totally sure they are correct.

That's bad enough, but to think that anyone who doesn't share their truth must be stupid is a bit rich.

The only way to sort this out would be with boxing gloves.

[Merlin]

Yes, almost all scientific truths are "up for grabs".

They thought they could turn lead into gold.
It was "disproved", they could not.
Now of course we know that lead CAN be turned into gold, and in fact it has been achieved.

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm

As I said before, a childlike faith is science is just that, it's a faith.

If you understood what science is you'd know it isn't a faith or a belief though. Religous nutters tend to attack science as though it were a faith. It isn't. It's the expectation that the material world is understandable or explanable in rational terms. If it isn't, then we're all fucked frankly. You might as well believe in the big spaghetti monster or the holy trinity for that matter.

Science also realises that it sometimes get things wrong. But all that's really saying is that this or that explanation best fits the information we have at this time. In the long term science is far better than religion at providing an understanding of the material world because it is willing to adapt to changing information. Fundamentalist religion isn't.

[wankmaster]

If you understood what science is you'd know it isn't a faith or a belief though.


In a sense you are right, science is not a belief, problem is many people have come to believe in it.

Science has very little to say about reality. It's a series of models which are useful to develop stuff using technology. It makes no pretention to be objectively "true". This is the bit many people cannot grasp.

For example, is light a wave or a particle? According to science, it is "either, neither and both" depending on what you want to prove or measure.

Moreover, science makes no moral judgements. For example if I could steal all the money from your bank account and get away with it would I do it? Do we behave "morally" because we fear being caught? Or have we been instilled with something by a belief system that cannot be proven?

[Merlin]

Moreover, science makes no moral judgements. For example if I could steal all the money from your bank account and get away with it would I do it? Do we behave "morally" because we fear being caught? Or have we been instilled with something by a belief system that cannot be proven?

Yes, science doesn't provide a set of ethics. But then religious people often wrongly believe they have a monopoly on providing rules to live by. I've often heard religious people say "well, if there's no god providing the rules people might as well do exactly as they please." In fact most intelligent secular thinkers in the last few hundred years have realised that it's perfectly possible to come up with a justifiable set of rules to live by without the necesity to have the rules backed up by a god. I'm thinking of humanism etc. In fact secular rules tend to be very similar to religious rules. Don't kill, steal etc.

Religious morality is a crude trick. If Moses had come off the mountain and said "look, chaps, I've been thinking it would be a good idea for society if we didn't kill one another and covet one anothers' oxes etc. etc." no one would have taken any notice. But because these people weren't very bright it strengthened Moses' argument to say "God has given me these commandments on tablets of stone and you'd better follow them or God will punnish you". Those not very bright people are still around today in the form of religious fundamentalists.

[strictlybroadband]

In a sense you are right, science is not a belief, problem is many people have come to believe in it.

Yes, but that says nothing about science and a lot about politics, capitalism, the media and the gullibility of people.

Unfortunately, most journalists who write science stories don't know what they're talking about, so they often use charlatans as their sources. Politicians often do similar.

Science has very little to say about reality.

Come on... you can't be serious. If science isn't deeply linked to reality, then your car doesn't exist, nor your TV set, your PC, the glass in your windows, the nails holding down your floorboards... science does try to model reality as you said, but you forgot the bit where the model gets tested. If you don't believe science is almost always right, you should never risk getting in a car or plane ever again.

You keep talking about the weirdness that goes on at subatomic level. The problem there is that we can't experience subatomic reality so it's all very abstract to us humans. Nonetheless, Einstein's abstract ideas about subatomic particles led to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which even you have to admit happened.

[wankmaster]

Science is a useful model of reality, and that's all it is. The model gets tested, and when a better model is found for that problem domain, the new model is adopted. Much the same way that religion is a model or allegory for human society and a "good" way to live.

For the record, no I don't subscribe to creationism, but neither do I believe that anyone who adopts this model in order to explain the world to themselves must be less intelligent than I am. I don't think anyone with faith must be "backward" or "stupid".


Don't forget, that if you publicly crictise Islam as "backward" and you work for the BBC you would be getting the sack, go any further with such criticsm and you'd find yourself in the dock, so everyone should get in their fill of criticising religion before the PC brigade get around to banning it.
( This is a general point not aimed at any contributor to this thread in particular ).

