Religions > Atheism > It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joe" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2007 07:54:26 PM |
| Object: |
It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
Story via http://Muvy.org
.
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
19 Dec 2007 10:58:43 AM |
|
|
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'. It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Kawalec" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
19 Dec 2007 05:04:15 PM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ougaj.45873$K27.23722@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
neither is global warming, continental drift or the big bang. so fucking
what?!?!!? you can vote or not vote for any candidate for any damn reason
you choose. that's why we have elections, cretin.
It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 02:07:30 PM |
|
|
"Bill Kawalec" <billkawalec@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8adnePuO_T2PvTanZ2dnUVZ_uyinZ2d@comcast.com...
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ougaj.45873$K27.23722@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
neither is global warming, continental drift or the big bang. so fucking
what?!?!!? you can vote or not vote for any candidate for any damn reason
you choose. that's why we have elections, cretin.
Get an education in science.
Also learn to read with some degree of perception. My recommendation on who
to
vote for is not a compulsion, rule, command or law. It was just my opinion
which in a free
democratic society is available to all.
It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
19 Dec 2007 05:48:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:04:15 -0500, "Bill Kawalec"
<billkawalec@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ougaj.45873$K27.23722@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
neither is global warming, continental drift or the big bang. so fucking
3 lies in a single sentence, You must be a Christian fundamentalist.
what?!?!!? you can vote or not vote for any candidate for any damn reason
you choose. that's why we have elections, cretin.
I don't need an in-denial lunatic making decisions that affect the
country and the world, not to mention my civil liberties, for
irrational religious reasons.
It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
19 Dec 2007 07:39:06 PM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 3:48 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
3 lies in a single sentence, You must be a Christian fundamentalist.
Or a complete fucking idiot
What a second, there's nothing in my book that saz he can't both!
(another mystery of the universe is solved)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "meg" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
19 Dec 2007 06:56:04 PM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 3:48 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:04:15 -0500, "Bill Kawalec"
<billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ougaj.45873$K27.23722@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Joe" <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story viahttp://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
neither is global warming, continental drift or the big bang. so fucking
3 lies in a single sentence, You must be a Christian fundamentalist.
what?!?!!? you can vote or not vote for any candidate for any damn reason
you choose. that's why we have elections, cretin.
I don't need an in-denial lunatic making decisions that affect the
country and the world, not to mention my civil liberties, for
irrational religious reasons.
It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
You cannot become president of the US if you were not born here. I
would like to propose (and when I'm king I will enact) a law
forbidding lawyers and preachers from running for presidency. These
people spend their lives twisting the truth, rearranging the facts and
citing absurdities as facts to cloud the issue for the purpose of
personal or personal belief gain. You can't believe a lawyer and a
preacher believes in the supernatural so electing either one gets you,
well, the situation we find ourselves in today and that isn't good.
It doesn't matter what 'they' say if it is a preacher or a lawyer it
is for their cause, not yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
21 Dec 2007 03:02:38 PM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 7:56=A0pm, meg <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 3:48 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:04:15 -0500, "Bill Kawalec"
<billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ougaj.45873$K27.23722@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Joe" <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com=
....
Story viahttp://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of =
his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
neither is global warming, continental drift or the big bang. so fuckin=
g
3 lies in a single sentence, You must be a Christian fundamentalist.
what?!?!!? you can vote or not vote for any candidate for any damn reas=
on
you choose. that's why we have elections, cretin.
I don't need an in-denial lunatic making decisions that affect the
country and the world, not to mention my civil liberties, for
irrational religious reasons.
It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the seri=
ous
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
You cannot become president of the US if you were not born here. =A0I
would like to propose (and when I'm king I will enact) a law
forbidding lawyers and preachers from running for presidency. =A0These
people spend their lives twisting the truth, rearranging the facts and
citing absurdities as facts to cloud the issue for the purpose of
personal or personal belief gain. =A0You can't believe a lawyer and a
preacher believes in the supernatural so electing either one gets you,
well, the situation we find ourselves in today and that isn't good.
It doesn't matter what 'they' say if it is a preacher or a lawyer it
is for their cause, not yours.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bush is neither a lawyer nor a preacher. You could still get a zero
like him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
19 Dec 2007 11:02:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:04:15 -0500, Bill Kawalec wrote:
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ougaj.45873$K27.23722@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-
d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of
his religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
neither is global warming, continental drift or the big bang.
