egafd.com

"All I have to decide now is if being smug is better than being thick. Hmmmm...."


Decided yet you smug cunt?......

Hahaha..........yes. Definitely smug. Converting to an idiot would be a major upheaval.

Sam, I've never really thought of myself as part of a problem before. Well I never....
You called Darwinism 'one of the most sound scientific theories of all time'. You said it yourself: 'a theory'. Why is it then presented on TV by 'smug bastards' as pure fact?
I dislike Dawkins and his ilk, not because I think religion is above criticism, but because I don't buy the theory of evolution. If you believe it: Fine! But don't go around saying that people are stupid because they don't believe the same as you do. You probably see Dawkins' propaganda as liberating. I see it as oppressive indoctrination. An attack on free, independent thought by a vain, uncompromising, academic firebrand.
I didn't mention Amazon.co.uk in my earlier post, so I'm not going to waste time discussing it in this one.
As for your comparison: Don't ever compare me to a racist! If want to talk about racism, then why not talk about the relationship between Darwin's theory of evolution and Eugenics?
I understand that people refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin's Rottweiler. I'd say you're more like 'Dawkins' Chihuahua'. An annoying little mutt that keeps snapping at passers by.
As for your implication that I'm thick: You can think what you like, but I'd rather be thick than a patronising, pedantic, intolerant little PC asshole like you.

!thumbsup!

[quote]You called Darwinism 'one of the most sound scientific theories of all time'. You said it yourself: 'a theory'. Why is it then presented on TV by 'smug bastards' as pure fact?[/quote]

Because science uses the word 'theory' as a layman uses the word 'fact'. We have a theory of gravity, a theory of relativity and a theory that the Earth goes around the sun. They don't use 'fact' because they live by the assumption you cannot be 100% certain of anything. If you pick up a ball and drop it you cannot be 100% certain it will fall to the ground until you actually do it and observe the result. All you can say is that you dropped a ball 1000 times and 1000 times it fell to the ground. It is also a theory that the Earth orbits the sun, that germs and bacteria cause diseases and that if you poke both your eyes out with a spoon you'll go blind.


When science is less sure of something they call it a hypothesis. An intelligent guess based on reasoning, known rules and limited evidence. Please remember this distinction. It's important.

[quote]I dislike Dawkins and his ilk, not because I think religion is above criticism, but because I don't buy the theory of evolution.[/quote]

And that, right there, is your problem. The theory was sound enough before 1953 but the discovery of the double helix backed up and solidified the theory completely. If you don't believe in evolution now, nothing will persuade you. You've no excuse not to believe, unless you have access to evidence to the contrary. If you do then science would be very interested in knowing about it. I think there'd be a Nobel prize in it for you at the very least.

[quote]But don't go around saying that people are stupid because they don't believe the same as you do.[/quote]

I don't go around saying people are stupid because they don't believe in what I believe. I might question the intelligence of someone who disbelieves in things despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, AND without any evidence of their own. They might not be stupid, or in denial, or delusional, or ignorant..........but I'd bet on one being their problem.

[quote]You probably see Dawkins' propaganda as liberating. I see it as oppressive indoctrination. An attack on free, independent thought by a vain, uncompromising, academic firebrand.[/quote]

I see the truth as the truth. Sometimes it's useful and other times it's depressing. It is what it is whether you or I like it or not. And I don't know what you mean by 'free, independent thought'. If it means refusing to accept that a ball will fall to the ground if I drop it then I don't find that sort of thinking 'independent thought' either. And as for vanity: what's more vain, believing the evidence is more important than your personal wishes or that your own personal wishes are more important than the evidence? Surely the vain one is the latter.

[quote]I didn't mention Amazon.co.uk in my earlier post, so I'm not going to waste time discussing it in this one.[/quote]

It was to show how many books and dvds Amazon sold that related to those key words. It gives some idea on what's selling in our society. The ratio of books linked to the keywords 'Atheism' and 'Christianity' was 1:80 in Christianity's favour. Not TV, I know, but I think if you really couldn't turn the TV on without seeing some 'smug bastard' preaching from the book of Darwin, like you say, then there'd be more books and dvds on the subject. We could just stick to TV then and.........hmmmmm........I dunno.....count how many Atheist channels there are available compared to religious channels? How'd that do you? I think we both know what findings we'd discover, don't we?

[quote]As for your comparison: Don't ever compare me to a racist! If want to talk about racism, then why not talk about the relationship between Darwin's theory of evolution and Eugenics?[/quote]

You seem a little irritable. I was comparing your attitude and sensitivity to something you dislike. It didn't go further than that.

[quote]I understand that people refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin's Rottweiler. I'd say you're more like 'Dawkins' Chihuahua'. An annoying little mutt that keeps snapping at passers by.[/quote]

You're right there. Dawkins is the Chihuahua in a kennel full of religious Rottweilers. No wonder he seems continually pissed off.

[quote]As for your implication that I'm thick: You can think what you like, but I'd rather be thick than a patronising, pedantic, intolerant little PC asshole like you.[/quote]

I was going to apologise for that implication but since you've called me all those names I've changed my mind. !laugh! And you don't believe in Evolution, so you're a bit thick anyway. The implication has, ironically, 'evolved' into an accusation.