It's a testimony to the public apreciation of science that Einstein is often picked out as "father of the bomb". He had input to quantum theory in that he explained the photoelectric effect, but his contibution was small compared to the likes of Enrico Fermi. The real father of the bomb I'd say, tho, was Oppenheimer, but Einstein got all the press due to his hair style.

[strictlybroadband]

Don't forget, that if you publicly crictise Islam as "backward" and you work for the BBC you would be getting the sack, go any further with such criticsm and you'd find yourself in the dock, so everyone should get in their fill of criticising religion before the PC brigade get around to banning it.

All religions I've encountered are backward and stupid, including the one I was raised with. Sue me. :)

[DaveKnell]

Society has to be ordered, but by belief in falsehoods?

There's nothing false about the stuff on Conservapedia. Their first commandment, at http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments reads
"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I guess that's settled, then.

--Dave

[strictlybroadband]

There's nothing false about the stuff on Conservapedia. Their first commandment, at http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments reads
"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."


They mostly achieve that by writing "Most Christians believe that..." followed by whatever they like, which of course becomes a true statement.

However they slipped up here: "However, there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting". They should of course have said: "Many Christians believe that there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting".

The only evidence I know of is Jurassic Park, the movie, and there are rumours that the dinosaurs in that aren't even real ones.

[wankmaster]

Ye of little faith.

[DaveKnell]

Sort of on topic, the "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" top 100 is a collection of writings to which I often turn in times of trouble:
http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp

--Dave

[Damian]

Sort of on topic, the "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" top 100 is a collection of writings to which I often turn in times of trouble:
http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp

--Dave

Thanks for that link. It's scary stuff:

"Just recently my son Bobby came out to me. I had been worried for awhile. His teachers said most of his grades were slipping and he seemed depressed and withdrawn.

Bobby said he'd been hiding it for awhile because he was afraid I would reject him. I sat him down and told him that I loved him and that God loved him, but that his salvation was in danger if he did not resist his unnatural tempations. I told him how being gay would mean he would live a shorter life, and that if he couldnt change his orientation he could be celibate like most the ex-gays are. He started crying saying something along the lines of "I knew you wouldnt understand! You're just like everyone else!" before running to his room and slamming the door.

What did I do wrong? I dont want to lose my son, but I fear I already have. I talked it over with his therapist, who had the ludicrous idea that homosexuality was unchangable and that trying to repress could lead to lots of psychological damage (I've dropped him and will try to be finding another therapist with more moral beliefs). I wouldnt be surprised if he's the one who's feeding my son all the homosexual propaganda about how its 'ok' to be gay. That, or how homosexuality has engulfed the media, making it seem 'cool' and 'hip' and how they were just another oppressed minority. You didnt have to worry about seeing two men making out on tv at my age! I dont want to sound like a fanatic, but Im worried what other effects will come out of this increasingly secular, immoral society obsessed with filth.

Am I too late? Or is it possible to save my son

--


The note says the kids killed himself. Poor little shit.

And religion isn't stupid? This woman is so stupid she forces her own son to commit suicide. Sad, sad, day.

[wankmaster]

And religion isn't stupid? This woman is so stupid she forces her own son to commit suicide. Sad, sad, day.

Yes, sample of one, no verification, totally scientific.

[Merlin]

"However, there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting". They should of course have said: "Many Christians believe that there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting".

The only evidence I know of is Jurassic Park, the movie, and there are rumours that the dinosaurs in that aren't even real ones.

LOL! Yes. And there was One Million Years BC with Rachuel Welch.

I know evangelical Christians who actually believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted. And on the flimsy evidence that the dragons that appear in myths are probably a sort of race memory of dinosaurs. They conveniently ignore that fact that the main evidence for dinosaurs are fossils, i.e. bone turned to stone which takes millions of years, whereas extinct animals, that existed during man's time on earth, like mamoths for example, are actually found preserved as skin and bone in arctic and similar places.

[Damian]

And more pearls of wisdom!

"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

[strictlybroadband]

Sort of on topic, the "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" top 100 is a collection of writings to which I often turn in times of trouble:
http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp

--Dave

I like this one:

This is what it would be like, if the majority of people were athiests.
ATHIEST KID: Mom, I'm going to go fuck a hooker.
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, son.
ATHIEST KID: Afterwards, I'm going to go smoke pot with my friends, since it's "not addictive."
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, come home soon!