Other than being completely wrong, you'd have a point...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The most dangerous man to any government is the
man who is able to think things out... without regard
to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.
Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the
government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
19 Dec 2007 11:06:02 PM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 5:58 pm, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Joe" <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story viahttp://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'. It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Kawalec" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 12:05:37 AM |
|
|
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
"Gwyne Bennetdottir" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9a2cd81-75ec-47cd-87a7-a2724b4d04c8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 5:58 pm, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Joe" <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story viahttp://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'. It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
oh, like Hillary and Barak Hussein Obama aren't.
btw, it is perfectly okay for you to base your vote on soneone's religion,
so long as you recognize that that's no different from someone saying "I'd
never vote for a fag."
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 08:35:36 AM |
|
|
"Bill Kawalec" <billkawalec@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ArudnV-zAeqwm_fanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
"Gwyne Bennetdottir" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9a2cd81-75ec-47cd-87a7-a2724b4d04c8@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 5:58 pm, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Joe" <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story viahttp://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'. It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
oh, like Hillary and Barak Hussein Obama aren't.
btw, it is perfectly okay for you to base your vote on soneone's religion,
so long as you recognize that that's no different from someone saying "I'd
never vote for a fag."
I don't recognize that, probably because it is ridiculous.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R H Draney" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his |
20 Dec 2007 01:56:14 AM |
|
|
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?= filted:
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
He's a pretzel-choking, segway-falling-off, dog-dropping, glasses-cleaning,
chinese-door-not-opening baby....
Who can't figure out why Laura had twins, since he never went on any double
dates with her....r
--
"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his |
20 Dec 2007 01:58:33 AM |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2007 23:56:14 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>
wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?= filted:
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
He's a pretzel-choking, segway-falling-off, dog-dropping, glasses-cleaning,
chinese-door-not-opening baby....
Who can't figure out why Laura had twins, since he never went on any double
dates with her....
It must have been his second coming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TT" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his |
20 Dec 2007 05:57:29 AM |
|
|
On 12/20/07 2:58 AM, in article 648km3t6hqaaohcvqajl2pfulickkeofcf@4ax.com,
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2007 23:56:14 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>
wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?= filted:
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
He's a pretzel-choking, segway-falling-off, dog-dropping, glasses-cleaning,
chinese-door-not-opening baby....
Who can't figure out why Laura had twins, since he never went on any double
dates with her....
It must have been his second coming.
Hah...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his |
20 Dec 2007 02:30:56 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:58:33 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2007 23:56:14 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>
wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?= filted:
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
He's a pretzel-choking, segway-falling-off, dog-dropping, glasses-cleaning,
chinese-door-not-opening baby....
Who can't figure out why Laura had twins, since he never went on any double
dates with her....
It must have been his second coming.
Cheap shot...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his |
20 Dec 2007 10:29:32 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:n1akm3huaqf2cjppaok1bg436fm7ujvdjr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:58:33 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2007 23:56:14 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>
wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?= filted:
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
He's a pretzel-choking, segway-falling-off, dog-dropping,
glasses-cleaning,
chinese-door-not-opening baby....
Who can't figure out why Laura had twins, since he never went on any
double
dates with her....
It must have been his second coming.
Cheap shot...
On the money....
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Kawalec" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his |
20 Dec 2007 02:31:29 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:5svjeqF1651brU1@mid.individual.net...
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:n1akm3huaqf2cjppaok1bg436fm7ujvdjr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:58:33 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2007 23:56:14 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>
wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?= filted:
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
He's a pretzel-choking, segway-falling-off, dog-dropping,
glasses-cleaning,
chinese-door-not-opening baby....
Who can't figure out why Laura had twins, since he never went on any
double
dates with her....
It must have been his second coming.
of course, Bill and Hillary never had a second coming...
....at least not together.
Cheap shot...
On the money....
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 03:16:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:06:02 -0800 (PST), "Gwyne Bennetdottir"
<bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:58 pm, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Joe" <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story viahttp://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'. It is based on
false hopes and unfounded imagination.
We do not want people like this running our country. Look at the serious
damage caused by religious
wacko Bush!
