egafd.com

Way to condescend, Sam. I had finished here, but since you've requested me to answer you, here we go....

Surprise, surprise: No, as you correctly surmised, I don't have a Nobel prize. But you don't get it do you? I'm not claiming to have an alternate scientific theory, however that doesn't mean that I have to automatically except something just because somebody puts an idea forward. Darwin's theory is only one in a whole marketplace full of ideas. Surprise, surprise again: I wasn't around when the universe began, no man was. I don't know how it all happened, I never claimed to. And I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I can honestly say that I'm really not bothered what other people believe. What I am against though, are people who look down on others because of their differing beliefs, and that's what I think the kind of fanatical evolutionists that are on TV these days are guilty of. It's intellectual fascism. What's wrong with people being allowed to believe whatever they want to, without some zealot telling them that they're ignorant. You're always preaching to us about intolerance, you should take a good look at your own dogmatic prejudices.

And you actually have to ask me what I'm 100% certain of in life? Why don't you get a life and find out for yourself?

We're never going to agree on anything, Sam, so I'm just going to give up arguing with you. Go on, say whatever you want in any thread, it's bloody obvious that I'm going to disagree with you, so why should I even bother to say so....I give up, it's like trying to talk to a fucking robot! Bye.

Legal peados the lot of em !

[quote]I'm not claiming to have an alternate scientific theory, however that doesn't mean that I have to automatically except something just because somebody puts an idea forward.[/quote]

No. That's why ideas have to be backed by evidence. If you choose to ignore this evidence without any counter-argument or evidence of your own then you become the arrogant, stubborn extremist. You have no reason for disbelieving apart from your own personal tastes.....which is the height of arrogance.

[quote]Darwin's theory is only one in a whole marketplace full of ideas.[/quote]

It is the only theory we have that is backed up by evidence from zoology, paleontology and genetics. There's just as much evidence for evolution by natural selection as there is evidence that bacteria and viruses cause disease.

[quote]I wasn't around when the universe began, no man was.[/quote]


We're talking about how life has evolves and still evolves.

[quote]And I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. [/quote]

Because you have absolutely nothing to convince people with. Nothing but your own personal ideas anyway......which are based on nothing.

[quote]I can honestly say that I'm really not bothered what other people believe. What I am against though, are people who look down on others because of their differing beliefs, and that's what I think the kind of fanatical evolutionists that are on TV these days are guilty of.[/quote]

You should be bothered. Should a belief that mugging little old ladies is ok be respected? Is a belief in making paedophilia legal a belief that shouldn't be looked down upon? I do not respect other people's beliefs if they have no basis in reality to support them. You cannot put personal ideas on one side and scientific theories based on real evidence the other and conclude they weigh the same. There's a belief by millions, for example, that killing tigers, grounding up their bones and adding the powder to water makes a potion that helps cure impotence. Alternately there's a theory that's been rigorously tested which shows viagra helps cure impotence. In your world, they should both be treated equally and given the same respect. I say 'bollocks'.

[quote]It's intellectual fascism.[/quote]

Yes. It's intellectual fascism to criticise people who believe tiger bones cure impotence. It's scandalous, isn't it?

[quote]What's wrong with people being allowed to believe whatever they want to, without some zealot telling them that they're ignorant.[/quote]

Nothing wrong with crazy-arsed beliefs as long as you keep them to yourself. If you decide to share them, expect to be able to support them with well thought out reasoning at the very least. If you don't, don't blame the people who criticise and pour scorn on them. These people just desire evidence, logic and reasoning before taking something seriously. How is that a bad thing? I'm sure if you was standing trial for a rape and murder you didn't commit, you'd damn well expect the jury to be shown, and base their verdict on, all possible evidence to the contrary and not just their own personal beliefs. "You look a bit shifty so you're GUILTY! And please don't look down on me for that belief. My beliefs should be respected!"

[quote]You're always preaching to us about intolerance, you should take a good look at your own dogmatic prejudices.[/quote]

I'm not dogmatic. It is not my beliefs that are unchallengeable but yours. New, better evidence can sway my opinion on this matter. What can sway your opinion, Ken? You're arguing me, not the original subject. It's all about how nasty Sam is because Sam isn't having any of your ideas about how life evolves. Nasty Sam keeps making fun of you because you don't have anything to justify those beliefs. If only nasty Sam would shut up about all this evidence stuff! Boo-hoo.