Ah, if only I'd grown up in that home.

[Damian]

Yes, sample of one, no verification, totally scientific.

<in a really slow and easy to understand voice>

There is a website, that Dave linked to, FULL of similar quotes.

I posted one particularly sad and horrific one.

If you visit the site, you will find more.

Do try harder next time.

</in a really slow and easy to understand voice>

[wankmaster]

And more pearls of wisdom!

"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

I assume you have studied evolution in depth, and concluded it to be correct.

[wankmaster]

<in a really slow and easy to understand voice>

There is a website, that Dave linked to, FULL of similar quotes.

I posted one particularly sad and horrific one.

If you visit the site, you will find more.

Do try harder next time.

</in a really slow and easy to understand voice>

So they all killed themselves?

Yes, really hard to knock up a website isn't it.
"It's on the Internet, so it MUST be true".

[DaveKnell]

Yes, really hard to knock up a website isn't it.
"It's on the Internet, so it MUST be true".

I really don't think that any one person could have come up with all the stuff on there. It's far too inventive - that's one of the reasons why I find it so engrossing. And the rating system selects articles for survival.

Which is why fstdt.com, which evolves, is orders of magnitude more entertaining than the original site which Jerry posted, which had clearly been created. Or, if you prefer, intelligently designed.

--Dave

[wankmaster]

I really don't think that any one person could have come up with all the stuff on there. It's far too inventive - that's one of the reasons why I find it so engrossing. And the rating system selects articles for survival.

Which is why fstdt.com, which evolves, is orders of magnitude more entertaining than the original site which Jerry posted, which had clearly been created. Or, if you prefer, intelligently designed.

--Dave

Exactly, an entertainment.

The idea that someone may ( or may not ) have killed themselves is sad, but I don't think you can draw any real conclusions from such a site as to whether faith in itself is a force for good or evil.

[Damian]

I assume you have studied evolution in depth, and concluded it to be correct.


Ah see your (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll) mistake here. you think that when I post something it's ME TALKING.

It isn't!!!

I was QUOTING something from teh INTERWEBS!!!

[Damian]

Exactly, an entertainment.

The idea that someone may ( or may not ) have killed themselves is sad, but I don't think you can draw any real conclusions from such a site as to whether faith in itself is a force for good or evil.

Who said you could?

Move away from the usenet classic strawman and try something a bit more clever.

Go on.

[wankmaster]

Who said you could?

Move away from the usenet classic strawman and try something a bit more clever.

Go on.

I've really no idea "who said you could", I'm just stating my view that an apocryphal tale drawn from a website someone set up doesn't allow for any conclusions about anything.

"The note says the kids killed himself. Poor little shit.

And religion isn't stupid? This woman is so stupid she forces her own son to commit suicide. Sad, sad, day."

You're obviously believe this story to be true. I'm sceptical.

[Damian]

I've really no idea "who said you could", I'm just stating my view that an apocryphal tale drawn from a website someone set up doesn't allow for any conclusions about anything.

"The note says the kids killed himself. Poor little shit.

And religion isn't stupid? This woman is so stupid she forces her own son to commit suicide. Sad, sad, day."

You're obviously believe this story to be true. I'm sceptical.

You replied to a post, answering a question that wasn't asked of you. You seem to do this quite alot. It's really standard Usenet trolling. Then to feign confusion is the next classic step.

You are good at this. I will give you that.

There is the source of the original post (http://www.unidiversal.com/STPEditorialsHomosexuality20041106Forum.html) on the site and the story of the kid's suicide (http://www.freejesus.net/home/viewtopic.php?p=43639#43639).

Hope that helps.

Damian

[wankmaster]

Yes, thanks for those two links to something someone posted on a bulletin board.

Very helpful.

[Damian]

Yes, thanks for those two links to something someone posted on a bulletin board.

Very helpful.

Anytime.

[spann0]

I might vote for david cameron to upset you!

[Rosie]

You're debating God on a porno webmasters web board. Excellent :)

[JT]

Ive been away for a few days, so missed this. Save me reading all the posts, did we decide it was god or science that created the universe?

[Merlin]

Ive been away for a few days, so missed this. Save me reading all the posts, did we decide it was god or science that created the universe?

Dunno! Lost the plot somewhere. Someone mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think it was 'im what done it.