Bush's problem isn't religion (though it hasn't stopped him from using
his alleged religious convictions in getting people's attention) it's
all about power. Because he's a chimp-whining baby.
Also, he's President of the United States. Now what would have happened if
botox had been elected?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 04:38:51 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
Also, he's President of the United States. Now what would have happened if
botox had been elected?
Over a million innocent people would still be alive.
It seems you've gone off your meds again. Going through another
manic phase?
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Kawalec" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 06:28:52 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GaKdncRc-bJmc_fanZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@sti.net...
duke wrote:
Also, he's President of the United States. Now what would have happened
if
botox had been elected?
Over a million innocent people would still be alive.
Prove that, *****!
One thing we know for sure: Over 3,000 innocent Americans would still be
dead.
It seems you've gone off your meds again. Going through another manic
phase?
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 07:06:37 PM |
|
|
Bill Kawalec wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GaKdncRc-bJmc_fanZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@sti.net...
duke wrote:
Also, he's President of the United States. Now what
would have happened if botox had been elected?
Over a million innocent people would still be alive.
Prove that, *****!
Easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates
I have no doubt you'll cry a river over the source.
One thing we know for sure: Over 3,000 innocent Americans
would still be dead.
Iraq had nothing to do with that.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
21 Dec 2007 03:02:21 AM |
|
|
On 21 d=E9c, 01:28, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GaKdncRc-bJmc_fanZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@sti.net...
duke wrote:
Also, he's President of the United States. =A0 Now what would have happ=
ened
if
botox had been elected?
Over a million innocent people would still be alive.
Prove that, *****!
One thing we know for sure: Over 3,000 innocent Americans would still be
dead.
And attacking Iraq was the answer?
Had Bush been the president when Pearl Harbour happened, he would have
attacked New Zealand...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
21 Dec 2007 06:42:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:38:51 -0800, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Also, he's President of the United States. Now what would have happened if
botox had been elected?
Over a million innocent people would still be alive.
It seems you've gone off your meds again. Going through another
manic phase?
No, maybe botox would have invaded Iran.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 03:15:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:58:43 -0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
Barfsville, willie.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 02:14:16 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2rmlm31rh56lb3nrsjo2uleis72sit9kj2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:58:43 -0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
Barfsville, willie.
Can't supply the objective verifiable evidence can you Duke? Engaging in
nonsensicle comments only shows your mental handicaps.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Kawalec" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
20 Dec 2007 11:48:16 PM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6sEaj.4987$L27.3188@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2rmlm31rh56lb3nrsjo2uleis72sit9kj2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:58:43 -0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
Barfsville, willie.
Can't supply the objective verifiable evidence can you Duke? Engaging in
nonsensicle comments only shows your mental handicaps.
hey, dipstick, how about YOU supply some objective ""evidence"" for
evolution, continental drif, and the big bang?? Even if you could, doorknob,
it doesn't prove a damn thing, cuz you don't have the answer to the ORIGIN
of any of it. See, blockhead, you just have a DIFFERENT belief system.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
21 Dec 2007 09:37:32 AM |
|
|
"Bill Kawalec" <billkawalec@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:jq2dnbwg48IHzvbanZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6sEaj.4987$L27.3188@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2rmlm31rh56lb3nrsjo2uleis72sit9kj2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:58:43 -0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f72f40f-5bdb-434a-89f7-d6324d264d10@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Story via http://Muvy.org
It is not only perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his
religious views, it is quite logical.
Religion is not based on objective verifiable 'evidence'.
Barfsville, willie.
Can't supply the objective verifiable evidence can you Duke? Engaging in
nonsensicle comments only shows your mental handicaps.
hey, dipstick, how about YOU supply some objective ""evidence"" for
evolution, continental drif, and the big bang?? Even if you could,
doorknob, it doesn't prove a damn thing, cuz you don't have the answer to
the ORIGIN of any of it. See, blockhead, you just have a DIFFERENT belief
system.
Why should he have the answer to any of those questions? If you are really
interested ask a scientist. Furthermore a knowledge of science is not a
requirement of atheism or even acceptance of science. There is no atheist
belief system. A belief system would have to include at least two beliefs;
atheism does not even have one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
21 Dec 2007 01:36:49 AM |
|
|
Bill Kawalec wrote:
hey, dipstick, how about YOU supply some objective ""evidence"" for
evolution, continental drif, and the big bang??