It's the old tactic, if you can't argue the subject, argue the man. You can't argue the subject because you have absolutely nothing to counter any of it. Nothing.

[quote]We're never going to agree on anything, Sam, so I'm just going to give up arguing with you.[/quote]

We can agree on some things, Ken. Ok, let's finish with something positive.

Let's agree that scientists have to keep producing different anti-biotics because viruses are EVOLVING all the time? Oh no....I said 'evolving' didn't I? And you don't believe living things evolve, do you? So if you're ever seriously sick you'll be ok with a batch of anti-biotics from a batch produced in the 70s.............you'll be just fine.

We're going to have to think of something else.......hmmmmm. Ok, I got it!

We can easily agree that the below moth, is the common Peppered Moth of England:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... a.7200.jpg[/img]

God made this beautiful Peppered Moth to help it blend in with the bark of light coloured trees like the Silver Birch. It stops birds spying them in the daytime when they're sleeping. They've been this colour without change for thousands of years......right back to when Jesus was around! In fact, further back to when Noah put the little blighters on his Ark!

Oh........except during the industrial revolution when all the nice Silver Birch trees around large towns became blackened by soot from the factories, making the moths stand out and picked off by the birds. Then they all got eaten. But they didn't because they're still around. Silly me. No, some moths just happened to be a little darker than other moths and they survived. And because that meant more darker moths around they mated with other darker moths and before you know it there were a lot of Peppered Moths that were the same colour as the soot on the trees! See:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... a.7209.jpg[/img]

Now, as we've cleaned up our air the original Peppered Moths have had to bloody adapt to the cleaner trees again. How we've fucked them poor moths about! They didn't know what day it was or what colour to be.

Read more about them, here>

So we can agree that we have first hand knowledge of evolution in action and don't have to go digging up fossils from the pre-Cambrian Explosion.

Damn. I've gone and done it again. We can't agree on any of this because that pesky word 'evolution' has cropped up again.

Can we just agree that a belief in mugging old ladies and raping children shouldn't be respected, disproving your philosophy that people shouldn't be looked down upon based on their beliefs?

Come on, Ken. I'm grasping at straws here.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Can we just agree that a belief in mugging old ladies and
> raping children shouldn't be respected, disproving your
> philosophy that people shouldn't be looked down upon based on
> their beliefs?
>
> Come on, Ken. I'm grasping at straws here.


Creating straw men more like.

No-one with even a shred of common sense or decency would argue that the examples you cite should under any circumstances be "respected", obviously.

Religious beliefs, or a belief in ghosts, aliens, time travel, precognition, unicorns or even that the Owls have the potential to win the Premiership in the next 5 years can on the other hand be "respected" (as in you can "respect" such beliefs, even though you may not necessarily believe them yourself and/or you think they're baseless, but nevertheless "respect" another person's right to believe them if they so wish).

That's all Ken was saying and well you know it. Jeez ...... !idontbelieveit!

- Eric

Respecting their right to believe and respecting the belief itself are two different things, Flat_Eric.

Why should I 'respect' a belief in unicorns, for example? Please tell.

Interesting how you immediately seize upon my most outlandish, throwaway example (apart from Wednesday winning the Premiership by 2017 of course). But okay, I'll answer:

From your posts on this forum, your position appears to be that the "supernatural" or "divine" (call it what you will) part of religion is a load of old bollocks. This is quite clear from comments you make like "because they talk to some magic man in the sky" (see higher up in this thread).

Yet the flip side of that is that you regularly go out of your way to preach tolerance of other cultures including (for example) Islam.

This indicates to me that you have at least some some degree of respect for Islam, Muslims and their belief systems - even though you yourself presumably don't believe that Mohammed was ever whisked away to Paradise on a magical horse-like creature or was visited by the angel Gabriel any more than you believe in unicorns.

But it's not really about unicorns or Muslims or the Owls is it?

You know and I know that Ken's point was simply that it's perfectly possible to respect an idea, a belief or a theory without necessarily going along with it yourself.

It's called "tolerance" Sam. That very thing that you profess to hold so dear and like to preach to other forumites, scoffing and wagging your virtual finger at them with great vigour when you think they're being "intolerant".

- Eric

[quote]From your posts on this forum, your position appears to be that the "supernatural" or "divine" (call it what you will) part of religion is a load of old bollocks.[/quote]

Well, it is bollocks, isn't it?