And while we're at it, it's nice to know you have some belief in the scientific method. It, after all, enabled you to watch a bloody TV and complain about Atheists to start with. It enabled you to complain about it through the internet on here. It enables you to warm your house, make sure it doesn't fall down around you and enables you to receive clean water that won't kill you. It enables you to keep your milk from going off after more than a day and your wine cool. It enables you to cook your dinner without blowing yourself up and enables you to read this post even if your eyes are getting worse with age. I'm sure you don't question science when you're sat in your car at 70mph or, more impressively, sat at 30,000ft in an aeroplane on the way to warmer climes. I'm almost certain you'll be hoping science knows what it's doing if your heart packs in, liver fails or you develop some dangerous illness. It's fine to believe in science when it suits you and you're getting something out of it. If it's something that doesn't hinder you, though, then it become a load of smug cunts and codswallop.

And remember. If the sun doesn't come up tomorrow feel free to come on here and take the piss.

As one who is sometimes mistaken for a vicar, has imitated vicars (see jimslip on youtube), known plenty of vicars and even has an "A" level in
Divinity (my dear dad`s advice being "become a vicar, son `cos you only have to work one day a week "), I think I can comment on Christians and - what I
think you are refering to Jim, Christian groups and youth groups in particular.
They do indeed seem smug. They would agree I think. And add, "rightly so".
Because they have found God, they have found a meaning to their life and a
path - which to follow our Lord Jesus Christ. That makes `em smug.
Its why sects are dangerous - because to "know" the meaning of something,
especially a path of knowledge, leads to superiority and a corresponding
hypocritical or superior attirude towards others with differing views.
Young Christians in groups are as scary as moslem fundamentalist groups...
And smug Christian speakers are danagerous. I know. I debated twice with the
late - super-smug Mary Whitehouse - whose evangelical zeal and hatred of porn (or anyone who disagreed with her) shone out of every pore.

Oh no, another long one. Never use one word when 100 will do, eh Sam?
(And you didn't even mention Eugenics?)

So scientists don't use the word fact, even when they mean fact? Confusing.

'I've no excuse not to believe?' Fuck you! Listen to yourself you zealot, you sound just like some Al-Qaeda terrorist!

And you don't go around saying people are stupid because they don't believe in what you believe? Nothing you call me is going to offend me. But at least have the decency not to lie about what you said - Especially when it still up there in the above-but-one post! You did call me stupid. Look, first you said I was wrong, and then said 'All I have to decide now is if being smug is better than being thick.' I take it that 'smug' was meant as a reference to yourself. Who were you referring to when you said 'thick'?

'If you don't believe in evolution now, nothing will persuade you.' Well, you certainly won't. You'll notice that I'm not trying trying to convince anyone of anything.

And as for 'what goes up must come down', you're saying Sir Isaac Newton was an atheist?

Believe it or not, I too can distinguish between what I would like there to be and what actually is. I don't disbelieve anything purely because I don't want it to be true. But I just don't buy Darwin's theory. Sorry. Why do you care so much about what I do or don't believe? And Why do you assume that I've got something against science, invention, discovery, etc? All I said was that having looked at the arguments in favour of it, I don't actually believe in the theory of evolution, and that it pisses me off when it's so aggressively pushed in my face on TV. And to prove my point, that's exactly what you did! Bloody hell, I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition....

Calm down, Ken. I don't really care what you do and do not believe. You initiated this conversation.

You don't have to believe. It doesn't care. What I will say is that Evolution by natural selection is the foundation of modern biology and genetics. It has helped us detect people who are susceptible to disorders involving certain kidney diseases, high cholesterol, sickle cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, many cancers, scoliosis, epilepsy, mental retardation, heart disease, certain types of blindness, Huntingtons disease, your proneness to obesity, Duchenne muscular dystrophy......the list goes on. It has helped eradicate certain diseases and model how certain bacteria and viruses evolve and spread...and how best to combat them.

It's helped us farm animals that produce more meat and hardier crops that aren't as prone to drought and disease.........it just works and for you to pour scorn on it without even telling us why makes you more smug and pompous than I'll ever be. We even use DNA to help convict rapists and murderers. It's good enough for our courts but not for you, it seems. Even the bloody CofE and the Pope believe in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection these days and they have as much motive as anyone for dismissing it as a load of crap. The only thing shabby about you, Ken, is your thinking.

Like I said, you believe in science when it suits you. If you don't believe in Darwin's sound theory then please tell us why. If you have knowledge some of the greatest minds on Earth don't have then it's your duty as a fellow human being to share it. You'd get nearly a million quid for that Nobel prize, I reckon! Or are you just another ignorant twat that doesn't know his arse from his elbow?