??? What are you, retarded? There is this big building called the library
where they have those things with words in them, they're called books. In
those "books", you can find all the evidence for evolution and the
continental "drif" you need.
Even if you could, doorknob,
it doesn't prove a damn thing, cuz you don't have the answer to the ORIGIN
of any of it.
Yes, of course, this is absolutely correct in the constellation of Moronia,
but in the rest of the Universe the well established scientific theories are
not dependent on the "ORIGIN" of anything.
See, blockhead, you just have a DIFFERENT belief system.
Exactly. Like you, for example, have a different belief system about your
sanity from everyone else.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
21 Dec 2007 11:04:35 AM |
|
|
Bill Kawalec wrote:
hey, dipstick, how about YOU supply some objective ""evidence"" for evolution,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
continental drif,
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html
While plate tectonics is a relativily new idea, scientists have been
gathering data in support of the Continental Drift theory for a very
long time. In 1912, Alfred Wegener and Frank Taylor first proposed the
theory that 200 million years ago the Earth had only one giant
continent, from which today's continents broke apart and drifted into
their current locations. Wegener used the fit of the continents, the
distribution of fossils, a similar sequence of rocks at numerous
locations, ancient climates, and the apparent wandering of the Earth's
polar regions to support his idea.
The Shapes Match
The continents look as if they were pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle
that could fit together to make one giant super-continent. The bulge
of Africa fits the shape of the coast of North America while Brazil
fits along the coast of Africa beneath the bulge.
The Plants and Animals Match
Wegener noted that plant fossils of late Paleozoic age found on
several different continents were quite similar. This suggests that
they evolved together on a single large land mass. He was intrigued by
the occurrences of plant and animal fossils found on the matching
coastlines of South America and Africa, which are now widely separated
by the Atlantic Ocean. He reasoned that it was physically impossible
for most of these organisms to have traveled or have been transported
across the vast ocean. To him, the presence of identical fossil
species along the coastal parts of Africa and South America was the
most compelling evidence that the two continents were once joined.
The Rocks Match
Broad belts of rocks in Africa and South America are the same type.
These broad belts then match when the end of the continents are
joined.
The Ice Matches
Wegener was aware that a continental ice sheet covered parts of South
America, southern Africa, India, and southern Australia about 300
million years ago. Glacial striations on rocks show that glaciers
moved from Africa toward the Atlantic Ocean and from the Atlantic
Ocean onto South America. Such glaciation is most likely if the
Atlantic Ocean were missing and the continents joined.
The Positions Don't Match
If the continents were cold enough so that ice covered the southern
continents, why is no evidence found for ice in the northern
continents? Simple! The present northern continents were at the
equator at 300 million years ago. The discovery of fossils of tropical
plants (in the form of coal deposits) in Antarctica led to the
conclusion that this frozen land previously must have been situated
closer to the equator, in a more temperate climate where lush, swampy
vegetation could grow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
and the big bang??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models,
called Friedmann models. These models show that a Big Bang is
consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological
principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be
independent of position or orientation.
Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the
spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer
wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship
described by Hubble's law. Combined with the evidence that observers
located anywhere in the universe make similar observations (the
Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding.
The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of
cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted
as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first
cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become
transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance
among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin
and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is
the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a
close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the
first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations,
each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:
The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally
receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory
might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have
been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after
the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the
our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as
the Big Bang model predicts.
Even if you could, doorknob, it doesn't prove a damn thing,
Except, of course, that there's objective, verifiable evidence for
those things you said there wasn't.
cuz you don't have the answer to the ORIGIN of any of it.
http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/cosmos_bigbang.html
The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted
model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of
everything. No other model can predict as much as the Big Bang model
can.
See, blockhead, you just have a DIFFERENT belief system.
Based on something other than random fantasy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of hisreligious views, by Christopher Hitchens. |
21 Dec 2007 12:03:31 PM |
|
|
JessHC wrote:
Bill Kawalec wrote:
hey, dipstick, how about YOU supply some objective ""evidence"" for evolution,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Another good source:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