[quote]Yet the flip side of that is that you regularly go out of your way to preach tolerance of other cultures including (for example) Islam.[/quote]

Show me where I've demanded respect for Islam. I'll say it now: I have NO respect for Islam as a whole. I have preached tolerance of Muslims, but that is different. In fact, if you look back to the debates over the Muslim grooming gangs with David I, at great length, stated and defended a view that their religion played a large part in it all. Maybe you missed that, Flat_Eric? In this very thread I have expressed my worries about other religions like Islam, getting more of a say in the House of Lords. Again, maybe you missed that, Flat_Eric. In times gone by I have likened Islam to fascism, in debates with Keith Rasputin. Maybe you missed them, Flat_Eric.

I have, on occasion, pointed out things in the Bible are just as bad as things in the Quran, when I've had an inkling that someone is using the Quran to bash Muslims. It's a good way to cloak an underlying racial prejudice and hatred. But, again, that's in defence of Muslims, not their religion. You're just wrong.

[quote]But it's not really about unicorns or Muslims or the Owls is it?[/quote]

Err.......no. You brought them up.

[quote]You know and I know that Ken's point was simply that it's perfectly possible to respect an idea, a belief or a theory without necessarily going along with it yourself.[/quote]

It's possible, but not necessary. Surely you've ridiculed someone due to their beliefs before? Jim and David are doing it about one another's beliefs on a daily basis. If I said prisoners should be allowed to live in 5-star hotels and be given yearly vacations to Canc?n, would you have pulled someone up like you have me if they'd at all been ridiculing, patronising or disrespectful of that belief? Of course not. We ridicule politicians, artists and sportstars all the time for their beliefs and preferences. I mean, I've been called the metro-sexual, liberal do-gooder on more that one occasion here but now you're wanting me to respect everybody's beliefs, put flowers in our hair, hold hands and all sing Kumbaya so we can all 'get along'. You'll be wearing eye-liner in no time if you're not careful, Flat_Eric. I say 'fuck that'.

[quote]It's called "tolerance" Sam. That very thing that you profess to hold so dear and like to preach to other forumites, scoffing and wagging your virtual finger at them with great vigour when you think they're being "intolerant".[/quote]

I'm tolerating Ken and even his stupid views just fine, Flat_Eric. Trouble with a lot of people is that they liken tolerance to acceptance, or respect. If I was e-mailing the mods to get Ken kicked off due to his views..........there.........THERE we'd have intolerance.

Back to the drawing board, Flat_Eric.

Where I liken Islam to fascism:



Where I blame Islam, in part, for Muslims targeting non-Muslims to groom and rape:



And remember, Flat_Eric, you can ridicule my beliefs on Islam all you want. I'm fine with it.

[quote]Trouble with a lot of people is that they liken tolerance to acceptance, or respect.[/quote]

But that's the whole point isn't it? In politically correct modern parlance, the definitions of 'respect' and 'tolerance' have become blurred to the point that to all intents and purposes, they now often refer to the same thing.

For example, when a politician preaches "tolerance" towards Muslims, immigrants, travellers, gays or whoever, what they really mean is that society should happily accept these groups and respect them and/or their beliefs etc. ("embrace" and "celebrate" are two other words that often get bandied about when they talk about "tolerance").

They don't mean that the rest of society should "tolerate" these groups, their traditions and their beliefs in the sense of "grudgingly put up with".

You yourself have preached "tolerance" towards gays (over the question of gay marriage for example), and I'm sure that the Slater message there is "because they're just like us / all the gays I've known have been top blokes / so what if they want to suck each others' cocks, what does it matter etc. etc."

Am I right?

It's not "bunch of fucking pooftahs, I can't fucking stand the perverted bastards but I suppose I've just got to grin and fucking bear it" (as in "tolerate" it).

No Sam. When you come on here and preach "tolerance", you mean "respect". Or at very least "acceptance". And you know you do.

In any case we're just going round the houses now and I can't see the fucking point any more to be honest. You (as always) are determined to have "the last word". I'm simply trying to point out (again) that Ken's point was just that it's perfectly possible to respect an idea, a belief or a theory without necessarily going along with it yourself. And the funny thing is, you even admit that it's possible!

Anyway it's very late and I'm off to bed now.

- Eric

[quote]It's not "bunch of fucking pooftahs, I can't fucking stand the perverted bastards but I suppose I've just got to grin and fucking bear it" (as in "tolerate" it).[/quote]

Sorry the bit in brackets should read (as in "put up with it").

As I said, it's late. And we really do need an edit function.

- Eric