Believe me, I'm calm. You haven't ruffled my feathers yet.
And no Sam, I didn't initiate this conversation. I merely reacted to your berating of Essex Lad for daring to suggest that Christians have ever been charitable to the poor. You said that they really only wanted to control what people thought. That's why I said, in the my first post on this thread, that on TV, atheists always seem to be trying to control what we think. remember?
The Anglicans and Catholics have given up on Christianity and turned to Darwinism? That's news to me. Church attendances must be down! But that's up to them and irrelevant to me.
'Your proneness to obesity'? Are you serious? It's not enough that I'm a fool and a heretic in your eyes, but now I'm fat as well?
The ONLY thing shabby about me is my thinking? Well thank you, I'll take that as a compliment.
You say that you don't care what I believe and that I only believe in science when it suits me. Forgive me, but I don't see science as a thing that I, or anyone else for that matter has to stay faithful to or give some pledge of allegiance to. You think ALL scientific theories must be appreciated and believed in their entirety or none at all. (You're saying that everybody involved in the fields that you mentioned are or were Darwinists?) I appreciate the vast majority of scientific theories I've heard of, but there are some theories that I just can't believe in. You'll find that a lot of people in the world are like that. It's called free thought. But despite not caring, you then say that you want to know what I think: 'my evidence'. OK, for what it's worth, here it is. I don't like long posts but you asked for it....
'Sherman, set the Wayback Machine' to the mid eighties, and the secondary school that I attended. How the universe began depended greatly on what room you in. If we were in room 29 (Biology), then the class learnt about The Big Bang, Evolution, Homo-Man, The Missing Link, etc. However, if we were in room 46 (R.E.), we learnt about God, Creation, The Garden of Eden, The Israelites, etc. It was confusing. But even at an early age, I had my doubts about evolution. It didn't tally with what I saw of the world around me, first hand, in books and on TV. All the beauty on the surface, and all the tiny, subtle intricacies inside. (I once asked a bloke who was telling me about evolution, how would something like the human eye evolve from nothing? All he kept saying was that it happened over billions of years. Surely, that's not how, that's when!) But that's just the physical side of ourselves and the world about us. There's already what I'd learned about the human spirit by that time. Love and other emotions, insight - what it means to be a human being. I couldn't reconcile those observations with Darwin's theory, that somehow all that was just a mistake, the result of a big bang, and the ensuing hap-hazard struggle to be and mutate that he described. Everything in the natural world looked (to me at least) too well constructed. Over the years, I've stayed interested in philosophy, belief systems, who we are, where we came from and where we're going. But, Darwinism just doesn't do it for me. So the emergence in recent years of the 'Rabid Darwinists' (seemingly wanting to stamp out all other belief systems) on TV has, not surprisingly, annoyed me (that and the ever encroaching Political Correctness). I mean, Dawkins and the rest already have the educational system and the media, what more do they want? (I mean the mainstream media: BBC, documentary channels, etc. I wouldn't call the TV evangelist channels mainstream - Well I don't watch them anyway!) And so that pretty much brings me up to the present day. I suppose I don't know what I believe exactly, but I know it's not evolution. And I believe it's my right, even in this day and age, to say so. You might disagree. You seem to be a born scientist (that's not a compliment, I'm afraid) whereas I'm at heart probably more like a poet (For want of a better word. Weird, huh?) We're both looking at the same thing - but just from different perspectives. For example: the poet, if he saw a truly beautiful woman, would compare her beauty to the stars, a tropical moon or even that of angels. Whereas the scientist would probably just go up to her and say something like she was 'a superior human female specimen and a prime candidate for breeding!' You know what? I wouldn't swap my warm, but sentimental, common sense humanity for cold, clinical intellectualism (and an encyclopedia for a head). To use a Star Trek metaphor: I'd rather be 'Bones' MacCoy than Mr Spock, any day.
So there it is, a brief summing up of my observations of the world and our inner humanity. Laugh all you want! But I believe that, despite your reverence for the 'greatest minds' (some of which have achieved great things), everyone has their own unique outlook on life. I don't think it's up to anyone single person (or group of persons) to do all the thinking for everybody else, and then just expect the rest of us to blindly follow them. If you want to do that - fine. (that pretty much backs up my theory on acadamia, they just agree with whatever the one with the most letters after his name says!)
If I'm an 'another ignorant twat who doesn't know his arse from his elbow', then all I can say is that I'm not the only one in this argument!
Despite what you say, I'm not smug or pompous. I'm not the one who tells people on these boards that they're wrong. The most I ever say is that I disagree. What's wrong with that?
I think we've wasted enough of these good people's time by our arguing pointlessly. Pointless because you're never going to change my mind. You can spend the rest of your life having this discussion, but you'll be doing it without me. I don't enjoy butting heads with you (it's about as much fun as toothache). I'd much rather converse with someone I've got more in common with (namely, almost anyone else on planet Earth). So I think I'll take my own advice and actually turn my hand to writing poetry or something. That's a good idea. So Goodbye, Sam.

Now, "There once was a man from Nantucket...."

KS wrote, quoting SS, 'Your proneness to obesity'? Are you serious? It's not enough that I'm a fool and a heretic in your eyes, but now I'm fat as well?'

I'm sure you know perfectly well he meant 'your' as a term for people in general not you personally. And as for Darwinism being a 'belief system', rather it is an evidence based description of how we and the world around us developed. It is no less wondrous and spectacular for that.